High Command

spudmeister · Post by **spudmeister** » Fri Nov 10, 2000 1:09 am

Anyone at Matrix considered remaking & updating 'High Command'? - it was a really good game. If it had a PBEM option that would be a start.

Robned · Post by **Robned** » Wed Nov 15, 2000 12:50 am

I agree, High Command would greatly benefit from some bug fixes and the addition of PBEM. No other game that I have played gives you the feel of the overall strategy of the war. Production, R&D, intelliegence, diplomacy... the game offers it all. it just needs some fixes and updates.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Nov 15, 2000 3:02 pm

Originally posted by Robned:
I agree, High Command would greatly benefit from some bug fixes and the addition of PBEM. No other game that I have played gives you the feel of the overall strategy of the war. Production, R&D, intelliegence, diplomacy... the game offers it all. it just needs some fixes and updates.

Ok folks, I'm goin' out on a limb here, and say I don't want Matrix "remaking" another existing European theater game. We must realize Matrix is not in the business to do remakes of other people's games, if we want them to be here 3-5 years from now, they must create original games AND WE MUST BUY THEM. So I want them to sign up Gary Grigsby and do a grand strategy game of WWII European theater from the ground up. GG had stated in the past that was something he wanted to do, and a lot of GG fans had hoped he would get to do it. So far, no joy. Matrix, sign'em up and do an *original* game, not another remake or update! I'm ready to pay, DO IT!

sapperland · Post by **sapperland** » Thu Nov 16, 2000 1:20 am

High Command?
I dont remember that game. How old is it? Where can I look it up at? Is it fun to play?

Grumble · Post by **Grumble** » Thu Nov 16, 2000 2:57 am

"Ok folks, I'm goin' out on a limb here, and say I don't want Matrix "remaking" another existing European theater game. We must realize Matrix is not in the business to do remakes of other people's games, if we want them to be here 3-5 years from now, they must create original games AND WE MUST BUY THEM. So I want them to sign up Gary Grigsby and do a grand strategy game of WWII European theater from the ground up. GG had stated in the past that was something he wanted to do, and a lot of GG fans had hoped he would get to do it. So far, no joy. Matrix, sign'em up and do an *original* game, not another remake or update! I'm ready to pay, DO IT!"

SHACK!

Ohio Redleg · Post by **Ohio Redleg** » Thu Nov 16, 2000 3:48 am

For those who were attracted by the post but are totally baffled at what everyone is talking about, "High Command" was another amitious wargame which takes up every drop of base memory to play.

That said, it made my wife a computer widow as it took so much time for me to play it. It was very well done and comprehensive for its time. It was made by 360 Software-- the makers of Harpoon-- and only took up 2 or 3 3.5 floppies, if I recall correctly. Since it was made by 360, I have to wonder if Creative Magic Software owns the rights to it (as it does Harpoon).

I wouldn't mind a remake of this game, but I agree with others who say Matrix needs to stay alive by making original games and selling them to us Grognards (unless we're just a bunch of freeloading bastards

).

Robned · Post by **Robned** » Tue Nov 21, 2000 12:28 am

I would have NO problem paying for a "fixed" or even a redone High Command. I have never understood why games are not periodicly updated/upgraded like other commercial software. Why do another grand strategy game, deal with all the bugs, playablility problems, etc. if there is already a good start in High Command? I would gladly pay something on a periodic basis to keep the games I like current. This way bugs could continually be eliminated and we could get the games closer to the "perfection" we all seem to want.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Nov 21, 2000 9:01 am

Originally posted by Robned:
I would have NO problem paying for a "fixed" or even a redone High Command. I have never understood why games are not periodicly updated/upgraded like other commercial software. Why do another grand strategy game, deal with all the bugs, playablility problems, etc. if there is already a good start in High Command? I would gladly pay something on a periodic basis to keep the games I like current. This way bugs could continually be eliminated and we could get the games closer to the "perfection" we all seem to want.

The continual development of a game is what I would prefer. It is the way of Open Source software works, i.e. a program that is popular enough will remain actively developed indefinitely. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the wargaming community for grand strategy games. They're doesn't seem to be enough of us. I mean, just compare the traffic on the SPWaW forum with the traffic in the WiR and PAC forums. Its been done a few times, like Gary's WiR1 and WiR2, but mainly the commercial companies can't afford to make a remake if it turns out not to be a major improvement over the original. The same people might not buy the second version. And the fact that we are a small audience to begin with means that just about all of us would have to buy the game for it to be considered successful as far as profit goes.

One can hope that Matrix will remain interested in strategy games, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what efforts by Matrix are the most popular so far. I fear they will go the tactical/operational route in the end and pay only a little bit of attention to the strategy genre. Nothing new there.

