Request to Any Developers..

[undercovergeek]

wodin, could you mod any preexisting game?

[IainMcNeil]

I think a mod is a great way to go with this idea.

[wodin]

@ Mobius, I'm not sure to be honest, those images where just trying to show people how the battle side of things would look rather than it beign a 3D or RTS game.

The game wouldn't really be super complex or huge in scale. You wouldn't have hundreds of units on the grand strat map, maybe 50 tops, each comprising of 10 to 15 formations. It would all be down to the UI to streamline the whole thing. Dominions 3 gets it to a point, just the abttle engine is poor. Thats what I'd change with the thoughts above.

I suppose saying it's a monster game is possibly going to far but it certainly would be a Fantasy wargame which I feel would bring in the Fantasy lovers and Wargamers, plus the 4x folks. Dominions managed, enough for them to make three game sin the series. I just feel it could be imporved, not so much the expand and conquer side but definitely the way the battles play and look.


As for modding, doubtful, automated combat where you give orders then watch the show set in a fantasy setting with 4X gameplay. Modding a game already is great if you have solid ideas of what you want todo i.e a LOTR total war mod. I haven't got an desire or particular subject i wnat to see in a game. It's more an idea on how I'd like to see a fantasy wargame made lore and canon being secondary.

I suppose you could take Distant Worlds, set in on land, change the whole setting to fantasy based and see how to work the combat...though you may aswell make it from scratch. I can't think of a single game that plays out combat how I've described expect maybe Les Grognards from what I've read. I've seen screenshots of the overall battlefield map in that game looking how I've described this, yet you have no Grand Strategy element to it.

I think what would have to happen is get the combat down and working properly even if it's just basic to start with and then playaround with it. Then go onto the 4X gameplay. You see I'd have to have help in doing the lore and all that side of things as I haven't thought about that only the tech aspect of the overall design. I'd like to see the Shape\Formation gameplay running though. That maybe be good enough to expand on it's own into a straight wargame without all the 4x side of things or make that side basic. Lets put it this way if you think of formations in ancient and middle age warfare they are all about shapes. So if you researched all the different formations and analysed the strength and weaknesses I expect you be able to apply mathematical formulas to them, so in effect as you change the shape the formulas will change for it's over all strength of it's sides, a circle obviously being average all round with no real weak side but no hard hitting side either so great if surrounded, a wedge would work ou as being great to cut and divide a formation. A rectangle will be great forward power but very weak sides so rubbish if flanked, in effect the smaller surface area the weaker the side. Then you'd have some odd shapes like the roman turtle for great protection from all sides and above from arrows (you'd have to work out a shape for that one!). You have to factor in armour and weapon type aswell once you've got the shape behaving properly.

I have to reiterate though again the battles would be played out once you've set he formations and given the commanders initial orders, after that you have no input, or maybe get say two chances to issue orders at a time of your choosing. So the grand strategy part of it could either be turn base or wego.

The biggest headache would be balance, however some great Fantasy games weren't balanced that well but offered so much in tinkering and content it didn't matter like Master of Magic. However obviously nit all games can get away with it.

Also it would live or die on how good it's TAC AI was. It would have to be good.

Anyway it's all pie in the sky.

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

wodin,

Such a game would require too many changes, so it is better to develop a new one.
Anyway developing the new game is an issue of market demand. If you think that people want something and will buy something, then you are creating a game. For an indie developer first unsuccessful project means also the last one.

Unfortunately I'm not a US citizen, so I can't start Kickstarter project so be sure there is an enough demand for such game.

http://www.indiegogo.com

[wodin]

Anyone in the know and have read my ideas on the shape\formation combat (shapes can be moved and warped about and the stats will change depending on surface areas and weapons to give a player load sot experiment with etc etc) recommend a programming language or software that may be able to create this?

I seriously think I maybe onto something here and keep thinking about it all the time, the more I think the more it makes sense and feels like it could be something quite special. Even if it takes me a few years to get it working I'm fine with that.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

It sounds really interesting but my concern with this idea is that it seems to be one persons perfect game (which is what it is!) and that often means its pushed in to a very specific niche. The number of people who want to play a mega game is relatively small, and of those what percentage want a fantasy setting? My guess is that most people who want a mega game want a historical one.

