Matrix Games Forums

Keke wrote:Fair enough. I'll get back to this when you got a magician working for peanuts.

Well there is certainly a lot of peanuts here. I'm sure that sooner or later a magician will come along and want some.

I see 'Arjuna' has returned. Can't we tell the game is finished eh!

Arjuna wrote:Accoring to the Australian Macquarie Dictionery one of the definitions for guernsey is a "distinctively coloured or marked top worn by footballers". So the term "to get a guernsey" means you have been selected for the team or you are going to succeed.

Do you mean that such a strange english dialect have a dedicated *dictionary* ?
We learn everyday.

JeF.
[edit: because I can't tpye]

Kevin,

Kevinugly wrote:I see 'Arjuna' has returned. Can't we tell the game is finished eh!

Don't be so impatient, mate.
You should practice patience and self control to be a good commander. Your orders will take time to transmit and process, as the Plan evolves and the unit deploy.

Or simply ask the question directly :
"When is the f#cking game delivered at my doorstep Dave ?"



JeF.
[EDITED: beucase I relaly can't tpye]

Arjuna wrote:Well there is certainly a lot of peanuts here. I'm sure that sooner or later a magician will come along and want some.

I thought you hired one recently ...

JeF.

More seriously now ...

Keke,

As much as I would like a PBEM option (not being the type for an IP game), I highly respect the decision of Panther Games not to rush to implement it.
They have a certain vision of their game, and try stick to it, without too much compromise.
I reckon that other features are much more needed : enhanced supply and campaign come to mind.

My 2 cents,

JeF.

JeF wrote:Kevin,



Don't be so impatient, mate.
You should practice patience and self control to be a good commander. Your orders will take time to transmit and process, as the Plan evolves and the unit deploy.

Or simply ask the question directly :
"When is the f#cking game delivered at my doorstep Dave ?"



JeF.
[EDITED: beucase I relaly can't tpye]

Thing is JeF, I know that it's finished. But I can wait.

JeF wrote: I reckon that other features are much more needed : enhanced supply and campaign come to mind.

Enhanced supply definately, but I'm personally very, very sceptical about campaigns. The concept may work in tactical level, but for operational level wargames a campaign is just a big scenario, if you know what I mean.

It is a campaign that makes a game most enjoyable

Playing one single battle has little attraction unless it has an effect on a neighbouring map.

-

Joe 98 wrote:It is a campaign that makes a game most enjoyable

Playing one single battle has little attraction unless it has an effect on a neighbouring map.

Now could you tell me which operative level wargame has a realistic campaign system? The concept of one single battle has been quite attractive so far, you know.

Keke wrote:Now could you tell me which operative level wargame has a realistic campaign system? The concept of one single battle has been quite attractive so far, you know.

I can't think of a WW2 game that has successfully married a strategic campaign to a series of operational level battles. The only wargames that come close are the 'Total War' series from Creative Assembly. The problem is as much a technical one as much as anything else given that in a campaign battles can occur anywhere on the map and from there the terrain for that battle has to be generated. Since we are 'serious' wargamers , simply creating a generic map to fight over will not be acceptable. I would not like to imagine the processing power, coding time and research that would have to go into this.

He Arjuna,

why not drop the Bulge (to much Games allready covered this Battle, and the Units are mostly even in Terms of Side and Time), Instead go and Work on North Africa maybee with a Operation Mode... Can u Say "Wüstenfuchs" ?!? This would be fine, then head over to the East

This game engine is unique.

I want this game engine to succeed and sequels to come.

It’s important in the world of wargaming that this game succeeds. If it fails we will be stuck with turn based hex based games

But if the setting is Normandy, the Bulge or Arnhem, bored wargamers will say “maybe not”

And if there is no strategic layer – that is a turn off in itself.

I don’t know the difficulties but theoretically:

You make a series of stand alone battles

If I win battle “A” this unlocks battle “B” and “C”. I have a choice of playing “B” or “C”. This represents the units advancing to the next area.

If I choose to play battle “C” and I win it, this unlocks battles “F” and “G” and I have a choice of playing one of them next.

If however I choose battle “B” and I win it, this unlocks battles “D” and “E” and I have a choice of playing one of those.

You make a strategic map which looks something like a chess board, with the current positions marked.

You make a series of maps – all rectangular or square. The maps fit on the strategic map.

A strategic layer is a requirement, for this important game to really succeed.

Joe, I agree with everything you say apart from your idea for the execution of the 'campaign mode' which to me sounds too artificial. To illustrate:- I generally like to play a defensive battle, choosing a good position and then drawing the enemy in. Now, with your campaign system suppose that in 'Battle A' I drive the enemy off the hills near the north edge of the map. I then wish to dig in and await an enemy counter-attack but I can't because said range of hills do not feature in 'Map B' - the site of the next battle. I know that this would not be a problem to some other players but a campaign structure such as the one you're suggesting would not be a selling point to me.

Well, you would of course fail in driving me off the hill.

But if you succeeded I would not attack the hill again.

I would attack somewhere else.

Only the AI would attack the hill again.

Joe 98 wrote:This game engine is unique.

I want this game engine to succeed and sequels to come.

It’s important in the world of wargaming that this game succeeds. If it fails we will be stuck with turn based hex based games

I agree.

Joe 98 wrote:But if the setting is Normandy, the Bulge or Arnhem, bored wargamers will say “maybe not”

The game engine is unique -> Arnhem, Normandy and the Bulge are unique experiences with this game engine.

Joe 98 wrote:And if there is no strategic layer – that is a turn off in itself.

I disagree. In operative level wargames the modelled operation is set to its historical and strategical context.

Joe 98 wrote:I don’t know the difficulties but theoretically:

You make a series of stand alone battles

If I win battle “A” this unlocks battle “B” and “C”. I have a choice of playing “B” or “C”. This represents the units advancing to the next area.

If I choose to play battle “C” and I win it, this unlocks battles “F” and “G” and I have a choice of playing one of them next.

If however I choose battle “B” and I win it, this unlocks battles “D” and “E” and I have a choice of playing one of those.

You make a strategic map which looks something like a chess board, with the current positions marked.

You make a series of maps – all rectangular or square. The maps fit on the strategic map.

This could work for a tactical level wargame, but it turns an operative level wargame into a Fantasy General, and it is surely a turn off.

Joe 98 wrote:A strategic layer is a requirement, for this important game to really succeed.

As I said the strategical context is already there.

Joe 98 wrote:Well, you would of course fail in driving me off the hill.

But if you succeeded I would not attack the hill again.

I would attack somewhere else.

Only the AI would attack the hill again.

Them's sound like fighting words . We must have a game sometime.