The Immense Pleasure of Huge Wargames

[Canoerebel]

I don't know much about WitE, but I'm very glad that it didn't become a drain on the AE forum.
 
I am waiting for the day Q-Ball, a fine AE player, gives up on WitE and returns to where he belongs.  It would be great to have him back.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I feel as if I wasted a good bit of money on WitE. Not that it isn't what they said it is, but I thought I could look past that what it is to enjoy the theater and learn. I found that the game was essentially "cold" even relative to AE--no animations, the counters don't feel like real men (even the ship icons in AE have more personality), and the massive amounts of data are laid out in the most mind-numbingly boring spreadsheet formats that playing even a few turns feels like a job. The tremendous map and level of historical detail in the OOB is lost in GG's standard morass of an interface and data representaiton. Where one picture would do he uses 1000 numbers.

I think it would be possible, with a lot of money and programing talent, to take the best of the Grigsby Form and bring it into this decade. I sometimes lurk in the Usenet wargames newsgroup, and the regulars there hate mega-games with a passion due not to scope so much as workload. Too many games move it up a level or two by abstracting events into higher-level algorithms. A battle is decided on a diceroll as it were. GG's method has always been bottom-up, accreting results from small unit or single unit rolls and player inputs. The problem with his method is not the architecture--bottom-up is the way to go for grogs--but with the interface, data presentation, and tool set given the player to manage it all. AE is wonderful, but it's an electro-mechanical device in a digital world. I can almost hear servos whining in there during the night phase resolution.

So much of the game control depends on the player remembering to do a task, or doing a task over, and over, and over in a way a simple template could relieve. How many times must I set up an atoll invasion Bombardment TF? I could do it once, save it as a three-letter-definition template, and call it when I need one. The code could round up ships for that TF from player-defined bases or ranges or HQs, and auto-send them to the forming base, just as a staff would do. I could put in escort constraints for that marshalling process once, and tell the code to only bother me if the constraints can't be met with local assets. Similarly, pilot training set-up is a human-driven iteration now. If the game could be programed to let me set universal training parameters by plane type, geopgraphy, skill level, etc.--once--I could then let it crank away until it auto-harvested pilots into the pool. Imagine setting up pilot training with drag&drop mechanics, dumping training formations into a folder and giving the total folder instructions--once. With a one-time programming investment the game could save literally thousands of man-years of clicking across the installed base. And if the system let the true grog go in and tweak the individual units as now, removing them from the cranking from that point forward, everyone could be happy.

If modern interface concepts were designed in from Day One, combined with the powerful OOB databases AE has left as a legacy, I believe the game could still be as detailed under the hood as now, but much easier to wrangle. Much easier to spend more time thinking about strategy and less on mundane manual tasks PCs were built to do fast and error-free. If data presentation were really thought through by using colors, icons, shading, routing lines, roll-overs, right-click menus, and sorts going both horizontally and vertically through presented data I think most of the tedium of the PBEM game could be relieved, and more games would, unlike now, go the distance.

In short, I don't think the game size is the issue so much as control systems. A PC with a quad core and 8 gigs of RAM isn't even breathing hard running AE. The hardware will never be the constraint ever again. Time to play is the constraint, and future mega-games have to think about player workload and data presentation first, not at the end of the design process. I'm not sure GG can change that much at this point in his career, but younger designers could take his core ethos of detail and bottom-uip results and blend it with modern understanding of how software works with users.

The first design group/publisher combo to do that will make a pantload of money.

Good commentary. I'll want to read it again more carefully, however at this point i was only able to skim a bit. Mostly agree. The old Grigsby style of allowing you to control minute indiv. elements worked well back in the day because there were hardware limitations, but since then the hardware (aka the computer) has expanded exponentially in capability which allows the building block method to be expanded to the point where it becomes mind numbingly repetetive and overly commplex.

For me......my heart fell the most in WitE when i tried to just look at the basic divisional unit in the game. Back in Grigsby "Lite" days, you'd see the unit reasonably laid out......exp, morale, fatigue.......and for add'l detail #'s of squads, weapons, even specific AVF types for armored units. WitE? Holy crap........a HUGE spreadsheet denoting not only every device unit, but an exp value assigned to each subunit within the org of the div. So the Pz Grd component could have an exp level of 93 while Pz BN #1 would have an exp value of 95. WOW! not. The overall effect was overwhelming detail that ultimately means little. Why do i need to examine 16-20 different exp levels within a division's components when the average diff. is less than 5 points? Its cluttery, messy and ugly. Give me "War in Russia" any day over that.

