I would recommend considering the following:
Release the estab BETA or unlock the file formats, unsupported, but with a little documentation.
Promote the development of additional scenarios by offering a few small incentives.
Like $100 for "Panther Approved" scenarios of adequate scope. And recognition as a "Panther Designer." With perhaps the addition of the next Panther software title, mugs, etc. Or perhaps invites to Panther BETA testing groups. Perhaps a design contest. With one superior prize. Though Hopolomachia is probably a shoe-in for this one already![:D]
Just an idea.
Chris
A debate on engines
Moderator: Arjuna
-
barbarossa2
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:13 am
RE: A debate on engines
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
-
barbarossa2
- Posts: 915
- Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:13 am
RE: A debate on engines
Better yet...
As a part of the license, indicate that all scenarios developed using Panther scenario editors, or submitted for contests, are property of Panther Games.
Then, before each patch for a game, make sure you have all of the scenarios which have been developed for it that you believe are of high enough quality. Include these in the patch and install them into a "user community" scenario folder.
Most people who get the game won't actually download and install these extra scenarios on their own. I have several friends who are very computer shy. So they are happy to install a game and its patches, but forget extra scenarios where they have to go playing around with files and directories!
I don't see how this could sink your sales.
As a part of the license, indicate that all scenarios developed using Panther scenario editors, or submitted for contests, are property of Panther Games.
Then, before each patch for a game, make sure you have all of the scenarios which have been developed for it that you believe are of high enough quality. Include these in the patch and install them into a "user community" scenario folder.
Most people who get the game won't actually download and install these extra scenarios on their own. I have several friends who are very computer shy. So they are happy to install a game and its patches, but forget extra scenarios where they have to go playing around with files and directories!
I don't see how this could sink your sales.
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori*.
-Wilfred Owen
*It is sweet and right to die for your country.
RE: A debate on engines
Well, if I had a machine capable of running the game decently and of doing some good work on maps, I wouldn't mind the extra $20.
Having said that, I don't think the estab editor will have such a big impact. The estabs are not stopping anyone from producing nice add-on scenarios, there's plenty of battles still to cover on the CotA playground area for instance.
Besides, the estab editor is just a part of the equation, let's say we had an estab editor. How could I produce for instance a pacific war scenario, based on CotA mediterranean terrain set? Would I be able to include rice paddies for instance?
I think that when you guys have an estab editor ready for release, then you could propose 2 versions of the game, one with estab editor the other without, but at this point to focus solely on the estab editor , I'm not sure it would influence it that much. Heck, I had pretty good ideas for some aditional battles for CotA without the estab editor, the only thing preventing me from doing it is a 'getting old' laptop. Of course the estab editor would be welcomed, but is it a determinant piece of software at this stage? Don't think so.
those are my 2 (euro) cents.
Having said that, I don't think the estab editor will have such a big impact. The estabs are not stopping anyone from producing nice add-on scenarios, there's plenty of battles still to cover on the CotA playground area for instance.
Besides, the estab editor is just a part of the equation, let's say we had an estab editor. How could I produce for instance a pacific war scenario, based on CotA mediterranean terrain set? Would I be able to include rice paddies for instance?
I think that when you guys have an estab editor ready for release, then you could propose 2 versions of the game, one with estab editor the other without, but at this point to focus solely on the estab editor , I'm not sure it would influence it that much. Heck, I had pretty good ideas for some aditional battles for CotA without the estab editor, the only thing preventing me from doing it is a 'getting old' laptop. Of course the estab editor would be welcomed, but is it a determinant piece of software at this stage? Don't think so.
those are my 2 (euro) cents.
-
CriticalMass
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:37 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
RE: A debate on engines
I personally don't think the addition of the Estab editor would affect many peoples descision to buy a game from the AA series. Though, saying that, I can see it being useful as a community add on (think LWAMI for Dangerous Waters - I know these are only edits to data and 3D models, but...).
If Panther made the interface to the data available, someone, I'm sure, would make their time available to develop an editor. From the sound of it, there is already the beginnings of one: D'oh! well there would be wouldn't there [8|].
Now, I think the clever thing to do is for Panther (and Matrix) to certificate it (I'm not that kind of programmer...don't know, don't ask).
Actually, now I come to think of it, perhaps a 3rd party editor could/might improve sales. It's human nature to think they belong to a community, and are supported (one of the main points made by noobs, about Panther).
TANX
Andrew
If Panther made the interface to the data available, someone, I'm sure, would make their time available to develop an editor. From the sound of it, there is already the beginnings of one: D'oh! well there would be wouldn't there [8|].
