Matrix Games Forums

Thank you Erik. I was sure that there was a lot more to a project than just a developer! [;)]

For Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm and the new Cold War: Southern Storm game (now in beta and looking at a late Q1 release next year) let me add my 2 cents on some topics to add to Erik's comments.

1). Don't make us wait 10 years for an obvious feature: "Flashpoint Campaigns" could be a great game - one of the best Matrix ever produced. Why only "could"? Because something as banal as "Allow the player to decide the engagement range" was never implemented. Panthers in the Shadows had it in 1995. As I write, I'm not even sure if Southern Storm (a game promised for about 2014-15) will have it.

Answer #1 - What most gamers fail to understand is that not all features are a good thing or work well in the game as it is designed. We hear, "I want to set the engagement range of all my troops". No, you really don't, and here is why. Say you want your tank platoon to engage at 1500m. Great. Now the enemy rolls up at 2000m, stops, and starts pounding your tanks. What should happen? YOU ordered them to shoot only at 1500m. Now you are on the forum telling us how dumb the AI is because they did not move or shoot the enemy. To solve this you either need to have a 20 page detailed SOP for every conceivable event combination, filled out in triplicate, oh by the way that the AI has to be able to mimic for the enemy AND for your forces. While static setups and hard values are "bad", we do have A set of SOPs in the new game engine to allow you to better shape the fight/action you want, but not define every single parameter since you are not the tank crew in this game. The AI forces will do their best to follow your plan, but they will at times and situations, revert to some self-preservation and do things that you won't like. That's how things go. All this said I think you will be happy with the balance struck and the improved ability to set things more the way you want.

2). One last observation: The latest version of Flashpoint Campaigns (the Red Storm Player's edition) was released seven years ago. The initial release long before that blew me away. But because we are relying on the incredible efforts of a sole developer, the latest version of the game takes forever to release.

Answer #2 - The delay in the development and release of Southern Storm. OTS is a small team. Much bigger than our Red Storm days, but only four programmers and two that do the lion's share of the major coding. Most of the team over the past few years has had day jobs, life issues, and all the things that make free time development tough to do fast. Add to this the fact that the team a few years back started working on game engine development for the Professional wargamers and Military. This was a double-edged sword. We got funding to make a Modern Pro Version of the game engine with a ton of new features and capabilities, but at the cost of time spent on advancing the Cold War game engine and Southern Storm. Now the cool thing is the delay also means that Southern Storm will benefit from a large number of those new features and refinements to the code.

We are grabbing Beta Testers now and there will be more information and even possibly some game play footage popping up through the Christmas Holidays. Stay tuned. [8D]

I think at least part of the problem is the very high bar you have to cross to become a computer game designer i.e. you have to first become an expert computer programer. It's a rare person who excels at both. Ideally you would have a gifted game designer working with a team of programers, but maybe that's technically problematic I don't know.

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

For Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm and the new Cold War: Southern Storm game (now in beta and looking at a late Q1 release next year) let me add my 2 cents on some topics to add to Erik's comments.

1). Don't make us wait 10 years for an obvious feature: "Flashpoint Campaigns" could be a great game - one of the best Matrix ever produced. Why only "could"? Because something as banal as "Allow the player to decide the engagement range" was never implemented. Panthers in the Shadows had it in 1995. As I write, I'm not even sure if Southern Storm (a game promised for about 2014-15) will have it.

Answer #1 - What most gamers fail to understand is that not all features are a good thing or work well in the game as it is designed. We hear, "I want to set the engagement range of all my troops". No, you really don't, and here is why. Say you want your tank platoon to engage at 1500m. Great. Now the enemy rolls up at 2000m, stops, and starts pounding your tanks. What should happen?

They return fire, simple as that. They have been spotted, so the ambush failed and the units switch back to normal behaviour. If they decide that they can't properly return fire then they can retreat. It would not be the first time that, in a game, a player temporarily loses tactical control of his troops.

Which is what Panthers in the Shadows did 25 years ago, BTW. Saying that "You don't want to be able to set the engagement range of your troops" when another game successfully allowed for it in 1995 (and I know that this feature works: I played PitS to death and I still play it) doesn't help anybody.

And, please, note how if "I really don't want to set the engagement range for my troops" If the results are so horrifying I'll simply never use the option - but at least it is there.

As I wrote, I liked FP: C a lot. But I have lost count of the number of times that a potentially successful ambush (or hidden redeployment of my troops) was ruined by the first stupid unit stupidly firing against the first stupid enemy seen 4000m across the map - simply because an order as old as warfare, "Don't fire until you see the white of the enemy's eyes", couldn't be given. In a modern warfare environment where a successful ambush can win the game! It was maddening and, at the end, it killed my enjoyment of the game.