Then there was the "flexible" ability to build an entire army (the Red Army at least) from the ground up.....from indiv BN's and companies all the way up to Corps. Back in the day you could build "divisions" using a couple of templates. Detailed yet easy to use. Now......practically need a college course on Army management and org theory. I feel like PM'ing JoeW, Chez and other military types along with a statician like JWE to teach me how best to proceed.

Its crazy. Note.....the scale remains the same.....the war in Russia. What changed? the level of detail using the same Grigsby type model. But its gone too far. And of course the more detail and player control over said detail you provide.....the more opportunities for exploitation of the rules. One of the biggest complaints i've seen on the WitE forums is that while the German army is constrained to a set model......the Red Army player can litterally customize his or her army to best exploit the rules. Sound familiar? in WitP or AE.....that takes place in the economy....The Japanese player can exploit rules and build reams of only the best devices that will give the best results from the die rolls.

Warning signs were there back even in the day. I'll never forget the otherwise awesome game that was USAAF.....but with the Luft. player able to 'control' the economy could soon produce fleets of only FW190's (vs. a mix of 109/190) because stat wise that type gave the best results.....and then after that...build all jets. But Player two was hamstrung by no production to be altered. If it could....the result would have been equally silly.....all P51's or 47's.......whatever gives the best die rolls.

Control and detail are good things....but they are also traps. Hence i think the developers of the future need to step back, esp. now given how powerful our hardware has become with Skynet like processors and Terabyte hard drives along with Gigs of onboard RAM.

That or they need to develop "team" wargames that allow people to take on limited and/or specific roles.....such as has been described to me in the days of board games.

Wow, your two posts are about the final nail put into any hope I could enjoy this game. Thanks for the (subjective but straight to the point) analysis!
I stay with WitP AE I believe... [;)]

[Sardaukar]

I bought WitE and Don to Danube addon just for heck of it. Now....maybe one day I actually really get into playing it...[:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Good commentary. I'll want to read it again more carefully, however at this point i was only able to skim a bit. Mostly agree. The old Grigsby style of allowing you to control minute indiv. elements worked well back in the day because there were hardware limitations, but since then the hardware (aka the computer) has expanded exponentially in capability which allows the building block method to be expanded to the point where it becomes mind numbingly repetetive and overly commplex.

For me......my heart fell the most in WitE when i tried to just look at the basic divisional unit in the game. Back in Grigsby "Lite" days, you'd see the unit reasonably laid out......exp, morale, fatigue.......and for add'l detail #'s of squads, weapons, even specific AVF types for armored units. WitE? Holy crap........a HUGE spreadsheet denoting not only every device unit, but an exp value assigned to each subunit within the org of the div. So the Pz Grd component could have an exp level of 93 while Pz BN #1 would have an exp value of 95. WOW! not. The overall effect was overwhelming detail that ultimately means little. Why do i need to examine 16-20 different exp levels within a division's components when the average diff. is less than 5 points? Its cluttery, messy and ugly. Give me "War in Russia" any day over that.

Then there was the "flexible" ability to build an entire army (the Red Army at least) from the ground up.....from indiv BN's and companies all the way up to Corps. Back in the day you could build "divisions" using a couple of templates. Detailed yet easy to use. Now......practically need a college course on Army management and org theory. I feel like PM'ing JoeW, Chez and other military types along with a statician like JWE to teach me how best to proceed.

Its crazy. Note.....the scale remains the same.....the war in Russia. What changed? the level of detail using the same Grigsby type model. But its gone too far. And of course the more detail and player control over said detail you provide.....the more opportunities for exploitation of the rules. One of the biggest complaints i've seen on the WitE forums is that while the German army is constrained to a set model......the Red Army player can litterally customize his or her army to best exploit the rules. Sound familiar? in WitP or AE.....that takes place in the economy....The Japanese player can exploit rules and build reams of only the best devices that will give the best results from the die rolls.

