Im a newbie and i have comments on the "tutorials" in world at war

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I am by the way excrutiatingly highly educated, for that I also am deeply sorry. I like wargames because they are hard, challenging, and teach me something. if that is to hard for some, well get over it, because I am not concerned if it is to hard for you.

Your "arrogance" is in assuming or more like "demanding" that all other wargamers be exactly like yourself.

I've had a six figure income since I was 23, yet I'm not the one sitting here listing wargaming as proof of my high intelligence, education, or success.

The additions to wargames I propose (tutorials for instance) do not in anyway hurt someone of your great intellect. You can continue to merely ignore them and read your manual. I am, however, of high enough character that I am not personally offended and debased if others of less intellect also join a hobby I enjoy. Nor do I think someone is immediately of less intelligence merely because they don't choose to learn something the exact way that I do.

Not everyone's life revolves around wargaming, nor should it have to. Some only want to delve into it here or there. I for one, am all for whatever additional enhancements and diversity in wargames allows us to grow our hobby. No one is proposing that any other elements be sacrificed in the process.. Merely some additions for others enjoyment.

Stop being so self-absorbed and let the new ideas and suggestions flow...

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

You don't honestly think I am offering wargaming as evidence of my education do you, it's just a hobby.

As for you income, that has zero to do with defining your intellect, otherwise Bill Gates would rank as smarter than Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and a lot of other people of similar qualities all combined.

My education is in climatology, geology, geography, archeology, paleontology, astonomy, physics, history plus a few other areas that are not quite important enough for me to mention.

Trade skills are more or less cabinetmaking.

I have never recieved a 6 figure income in my life, probably because there is a lot more to life than money.

I would not say I was self absorbed, perhaps happy of my accomplishments, but that is my right, I earned them.

"Not everyone's life revolves around wargaming"

Precisely why I am wondering why you are so devoted to shoving it down their throats. If they don't want to learn, why insist on making such a fuss ensuring that they do.

I can't fix a car, the reason, I don't give a **** about them.
I have never owned one, and I can't drive.
People are often shocked to learn I have never driven a car.
So what if everyone "thinks" they are essential to life, they aren't.

Wargames are difficult. So isn't skiing. Your ambition to make a wargame idiotically simple is a fool's errand. It isn't necessary. It's a waste of programmer time.

Next you will be telling me you are writing Wargaming for Dummies.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Your ambition to make a wargame idiotically simple is a fool's errand.

It was never stated that wargames should be "idiotically" simple, nor did I ever suggest simplifying the game at all.. I suggested merely an additional avenue through which to present some of the rules, that of a tutorial..

If its such a fool's errand, and so wrong, then why is MATRIX doing exactly that? Putting tutorials in all of their games like Uncommon Valor?

I'm simply saying they should be better tutorials, whereas your saying that they shouldn't be necessary at all and apparantly Matrix is flawed for including them...

[Raindog101]

How much extra would a publisher have to add to a game to include a first class printed manual? I love a good thick well written manual with comprehensive tutorial.

The origional manuals that shipped with Talonsoft's West Front, East Front II and Rising Sun are examples of quality manuals.

Lately Battlefront's Combat Mission and sequel are another good example. As is the magnificent tome that shipped with Airborne Assault: Red Devils over Arnhem(Great game, by the way)

I wouldn't expect SP:WAW to have a printed manual as the game is free.

But I'm VERY disappointed that UV shipped with no printed manual, and twice disappointed the tutorial was so lousy.
For a game as complex as UV, It should have shipped with a printed manual. Even the PDF manual was seriously lacking.

A good thick well written manual just makes the game more immersive.

If printed manuals are a thing of the past, why not have the manual as part of the game, accessable through a hot key?
I HATE alt-tab search through a crappy PDF file.

Just my opinion.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

"I'm simply saying they should be better tutorials, whereas your saying that they shouldn't be necessary at all and apparantly Matrix is flawed for including them..."

I never said there should be "no tutorial". I AM saying that eventually a tutorial will be only so capable for some.

I have read some manuals for some computer games, then realised I will just have to sit down with the game and play it till I get some time in with it ie experience.

I think the ability to access a manual "in game" though has a lot of merit. Surely this has to be a simple matter?. I don't program so I can't say, but I can't imagine it being hard.

[Raindog101]

I think the ability to access a manual "in game" though has a lot of merit. Surely this has to be a simple matter?. I don't program so I can't say, but I can't imagine it being hard.

Aye, I think this feature would be so cool. For a comprehensive "in-game" manual with a first class tutorial, I would gladly give up my beloved printed manuals.

