Matrix Games Forums

Hi!

Well, the game has got my attention because it is WEGO. I think people will also find that WEGO makes for great PBEM.

The difficulty with WEGO is how the game reacts when their are conflicts (program wise not battle wise) which must be resolved. For example, if one force attacks a position the same time the other is retreating from that postion, what happens?

Will be keeping an eye on this one, and wishing doubleshot the best of luck!

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Double Shot Design

Ravidhood,
you make a great point that is the center of the WEGO vs IGOUGO system. It is a matter of how much control should a player have. I do favor giving a lot of control to the player (we are not trained 18-19th century generals afterall) but a turn based system can cause unrealistic results as well.

Imagine I use good tactics such as using a screening force to cover the enemy and then launch a flank attack. I get into position but it is now the enemy's turn. He turns all his units to face the attack. If effect he is reacting instantly to my attack as opposed to having to get word from his troops and then execute a reaction. In a WEGO game, I would be on the enemy's flank and then launching my attack as he TRIES to turn and face the attack.

It is a more realistic simulation of the military decision cycle.

You make a great point about the AI reacting inappropriately...this is the killer of a WEGO system. Time will tell how well the agme works in this regard. I would offer, however, that the same issue is involved in turn based games that give control of the non-phasing player's units to the AI.

Keep it up...
Tim

My main point is in regards to the "remake" of an origional great game "Battles of Napolean", by changing the system to a WEGO system you are in fact changing the game to something else, thus it will NOT be "Battles of Napolean" as per Dave Landrey's rendition that I played for weeks, months on end.

I'm not so opposed to a WEGO system, it's the fact that you're implementing it into a game I was led to believe would be a recreation of the origional and update so to speak that was going to work on the XP OS. Of course I see now I was wrong and therefore no longer have a peaked interest in the game.

You seemed to overlook my comment about trying to bring too much "realism" into a board wargaming type of world. That's the problem with most games out there, the rts genre most of all. Trying to bring so much realism is taking away from the full hands on strategy we once knew. The more and more designers let the AI control the game events, the less control we the players have. That's what I'm opposed to most of all. As I said, I don't want to watch the AI play my side of the battle. When a mistake is made I want it to be my fault, not the fault of faulty ignorant AI programming and you as well as the rest of us know an AI is nowhere near as good as a human mind making "ALL" the decisions.

There's nothing realistic about Chess, yet, it is a very popular game, because the players have full control over the game. Same with checkers, and any other board game, trying to use computers to bring realism (which it never really can) into the gaming world just takes too much out of the players hands and brings frustration when the AI does countless stupid things each and every turn. The old SSI games of the Civil War period and WWII period were great, players had full control over everything. Same with the origional Battles of Napolean, we had full control. Many talk about realism but they seem to overlook many of these games play in "30 minute to hour" long turns, I'm pretty sure I could get orders to all my units within an hour. Then there are games that play in month long, 3 month long and year long turns, once again, I'm pretty sure realistically I could get orders to all my units in 3 months to a year, so full control takes nothing away from realism.

Even in tactical battles of Combat Mission, those turns are 60 seconds long, and with radios, I don't have a problem with delayed orders, what I have a problem with in a wego system is "my orders" not being carried out at all. The AI has too much control. It's more like sitting watching the AI play and every once in awhile doing what I want it to do. I just don't find that a whole lot of fun.

Now, of course many like this "lack of control" and call it realism. For game simulation purposes I do not. After playing board wargames for 25+ years, it's very hard to let go of old "established" habits. I will always prefer to have full control. I looked to the computer for a fair to decent opponent when I couldn't find a friend to play face to face, of course over the years, everyone has pretty much disappeared and the computer AI or PBEM has become my best friend. But, that doesn't change my "established" habits of enjoying the full control of a board game in a computer wargame.

With the many complaints and gripes of the AI's of today, I still don't understand designers and programmers giving even "more" control to the AI. That just doesn't make sense.

Also, don't get me totally on the opposite side of the fense here. There are times I enjoy a WEGO game. Combat Mission is still one of my favorite "guessing games" of squad level warfare. It's just not at the top of my list of favorite ways to play a wargame. My nephew enjoys it though. heh But, he's locked into the graphics of it and not so much that he has not a lot of strategy control of it. So, if you're making this for the mainstream, youngters of today types, it will probably go over pretty well.

Good discussion…
I did not think the name would cause that much of an issue but it has caused some concern. It has also grabbed some people's attention. I consider the SSI game as my benchmark and hope to surpass it.

I origionally started the design as turn based but switched after trying Combat Mission, thinking about PBEM play, and my own military experience. I saw the WEGO system work in CM so that eliminated my own personal hesitation from switching. I then examined how many people play wargames…PBEM is very important to the Napoleonic gaming community. To keep the number of file transfers down, the game would either have to give a lot of AI control to the non-phasing player (current HPS Napoleonics) or have "defensive phases" (Talonsoft Napoleonics). If it did not, then the games play like chess/checkers…popular and fun but not combat. I also took into consideration my own military experience…no combat but time with troops/leaders and maneuvering forces.