Warning signs were there back even in the day. I'll never forget the otherwise awesome game that was USAAF.....but with the Luft. player able to 'control' the economy could soon produce fleets of only FW190's (vs. a mix of 109/190) because stat wise that type gave the best results.....and then after that...build all jets. But Player two was hamstrung by no production to be altered. If it could....the result would have been equally silly.....all P51's or 47's.......whatever gives the best die rolls.

Control and detail are good things....but they are also traps. Hence i think the developers of the future need to step back, esp. now given how powerful our hardware has become with Skynet like processors and Terabyte hard drives along with Gigs of onboard RAM.

That or they need to develop "team" wargames that allow people to take on limited and/or specific roles.....such as has been described to me in the days of board games.

A lot of good thoughts. I don't want to talk a lot about WitE here (boring for most AEers), but the design decisions made there and the movement away from some WITP techniques by GG are illustrative of where a next gen mega-game could go. WitE had some better ideas, but still didn't go all the way to what the PC equipment can do. It still requires way, way too much player mental overhead on the mundane at the expense of strategic thought.

I know exactly which mega-spreadsheet you're referring to. My reaction the first time I opened it was "My eyes! My eyes!" It is the best example of GG's penchant for substituting human brain work for code which pre-chunks and pre-analyzes/organizes information, which PCs excel at. The grogs--at first--probably like having every . . . single . . . thing . . . in one place in one mega display, but over a short time it becomes such a weary task to find what you need to DO SOMETHING.

Long, long ago, almost thirty years in fact (crap!), legendary game designer Sid Meier, one of the founders of Microprose and the idea man behind "Civilization", laid out his core idea for interesting game design (paraphrased): "A good game is simply a series of interesting decisions demanded of the player which collectively have a downstream effect." Since then he has expanded this idea into Ten Rules for designers:

"Here are our 10 commandments that we live by:

1.Choose a topic you have a passion for. Game Design is about creativity.
2.Do research after the game is done. Tap into the player’s brain.
3.Define your axioms, refine your axioms. Prototype, prototype, prototype; sit in all the chairs.
4.Double it or cut it in half. You are more wrong than you think.
5.Make sure the player is having fun, not the designer/computer.
6.Games should be easy to start playing, but hard to stop playing.
7.Simple systems work together to create complexity.
8.Make it ‘Epic’!
9.Most important part of the game is the first and last 15 minutes.
10.Know when to stop, more is not always better and just because we can, doesn’t mean we should"

http://forums.joeuser.com/371093

I think GG often bends or breaks #5. By requiring manual, player effort to execute mundane, "housekeeping" tasks he cuts coding time but also offers grogs an illusion of control and "getting their arms around the whole pile." But it IS an illusion, especially for beginners. AE is a tremendously hard game to get into in part because after launch and front-end set up it just sits there, a huge map and a tool bar. There's no task breakdown suggested. Look at the first fifteen minutes of any "Civilization" game and the first fifteen of a GC. Which is more inviting?

By using simple, ergonomic analysis executed through common business analysis techniques like UML a designer would NEVER portray, say, submarine detection like AE does. Instead of forcing a player to remember to open an Ops Report, read the whole thing (no internal sub-sections!), find subs which have increased detection, write (x,y)s on a piece of paper, GO BACK to the map, scroll around to find the (x,y) (can't type it in and jump there, must forevermore scroll), and only then begin to make a decision on what to do with the spotted sub, a great designer does just this--makes the sub icon blink when the d/l increases. That's all. Make it blink. Let the player define the d/l threshold in a set-up module if you like, but give simple, visual feedback of tactically important events. Let me deal with the decision of what to do with the sub, not expend 90% of the effort just finding the darn thing.

I've been thinking overnight of how AE could be redesigned to make it manageable. I once studied some UML, and I was married to a big-time consultant who traveled the world ramming in enterprise-level systems like SAP at multinationals. Those systems are all about front-end analysis of operations, and breaking down corporate tasks into bite-sized chunks which can be coded to. AE is remarkably like a business enterprise. You have procurement, production, warehousing, transport, current operations, future operations and strat. planning, accounting (PPs), R&D, and even HR (Commanders). Each of these functional modules should be their own planning environment in the game, possibly under a function key, and cross-linked where required. The game should prompt the player to at least think about entering each module every turn. I believe in check-lists, in RL and in turn-based games.

