A debate on engines

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: jmlima

It turned pretty quickly onto a 'my toy is better than yours' thread...

Hey, don't call my Holy Grail a toy-[:D]

[PanzerMax]

Only thing that has killed the game for me is the AI.  Choice of battles has been fine.  But, I know everytime I start a scenario that I will win and it will be relatively easy.  That problem isn't specific to this game of course, but nevertheless that is my problem with it.

[Arjuna]

PanzerMax,

Are you referring to COTA?

If so, have you played online against another human player?

Have you won a decisive yet in Spartans at the Pass as the Germans?

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

PanzerMax,

If so, have you played online against another human player?

Have you won a decisive yet in Spartans at the Pass as the Germans?

That's what I was going to ask. So, PanzerMax, if you have found a way to win against the AI in "Spartens at the Pass" please enlighten me-seriously.[:)]

It is true that a veteran player will be a tougher opponent than the AI; so, if you are comfortable with your skill level, then put up a challenge for an online game. There is a ladder at the Wargamer with nearly ten ([8|]) players registered for online play-hopefully you can link up with someone for a game. I will be happy to ablige in a few weeks.

On the subject of online play, I think that this real time gaming creates a need for a larger than normal player pool. Our comunity is spread a little thin all around the globe at this time. Surely there are more people willing and able to register on that ladder.

[PanzerMax]

I would like to play on-line, but I have time constraints and at the moment a dodgy connection. 

I'll have to try that scenario...

[Arjuna]

Good. Let me know how you went.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Good. Let me know how you went.

Just as an update, I tried a completely new approach to SatP last weekend and came the closest ever to a decisive.

I think now that I have the proper tactical approach in hand I can finally get my hands on the elusive decisive this coming weekend.

Unfortunately the approach requires the commander to ignore orders, fracture his command and reassemble ad hoc Kampfgruppen from the fractured units to get the correct emphasis in the correct place at the correct time.

[Mehring]

You can have the best engine in the world but if nobody plays it, it will disappear. In that respect, I think CotA was a mistake, because virtually nobody plays it and online it's an almost complete ........... That's my biggest criticism of the game, nobody plays it.

Wouldn't a better orientation be to sell the engine in a more marketable package? If the engine is good, and it is, you will then attract (to this end a demo is an excellent idea) the miscelaneous military history anoraks and modders who will divest the game of its marketable presentation and give the engine new life through esoteric scenarios and campaigns like CotA and Narvik.

Take a look at Close Combat 5. Nobody plays the original Utah game anymore, it was rot, but years after its release you can still get a game almost anytime on gamespy of anywhere from various parts of Normandy to Star Wars if you're so inclined, and a whole lot in between.

Great though it is, CotA should have been a mod IMO, not the released game.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

You can have the best engine in the world but if nobody plays it, it will disappear. In that respect, I think CotA was a mistake, because virtually nobody plays it and online it's an almost complete ........... That's my biggest criticism of the game, nobody plays it.
....

I wouldn't say anyone. That's hardly the case, however, the online mode requires more time and a much better connection than your average PBEM, but it rewards you with a much better experience.

Re CotA being a mod, well I don't know. My thoughts on that are above , but, I think the general idea of locking the estabs is correct (look at HPS, they would have closed by now otherwise, look at Talonsoft, not even the HUGE following of TOAW saved them), but we really need better marketing, a demo, and a more commercial title. Panther Games as got the opportunity in the next title, let's see how they take it.
Oh, a piece of advice on that, the scenario list so far (for the Bulge) is not that impressive, it needs numbers...

[barbarossa2]

TOPIC 1

quote:

Original: HansBolter

"I think now that I have the proper tactical approach in hand I can finally get my hands on the elusive decisive this coming weekend.

"Unfortunately the approach requires the commander to ignore orders, fracture his command and reassemble ad hoc Kampfgruppen from the fractured units to get the correct emphasis in the correct place at the correct time."

Me says: GO HANS!