Now, I think the clever thing to do is for Panther (and Matrix) to certificate it (I'm not that kind of programmer...don't know, don't ask).
Actually, now I come to think of it, perhaps a 3rd party editor could/might improve sales. It's human nature to think they belong to a community, and are supported (one of the main points made by noobs, about Panther).
TANX
Andrew
I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front with my own hands as soon as possible
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel
-
Willard
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:42 pm
- Location: Up the Nung river past Do Lung bridge...
- Contact:
RE: A debate on engines
I am coming to this discussion a little late, but figured I would throw my $.02 in anyway.
Some random musings...
~Title change to "Command Ops": Not a big fan of the title change. I guess I just think "Airborne Assault" is a cool brand name. "Command Ops" is just too vanilla for me...not that it would affect my decision to buy/not buy in the future. Something like "Combat Commander" or "Battle Commander" or "Corps Commander" IMO is a better description than "Command Ops."
~Various battle engines: IMO, the AA engine and MMG's Take Command are the way of the future. They really are an evolution of the Close Combat series and SMG's Gettysburg (and add-ons Antietam, WNLB, ANGV) and are the sweet spot between turn based/hex/counters and RTS (like Sudden Strike).
Games such as Combat Mission series are really just a turn based/hex/counter game in 3D...with the added improvement of simultaneous WEGO turn resolution that isn't really possible in table top games. That being said, I do enjoy what the Combat Mission series offers, but absent the 3D graphics, it really is just a "half-step" in the evolution of wargames. Given that wargaming is steeped in a lot of tradition (i.e. all those hex and turn guys), I view CM as a necessary stepping stone to the innovative future of wargaming in games like COTA or Take Command.
RTS clickfests certainly have some semblance of strategy (none to my liking, but that is a matter of taste) and with their major contribution to the genre being the incorporation of eye-popping graphics. This is an important feature in that it demonstrates that games can be both well balanced, strategically challenging and still look-good (think the hot chick who has a brain!!!).
I think it is simply a matter of time before graphics and pc power approach a position where the AA engine can be used to plan a battle and the player can zoom in to see things played out in a 3D environment. This is what MMG is doing right now, albeit on a smaller battle scale, and what AA COULD do (graphics and size/scope being the limiting factor now) in the future. That is why both of these game series are INNOVATIVE giant steps for the wargaming genre. The fact that they may not be recognized as such now isn't as important (unless you are the developers and need $$$ from sales [:D] ) as the fact that 10 years down the road, game designers will be pointing to those 2 games much the way we look at Close Combat or SMG's Gettysburg today.
The basic fact of the matter is that a lot of these hex/counter/turn games have simply been ported to PC to allow for solitaire or PBEM play. That isn't really innovative as much as it allows the gaming community to expand beyond the traditional boundaries of the table top in the basement. Now that the "basement' is bigger and the PC calculates the odds/die roles, nothing has fundamentally changed in the way the game is played except that you don't have to worry about the dog knocking over the table! Unfortunately that is what the majority of the wargaming world has failed to perceive in their hesitance to embrace games such as COTA/HTTR/TC2M. Sure Close Combat and SMG were big commercial hits, but has really anyone come out with anything comparable in the past decade? The strange part about all this is NO ONE has capitalized on that "pausible continuous time" strategy movement despite the commerical success of those 2 series.
If I had to go out on a limb and commit wargaming heresy, I would bet that this is because the great majority purchasers of the CC and SMG phenomona WEREN'T your traditional hex/counter/turn wargamer. Those games appealed to Joe Q. Public and as much as the traditional wargamers lament the apparant demise of their chosen hobby every year, deep down inside the last thing they want to see is the common man encroach upon the boundaries of their sacred "elitist" hobby.
Why???
The answer is really simple. IMO, for years the hardcore wargamer had a simple advantage over his many opponents in that they "knew" the odds or all the quirks of the hex/counter/turn games. This knowledge of statistics, arcane rules, etc were the difference between the great wargamer and your journeyman wargamer. Heck, how can a guy be expected to just pick up a copy of Advanced 3rd Reich and sit down and play in one night? Just trying to set up for the first time is enough to bump off all but the most committed player. But sit down and load up Sid Meier's Gettysburg and the tables have turned. Knowledge of "soak off odds" or "river movement rules" are meaningless. Now strategy, intuition, audacity and cunning...the qualities that seperate the real battlefield commander from the boys are paramount. And those "pausible real time" games reward those commanders that understand this. Sure there is still the element of "counter strength" in understanding the relative strengths of your combat units etc, but the difference between victory and defeat is no longer based upon who can add up the damn counter odds fastest. Now victory or defeat is the result of the commander best being able to "visualize" the battle and make the right decisions, committing the right level of forces at the decisive time & location on the battlefield...and all this in REAL TIME!!!