GG always makes the map a core part of the interface, a mistake IMO. In WitE he tries to get half-pregnant by using tabs, and function keys under tabs, and map colors and shading, and it's partly successful, but the map is still king. WITP/AE is even more map-centric, and the source of a lot of the clicking. Why do I need to leave the 'I' key planning environment and go to the actual city and drill down when I want to expand a factory? Just give the order in the the 'I' table. But no, everything has to done locally at the hex after drilling multiple levels into the hex. Break down the hundreds of player tasks in the game, group them by function and cycle timing, put them together in modules, add templates and player-defined trigger points, and the game becomes manageable. Add things like in-game help and manual access, player-usable memo pads for planning notes attached to To-Do lists for each coming operation, split monitor screens when you do need map access to plan while in a sub-module, give the map zoomable graphics with the mouse wheel, and allow player-defined visual and feed-back environments so PBEM opponents don't need to experience the game in the same way, and the game becomes a lot more "comfortable" to live in for a year or two. It's still AE, but it's like the TNG Enterprise instead of Kirk's TOS model. Hand-sewn leather seats and plush carpets on the bridge instead of sharp corners and Styrene chairs.

Anyway, this has been my semi-annual woolgathering on What I'd Like WITP II to Look Like. I now return you to your regular programming . . .

[LoBaron]

Very good post!

For the very same reason, everytime anybody asks what someone wanted to change in WitP AE if he could, I got
two answers ready: GUI and Usability.

We have, I think, one of the greatest games of all time. It is masterful in covering the grand scale, the miniscule details,
the randomness, and the predictability. Which is a feat that has probably only been achieved for a very few times in the gaming
world.

But to access this game we have tools unable, or only marginally able, to display information and relate it to the relevant actions
in a way it does not feel like work.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Very good post!

For the very same reason, everytime anybody asks what someone wanted to change in WitP AE if he could, I got
two answers ready: GUI and Usability.

We have, I think, one of the greatest games of all time. It is masterful in covering the grand scale, the miniscule details,
the randomness, and the predictability. Which is a feat that has probably only been achieved for a very few times in the gaming
world.

But to access this game we have tools unable, or only marginally able, to display information and relate it to the relevant actions
in a way it does not feel like work.

Exactly. I know from your bio in the other thread that you know far more about this topic than I do. I primarily think like a business guy, not an IT guy, but I know that AE could be so much more approachable. That can only add to potential customers and sales volume.

I don't want to imply that I think GG is a bad designer. He excels at algorithms in much the same way our own JWE does. He loves getting into minutiae of ballistics and penetration tables versus armor ratings. A mega-game design team needs one of him, or several. But I think his mind works and is wired one way, and it's numerical and linear, not hypertexual and visual. I suspect that the type of analysis I'm speaking of would be boring for him at best, and at worst he would feel it unnecessary. Just as the services of a couple of great graphic artists with a grounding in visual communication techniques would also help that future design team with simple, non-spreadsheet communication of important player data. One stacked bar graph can do wonders for showing HI bank values in a way that AE's "Heavy Industry: 1629(1,409,876)" does not.

[gradenko2k]

Even something as simple as a complete* event log whose individual entries you could click on to bring you to that particular unit/section of map would be a huge boon. Another thing would be to use actual windows that you can layer and arrange and use several of simultaneously, as well as click-and-drag and right-click context menus. Can you imagine how convenient it would be to issue movement orders and plane base-transfer orders by click-and-dragging their icon from one hex to the other?

* By complete I mean the Ops Report, the Combat Report and every little thing that a unit does, such as reaching a destination, detecting a unit, launching a flight of planes to do whatever, etc.

[mdiehl]

There used to be a magazine that came out 6 times a year called Strategy and Tactics.

S&T is still published and still features a game in each issue. FWIW. I really enjoyed the Richard Berg designs in S&T, especially the GBACW series.

[Commander Stormwolf]

nah.. all you need is a second player to sort out your logistics for you [;)]

so all your time can be allocated to scheming and plotting [8D]

[Lomri]

Good stuff Bullwinkle.

When the discussion on how to improve AE comes up I see two types of answers. The UI and management and game balance. Because this board is mostly populated by the PBEM crowd game balance will be a real critical piece. The grogs in addition will be offended by non-historical results so you get discussions on AA results or whatnot.