Im also in the category of currently only being interested in Steel Tigers. Im a little tired of the seemingly same releases of the Bulge, Kursk, etc.

Maybe a game strictly dedicated to the invasion of Italy, in a semi-tactical way would be different.

I also feel the land war in the Pacific is tremendously underrepresented. I've never seen a game specifically made for the invasion of Okinawa. There are very few scenarios even in SPWAW-SPWW2 that take place there. I think that it is a large enough battle to have its own game. If its not, have one that has Oki and Iwo then. Saipan and Peleliu, or the rarely seen British campaign against Japan.

I think Matrix would be pleasantly surprised at how many people would buy an updated Steel Panthers. For me the game mechanics wouldn't even have to be changed that much. Most just want an update to the graphics. It wouldn't even need that many new scenarios, just redo the old ones with improved graphics.

Im still amazed that MMP or Hasbro, or whoever owns the rights to ASL, hasn't had that game made for the PC. (great effort on the individual programming by Fisla with Tigers on the Hunt, but its not the same game) I know that ASL'ers are a niche group (and curmudgeons), but if its an official MMP release I could see almost every guy who owns the rulebook or starter kit would buy it.

I've complained enough for one year.

Have a nice Thanksgiving and Christmas, Wargamers.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69
Continuous time: I mentioned "Road to Moscow", but Matrix was publishing "Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich" in 2010. Todays, orgasms (and day-after regrets) are caused by WitE 2 - the marginal upgrade to a system originally published in... 2010. Come on [8|])

I'm sorry, but having worked on WITE2, it is far more than a marginal upgrade. The AI for one is the best ever in a game of that type, but the sum total of all the improvements is an increase in the realistic modeling of the Eastern Front that is IMHO as great as it was for WITE1 compared to what came before it. I'm not sure anyone outside the development team can really understand the amount of work and research that a game like this requires.

The OP musing is that in 30 years war games have not progressed like other genres have and I agree. I even gave examples of games that we could have today - but that, for some reason, we haven't.

I have no doubts about the work done on the WitE line. But I have the original game and the two expansions, I'm perfectly happy about it, and I can't help but wonder "couldn't these five years had been invested in creating something really new? Like the continuous time game that I mentioned when I remembered "Road to Moscow" (and that Paradox Interactive already does, in a more simplified way, in their "Hearts of Iron" series)?

Because I look at the WitE2 videos on YT, watch the replays, read the forums, and I can't help but think that what I'm seeing is more of the same. Absolutely much more but still of the same. It doesn't me the "Wow!" factor that Rule the Waves 2 gave me when it was announced and then published - because no one had ever done something like that before.

Realistic C3: WitP: AE is a wargaming success story. WitP: AE is also a game that assumes that:

- An analysis of the PTO.
- The development of a strategy for the PTO.
- The sending of orders to the various commanders.
- The sending of orders further down the line.
- The execution of such orders.

...Is something that happens in 24 hours. Let's not forget how either Nimitz or Tojo could "click" on an air unit (with perfect knowledge of where it was) and see a perfect portrayal of what the situation was down to the single pilot. In a word: no. Tell me that WitP: AE is a great game but, please, don't tell me that it is a great simulation. Just no.

Well, of course it's a game, but WITP also lets you choose if you want to play in 1 day turns or extend that to multiple days if you would like more of a delay.

True. But once you give the players an option they will use it - end of the story. There is no closing of the Pandora box. Just put out WitE 3 with the opportunity to play the whole Eastern Front in one-day turns and the players will do it.

WitP: AE is a game where the players talk about "openings" when in the real world the USN didn't even start to seriously analyse the strategic situation in the PTO until Nimitz took charge in Pearl Harbor on New Year's Eve, 1941. The original Pacific War turns simulated a week each and they worked wonderfully. Why to allow such an unrealistic decision cycle in the first place for WitP (even before AE)? If the answer is "because today we can" then I will point out that it was a bad use of what we can do today.

I mean, Matrix Games was founded in 1999. If we've done nothing to amaze you wargaming-wise since 1999, then I'm sorry we've failed but I've certainly had a lot of moments of being amazed when working on our titles since then.

Don't misunderstand me: I liked and still like a lot of the games published by Matrix. Being amazed, however, is a different concept: it is meeting a great game that it is also a game-changer (no pun intended) - usually for the exact reason mentioned by the OP, i.e. the use of technological progress to create things once believed impossible.