As for High Command, I think we are way ahead of ourselves here, since Matrix probably won't be able to get the rights to update it *and* sell it for profit. At the very least, the current copyright holders will want a big piece of the action, and Matrix will not be able to afford that, as they need to start making some money real soon, and the only way to do that is with their own games.

[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited November 20, 2000).]

Hartmann · Post by **Hartmann** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 5:41 pm

High Command was not bad, but had a confusing resources management, which was always beyond me.
I would rather like to see a remake of "Clash of Steel", up till now the best game of the "WW2 Grand Strategy" genre imho. I know, there was already the future edition, but it just removed the bugs. There´s still so much room for improvements of the COS engine, it could be a dream come true...

Hartmann

bpolarsk · Post by **bpolarsk** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 8:42 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

They're doesn't seem to be enough of us. I mean, just compare the traffic on the SPWaW forum with the traffic in the WiR and PAC forums. Its been done a few times, like Gary's WiR1 and WiR2, but mainly the commercial companies can't afford to make a remake if it turns out not to be a major improvement over the original.(edited November 20, 2000).]

I am not sure that you taken enough in account the development of internet. It is a sure way to keep active the link between the developper and its fan community. You should definitively develop a game that you keeps on updating with fix and patches. In fact you have already such game, namely SPWAW, unhappily, for strategic lovers, it is a tactical level.

You can perfectly imagine a company developing a WWII theatre, totally owned by that compagny and put to sell. Copyright are on the rules, graphics and PBEM engine and the AI is made external open source. There are lot of developpers willing to test their skills to improve or create AI, including thoses folks from gameAI.com etc... In final, this game may become a reference providing its is open enough.

May be the most interesting aspect for a company like matrix is that this game must not have at start a sophisticated AI nor multiples scn, as you will rely on the community for completing the tasks that are the most time consuming : AI, Scneario design and play test. Of course this process may take long time, but your expences afterwards are small if not inexistents.

Bernie

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 11:18 pm

Originally posted by bpolarsk:
I am not sure that you taken enough in account the development of internet. It is a sure way to keep active the link between the developper and its fan community. You should definitively develop a game that you keeps on updating with fix and patches. In fact you have already such game, namely SPWAW, unhappily, for strategic lovers, it is a tactical level.

Development on SPWaW, WIR, and PAC will end eventually. These aren't open-ended, open-source projects. Matrix will soon switch focus to its commercial games, like any normal commercial company would. They can't afford to do anything else. Matrix still controls the code for these things (well, partially, as SSI retains copyright as well), and if they ever go bankrupt, SPWaW will almost certainly be abandoned with no future development (development on WIR and PAC is going to end soon anyway). If it were a true open-source project, this would never happen.

You can perfectly imagine a company developing a WWII theatre, totally owned by that compagny and put to sell. Copyright are on the rules, graphics and PBEM engine and the AI is made external open source. There are lot of developpers willing to test their skills to improve or create AI, including thoses folks from gameAI.com etc... In final, this game may become a reference providing its is open enough.

I don't see the value of the scenario described above. If the only thing that's open source is the AI module, then that isn't an open source project. Some people may get involved, but many, especially the programmers, will only want to work on a true open-source project where their efforts are not used by someone else to make money, where what they create benefits everyone. As with SPWaW, since everything else besides the AI is copyrighted, if the company goes belly up, the game disappears.

May be the most interesting aspect for a company like matrix is that this game must not have at start a sophisticated AI nor multiples scn, as you will rely on the community for completing the tasks that are the most time consuming : AI, Scneario design and play test. Of course this process may take long time, but your expences afterwards are small if not inexistents.

I'm not going to first pay for a game, then volunteer to help the company complete it. You aren't going to attract much attention that way. Remember that SPWAW, WIR, and PAC don't have a price tag, that is mainly why there is so many people willing to help improve them without being paid. The kind of indefinite development I'm speaking of is only possible if the project is open-source and popular.

VictorH · Post by **VictorH** » Wed Nov 29, 2000 12:33 am

I wonder if there is any way to persuade SSI to allow WIR and WITP to be "open source"? As they are now, making money off of them is not going to happen. I think this would be a great thing for the computer wargaming world. Many of us who program would apply our skills to these game providing new and innovative ideas that could be incorporated into the commercial side of the market. Think of it as a University Research project that benefits industry.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Nov 29, 2000 6:36 pm

Originally posted by VictorH:
I wonder if there is any way to persuade SSI to allow WIR and WITP to be "open source"? As they are now, making money off of them is not going to happen. I think this would be a great thing for the computer wargaming world. Many of us who program would apply our skills to these game providing new and innovative ideas that could be incorporated into the commercial side of the market. Think of it as a University Research project that benefits industry.