But I think if you want to open up the mega-game market you have to be more focused on the UI and management of the game. A more accurate OOB, better AA results, more realistic blah blah are all of course critical to these kinds of niche games. Expanding market share needs the ability to drawn in new people and not lose them right away. And of coures "right away" in AE can be up to a year. "Click burnout".

This happens to me once in a while. I'll hit an operational lull where I'm just setting up my next set of operations and I'll get bored. I'll come home tired one day and want to blow things up and not try to figure out how to stage my amph invasion from a size 4 port with a 30k stacking limit - and how many APAs and LSTs do I need again?

And increased sales means we'll see increased development of these kinds of large scale strategy games. I might enjoy other types of video games but I always come back to these. So glad I picked up UV on a whim way back in the day.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

Even something as simple as a complete* event log whose individual entries you could click on to bring you to that particular unit/section of map would be a huge boon. Another thing would be to use actual windows that you can layer and arrange and use several of simultaneously, as well as click-and-drag and right-click context menus. Can you imagine how convenient it would be to issue movement orders and plane base-transfer orders by click-and-dragging their icon from one hex to the other?

Absolutely. WitE has a scaled zoomable map, and just that one thing adds so much workload relief, especially to 50+ YO eyes. When I come back to AE from WitE I find myself rolling the mouse wheel and being angry nothing happens.

* By complete I mean the Ops Report, the Combat Report and every little thing that a unit does, such as reaching a destination, detecting a unit, launching a flight of planes to do whatever, etc.

Yes again, but with player-defined environment variables such as font, color, bullet-points, indenting, etc. to make finding data TYPE and/or importance without having to read a book every turn. Let me insert key words such as a base name and tell it "Every time "Guad*" shows up make that data 16 point bold and color it red. Do that until I tell you to stop. Do the same for Tarawa, but make it purple."

[PizzaMan]

Why hasn't anyone converted SPI's Campaign for North Africa to PC? I would think a uber phat game like that would lend itself well to PC.

Campaign for North Africa

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

Why hasn't anyone converted SPI's Campaign for North Africa to PC? I would think a uber phat game like that would lend itself well to PC.

Campaign for North Africa

(And I'm serious) USA forces are basically non existant, too much of the (perceived)market are not interested.
But maybe the Europa market might get into it, all those budding Montys,Rommels and Grazianis might make it worthwhile.

But if they did a good game I'd buy 2 copies to make up for them.

[Commander Stormwolf]

might get into it, all those budding Montys,Rommels and Grazianis might make it worthwhile.

If not for the unfair existence of nuclear arsenals, there would have been many more Montys and rommels [;)]

it is what we are designed to do [8D]

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Very good post!

For the very same reason, everytime anybody asks what someone wanted to change in WitP AE if he could, I got
two answers ready: GUI and Usability.

We have, I think, one of the greatest games of all time. It is masterful in covering the grand scale, the miniscule details,
the randomness, and the predictability. Which is a feat that has probably only been achieved for a very few times in the gaming
world.

But to access this game we have tools unable, or only marginally able, to display information and relate it to the relevant actions
in a way it does not feel like work.

Exactly. I know from your bio in the other thread that you know far more about this topic than I do. I primarily think like a business guy, not an IT guy, but I know that AE could be so much more approachable. That can only add to potential customers and sales volume.

I don't want to imply that I think GG is a bad designer. He excels at algorithms in much the same way our own JWE does. He loves getting into minutiae of ballistics and penetration tables versus armor ratings. A mega-game design team needs one of him, or several. But I think his mind works and is wired one way, and it's numerical and linear, not hypertexual and visual. I suspect that the type of analysis I'm speaking of would be boring for him at best, and at worst he would feel it unnecessary. Just as the services of a couple of great graphic artists with a grounding in visual communication techniques would also help that future design team with simple, non-spreadsheet communication of important player data. One stacked bar graph can do wonders for showing HI bank values in a way that AE's "Heavy Industry: 1629(1,409,876)" does not.

But usability comes from you business people. Usually its us IT guys who are a few years behind because they got no idea about sales,
and the percentage of nerds who feel at home in ugly sql database outputs is too high. [;)]

The problem is that the word "usability", in a software context, was pretty new when the original interface was developed. I am sure that GG did not focus on this aspect very much
- if he tinkered with it from a modern viewpoint at all. Noone really did, except one or two of the big players on the market who could afford it.