Games that amazed me over the years: the original Harpoon, Pacific War, Steel Panthers, the Panthers in the Shadows series, The Operational Art of War, the games of the Campaign Series line, Flight Commander 2, Combat Mission, the Airborne Assault series (which kickstarted the idea of chain of command with continuous time only to see the next game series return to hexes and hexagons), War in the Pacific (even if with my reservation about the turns' length), the Steam & Iron series and... that's it.

Then I liked and played a lot games ranging from Harpoon ANW, to WitP: AE, to Operation Flashpoint, to WitE. Liked, not felt that I was seeing the next revolution in wargaming.

You're aware that multiple WITE1 expansions, plus War in the West and its expansion, came out in between?

Yes, I have everything. [:)] But that's not the point. The point is that this time was used to develop two more hex'n'counters wargames. Maybe the most advanced hex'n'counters games ever, but that would mean... the most advanced version of AH's The Russian Campaign? (or Fortress Europa - take your pick)

Maybe, along with the development problems, is simply a commercial choice: players want operational/strategic wargames because they want to be a STAVKA able to check the wear and tear of the tracks of a very specific tank - but ironically still within a hex'n'counter'n'turn-based framework. Because at the end moving away from Panzer Campaigns and into Command Ops 2 is scary. Dunno.

For sure, I'm not seeing the next "point in space-based, simultaneous turns" Flight Commander - something I think the current technology could allow. But we are all waiting for the next hex'n'counter Bulge game [8|]

ORIGINAL: dje

I also feel the land war in the Pacific is tremendously underrepresented. I've never seen a game specifically made for the invasion of Okinawa. There are very few scenarios even in SPWAW-SPWW2 that take place there. I think that it is a large enough battle to have its own game. If its not, have one that has Oki and Iwo then. Saipan and Peleliu, or the rarely seen British campaign against Japan.

https://crossrl1.wixsite.com/my-toaw-site/okinawa-1945

ORIGINAL: timmyab

I think at least part of the problem is the very high bar you have to cross to become a computer game designer i.e. you have to first become an expert computer programer. It's a rare person who excels at both. Ideally you would have a gifted game designer working with a team of programers, but maybe that's technically problematic I don't know.

This is a great point and I agree. That until the next Einstein of computer programming/game designing appears on the scene. We can expect incremental improvements that are made by the hard working pool of talent presently producing games. Mind blowing breakthroughs are far and few between. Expecting frequent mind blowing developments in game design is unrealistic.

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Ideally you would have a gifted game designer working with a team of programers, but maybe that's technically problematic I don't know.

Yes it is.

I know of a case where a programmer patented the game engine and then basically pushed the game designer out of their small company.

ORIGINAL: *Lava*

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Ideally you would have a gifted game designer working with a team of programers, but maybe that's technically problematic I don't know.

Yes it is.

I know of a case where a programmer patented the game engine and then basically pushed the game designer out of their small company.

That requires legal wording in a contract to prevent. If I knew about said company, I would not buy anything from it - no honour . . .

Just to let people know if they do not already know this, the CEO of Hasbro passed away on October 12th of Cancer. If they have a new permanent one now, I do not know. But if there is one, then people can try to contact the new CEO about getting something done on their wargame catalog. If not yet, then either contact the interim one or wait until there is a new one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Goldner

There is a ASL clone being developed for PC now. By Microprose. I have no idea though how they intend to avoid a legal challenge from Hasbro/MMP.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is a ASL clone being developed for PC now. By Microprose. I have no idea though how they intend to avoid a legal challenge from Hasbro/MMP.

You can't copyright a game system, only the specific wording of the rulebook.

Well I am no legal expert, but the programmer of the ASL clone has quite obviously got his hands on an ASL rule book and began coding it. Seems like blatant plagiarism to me. They could at least give some credit, but they deny any link to ASL. Quite bizarre really.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Well I am no legal expert, but the programmer of the ASL clone has quite obviously got his hands on an ASL rule book and began coding it. Seems like blatant plagiarism to me. They could at least give some credit, but they deny any link to ASL. Quite bizarre really.

Not at all. As I wrote, you can't copyright the game system, only the specific wording that explains how it is played in the rule-book (or all the RTS games out there after Dune II couldn't exist). Should the programmer of Second Front admit any connection between his game and ASL he could unneededly open the doors to hot water.

That is *great* news about the progress of Flashpoint: Campaigns, as well as the success of the developer on the military side. Much of this information is probably already available on another thread, but posting out of ignorance is one of my strong points. [;)]

RFalvo69's feature request on manually setting engagement ranges for the Flashpoint series seems reasonable, but I am not one to judge. Certainly, the military users and beta testers can add input on that one.

As far as Erik's detailed response on the inner workings of the developer/publisher roles at Matrix, I think Joel Billing's sig says it all:

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

The mention of the old V4V series from Atomic Games still gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling:

Utah Beach was released by Atomic 30 years ago! And, in general, I am amazed at how little digital wargames have progressed in the last three decades compared to other technologies.