That is why AA or TC is superior to hex/counter/turn. Making decisions when you have hours to review each and every variation and permutation of counters is fine and dandy. With enough time, 1 out of a 1000 chimps will type out Dicken's "Great Expectations" also. But put a time limit on that decision making process...where decisions are made with imperfect information...and you get quite a different result. I kind have the view that hex/counter/turn games are something were everything goes clockwork like the German train and mobilization schedule in WWI. There are really no suprises and everything is mechanical. Of course the reality is quite different - as the saying goes, no plan survives first enemy contact. Unfortunately hex/counter/turn can't recreate that most important aspect of warfare, which is why AA or TC are IMO the gold standard in wargaming today.
Some random musings...
~Title change to "Command Ops": Not a big fan of the title change. I guess I just think "Airborne Assault" is a cool brand name. "Command Ops" is just too vanilla for me...not that it would affect my decision to buy/not buy in the future. Something like "Combat Commander" or "Battle Commander" or "Corps Commander" IMO is a better description than "Command Ops."
~Various battle engines: IMO, the AA engine and MMG's Take Command are the way of the future. They really are an evolution of the Close Combat series and SMG's Gettysburg (and add-ons Antietam, WNLB, ANGV) and are the sweet spot between turn based/hex/counters and RTS (like Sudden Strike).
Games such as Combat Mission series are really just a turn based/hex/counter game in 3D...with the added improvement of simultaneous WEGO turn resolution that isn't really possible in table top games. That being said, I do enjoy what the Combat Mission series offers, but absent the 3D graphics, it really is just a "half-step" in the evolution of wargames. Given that wargaming is steeped in a lot of tradition (i.e. all those hex and turn guys), I view CM as a necessary stepping stone to the innovative future of wargaming in games like COTA or Take Command.
RTS clickfests certainly have some semblance of strategy (none to my liking, but that is a matter of taste) and with their major contribution to the genre being the incorporation of eye-popping graphics. This is an important feature in that it demonstrates that games can be both well balanced, strategically challenging and still look-good (think the hot chick who has a brain!!!).
I think it is simply a matter of time before graphics and pc power approach a position where the AA engine can be used to plan a battle and the player can zoom in to see things played out in a 3D environment. This is what MMG is doing right now, albeit on a smaller battle scale, and what AA COULD do (graphics and size/scope being the limiting factor now) in the future. That is why both of these game series are INNOVATIVE giant steps for the wargaming genre. The fact that they may not be recognized as such now isn't as important (unless you are the developers and need $$$ from sales [:D] ) as the fact that 10 years down the road, game designers will be pointing to those 2 games much the way we look at Close Combat or SMG's Gettysburg today.
The basic fact of the matter is that a lot of these hex/counter/turn games have simply been ported to PC to allow for solitaire or PBEM play. That isn't really innovative as much as it allows the gaming community to expand beyond the traditional boundaries of the table top in the basement. Now that the "basement' is bigger and the PC calculates the odds/die roles, nothing has fundamentally changed in the way the game is played except that you don't have to worry about the dog knocking over the table! Unfortunately that is what the majority of the wargaming world has failed to perceive in their hesitance to embrace games such as COTA/HTTR/TC2M. Sure Close Combat and SMG were big commercial hits, but has really anyone come out with anything comparable in the past decade? The strange part about all this is NO ONE has capitalized on that "pausible continuous time" strategy movement despite the commerical success of those 2 series.
If I had to go out on a limb and commit wargaming heresy, I would bet that this is because the great majority purchasers of the CC and SMG phenomona WEREN'T your traditional hex/counter/turn wargamer. Those games appealed to Joe Q. Public and as much as the traditional wargamers lament the apparant demise of their chosen hobby every year, deep down inside the last thing they want to see is the common man encroach upon the boundaries of their sacred "elitist" hobby.
Why???
The answer is really simple. IMO, for years the hardcore wargamer had a simple advantage over his many opponents in that they "knew" the odds or all the quirks of the hex/counter/turn games. This knowledge of statistics, arcane rules, etc were the difference between the great wargamer and your journeyman wargamer. Heck, how can a guy be expected to just pick up a copy of Advanced 3rd Reich and sit down and play in one night? Just trying to set up for the first time is enough to bump off all but the most committed player. But sit down and load up Sid Meier's Gettysburg and the tables have turned. Knowledge of "soak off odds" or "river movement rules" are meaningless. Now strategy, intuition, audacity and cunning...the qualities that seperate the real battlefield commander from the boys are paramount. And those "pausible real time" games reward those commanders that understand this. Sure there is still the element of "counter strength" in understanding the relative strengths of your combat units etc, but the difference between victory and defeat is no longer based upon who can add up the damn counter odds fastest. Now victory or defeat is the result of the commander best being able to "visualize" the battle and make the right decisions, committing the right level of forces at the decisive time & location on the battlefield...and all this in REAL TIME!!!