Nowerdays it is an incremental part of software developement, but to successfully integrate it into the developement is probably the most work and cost intensive part.
You have to finish the basic structure of a software together with a basic concept of a GUI, both usually complex enough on their own and with different requirements,
and then expand from there on both ends to avoid reducing usability when improving capability.

To make this work you usually need to centralize developement of software elements, which makes the process slower and more expensive, and you have to invest more time into planning
and synchronizing the different expert departements to keep everything on track.

This is extremely difficult, more so if you do not have top notch people sitting everywhere because you are a small company, and sadly in a time where Low Cost and Time to Market are
the number 1 reasons for market decisions, the result is still often a second best choice where the first loser is usability.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Empire101

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Even in my younger days, I always liked the larger board games. I did have both "War in Europe" and "War in the Pacific" by SPI.

Was'nt lucky enough to play SPI's War in the Pacific, but I loved War in Europe!! Ahh, the halcyon days of my youth......[:(]

I still have a copy of SPI's game and map is rolled up about 15 Ft from this terminal.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: PizzaMan

Why hasn't anyone converted SPI's Campaign for North Africa to PC? I would think a uber phat game like that would lend itself well to PC.

Campaign for North Africa

(And I'm serious) USA forces are basically non existant, too much of the (perceived)market are not interested.
But maybe the Europa market might get into it, all those budding Montys,Rommels and Grazianis might make it worthwhile.

But if they did a good game I'd buy 2 copies to make up for them.

Campaign in North Afrika; a game game that made me literally scream with frustration.
This game NEEDED to be converted into a computer game as the logistics were A NIGHTMARE.
You even had to transport water to your troops, but that was'nt the end of it if you were the Axis.
German units consumed one point of drinking water per day, but the Italiens consumed TWO, on account of them having to boil pasta and spaghetti when their ration point arrived....[:@][:@][:@][:@][:@]

I would rather boil my own head now, than go through that again[X(]

ORIGINAL:John 3rd
I still have a copy of SPI's game and map is rolled up about 15 Ft from this terminal.

'She who must be obeyed' puts up with my computer wargaming, considering me an uber geek.
If I ever got out War in Europe' or even 'World in Flames',and spread those maps out, my ass would be grass[;)]


Bullwinkle and LoBarons posts have been very informative and interesting. Thanks to you both for taking the time.

[ilovestrategy]

I read both pages of this thread and thought about the fact that my perspective on monster games is not the same as everyone else. From my point of view, I just cannot afford either game, WiTP AE or WiTE. $60 is about my limit and I have to struggle with that. I wonder how many people fall in my demographic. It's kinda sad because I realize and agree on why these two games cost that much. I get it, I really do.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

But usability comes from you business people. Usually its us IT guys who are a few years behind because they got no idea about sales,
and the percentage of nerds who feel at home in ugly sql database outputs is too high. [;)]

Stereotypes are so common because they're usually somewhat useful.[:)] Many IT-type personalities are less enamored with visual data representation than liberal artists such as myself. But there are exceptions--nerds index very high on graphic-intense role playing games, for example, and I believe very many programmers are also good musicians. The brain wiring is similar.

The frustrating thing about mega-games like AE and WitE is that much of the hard DB work is already there under the hood. It's just so difficult to get at it in ways players can use to make decisions. Same problem multinationals have with using data-mined data in marketing, or presenting the CFO with real-time info in a format he can use TODAY to make, say, hedging decisions.

The problem is that the word "usability", in a software context, was pretty new when the original interface was developed. I am sure that GG did not focus on this aspect very much
- if he tinkered with it from a modern viewpoint at all. Noone really did, except one or two of the big players on the market who could afford it.

Oh, I agree with this and no criticism of GG is intended on that score. He wrote WITP in a different era, and the AE guys weren't tasked with altering the bones. I know they could have if given that charge and the resources, but that wasn't the job.