For those of us that played the early Board Games, the Computer Game Era was a god send. No longer did we have to keep charts and graphs and calculations. No longer were we restricted by the size of our table tops.

That was is the 80's, and in the 90's we did see 'great' advances. I can't place it now but I'll look for a link to an article written by one of the Avalon Hill dudes that explains why everything went in the shit can in the 2000's and why things remain 'stagnant' even with the efforts of Matrix Games.

Let's flip this script a bit. What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, not computer tech (mouse with a keyboard was awesome, better resolution of screens and size which is still ongoing today, CPU/GPU throughput increases) and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things. NOw I will say that having those hardware advances have led to adding new capabilities to wargames on computers. A mouse was revolutionary back in the day as I could now easily click on a unit and destination and order a move versus using keyboard inputs only. The thing is we still have that same basic mouse today. Other than VR/AR setups, which would be kind of Ironman cool, the basic keyboard/mouse is the majority setup of wargames. You might be able to use a controller with a simple beer and pretzels game, but games like Flashpoint Campaigns and CMO with lots of functions and overlays and orders and such, kind of rule those out. So again I am left with the question of what the software can do for a hex and counter wargame when the hardware side has only gotten bigger and faster, but not new. Now I am leaving the AI discussions out as that is a whole other can of worms.

This is a rather cool and important topic, so fire away. [8D]

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin
Let's flip this script a bit... what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer?

I'll take a retro approach and ask why we can't get our beloved wargames of yesteryear adapted to the PC, with FOW and challenging AI? For example, adaptations of classic Avalon Hill boardgames with standard Terrain Effects Charts (TEC) and Combat Results Tables (CRT), should be relatively easy to develop. Plus make them editable (an editor for most everything (TEC, CRT, graphics, etc.) is a must) so players can make modifications or even re-create other games or make their own. A true hex-and-counter Wargame Design Kit (WDK) for the modern age. Keep It Simple, Stupid. However, given the different rulesets of the different games, such a WDK should provide a basic generic ruleset plus selectable optional rules for more advanced gameplay (perhaps to be expanded over time as DLC updates).

Frankly, I'm at a point where games like WITE2 with all of its bells and whistles and 500-page manual don't impress me and just make my eyes glaze over. Let me play The Russian Campaign, or Afrika Korps, etc. With FOW and challenging AI. And decent PBEM and NetPlay capability. We used to have FUN playing and replaying games like this over and over. Now, there's too much work involved and it sucks the fun out of gaming. For fun. It's a concept. Just a thought. $0.02.

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Let's flip this script a bit. What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, not computer tech (mouse with a keyboard was awesome, better resolution of screens and size which is still ongoing today, CPU/GPU throughput increases) and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things. NOw I will say that having those hardware advances have led to adding new capabilities to wargames on computers. A mouse was revolutionary back in the day as I could now easily click on a unit and destination and order a move versus using keyboard inputs only. The thing is we still have that same basic mouse today. Other than VR/AR setups, which would be kind of Ironman cool, the basic keyboard/mouse is the majority setup of wargames. You might be able to use a controller with a simple beer and pretzels game, but games like Flashpoint Campaigns and CMO with lots of functions and overlays and orders and such, kind of rule those out. So again I am left with the question of what the software can do for a hex and counter wargame when the hardware side has only gotten bigger and faster, but not new. Now I am leaving the AI discussions out as that is a whole other can of worms.

This is a rather cool and important topic, so fire away. [8D]

I also think there's a huge risk of confusing technological innovation with design innovation. I'm not certain design innovation (in PC hex and conter wargames) has gone that far from the 90s. WEGO, it's ancient, weapon based resolution, same, etc. Design wise, look at Command, it's essentially Harpoon. With improved technology and technological functionality, but not design innovation. I think the big question here is, what is design innovation in this context? As an example, Campaign was an advance design wise (and even tech wise). V4V (which I love dearly) were not an advance design wise, but they were the sleekest looking and playing PC wargames done up until then. ToP / PitS were an advance design and technology wise, PoA 2 just builds on that theme, it's technologically as advanced as you can get, but the design it's ToP / PitS redone. Another random example of were design can evolve, there's no good COIN PC game. Some rather blunt attempts, but nothing to write home about. Look at the COIN series though. In there you have a metric-ton of design ideas for a game that would be revolutionary (design wise) and unique for the PC market, and I don;t mean just re-creating the COIN series but looking at them and thinking why they are so good at certain aspects whilst remaining a great game (hint, it's all in the power of decision making, differences in play and multiple paths to victory).