That is why AA or TC is superior to hex/counter/turn. Making decisions when you have hours to review each and every variation and permutation of counters is fine and dandy. With enough time, 1 out of a 1000 chimps will type out Dicken's "Great Expectations" also. But put a time limit on that decision making process...where decisions are made with imperfect information...and you get quite a different result. I kind have the view that hex/counter/turn games are something were everything goes clockwork like the German train and mobilization schedule in WWI. There are really no suprises and everything is mechanical. Of course the reality is quite different - as the saying goes, no plan survives first enemy contact. Unfortunately hex/counter/turn can't recreate that most important aspect of warfare, which is why AA or TC are IMO the gold standard in wargaming today.
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: barbarossa2
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."
Well, you miss out... despite the lack of additional scenarios, and the amount of bugs in the multiplayer...the online multiplayer part of the game (PC) really shines.
I agree with some of the reviewers, who said that the Single player is just like hmm junk food... finished in no time and after finishing you're still hungry... but they really liked the Multiplayer. I agree there.
The Multiplayer is easily one of the most inventive things being released during the last 2 yrs, as it carries RTS/strategy game elements AND action game elements (you can fly planes, control ships [battleships, patrol boats, submarines, etc.], you can even do Kamikaze runs). It's really entertaining.
The Hungarian division developed the game... dunno if this is a prejudice... although so many Russian (Stalker and so many other games ...), Rumanian (Silent Hunter 4) and other east European developers are in the buiz for quite some time, it looks like some of them are either still learning or just delivering some sloppy work (Silent Hunter 4, Battlestations, and other games).
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
RE: A debate on engines
$20 price increase is a bad idea. I've previously argued for a lower price - simply because 50US$/60US$ is pushing away everyone but the most dedicated gamers, thus keeping the community and exposure to a minimum. I really do believe the price is hurting sales. Add in the lack of a demo, and you have quite a task convincing people to buy a game that 1) is fundamentally different from what they usually play, 2) cost as much as a new AAA console game with million$ budgets and 100+ development teams, 3) they have no chance of trying before buying.
Drop the price to around 30US$, release instructions on the estab fileformat and how to load up your own estabs (if it doesn't require extensive work on your part) - and if the interest is there the community will make the tools.
Growing your userbase is imo the most important step for the AA series. An alternative pricing model would be keeping the same price, but including the previous titles. 60$ for CotA+HttR is an easier sell than just for CotA - and I doubt it would canibalize many HttR sales.
Drop the price to around 30US$, release instructions on the estab fileformat and how to load up your own estabs (if it doesn't require extensive work on your part) - and if the interest is there the community will make the tools.
Growing your userbase is imo the most important step for the AA series. An alternative pricing model would be keeping the same price, but including the previous titles. 60$ for CotA+HttR is an easier sell than just for CotA - and I doubt it would canibalize many HttR sales.
RE: A debate on engines
Couldn't have put it better myself.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
-Leon Trotsky
RE: A debate on engines
Well, the release of editors is a kind of tradition that has been cultivated for more than a decade now. An editor and the possibility to create various custom maps are THE keys for keeping a community alive.
But, that leads to the imminent question: Why are there so few custom maps for the AA engine?
Possible reasons:
This might change with BFTB (HTTR estabs + BFTB estabs + COTA estabs???), but it might still display a considerable obstacle for designers or newbloods who want to create scenarios covering their field (and time frame) of interest, and totally fictional scenarios, where ppl wouldn't need uber-accurate estabs are very rare (i've seen only 2 so far, my Cologne scenario and hmm was it Dredd's scenario?), maybe due to some of the reasons listed above, too.
Given, after a really short time period (compared to other scenario-editors for other games), an AA-designer is able to get some results.
But creating a detailed map takes quite some time (due to the missing features for workflow), time most ppl can't invest.
Also, as someone else mentioned before, designers belong to a rare species and display only a few percent of a game's fanbase, usually. Selling the editor wouldn't do much, I'd say, as ppl use to think that these kinda tools should be included in a game.