Absolutely. That niche would find an audience, but it would be a small one. Those games demand so much time and there is a sort of in-built resistance to those not 'real world'; maybe it's the historical element we use to justify spending that time, I don't know. The only thing likely to drum up a large enough audience by hauling in the gaming periphery (I can see the D&D folks being hooked) would be a LotR license, but the cost of that would be totally unaffordable, I suspect, even without some idiot suits being unable to distinguish between this sort of project's likely return and that of your typical hexbox licensed LotR clickfest.

[wodin]

Well I can see the game I have in mind appealing to all those Fantasy Strategy and HOMM type game players and general fantasy geeks aswell as the general 4x crowd and also anyone into ancient\middle ages warfare and mythology. Infact if this combat idea works (thats the focus of my design thoughts at the moment) it could well bring people into wargaming and the more serious historical stuff especially Ancient warfare.

It's really hard to get over what I mean on the net. I'd need to either draw it to show what I'm getting at or make some kind of quick demo of how it would work say using power point or something. It's a unique take yet something that also makes sense and gives the player endless hours of formation tweaking if they want to get the best out of their troops. Sort of a sandbox tactics tester in game. Plus it wont be graphically intensive which is the beauty of it being a indie development. Yet it will still look cool and show it's obvious wargame routes but also exciting to watch.

[mgarnett]

Hi Wodin,

I suppose the question is, do you have any coding experience, as that could well determine the best tool for the task. I have experience with several game engines/coding libraries so I'll list a few of the better ones here:

- Unity, free for the indie version and is primarily designed for 3D games, but it handles 2D just as well and can be scripted with C#
- C4, a great engine but you'll really need some C++ experience here and it's not free but not too expensive either
- Truevision 3D, not really developed any more but still sold and is very easy to use, accessed via dotNET
- 3D Gamestudio, pretty easy to use but uses a version of C called Lite C, again not free but not that expensive either

I would seriously advise against designing your own engine from scratch if you can at all help it.

Cheers

Mark

[wodin]

Well I was going to try and see if I could do a simple version using game maker. Then if it did work go and make it properly in Unity.

[wodin]

Just thought on something. Gratuitous Space Battles has a sort of similar concept where all the decisions are made pre battle then you watch it pan out. Though you wont be watching space ships obviously but something similar to the screeshots further up.

[doomtrader]

IIRC such idea was implemented in Slitherine's Legion, am I right?

[wodin]

Doomtrader, similar I believe. Sort of the same concept with regards to watching the battle unfold etc, however it's this concept of formation\shapes that has me intrigued. Feed the combat stats (i.e weapon type,armour type,training,race,commander stats) into a shape taking the greater the surface area the stronger or more effective the power of the unit will be on that side. So a rectangle will be strong at front but very weak at the sides. As you manipulate the shape I envisage the stats changing as the shape changes. Also certain shapes will be great a certain things, i.e a wedge shape can split a unit formation into therefore making that to weak shapes. When you look at a pmap of ancient warfare it's all drawn in shapes, well I will have those animated, the size of the unti shape will decrease as it takes casualties, or say will form a circle if it looks like it's surrounded so it's "combat power" is spread all around, it will stay like that waiting to be rescued if it is surrounded, or maybe it has a superb commander who will expand the circle and eventually break out.

I'd design a shape for all known formations from warfare from ancient times to middle ages. Then the player will also have a possibiltiy to create new formation unit shapes and train his troops in them. Also certain shapes next to each other will complement. For expample your typical rectangle formation will benifit from having it's flanks protected, so for instance you could have three rectangle formations in the front row and on either end have a square formation protecting it's flanks (obviously the square has decent all round protection but not as hard hitting from the front as a rectangle. Training will be a percentage, so say you've trained your troops to 80% in a particular formation than all sides will equal 80% power of the weapons, though you will have race stats and certain weapons will have bonus for certain formations then you have the commander stats adding to it aswell, so in effect you could go over 100% effective power. This seems like it would work for fantasy and ancient warfare because it's mainly melee. Then you have to work out something for range weapons which will be less about formation and more about commander and training.

