Matrix Games Forums

It seems to me that Hasbro bought Avalon Hill but the never put any effort into Avalon Hill's games.

It is very clear, that if Hasbro had been selective, they could have made some of the best Avalon Hill games into PC versions. And they would have sold very well.

The worst part is that as time marches forward, the audience for the classic games will shrink. The younger wargamers will never be exposed to the older games and if the games are released years from now the younger wargamers will look on those games with disdain.

Originally posted by Joe 98
It seems to me that Hasbro bought Avalon Hill but the never put any effort into Avalon Hill's games.

It is very clear, that if Hasbro had been selective, they could have made some of the best Avalon Hill games into PC versions. And they would have sold very well.

The worst part is that as time marches forward, the audience for the classic games will shrink. The younger wargamers will never be exposed to the older games and if the games are released years from now the younger wargamers will look on those games with disdain.

Diplomacy was made into a computer version. I don't believe it sold very well at all (in terms of what Hasbro would want or require) and became cause for Hasbro to "rethink" its stance on the line as a whole. Also realize as last I heard Hasbro itself was loosing money and "risky" pc conversions just aren't the way to the end of the rainbow.

More hope lies in MMP, though due to its almost non-existant staff.. many wonder if they are really interested in anything at all outside of ASL (Which is admitably the easiest "line" of avalon hill titles to continue to be semi-profitable with). To me its just more an issue of lack of time available on their part. (though thats kind of the same thing in the end).

And with products like Microproses "Avalon Hill's Squad Leader" and so on.. I wonder if the very words "Avalon Hill" aren't regarded as something like a swear word around the offices of Hasbro..............?

Originally posted by Veldor
Microsoft Microsoft Microsoft...

Delphi is going to have the same problem that other server products have when compared to 2000 Server and so on.

With the .NET framework soon (say a year or two) to be the only one available moving forward.. Microsoft has a HUGE headstart from the competition... so as Bill Gates would say (or maybe not say).. Its really not relevant what is or isnt better TODAY.. its relevant what will be better tommorrow. By the time you are ready to deliver your product.

So I shy away from things like Delphi and develop in Visual Studio .NET Edition specifically C++ .NET (Though I don't write to the .NET framework) In the non game space MS SQL Server rules supreme.

Ultimately I'd like to combine the two and do some massively multiplayer games.

But to more specifically answer your question I have only one game series (Up Front, Banzai, Desert War, etc.) that I am working on at the moment. Beyond that I have an original game idea that isnt a port of any existing game that I'd like to do and the already mentioned FLEET series if no one else takes it up first.

Truthfully any MMP title is easier to do than a Hasbro one though. MMP, even Mr. Curt Shilling, is far more approachable than Hasbro... Especially for me where I am currently at. Most of the time people don't even return your email, even if just to say "Go %&$* yourself). Generally the smaller companies (like MMP) are much more friendly and communicative.

So I can't do games I can't get approval to do. Which makes it irrelevant to come up with a list. Mostly, if you followed some of my other posts, im not much for direct ports anyway. Some boardgames and card games really deserve it.. Others are best left done just in a basic way with something like a vassal freebie...

Very interesting

If you are working independently on games, that may be the way to go. If the games are good, then independents such as Matrix may be willing to have a look at them.

What other games have you considered working on? Have you looked at PG2? or others?

Originally posted by Joe 98
To Von ROM:

Seeing as I have 2 games from World at War and that Battlefields is coming soon, I don’t have a copy of TOAW.

I feel that by the time I have learnt the intricacies, Battlefields! will take over.

You said: “but a bit too tactical for me”. I like tactical. I really like tactical. I like Close Combat but not Combat Mission.

Joe98:

I do like CC games (I have most of them). But Combat Mission (with its swinging 3D camera) is a bit too unsettling for me.

Re TOAW: You may be right. Although I understand the demo for TOAW (under 7MB) contains the full version of the game and all of the scenarios can be played with a "minor" adjustment to the demo.

I don't mind saying this because TOAW seems to be headed the way of the Dodos. . .

Originally posted by Von Rom
Very interesting

If you are working independently on games, that may be the way to go. If the games are good, then independents such as Matrix may be willing to have a look at them.

What other games have you considered working on? Have you looked at PG2? or others?

Yes fortunately "financing" the actual game development is not an issue for me. Its kind of sad but that's pretty much the way it has to be until you have something to "show". Not always the case, but generally.

PG2 if that means Panzer General 2..then absolutely not.
Other games? A3R, Updated Advanced Civilization massively multiplayer style(now no one go and steal that idea ok? )... Probably any popular AH/VG title. Empires In Arms..(Oops that ones taken already!).. Hey if I quit my day job I could spend all my time on a full PC conversion of ASL (And work diligently on it from the little white padded cell I'd be put in for suggesting such a thing)...

But I'm just one person though and at the moment a single title is all that I can handle...

Up Front is unique and remains unique and would fill the same "space" that it did in the non-computer world. Namely, when we are all caught up with our year long PBEM games of Uncommon Valor, it would be nice to be able to play something "quick" that still had a good depth of play, complexity, and degree of historical accuracy.