That said, the current tool (no matter how unstable it is) should be included on an "as is"-basis, like EULAs use to state in such cases, usually. Maybe add a txt-file with a few lines explaining the basics.
Well, selling 2 versions, a "deluxe"-version with an editor for some let's say extra 10 bucks and a "normal" version might be possible in theory .... but not in terms of financing an overhaul of the editor's code. So, providing the tool as a BETA goodie would make ppl happy, and, since the DDTs (hmm i don't like that abbreviation, hehe) are doing a good job covering new theaters of war, ppl would still buy the product, I'd say, IF at least a few new functions would come along with each new release.
My guess is that ppl who bought let's say HTTR and COTA might not follow and buy each game of the series each time (despite the quality of this gem), unless they'd feel that a sequel would carry enough new options, especially if the upcoming sequel would not cover their field of interest.
While BFTB and the North African theater might attract way more new customers than let's say COTA did, these new ppl may expect some more new features for an AA game covering a new theater, even if they couldn't put theír fingers on what kind of features these should be, just because they'd think that a sequel without new features should be sold as add-on (providing a new theater of war), not as a full priced game, as (in their minds) a new theater just involves research, scenario design, play-testing and balancing - not programming.
Anyway, I would be tempted to get BFTB if an editor would be included, no matter if it would be a "deluxe" version for add. 10 bucks or for free! [8D] [:D]. The common procedure on the developer's side is to release such tools for free, even in this niche-market, though.
Seriously, releasing the editor would be more of a benefit than you might think right now.
But, that leads to the imminent question: Why are there so few custom maps for the AA engine?
Possible reasons:
- 1) Although it's pretty easy to create maps with the MapMaker utility,
it lacks some functions that would enhance workflow: There's no
"drag/copy + paste"-function, single layers have to be copied using the
corresponding option (duplicate) in the main menu. That's cumbersome. - There are no hot-keys for the toolbar or other functions, like:
(s)elect, (l)ine tool, (m)agnifier, (c)orner points, c(o)ntrol points etc. etc. - While using the scenario maker is pretty easy in theory, balancing a scenario, by tweaking the (amount of) objectives and their scores, isn't.
- 2) The vicious circle:
Small amount of custom scenarios = Reduced attractiveness for potential customers = lower sales figures = smaller fanbase = small amount of custom scenarios.
- 3) The majority of grognards is still hooked to these same old hex-games (which I consider to be board games played on a computer, by the way), so something has to be done to enhance the attractiveness of this engine.
This might change with BFTB (HTTR estabs + BFTB estabs + COTA estabs???), but it might still display a considerable obstacle for designers or newbloods who want to create scenarios covering their field (and time frame) of interest, and totally fictional scenarios, where ppl wouldn't need uber-accurate estabs are very rare (i've seen only 2 so far, my Cologne scenario and hmm was it Dredd's scenario?), maybe due to some of the reasons listed above, too.
Given, after a really short time period (compared to other scenario-editors for other games), an AA-designer is able to get some results.
But creating a detailed map takes quite some time (due to the missing features for workflow), time most ppl can't invest.
Also, as someone else mentioned before, designers belong to a rare species and display only a few percent of a game's fanbase, usually. Selling the editor wouldn't do much, I'd say, as ppl use to think that these kinda tools should be included in a game.
That said, the current tool (no matter how unstable it is) should be included on an "as is"-basis, like EULAs use to state in such cases, usually. Maybe add a txt-file with a few lines explaining the basics.
Well, selling 2 versions, a "deluxe"-version with an editor for some let's say extra 10 bucks and a "normal" version might be possible in theory .... but not in terms of financing an overhaul of the editor's code. So, providing the tool as a BETA goodie would make ppl happy, and, since the DDTs (hmm i don't like that abbreviation, hehe) are doing a good job covering new theaters of war, ppl would still buy the product, I'd say, IF at least a few new functions would come along with each new release.
My guess is that ppl who bought let's say HTTR and COTA might not follow and buy each game of the series each time (despite the quality of this gem), unless they'd feel that a sequel would carry enough new options, especially if the upcoming sequel would not cover their field of interest.
While BFTB and the North African theater might attract way more new customers than let's say COTA did, these new ppl may expect some more new features for an AA game covering a new theater, even if they couldn't put theír fingers on what kind of features these should be, just because they'd think that a sequel without new features should be sold as add-on (providing a new theater of war), not as a full priced game, as (in their minds) a new theater just involves research, scenario design, play-testing and balancing - not programming.
Anyway, I would be tempted to get BFTB if an editor would be included, no matter if it would be a "deluxe" version for add. 10 bucks or for free! [8D] [:D]. The common procedure on the developer's side is to release such tools for free, even in this niche-market, though.