The expectation for units/formations to obey orders and receive commands is a matter of scale. In a corps level game with week long turns, the units should react as expected and the defining factor is the strength of the unit. In a battalion level game with ten minute turns (like BoN), there is much more of a chance for orders not to be received, misinterpreted, not carried out…especially without radios (don't over-estimate radios…I have been 1/4 mile away from another tank and have had to resort to flag signals!)

You also have to consider what level command you personally want to represent on the battlefield. In CM, your are either a company or battalion commander. US Army Doctrine is that you maneuver units two levels down…essentially having direct control. Below that, your subordinates (the AI) have some/most of the impact. Looking at BoN, you would be either an Army or Corps commander…maneuvering your divisions/brigades that are made up of battalions (actually giving some control 3 levels down).

The "realism battle" goes back and forth between having too much contol over the units vs allowing an AI to act as a subordinate. I have tried to strike a balance by allowing the player to issue orders to the represented units (battalions), but giving the AI control over firing (you can still set a target) and reacting to the enemy during a ten minute turn.

The game is intended for the Napoleonic computer, board, and miniatures gaming community. I don not think it will appeal to young gamers used to fancy graphics and realtime games. It is still turn based, just the actions for both sides are resolved at the same time.

It is official! Matrix just posted the press release announcing the game.

Tim Coakley

Imagine I use good tactics such as using a screening force to cover the enemy and then launch a flank attack. I get into position but it is now the enemy's turn. He turns all his units to face the attack. If effect he is reacting instantly to my attack as opposed to having to get word from his troops and then execute a reaction. In a WEGO game, I would be on the enemy's flank and then launching my attack as he TRIES to turn and face the attack.

It is a more realistic simulation of the military decision cycle.

I am a huge fan of IGO-UGO but do prefer the WEGO system for the reason stated above.
I don't believe WEGO is guessing it is more realistic. You plot your attacks as does your opponent (as with IGO-UGO human opponent will always give better game) and away you go.
Rommel did not have the luxury of watching what Monty did assess make his attack while Monty sat back and appraised.
Granted at the moment I am playing far more IGO-UGO, as WITP is too time consuming and am REALLY looking forward to BON as I am Combined Arms WWII (from what I have read I think this may be more manageable time wise).
Double Shot Design if you can design this with the time balance of say IGO-UGO games like Battles in Normandy but with the WEGO system I think you will have a winner.

Hmph. If it comes right down to it, I can't help thinking that pausable real-time suits me down to the ground, WEGO appears to pander directly to the PBEM crowd and IGOUGO, while classic, is a little outdated and unrealistic. But as for complaining about the game title - "It does exactly what it says on the tin" after all!

Steve.

You are right on with this.

I started learning more about PRT recently and it is a good system. The Panther Games productions are a fine example.

It may be the future of Double Shot games as well.

Over the last month or so I have been looking more and more at trying HTTR to give this PRT system ago.

What do you believe the advantages of it are as a system?

Does it basically run in real time and you pause the game when ever you wish to issue an order?

Arckon: PRT means you can stop the clock, look at what's going on, issue orders etc as needed and then start the clock running again. It's what stops continuous-play games from becoming click-fests, while at the same time allowing their advantages.

I'm not saying there aren't disads as well - in particular for MP play, some sort of turn-based design is much easier - but by heck it works well overall.

I've neither played nor seen HTTR on the PC (had the boardgame of the same name, though) so I can't say much about the implementation on that, but I have played Europa Universalis and the other Paradox titles, and they converted me from turn-based to PRT.

Steve.

Thanks Steve,
you said not as multi friendly therefore need to ask how good are the AI's in these type games then?

If anyone can give me an impression of AI in HTTR would be appreciated.

The AI in HTTR is good. We all know that an AI can never play like a human opponant, but it does organize some good attacks and counter-attacks.

The AI in Battles of Napoleon is a scripted AI. It has many trigger events to make it powerful, but as I mentioned no AI can go through the decision process to play like a human. On a side note, many who say the "beat the AI easily" in games, do not use historical tactics or use information not available to the leaders of the time. If they did, it would not seam so easy.

The play system is fantastic. I am sold on it. The one concern for may is the lack of PBEM feature...I think Panther Games may address this in the next game of their series by having a "Run until xxxtime" function that turns it into a turn based game while still maintaining the system. More on the Conquest of the Agean forum.

Thanks I think I may give HTTR a go. Just been in there forum and read Armchair General Review.

Mind you am still far more interested in BON and the upcoming Combined Arms and Italian Campaign in the Decisive Battle series though.

Arckon: Obviously I can only speak of what I've played. Paradox's ai leaves something to be desired, but on the other hand makes up for it by allowing game owners to modify the parameters fed into it very easily and extensively, to the extent that you can switch from a defensive to an offensive ai stance and back again via an event engine. (The fact that it's running every other country in the world is both what gives it it's headache, and still gives the player some competition!) Of course, I have absolutely **no** idea how the ai in this game will work.

AI- there are two AIs involved in the game. One is the tactical AI that resolves issues such as forming square, retreating, or firing on an enemy.

The second is the AI scripted by the scenario designer. It is an event engine used to plot objectives and set triggers for formations.

More about that at a later time.