Matrix Games Forums

Joe,

Someone posted this link in our Panther Games Beta Forum. It makes for some hilarious reading if you know anything about programming:

http://thc.org/root/phun/unmaintain.html

Diabolical!

Someone wrote a book titled "The 10 Worst Web Sites" to teach how not to design a web site; in that spirit, I forwarded your link to my college advisor, i.e., when writing code, don't do any of the following.

Discovering the next Y2K bug, then just writing a memo for record -- i.e., not telling anyone until just prior to the final fiasco -- was priceless.

Not long ago, a number of software firms here had windfall profits "saving" us from our ill-programmed machines and (almost) certain annilihation.

Online Distribution. Our primary chanel when it comes to spread all our evil projects 

One last link re real programmers -- hint: they don't write specs!
http://www.multicians.org/thvv/realprogs.html

That's funny.

Actually, BASIC was a joke when I studied Computer Science in the 70s. Not a block structured language; no redeeming qualities. But that all changed with Windows 3.0 and Visual Basic.

Does anyone even remember paper tape and punch cards? To think I grew up in a world without micro-processors. Maybe one day, I'll be stuffed and displayed in the Museum of Natural History in exhibit called Primitive Pre-Processor Man.

AGEod

Adaptative Game Engine on line distribution


That's our poetic side... [:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: Pocus
as long as basics are kept: turn-based, regions-based, units grouped in stacks, using drag&drop, simultaneous client/server processing.

One concern: in my experience, region-based sims work best depicting wars that don't feature extensive, nation-in-arms frontages. Like the EU series. Unfortunately, the Civil War degenerated in the last year or so into just that kind of war. At least in the eastern theatre.

The way they have the army corps structure set up, with corps being able to support units in adjacent regions, it allows you to have more of a frontage war like you're talking about.  Especially in the East where your space is restricted by natural obstacles.  In the West naturally, things will be more wide open.

For those of us that don't develop PC games for a living, could anyone explain what an "extensive nation-in-arms frontage" means?
I think it means nations at war all along their respective borders; if so, why would that pose a problem for a region-based sim?
The "Napolean's Ambition" scenario in EU2 has alliances of nation v. nation warfare all along their respective borders, but many neutral nations can get in the way of the belligerents.

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

For those of us that don't develop PC games for a living, could anyone explain what an "extensive nation-in-arms frontage" means?

For me it means a long, contiguous, unbroken front line. The iconic example is the English Channel to Switzerland trench system of WWI. They are made possible by universal male conscription and are pretty much a late modern phenomenon.

Grigsby's WAW game didn't work for me as a region based sim.

it is a matter of troop density compared to number of regions. In our game, troops of the same army can also support one another by marching to the sound of guns from a region to another. In Virginia, at least in the late years, Lee can pretty much lock the entire way to Richmond and force the Union to a fight if they want to advance directly.

Well you're not alone re WaW; Computer Games pan'ed on Grigsby's massive WWII effort. Can't blame him for trying, though; I think Grigsby's games have so many patches because his designs are very ambitious; don't know if that's a good or bad thing for a programmer.

Paradox's HoI had something of an extensive front w/coastal fortifications along the English Channel, or a more fluid front between Germany and the USSR. However, fixed assets were provincial, although provinces could be grouped into regions. Most naval warfare was regional.

HoI2 had combat/combat support between units in adjacent provinces vs. the same province.

yes, I played all these games. I like WaW because of his good design, focusing on the essential while being able to reproduce better than HOI historical facts (Sending supply to Lybia with Italy is better reproduced in WaW compared to HOI for example).

From a players' perspective, I found that the larger the scope/geography of the simulation, the more the designer has to abstract/simplify basic game functions, i.e., supply. There were a number of features in the 1st HoI that were simply unmanageable for the player, even during "pausable" real time.

On that note, it should be interesting to see how Pocus and AGEOD will handle the larger scale of its ACW, i.e., will there be any remote geographic sites like Kingston, Jamaica?

Most of the places like Kingston, Havana, England. France, etc are handled by off map boxes that you can sail to and from, with corresponding sail times.  And of course, if the opponent is located in that box, there is a chance for interception.  I can't go into a whole lot of detail yet as most of the blockade/blockade running options are not yet installed. 

I should have realized that w/Union blockading Southern ports from England and other Euro economic interests, blockade running/interception would still be a part of this game.
I've already made the mistake of sending unescorted transposts in BoA, which were intercepted and decimated by the AI fleet!
Do you have a Monitor v. Merrimac scenario in ACW?