Like you or anyone I do have my own long list of titles I'd like to see converted or updated... And any that were I'd probably be very critical of and so forth out of pure desire for them.. So, no way to have more control over when and how a game gets made than to make it yourself! Fortunately I have the ability to do so. So thats what I'm doing...

Originally posted by Joe 98
It seems to me that Hasbro bought Avalon Hill but the never put any effort into Avalon Hill's games.

It is very clear, that if Hasbro had been selective, they could have made some of the best Avalon Hill games into PC versions. And they would have sold very well.

The worst part is that as time marches forward, the audience for the classic games will shrink. The younger wargamers will never be exposed to the older games and if the games are released years from now the younger wargamers will look on those games with disdain.

Hasbro will never make PC games nor ultimately complex tabletops through AH anymore. Although I did find this tabletop comparably easy to learn, yet difficult to master. It's rather habit forming actually.
http://www.avalonhill.com/default.asp?x=games/battlecry

But unfortunately no more PC games.

I was a beta-tester for Third Reich PC, and I enjoyed the experience. The devs were reasonably responsive, though my pet peeves (interface and AI issues) weren't fully addressed. I still enjoyed the computer game -- almost as much as I used to enjoy the board game with my friends, way back when. Heh, the boardgame still sits on my shelf, gathering dust. It's a classic design, but I don't play many boardgames any more. Too bad in a way.

I've played "Strategic Command" and "Clash of Steel," both of which capture some of the same feel. "Hearts of Iron" is a promising effort, a work in progress.

Lost me when you said Hearts of Iron was a promising effort hehe.

That's like saying Saddam would have cleaned up his act if given enough time.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Lost me when you said Hearts of Iron was a promising effort hehe.

That's like saying Saddam would have cleaned up his act if given enough time.

oh my, why do you bash this game in every forum I visit? As far as I know, you didn`t ever play it. I enjoy it and it rocks in MP. (btw, I`m normally not a fan of RTS games). I enjoy UV, too.

Just a pet hobby Max.

Everyone has something they hate.

I won't be going into excess detail, because everyone has already heard the whys and the justifications.

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Just a pet hobby Max.

Everyone has something they hate.

I won't be going into excess detail, because everyone has already heard the whys and the justifications.

lol, so you`ve got a "no love- just hate" relationship to HoI?

Basically.

Hey the game was rushed out the door.

Oh there are bugs, wonder why.

Then the price tag, not cheap by any standards. But it is not even close to being as good as most games of comparable price.

Then there is the fact it is a WW2 clone of EU/EU2.

What goofball thought the game engine was just going to be capable of being usable for any setting at all. Does the game designer have any idea what makes a wargame any good?

RTS, sure I hate it, but I can recognise some do like it.

But what an insane leap of logic to think RTS is suitable for grand strategy.

The game sans bugs would have gotten a sale from me eventually after the bugs were gone if it had been a turn based game. But as an RTS game, nope.

Some will like anything though, so finding fans won't alter my opinion of this being a very bad idea game.

Just to get back to TR PC.

I would not like this game in computer mode, if the interface was not user friendly.

It is easy enough to play the game through the interface. It could be tweaked a bit more, but the game is a bit older now, and so has missed out on some options that might not have been doable then.

But if they had tried to "alter" TR PC to say RTS, I would just laugh at the stupidity of the choice.

The board game was a great game, and the computer version is really just playing the board game on the computer.

I would rather it was the A3R game, but A#R was not around then.

I myself would like to purchase a new 3'rd Reich if ever made. I also hope it would be playable online, but still in turn based mode.

Pippin, what would you require of a "new" Computer Third Reich?

Currently it runs on all OSs.

Currently its free.

It simulates an earlier version admittedly, but the earlier version is enough for some people (I prefer A3R myself, but you use what you have).

Essentially what would you expect out of a rework?

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Pippin, what would you require of a "new" Computer Third Reich?

Currently it runs on all OSs.

Currently its free.

It simulates an earlier version admittedly, but the earlier version is enough for some people (I prefer A3R myself, but you use what you have).

Essentially what would you expect out of a rework?

Network-Based Play.
A Better AI.
A much MUCH better Interface.
Slightly enhanced look & feel (graphics/sound)

Those alone are enough of a reason to make the game. Doubtful a computer A3R will ever be made though. Hasbro is an uncrackable vault now. We could probably go in due to numerical superiority but I think the losses would be too high for the wargaming community to sustain and a public relations nightmare would ensue shortly thereafter.

Its possible though under that kind of "militaristic" style pressure that the board of directors would cave-in and/or perhaps we could just forcibly put ourselves in place at that point.

Think of all that could be accomplished then if a "pro wargaming" board was put in place.

Its not the people of Hasbro I am against, it is those running it.

The liberation of Hasbro is at hand!!!

C'mon whose with me???

....(dead silence)....

Oh well... It was worth a shot...

Just curuios Veldor, I for one don't have to much negative to say about the TR PC interface, so what improvements would you require if asked.