TOPIC 2

I am guessing the etabs are "locked" so that the community can't go out and design East Front / West Front / Italian scenarios on their own and get so far ahead of Panther that they can't make any money on such future releases? But I don't know. One thing for sure, I have NOTHING against Dave making money on this. We NEED that to happen so this system is around and basking in its glory in ten years time. But I think maybe if the community could create its own etabs, the system would develop a much larger fan base. Then, with each release, Panther could improve the engine to such an extent that people would WANT to have the latest and greatest version, and the design and modding process would start all over. Just my humble opinion. I am not sure that we can't create our own etabs. So if I am wrong, pardon me for speaking out of my ass. [:(]

[Mehring]

TOPIC 2

I am guessing the etabs are "locked" so that the community can't go out and design East Front / West Front / Italian scenarios on their own and get so far ahead of Panther that they can't make any money on such future releases? But I don't know. One thing for sure, I have NOTHING against Dave making money on this. We NEED that to happen so this system is around and basking in its glory in ten years time. But I think maybe if the community could create its own etabs, the system would develop a much larger fan base. Then, with each release, Panther could improve the engine to such an extent that people would WANT to have the latest and greatest version, and the design and modding process would start all over. Just my humble opinion. I am not sure that we can't create our own etabs. So if I am wrong, pardon me for speaking out of my ass.

Well, I'll add my backside to that, I agree entirely. It's just a question of HOW to skin the cat. I think at root it's a question of what, in essence, you're selling, the engine or the campaign it drives.

[Arjuna]

One of the reasons why we haven't released the Estab Editor is that it is not a robust peice of software in its current form. Bil Hardenberger can't get it to run on his machine for instance. It needs a lot of work to polish it up to a release standard. That will cost money, so how many people here would be prepared to pay separately for an estab editor? If it were take 6 months of development time then that equates to around $50,000. If we sold it for $50 per unit, we would need to sell a 1,000 copies. Now how many of you would pay $50 for an Estab editor?

[MarkShot]

I don't see myself buying an estab editor or SM or MM unless they are included. I mainly like playing and am not into designing. I think that probably covers the most customers. Designers tend to be a special breed apart.

What it the estab editor was made available as beta software like SM and MM were for RDOA? I suppose those who really wanted to develop with it might just get luck and be able to use it and the cost for PG would be minimal as it would be unsupported. However, I thought the issue in the past was that this opened up the door for customers to end up in direct competition with PG in terms of game content to be released?

[Arjuna]

Mark,
 
Well yes it does but that's a separate issue. I just want to gain some feedback from users on whether or not it they would be willing to pay for the development costs of providing an EstabMaker.

[barbarossa2]

Concerning the Release of an Estab Editor / BETA Estab Editor

Hmmmm... interesting. Very interesting. The last thing I would want to see is Panther getting cut out of their own market by being kind enough to release a beta of the Estab Editor. I don't know how many copies COTA sold, but I don't think 1000 people would buy the estab editor for $50. Maybe 1000 people would buy an estab editor with 20 new scenarios included even if it doesn't have any game-side programming innovation. So... "Barbarossa" (using Bulge guts) with 20 scenarios from 1941, PLUS a "free" estab editor.

But I think, if it were to be released, the beta would be fine. And Mark is right. Scenario designers and "players" are two different creatures. I think most modders are used to banging their heads against a wall to get things to go. I have used several pieces of software for scenario design which weren't supported by the developers. I can say it was never "easy." Mostly, map making equipment for the Total War franchise. Most problematic about these "editors" was a TOTAL lack of any instructions. If an unsupported, rickety beta were made public, with at least a few pages of documentation, this would be a massive step in that direction...

"that direction" Yes... but ultimately, the only risk which might pop its ugly head up is some individuals becoming sooooo fanatical, that they release such a high number of quality scenarios, that Panther then has problems selling its future releases against them. Something I would hate myself for if it happened (having mentioned this estab thing in the first place). However, most of the gaming industry is going in the direction of supporting the mod community as they see it an opportunity to develop rabid fan bases and communities. I haven't heard of this as a threat which turned out to be real yet.