But for any future megas I think the funding body (publisher) should focus upfront when resources are allocated to the now common use of dashboards. Every enterprise package I know of uses them for executive summaries, where they are tailorable to the appropriate level of collation and user. The CFO needs one dashboard and the product manager of Corn Flakes needs a different one, with a different level of granularity. I've seen local, primitive, dashboards written out of MS Access with VB underpinnings, but that was some years ago now and VB is, I think, pretty dead. But a dashboard is the way to go if you have a lot of data under the hood and amateurs needing to consume it.

In a game environment what I picture is a small collection of dashboard templates with click & drag data elements available for the rows and columns, with a small "verb" library to trigger field fills. Verbs like "sum", "percent change", "Year to Date", etc. As an Allied player I want very different info presented in the first six months of 1942 than I want in 1945. If the player were given control over the reports the devs would be released from having to pre-think about every type of player's needs. Spend the (substantial) coding time making it flexible and then get out of the way. I could easily see a forum like this being a sharing clearinghouse for player-developed report formats for the less-PC inclined.

To do a dashboard architecture, however, you must, as you say below, do the development from Day One with a focus on data structures and definitions, and then hold to them. Maybe XML could help (is that still used?), or one of the other techs like Python which I've heard of , but know nothing about. I don't know. But it ought to be done if mega games are going to survive and prosper. To do that on a small sales base I think devs need to be willing to steal ideas shamelessly from enterprise vendors.

Nowerdays it is an incremental part of software developement, but to successfully integrate it into the developement is probably the most work and cost intensive part.
You have to finish the basic structure of a software together with a basic concept of a GUI, both usually complex enough on their own and with different requirements,
and then expand from there on both ends to avoid reducing usability when improving capability.

You I'm sure know far more about this than I do. My second-hand experience through the ex was with burning-in large-scale enterprise packages. She did some SAP, but mostly Siebel (now gobbled up I think), and Peoplesoft (ditto.) The tasks there were defining locally used data structures and writing custom front-ends and report generators to fit the business while integrating with the backend DBs. A game development is a whole different balance. Most/much of the effort would need to go on the user-interface front end to make it soft and cuddly (games are toys at their base) as well as approachable by non-techies. That's why I envision a graphically-driven, drag & drop form creation tool rather than anything which shows even a whiff of code underwear.

To make this work you usually need to centralize developement of software elements, which makes the process slower and more expensive, and you have to invest more time into planning
and synchronizing the different expert departements to keep everything on track.

My overall impression has been that the early promises of diffuse object-oriented development have not born the expected fruit in terms of cost and time savings. I don't know how geographically dispersed a mega-game dev team could be these days. I think you'd need a czar project manager at minimum, one with feet in several different worlds (pure coder, DBs, graphics, and with a strong base of historical knowledge of the game's subject matter.) Pretty rare beasts. That said, I still think several of the AE dev team fit the bill. If they do, a Matrix could find others on the market. Whether there is enough money to bring them onboard is another question.

This is extremely difficult, more so if you do not have top notch people sitting everywhere because you are a small company, and sadly in a time where Low Cost and Time to Market are
the number 1 reasons for market decisions, the result is still often a second best choice where the first loser is usability.

I agree, which is why I continue ot bang the drum for Matrix/Slitherine, or any other potential mega-game publisher, to do the hard work of defining a market and researching pricing/volume realities. I've had this discussion with Erik R. several times on Usenet and have usually gotten the same type of answer. I don't think a mega-game niche is viable at $60 a a copy. But I don't know elasticities in that niche either. I don't know if anyone has ever done real studies on the matter in modern times, and hitched it to the realities of $800 game PCs and digital distribution. (Hello! Steam?) So long as Matrix insists on keeping distribution in-house it's very possible the revenue numbers don't work. But if you made a mega wargame closer to a "Civilization" game in interface, while still keeping the hard-core underhood, and added the power and reach of Steam to find untapped younger gamers, you might have the beginnings of a viable model.

[USSAmerica]

But if you made a mega wargame closer to a "Civilization" game in interface, while still keeping the hard-core underhood, and added the power and reach of Steam to find untapped younger gamers, you might have the beginnings of a viable model.

Moose, this is EXACTLY what the next generation mega wargame needs to be! Easy and fun to use, while hard core, accurate data driven is the answer. Keep all of the detail that we love, just make it easier and more fun do do. [8D]

I don't care for/about Steam, but I see how that could potentially expand the reach of a game.