I don't know Victor, it would be great if that could happen, but I see a difference between the computer game market and the commercial companies involved in the open source community. Those companies usually have an alterior reason for open sourcing code that they've made. Sun Microsystems open sourced the Startoffice suite of programs, a functional clone of the Microsoft Office, but they did so not because they believe much about the open source community, but because they and everyone else don't see a way to compete with Microsoft in a conventional way. MS dominates the office suite market, due to the leverage they have with the Windows monopoly, so StarOffice as a normal commercial application doesn't have a chance, but as an open source and popular project, StarOffice may become a major competitor.

The problem is, I don't see any pressure on the computer gaming market to try open sourcing older games, as there is no reason for them to do so since the open source community is not putting any pressure on them, and there aren't any alterior reasons for them to do so either.

As the open source community continues to grow things may change, but for now, the open source community has largely ignored the issue of open source recreational software, and are concentrating on the things that are more important right now, like operating systems, internet web servers, web browsers, application development software, networking software, and major business software like the Abiword word processor, or the late arrival of the StarOffice suite.

VictorH · Post by **VictorH** » Thu Nov 30, 2000 8:56 pm

Ed,

How could anyone think software other than computer wargames is more important?

nittany · Post by **nittany** » Sun Dec 10, 2000 5:36 pm

Check out underdogs.com for Clash of Steel:FE download. May have High Command as well. For the quality of games that Matrix put out for free, I would have paid a small price to help defray costs. Also, would like to older (DOS) versions updated to Windows. I would pay a small fee for these games as well. Matrix is doing an update of PacWar by doing WitP. Sorry, just a little rant, thanks for listening.

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Tue Dec 12, 2000 11:18 pm

I liked High Command, for the unique things it offered, but I never played it past the second year. I absolutely loathed Clash of Steel, it was very unhistorical and though High Command wasn't strictly historical either, it sure enjoyed a greater challenge to strategy (more things to manage).

For me, I would never compare strategists to tacticians and base it on comparing WIR/PW forums to the SPWAW forum and conclude there are far more tacticians. For one thing, I dabble in both, so it's not like all people are strictly one way or the other. As well, WIR/PW are much older games, which, probably a good deal of the people in the SPWAW forum have played countless times. SPWAW enjoys so much forum activity, firstly because it's remake has been around a lot longer then WIR/PW, and also because the changes and attention that Matirx have given them are a LOT more extensive than WIR/PW have undergone.

Want to test my theory? Just wait till the WP remake is put out by Gary and watch the hits to it jump dramatically. WIR/PW have been out far too long and underwent very little change to draw much attention. Myself, I've downloaded both the new WIR/PW. With PW I looked at the graphics and that's been it (have forgotten how to play it, to some extent). With WIR I played it a bit and found graphical errors, which I thought might be corrected with the next release (I didn't like the units colors being put in the drab fashion they were either), so I haven't touched either since then (the later equipment coming out before '42 didn't help matters either). The fact that WIR hadn't changed much, and playwise got worse (too early reinforcements) than the original, left me pretty disinterested. I've probably played through WIR at least 20 times since it originally was released and I can't see what would draw more attention YET. Perhaps my next opportunity to do anything WIRish, is to hope that Shrapnel releases the good ol' RGW 1941-1944 no later than their latest predictions.

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited December 12, 2000).]

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Dec 13, 2000 6:53 pm

Originally posted by Charles22:
I liked High Command, for the unique things it offered, but I never played it past the second year. I absolutely loathed Clash of Steel, it was very unhistorical and though High Command wasn't strictly historical either, it sure enjoyed a greater challenge to strategy (more things to manage).

Right, I didn't like COS for the same reason.

[comparing WIR/PW versus SPWAW forums]

You may be right, I don't believe so, but who knows? You're right about WitP though, when that comes out we'll see how many tacticians versus strategists there are on the Matrix forums.

With WIR I played it a bit and found graphical errors, which I thought might be corrected with the next release (I didn't like the units colors being put in the drab fashion they were either), so I haven't touched either since then (the later equipment coming out before '42 didn't help matters either). The fact that WIR hadn't changed much, and playwise got worse (too early reinforcements) than the original, left me pretty disinterested. I've probably played through WIR at least 20 times since it originally was released and I can't see what would draw more attention YET.

The early equipment arrival problems have been fixed in the current beta of WiR. The next WiR release should make a lot of people happy. As for the graphics, there was an idea to release both the old and new graphics with it, for those who don't like the replacements, but I don't know what's come of it. I don't know, I just got used to the current ones. Besides, WiR isn't about being "pretty".

Perhaps my next opportunity to do anything WIRish, is to hope that Shrapnel releases the good ol' RGW 1941-1944 no later than their latest predictions.

Why? RGW is yet another operational game which strings together separate, operational battles into a "campaign". We've got to damn many of them as it is. Its not a grand strategic game of the eastern front in USSR like WiR.

As far as I know, the only things we can look forward to in the grand strategy department are WitP, Road to Moscow, and World in Flames, and the last two are vaporware that goes *way* back.