Based on what little I understand about the computer gaming industry as a pretty heavily involved computer gamer (XBOX and PC), I think if each Panther release (command ops?) is a qualitative improvement over the previous version AND has a slew of top quality, professionally done scenarios (a la: Desert Fox, Kursk, Normandy, etc.) which make previous scenarios "incompatible" or at least seriously "upgradable", then this eating away at own sales shouldn't occur. I don't think. I do know, that one of the few aspects of this series I don't enjoy as much as the TOAW I played, is the lack of community support in the form of a mountain of additional scenarios from different periods and fronts (There is one other aspect, but I won't stray in this post). A decent BETA for the Airborne Assault series would probably allow a doubling of the number of scenarios available for each "platform release". So, COTA would by now, have several east front scenarios available for it. And this would probably drive up adoption rates. In fact, no matter which front a "platform" release chose to concentrate on, the fan base for it could always be increased by the fact that they could play a few scenarios from every front.

As an example, One thing killing one XBOX release called, "Battlestations Midway" right now is the lack of scenarios and variety. The word on that got out quickly. And it turned a sure fire buy from me (based on one demo scenario) into a: "No thanks, I'll take my $60 elsewhere."

Right now, the biggest problem for this diverse scenario design for the COTA engine appears to be players having to scratch together estabs. A la: "I couldn't find a unit exactly like this, so I substituted a Crack Burger Flipping McDonald's crew." [:D]

Anyway. Being very sensitive to the commercial aspects of this, and wanting to keep Dave IN business, I am not pushing for the release of the estab editor beta. I am simply discussing it. It MAY be an advantage.

Once again, a huge fan of Dave and Panther. [&o][&o][&o]

Chris

P.S. Still a big fan of a demo release.

P.P.S. I hate to ask this, and answering is of course completely optional. But about how many copies of COTA have been moved?[:)]

[Mehring]

I agree that modders and players, though they overlap, are different, modders being a small minority. It is that small minority, however, that keeps a game viable long after players are fed up with "official" scenarios.

Some producers have not felt the work of modders to be in their interests and have discouraged them, preferring to try to starve players into buying more official releases. From what I've seen, however, people develop a "series loyalty" and if a system develops, adding desirable new features to it, they will continue to buy new products. It is the old carrot or stick, the sun or wind, and inducement always works better than coercion.

I suspect it would put anyone's back up to have to pay over the odds for the privilage of providing a free service to the community they help create and maintain. An estabs editor, if it is released at all, should I think be an integral part of the game, paid for by everyone who buys the game. It's a community tool even if only a minority use it.

[Arjuna]

Mehring,
 
Good points. If we were to include it with the next game then would users tolerate a twenty dollar increase in cost to help pay for it?

[barbarossa2]

Dave,

Yes, I agree, Mehring put that very well. He sold me on that idea.

Dave, you may not be asking me. But sadly, no. I don't think the community will support a $20 increase. I think you will have fewer over all gross sales this way.

After BFTB, how about reducing game-side development by $50k and putting that into the Estab editor? Then releasing at the same price?

But I would recommend just releasing an estab BETA as is (or almost as is, with a little documentation). I would have thought that these things are just huge data files anyhow. Can't we edit them with a text editor if we knew what to look for and how the files are organized? I don't believe it has to be pretty or "dolled up." I have a feeling you'll have 10 people working these anyhow. And a thousand people playing the scenarios.

Chris

[Plodder]

Just a thought, how about a utility for converting the estabs to xml and back again? That way you wouldn't have to release an estab editor, one of us could make our own...

[Mehring]

I don't think enough people would pay an extra $20 either, particularly as you're aiming to expand the audience, ie to people who haven't played before. But in the above two posts people are already putting forward possible solutions to the problem.

Modders often make their own tools- the Close Combat series being a good example. I don't know what's involved here, but in unlocking the estabs the rest might sort itself out. There's alot of creativity out there.