Seriously, releasing the editor would be more of a benefit than you might think right now.
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
RE: A debate on engines
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I disagree.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]SSG’s RUN 5 series of wargames, from the late 80’s, early 90’s had great and easy to use scenario editors.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily edit all the variables and paint and the hexes.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily edit the variables and paint the units.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily create new scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I bought their first game of that series, loved the game and used the scenario editor.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]The subsequent games were set in different locations with own scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]As a result I bought each game. [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]And in each case, the GUI improved each time. As a result I always used the editor of the latest game to make new scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I always imagined that other players would make new scenarios and that somehow we could share them. The “internet” had not yet been invented.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[/font][/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]ORIGINAL: MarkShot[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I mainly like playing and am not into designing. I think that probably covers the most customers.
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I disagree.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]SSG’s RUN 5 series of wargames, from the late 80’s, early 90’s had great and easy to use scenario editors.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily edit all the variables and paint and the hexes.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily edit the variables and paint the units.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily create new scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I bought their first game of that series, loved the game and used the scenario editor.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]The subsequent games were set in different locations with own scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]As a result I bought each game. [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]And in each case, the GUI improved each time. As a result I always used the editor of the latest game to make new scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I always imagined that other players would make new scenarios and that somehow we could share them. The “internet” had not yet been invented.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: Joe 98
[font="compatilfact lt regular"][/font][/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]ORIGINAL: MarkShot[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I mainly like playing and am not into designing. I think that probably covers the most customers.
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I disagree.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]SSG’s RUN 5 series of wargames, from the late 80’s, early 90’s had great and easy to use scenario editors.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily edit all the variables and paint and the hexes.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily edit the variables and paint the units.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]You could easily create new scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I bought their first game of that series, loved the game and used the scenario editor.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]The subsequent games were set in different locations with own scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]As a result I bought each game. [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]And in each case, the GUI improved each time. As a result I always used the editor of the latest game to make new scenarios.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]I always imagined that other players would make new scenarios and that somehow we could share them. The “internet” had not yet been invented.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
That's true, and you may very well argue that some extremely good wargames (V4V and W@W) disappearead in time mostly (if not totally) due to the lack of an editor.
However COTA has got an editor. And if you go to the scenario editing forum, even I , with a 5 minute google search, could find ideas for new scenarios, within COTA time frame , that could perfectly use the current estabs.
Now just imagine if an Eastern Front (oh boy, here I go again... [:D] )game was released, with estabs for 41-42, how many scenarios could be produced???? What about an Normandy game? What about a Eastern Front with 41-45 estabs? Or a Pacific game with 40-45 estabs?
Yet, for some reason, not enough people seem willing to invest time in doing new scenarios, even with the available tools. Note that you don't see anyone complaining about the lack of tools... I can think of a lot of reasons for people not to invest time in new scenarios, having done the same myself.
The question here is , would an estab editor introduce such a remarkable change in the attitudes???
-
06 Maestro
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 10:50 pm
- Location: Nevada, USA
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: jmlima
The question here is , would an estab editor introduce such a remarkable change in the attitudes???
No- most people (like myself) have no inclination for designing scenarios. As you pointed out, CotA has a decent editor already-it's just limited to a given time frame do to the estabs. I really doubt that by throwing all estabs into each new game would cause Matrix Games servers to suddently be jammed up do to a flood of orders.
As for merging all versions into one game; 1- a big expence for a small company, 2-less reason to buy new versions if all fronts are covered already resulting in falling sales, 3-there will still be a crowed protesting the price of each new version of the game because "it's just a slightly upgraded patch job that should be sold for less than $4.99.
CotA should have had much larger sales, as other military type games. The primary reason that it does not, IMHO, is that the great unwashed masses have never even heard of CotA, Panther Games, Matrix Games, Talonsoft, Paradox, AGEOD (something like that) and so on.
Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro
2-less reason to buy new versions if all fronts are covered already resulting in falling sales, 3-there will still be a crowed protesting the price of each new version of the game because "it's just a slightly upgraded patch job that should be sold for less than $4.99.
Thesis 1:
".. all fronts covered".
Well, if a Panther DDT is working on a new theater of war, it will definetely output thorough researches, and the following scenario design will be well thought, most likely. If there will be let's say 20+ scenarios plus some new features (which might involve some gray hair = programming) for an AA game, I don't see why customers should regard this as a "patch job" only, since all these workings incorporated in the software display some intellectual property that surely has its price.