(Does anyone know of any grand strategy games in development besides the three I mentioned above?)

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Thu Dec 14, 2000 12:17 am

Ed Cogburn: I agree, in general, that there are more tacticians than strategists, it's just that I wouldn't base it on something as unstable as comparing forum activity. Besides, strategists are probably so consumed with their games, that they can scarcely take to a forum as a tactician might (corny theory).

Oh Ed, I think you greatly underestimate RGW, greatly. From what I hear, it will incorporate one of the ALL IMPORTANT aspects of strategy, and that is there's a method whereby your forces are raised or reinforced partially by how quickly you take cities (did you take it quicker than historically?). Yes, there's even a historical tie-in. How much better does it get than that? I understand they're also getting some music from a couple of excellent sources. Oh, if you think it's merely a bunch of operational battles lined up, I wonder how the 2700 units they've spoke about, fits into an operational scheme? I hope I'm right about this and you're wrong, because I can't see them going through the trouble of comparing the rate you take cities, to the rate they were historically taken, and then tying that into your reinforcements and ability to raise new units if it's just a bunch of scenarios, 'lined up', so to speak.

You will note, the campaign states it's "176 turns", which to me, indicates a strategic game on option 52. Also, though the game is called operational, note that there aren't 176 scenarios for each week (unless you spend a fixed period on each of the 51 scenarios, and even so, 51 doesn't divide equally into 176, and it certainly sounds as though they're not creating more scenarios).

From what I've seen, they've never mentioned what form the 176 turns takes, and I hope it's because that's obvious, because there is a strategic game. On the other hand, ir does worry me a bit, because it seems as though Schwerpunkt has made linked scenarios before and I have to wonder where you got your idea that it is that way. I do recall some of their forum questions regarding option 52, and that was that they wanted to know what scale people wanted it done on. One option was for corps, while there were a couple of others, but it seems they decided on the 10 mile hex with 2700 units. To me, to call something a campaign and debate about whether to use the campaign on a corp level, and then never state that it's linked scenarios, seems quite indicative of a strategic game to me. I hope so. I hope what I've told you has been a pleasant surprise. I suppose something linked might not be too bad as long as it affects the strategic map as well, but anyway.

Here's a quote from the forum, and I'll also provide the specific page where the conversation comes up regarding what to do with option 52. You'll note the follwing quote says "2700 unit scenario", not 'scenarios' (though he may had mistyped).

Thanks to all for your comments. Based on your comments, and emails that I received, there seems to be a consensus. RGW should have a full 176 turn, 2700 unit scenario. I am pleased to hear this, as the game has been designed for that level (10 mile hex, division/brigade operations) and anything else at this stage of development would be a kludge (no relation to the 4th Army Feldmarschall Kluge). Monster games can be fun if you have the time.
I am also pleased to hear there is some interest in a corps-level game with fewer units that could be played more quickly. We Schwerpunkt will put that on our list of candidates for games in the future.

We have announced a slip in the release date to Computer Games Online. We are looking at a February-March 2001 release. However, it WILL have the 2700 unit Scenario 52. My apologies to the wargaming community, but I want this one to be right. We have hopes of making this a "classic".

Ron Dockal
Schwerpunkt

Here's the page: http://www.wargamer.com/ubb/Forum50/HTML/000001.html

Paul Goodman · Post by **Paul Goodman** » Thu Dec 14, 2000 12:43 am

I'm confused. Schwerpunkt has a game in development called Russo-German War 1941-1944. Are we saying that Shrapnel has one by exactly the same title? In any event, Ed, it is certainly an operational level game, but with a campaign mode that adds a grand strategy element (sort of, maybe, a little). Reinforcements and replacements are introduced at the historical level, which is modified by territorial assets held (ie accelerated or decelerated, I assume). I think it looks interesting. Unfortunately, they seem to have discovered rather late in the development that the Red Army and the Whermacht are sizeable organizations, which has resulted in a delay of about one quarter while they accommodate this may at their 10 miles/hex scale.

I didn't know anyone was even mentioning RtM anymore. I had sticks and stones thrown at me on the Wargamer site for calling it vaporware a year and a half ago. My impression (if anyone knows anything real, please jump in) is the nature of this beast requires an A/I the like of which we haven't contemplated. The A/I is necessary not just as a program opponent, but to run your own army. When your depleted panzer battalion gets to a fordable stream, it has to recognize whether the other side is defended by a troop of Young Pioneers with a broken 45mm or a tank corps flush with T-34's. Even with a learning capability, thousands of plans would be required just to start out. Impossible, I think.

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Thu Dec 14, 2000 2:14 am

Paul Goodman: An unfortunate mistake on my part, I easily get the names Schwerpunkt and Shrapnel mixed up, as it is indeed a Schwerpunkt product as you say.