Something dynamic that could happen is if you commander has great initiative and the formation has the relevant training, he may as he moves into melee range but comes under fire from arrows change his formation into the Roman turtle to protect his men from arrows, then fan back out to his previous formation when he gets towards melee range. A poor commander may not do this though.

I imagine the battle animation to flow and look dynamic.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
No. Personally, I do not want any fantasy games; I want wargames; and specifcally MWIF PLEASE

+1.
And I want wargames designed for PC, not conversion from paper wargames from 1970.

[wodin]

invernomuto, I'm not asking what people want, I'm talking about a game idea I have. Thanks for your opinion though.

[invernomuto]

Sorry wodin, I did not want to hijack your thread.

While on MG forums I think the majority wants the devs to focus on historical wargames, I do think that there is a market for a fantasy wargame like the one you described.
For example, Dominions 3 is a good game with a small but dedicated community.

Bye

[Xerkis]

Over here because you asked me to check it out.
[:)]
 
I didn’t read every word – there are a lot of them to read – but I think I have the basic idea.
 
Sounds deep, and cool. But actually – I for one would rather control each and every move turn by turn, then to sort of “preset” the moves and push go and watch it unfold that you have here.
 
I would definitely be in that “niche” that Iain had mentioned. I think he’s 100% correct in what he’s saying and he knows what he’s talking about. Above anyone else, you might want to take his words a bit more to heart. That isn’t to discourage your project at all – just to prepare you for what is ahead of you.
 
With Sovereignty now being announced and with all else that I have on my plate right now, I do wish you well with this but it isn’t something I can get involved in at this point in time. I know Sovereignty may not be exactly what your game is but. . . . . . I think I’ll wait for it. Your game does sound awesome though. I truly mean that and if it would turn out like you envision it, I would look in to it (other than the automation of the battle part). Because you know; if the battle wasn’t as automated, it would be less programming there.
 [;)]

[wodin]

The thing with automation is that the game will depend on how good your grand strategy is rather than how good you are at turn based or rts games. Which for me defeats the object of having commanders and training etc etc.

You will set formations at the start of the battle, train formations\train discipline, hire commanders, research tactics, research weapons, steal pre battle intel, give overall orders, and have three chances to send out orders if you want to during combat, however there will be a delay as it will be sent by carrier pigeon or a runner.

Your input into the coming battle will be extensive and depending on how good your strategy has been upto then and which commanders you've given which units will all be a major influence upon the battle.

SO though the battle is automated like I said all your choices and decisions leading upto the battle will come across on how well your armies fight.Also you do give overall orders to the General and also if you want SOP's to the individual formation commanders.

As I said turn based and RTS combat means the game boils down to how good you are at that sort of game and not what your grand strategy has been uptill then, thus in away defeating the object.

I have all the time in the world to get this going and envisage most likely five years or more before I have something done. I'm not expecting it to make me lots of money thats not the motivation, the motivation is to create a game I'd love to play. I do have a snaeky feeling though if it comes together the ay I see it people will want to buy and again if it turns out like how I wnat it to I see no reason for it to be as popukar as Dom3 or even a more mainsteam fantasy game.

I've had about three game ideas that I'd love to see. This one feels like it could be done where as the others require 3D engines etc etc and are more based of other games (I.e Darkwind combat converted to WW1 bi planes with RPH elements as a squadron commander throughout WW1 and also a Sims WW1 game called the trench or The Company).

I'm that certain I have something relatively unique yet seems to make sense and seems to be doable and play well that I actually want to try it out.

The hardest part I think will be balancing and the tac ai.

Even if the Grand Strategy side doesn't come off I think there could well be legs in the combat mechanic alone. SO have a more basic grand strategy like Conquest of Elysium 3 but tag it to the combat engine.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Sorry wodin, I did not want to hijack your thread.

While on MG forums I think the majority wants the devs to focus on historical wargames, I do think that there is a market for a fantasy wargame like the one you described.
For example, Dominions 3 is a good game with a small but dedicated community.

Bye

No worries mate, sorry if I sounded alittle off hand.

Dom 3 is a influence here. However the combat engine will be more in depth.

If the game ended up as well liked as Dom 3 I'd be over the moon.

[Perturabo]

I'm planning to make a realistic wargame set in a steampunk fantasy setting.

[warspite1]

That's nice....