With the amount of work put into new features, research and scenarios, everyone would agree that it's worth more than some let's say 5 or 10 bucks, no?.
Thesis 2:
In theory, quite contrary to your suggestion (that sales figures would drop, if an "estab-bundle" would find its way into one of the sequels), customers could feel forced to buy a game of this series ("just") to get a hold of an estab covering their certain field of interest.
Thesis 3:
Afaik, BFTB will come with HTTR estabs.
If this (planned?) policy would be maintained with each new title, which means that each estab of the preceding game would be carried over to the next game or to the game after next, your thesis regarding dropping sales figures would kick in finally, but quite differently than you might have expected:
Without adding substantial new features to each sequel, it's possible that noone would want to buy a WW2 sequel anymore anyways (maybe except for the Pacific Theater), after let's say the release of a Russian theater and the North African theater, as the estabs in one of these sequels might contain a good force mix already, which could be sufficient to create any non-pacific (custom) scenario = covering the rest of the globe, so he/she might just sit there and wait for custom scenarios.
........
That said, the release of an estab editor makes sense, and it would not "degrade" any future design/research efforts, nor would it harm sales, since community scenario designers might not have the time/skills/sources to come up with designs that would outrun "Panther-design + research", thus Panther could still market its field of expertise.
Also, unusual and creative custom scenarios (Stalingrad on a platoon/company level for example[:D], or the Battles of Kursk or Charkov) could quicken interest in the series, if there'd be an editor. While few ppl might use an editor actually, the results could still remove the last obstacles for ppl who considered the game but who refrained from buying it in the end, due to lack of modder support/custom scenarios.
The "unwashed" masses maybe played Panzer General, they play(ed) CloseCombat for sure and they might even toy with Company of Heroes these days, but the "masses" in the wargaming niche market play hex-games and they know Matrix..... but many of them don't know (and some don't like) the AA series.[] ... the great unwashed masses have never even heard of CotA, Panther Games, Matrix Games, Talonsoft, Paradox, AGEOD (something like that) and so on.
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
.... While few ppl might use an editor actually, the results could still remove the last obstacles for ppl who considered the game but who refrained from buying it in the end, due to lack of modder support/custom scenarios.
...
If few people use the wditor (your words) then the situation wouldn't change that much from what's happening now. And that wouldn't certainly be the push in order to , all of a sudden, a horde of new scenarios would suddenly appear.
I can tell you from my experience (I imagine you have also produced some scenarios) that producing scenarios is a very labour intensive work , with little, if any, reward. You can spend 2+years working on a scenario and in the end all that work is great for you to play , usually not much more. The more sucessful scenarios I know are basically boardgames converted , and since the boardgames were hugely popular so the scenarios tend to be. On the other hand I can give hundreds of examples of magnificent original scenarios that barely got a word of recognition. That's why I stopped doing scenarios, in fact, the whole scenario doing trend is ,in my view, pretty much going down the drain, what people want is a great set of stock scenarios.
Do you want proof? Just look at the Battleground game. Packed with barely half a dozen scenarios. Who plays it? Now look, on the opposite side to TOAW, it still manages to field quite a community, but look at the number of new scenarios appearing. And look at that same number a couple of years a go. Gamers want a good solid game, with plentiful of scenarios, and a good AI (the vast majority of people plays against the AI), all this out of the box.
For the purpose of CotA , or in fact any other game in this series to succedd it as first to break the hex mentality most wargamers still have, also many people look at this game as a sort of C&C, real time thing. It takes time to explain what's the advantage of the real time , and that, yes, even though this has got no hexes it's still a wargame. I can even propose a challenge. Name a serious wargame, in the style of this series, that managed to be a big hit , sales wise.
-
Willard
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:42 pm
- Location: Up the Nung river past Do Lung bridge...
- Contact:
RE: A debate on engines
Sid Meier's Gettysburg
No hexes, real time, chain of command w/orders, multi-player and co-op modes, AAR stat and replay available.
No hexes, real time, chain of command w/orders, multi-player and co-op modes, AAR stat and replay available.
ORIGINAL: jmlima
Name a serious wargame, in the style of this series, that managed to be a big hit , sales wise.
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: Willard
Sid Meier's Gettysburg
No hexes, real time, chain of command w/orders, multi-player and co-op modes, AAR stat and replay available.
ORIGINAL: jmlima
Name a serious wargame, in the style of this series, that managed to be a big hit , sales wise.
eh,eh,eh I loose... [:D] There is also Close Combat, for example. That's why you should never make grand statements while you're working at the same time...