I'm no programer either, but it seems fairly common to add "in-game" encyclopedia's and such.

[Major Destruction]

SPWAW was produced by Matrix Games, correct?

Sort of.

This game was the result of dozens of gamers who devoted hundreds and thousands of hours of their own time for no reward beyond the pursuit of a dream. Some got their names in the Credits. I'd like to believe that we did a pretty damned fine job.

I am sorry that it is not up to your descriminating standards.

The manual is insufficient? the tutorials incomplete?

So go ahead! Produce a better manual. Produce a better tutorial- since you know how to do it and then let the rest of us in on your secret.

I learned to play chess as a young lad. I never read a manual and play a pretty decent game. The fun is in the playing. You need to lose a lot of games before you start to win. It's an old-fashioned concept.

A manual may help you learn the tricks and the short-cuts but I believe that before you learn the tricks of the trade you need to learn the trade first.

Enjoy the game. Play plenty of opponents. Lose a lot of games. Have fun.

And if you find a few hundred hours to spare- I'd like to read your tutorials.

fwiw

[Raindog101]

Originally posted by Major Destruction
SPWAW was produced by Matrix Games, correct?

Sort of.

This game was the result of dozens of gamers who devoted hundreds and thousands of hours of their own time for no reward beyond the pursuit of a dream. Some got their names in the Credits. I'd like to believe that we did a pretty damned fine job.

I am sorry that it is not up to your descriminating standards.

The manual is insufficient? the tutorials incomplete?

So go ahead! Produce a better manual. Produce a better tutorial- since you know how to do it and then let the rest of us in on your secret.

I learned to play chess as a young lad. I never read a manual and play a pretty decent game. The fun is in the playing. You need to lose a lot of games before you start to win. It's an old-fashioned concept.

A manual may help you learn the tricks and the short-cuts but I believe that before you learn the tricks of the trade you need to learn the trade first.

Enjoy the game. Play plenty of opponents. Lose a lot of games. Have fun.

And if you find a few hundred hours to spare- I'd like to read your tutorials.

fwiw

I'm not sure who you are addressing, but I clearly stated I have no problem with SPWAW as it is a Free game.

I said for $50US i expected UV to have much better documentation.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Failure is the best teacher.

I was not taught the game when I first started to play Dungeons and Dragons way back when rolegaming was JUST D&D and not a plethora of other names.
I was handed a PC record sheet and told to roll some dumb looking dice.
But I watched the guys playing and man they were having a lot of fun.
I WANTED to play.

When I first started playing Magic the Gathering I sucked. My cards were a crummy mess of usless cards. I was beaten trounced and trashed left right and center.
But I learned from each game I played.
When I exited playing the game here in town back in 99 (all the local gang had had enough of it so it was no longer the in thing), I was known as a scourge at the game. My decks were well known named decks that most would quit against when they were recognised.

I was not always great at wargaming either.

The best way to learn a game that requires a lot of good honest to god thinking, is from someone that has spent a lot of time with it.

Sure tutorials can be brief and they can be elaborate. They can be flashy or poorly designed. But in the end, you the player will learn a lot from playing the game.

All I want in most cases is a quick reference data card identifying the function of the controls. 20 functions, means 20 entries on a quick reference card. This is easy to do. Include it as a graphic on the cd I can print out if I feel like it.

[Veldor]

I've watched debates like these go on and on, and have participated in many myself, including this one. From one standpoint I don't see why there is a debate at all.. As you can improve the tutorial, the interface, and so on and it cannot hurt the game.. It doesn't take anything at all away from some other area to improve one or the other...

But at the same time I do realize that either takes potentially significant development time, possibly time that has to be diverted from other efforts. If we ignore tutorials for a moment and look at Interface improvements, I think it makes a better debate.

In a 3D game or RTS, the interface is EVERYTHING. If you can't manuever well through the game, issue orders quickly and efficiently, and understand whats happening to your troops etc... The game will "suck" regardless of any other element. Thus why G.I. Combat is so bad even though its based on a beloved 2D engine (Close Combat)..

Now in a turn-based game this isn't necessarily of that same great importance.. After all if I have to click 3 or 4 more times to do something due to a poor interface... Its really just a matter of me learning the game enough to know what those clicks are... The only loss is my time.. It makes the game harder because its harder to get information I need, and a better interface would probably mean I would be more easily aware of "low morale" "poor supply" or whatever but as a "veteran" player of any game I can still figure all that out the long way... Its just my time....