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: jmlima
If few people use the wditor (your words) then the situation wouldn't change that much from what's happening now. And that wouldn't certainly be the push in order to , all of a sudden, a horde of new scenarios would suddenly appear.
Right. But, if you look closer, you'll figure that I didn't say there'd be hordes of scenarios or an armada of designers coming outta nowhere.
But I think there'll be some more ppl tinkering with custom scenarios after BFTB and being able to use 100% of the possibilities instead of let's say like 80% (as of right now), might lead to a situation where ppl may try to realize scenario ideas that clearly aren't possible without such an editor. Again, even if only a few would use such an editor, the results of its use may benefit the community, as it might pull other ppl's interest to try and learn how to create custom scenarios. If ppl see that various ideas can't be realized due to some hard-coded limits, they might refrain from even tinkering with the tools.
On the other hand I can give hundreds of examples of magnificent original scenarios that barely got a word of recognition. That's why I stopped doing scenarios, in fact, the whole scenario doing trend is ,in my view, pretty much going down the drain, what people want is a great set of stock scenarios.
Although the AA engine's (SP) replay value is way higher than other game's value, due to AA's excellent AI, the scenarios are getting old after a few times, even if the AI is reacting differently each time, since there are no adjustable settings (i.e. adjust. objectives) besides the reinforcement schedules.
HTTR had the highest replay value imho, due to the excellent scenario design and due to the terrain types, which guaranteed plenty of approaches.
But still.... once scenarios are played (some played 'em to death) a few times, they aren't that attractive anymore (this goes with most games), since the only variation that can be found in these scenarios may be a different outcome (decisive victory, marginal victory).
A great stock of scenarios is like basic/essential these days, ppl use to take that for granted when buying a good game, I believe. But you don't keep a community alive, nor do you keep ppl hooked if you only provide a monster set of scenarios.
One reason for CloseCombat keeping ppl hooked is the fact that it was highly modable, for example. Another example: There are several mods (RealismMod, etc.) out there for Company of Heroes, and although the SP campaign has like 6 missions (with a sub-mision here and there) only, ppl are loving to play custom maps in skirmish (vs AI) or in online MP. There are 100+ maps for COH on filefront (and there are other sources) and the total number of downloads is 667,913 with an avg. of 7-9000 downloads for each popular map.
There are only like hmm maybe 10-20 serious mappers for COH, with some additional (10-30) beginners, and it's not easy to create maps (you need "world-builder" to create maps, then you place buildings, rivers etc. , creating a map takes a long time), but their output keeps the community alive.
The type of game and its sales figures play a vital role, sure, but if you look at other games you can clearly see that custom scenarios are available and that they are en vogue. I don't know what game u had in mind there, but I don't see the trend u are trying to paint there, sorry.
Anyway, COTA offered even less opportunities to create custom maps than HTTR, due to the estab (time frame) being the limiting factor. While terrain and looks can be modded, the estabs can't be accessed.
So, although the theater of war presented in COTA was kinda refreshing, picking this theater did harm sales and, furthermore, the limited force mix which is present in the game hampered efforts for creating more custom maps.
I did that in my previous post already: Close Combat. Willard's example is a valid one, too.Name a serious wargame, in the style of this series, that managed to be a big hit , sales wise.
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
RE: A debate on engines
I just finished reading through that entire thread. I was compelled to comment, but then was ashamed afterwards. There are certain people in the wargaming realm, e.g. Giftswerg, JasonC, who are doubtlessly intelligent, but are too convinced of their own intelligence and lack a more philosophical approach.
At least Giftswerg is funny ;-D
At least Giftswerg is funny ;-D
RE: A debate on engines
Ashamed replying to Jason C's stuff?
I was tempted to reply to that thread, where JasonC pulled off his stuff, especially when someone mentioned the AA engine .... but I felt that it's wasted time, mainly due to the conceited attitude present in that thread.
I was tempted to reply to that thread, where JasonC pulled off his stuff, especially when someone mentioned the AA engine .... but I felt that it's wasted time, mainly due to the conceited attitude present in that thread.
"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne
---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006
RE: A debate on engines
ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Ashamed replying to Jason C's stuff?
I was tempted to reply to that thread, where JasonC pulled off his stuff, especially when someone mentioned the AA engine .... but I felt that it's wasted time, mainly due to the conceited attitude present in that thread.
That's kinda why I felt like a schmuck after I replied. I really think guys like that pull off their I Know All attitude because they can get away with it online, and invite people to argue with them. It's annoying, and I feel like I was drawn into his game. I try not to do that as a rule. I'm all for a good debate, but I can't stand people who are so convinced, if you get my meaning.