And that is why any diehard fan of any one particular game isn't ever going to buy into interface improvements being of high importance. "I" for instance don't want to spend my whole life playing a **** game... If I could do my turn in 10 minutes instead of 30 minutes due to a better interface, than that is what I most want.. Fundamentally that is one of the major benefits off playing a wargame online, all the added "help" in management of our units and so on.

I suppose that makes me "undedicated" and probably not the "true" wargamer... but if ever your wondering WHY someone wants a better interface or tutorial... maybe its because they wish to spend some of their time on OTHER hobbies they have, on their family and so on. Lack of either of those can be overcome with time, but not everyone chooses to allocate all their time in the same manner.

So I give-in. There is a sacrifice in developers time to give me those things. I suppose its more important for developers to labor over whether a particular Destroyer should have an AA value of 340 or 345 than to spend time on those things. God forbid you get something like that wrong....

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

There is an expression, "it's all in the details".

If say 7-8 out of 10 consumers demand a better faster easier to use tutorial, then I am of course wrong in my standpoint.

Obviously though, if 7-8 say it isn't important, then I am right.

But if never more than 1-3 people share either of our views, then we have been debating about nothing hehe:)

[Greywolf2001ca]

I don't understand about the tutorial business here.

I went through half and got two decisive victory in my two first battles because I followed the tutorial about flanking, artillery and engineers.

I used Alt-Tab for those tutorials, didn't want to waste ink and paper for something that would be used only once.

Beside, it's a FREE GAME, so stop complaining or go buy some beautiful games that have a very good looks to it and an awesome tutorial but the game sucks (And I wont mention any games here, don't want to spoiled this beautiful forum with such ugly game names.) :rolleyes:

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Greywolf2001ca
I don't understand about the tutorial business here.

I went through half and got two decisive victory in my two first battles because I followed the tutorial about flanking, artillery and engineers.

I used Alt-Tab for those tutorials, didn't want to waste ink and paper for something that would be used only once.

Beside, it's a FREE GAME, so stop complaining or go buy some beautiful games that have a very good looks to it and an awesome tutorial but the game sucks (And I wont mention any games here, don't want to spoiled this beautiful forum with such ugly game names.) :rolleyes:

I for one was refering to Matrix games like Uncommon Valor, which is far from free. 6 Months after release veteran players are still debating rules not even mentioned in the manual much less in a decent tutorial... Not that it isn't still the best wargame ever made for a computer.. But its just not up to par with other genres out there in these areas.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I have yet to ever play a wargame of any sort i n any mode, where the rules were not debated endlessly heheh.

I think rules errata or in computer terms "patches", is a subject most wargamers actually "like" to discuss.

[Veldor]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I have yet to ever play a wargame of any sort i n any mode, where the rules were not debated endlessly heheh.

I think rules errata or in computer terms "patches", is a subject most wargamers actually "like" to discuss.

I think the key phrase is "Not even mentioned in the manual". Its fine to debate the validity or historical accuracy of a rule, or the way its being applied in the game, etc.. But to not even know what the rules are in the first place is inexcusable..

Board Games have their faults, but if the rule "ain't in the rulebook".. then it is not a rule (Granted you can try to combine a few rules to prove how to handle an unclear or unspecified situation, but in general all the rules are spelled out). Too often in computer games there is too much going on thats completely undocumented and not understood even by the most veteran players. I see no excuse for that.

Again, this sort of thing needlessly adds to the confusion and complexity of the game, not too mention frustration when your well thought out and intelligent strategy goes south merely because of unknown rules, modifiers, or whatever.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Well Veldor you just pretty much summed up why even with all the convenience of computer wargames, they have still to do it better than board games in all sapects eh.

With board games, you can spot crud just looking at the box hehe. You don't even have to run the risk of buying the game.

Board games also "force" the player to know why everything is done the way it's done. There is no escape.

While on the other hand, a computer game can look great and play great, but you might not really be able to tell if it really IS great.

So much is done for the player in computer wargames in most cases, that the player does not even come into contact with why or how something was done.

I was impressed though looking at The Ardennes Offensive 2 game the other day. If I am not mistaken (don't have the game open in front of me right now), there was a window that actually summed up all the combat variables of an instituted battle for a hex.

[Fred98]

Yes Les, it’s a Combat Results table just like you have made manually a million times before.

But in this case the computer does the drudge mathematics for you and you can see how each and every variable has affected the result.

It was from this screen I had the thought that in a computer game you are not limited to 6 variables. In a computer game you can have 100 variables.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

By 100 variables, were you refering to "percentile" calculations ie 1 through 100?