Matrix Games Forums

Hi folks.
Apparently everyone of us is (still) dreaming of the 'perfect' wargame. But no company seem to go and publish it.
So let me shock you:

Why don't we make it ourselves?

Before you try to shoot me go on reading what I think.

From my point of view there would be 5 conditions:

1. It should be an open source project -> absolutely free.

2. Only multiplayer -> no AI. (If someone would like to programme one, fine, but I believe this is the hardest part.)

3. (Almost) unlimited map, (almost) unlimited number of units, (almost) unlimited unit properties. ('Almost' means there must be reasonable limits. No one has got 20GB RAM, has one? But nevertheless it would be far beyond any DOS game.)

4. Fully customizable map, units, unit types, rules and combat formulas. (Everything open, built-in editor, no hacking or whatever #*?!) Usually a programmer holds back those utilities, but if we are the developers...?

5. Not much better graphics than WIR for example.

(I would also like to see simultanous movement but think about it yourselves.)

So, on these conditions, there would be 5 modules to develop:

a. Unit management. (feasible)

b. Movement and combat management. (feasible)

c. Graphics (and perhaps sound). (feasible)

d. GUI. (feasible)

e. Scenario design. (If I read some of the posts at this forum I really believe here are some real scenario design experts therefore: feasible too)

I would be willing to take a,b,d, maybe c too. So what definitely remains is: e. Of course any help would be welcome.

Do you still want to shoot me or what do you guys think? <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Dave

Originally posted by davewolf:
Do you still want to shoot me or what do you guys think?

---

I won't shoot you, I've been thinking the same thing. I've been looking for awhile to see if I could find an existing open-source project of a strategic level wargame, but no luck so far.


Too many questions left unanswered. Are we designing a game or a game engine? Corps level? Division level? Naval implementation? What development tools do we use? Where are the programmers?

Although I've given it serious thought, I'm waiting to see War in the Pacific and World in Flames first. WitP may show us where Gary is headed when it comes to his new WIR. WIF, although not a computer game, may be good enough to satisfy my appetite, but right now, I agree, the options available leave lots to be desired.

what kind of project is world in flames this is the first time i heard of it. thanks

Originally posted by davewolf:
Hi folks.
Apparently everyone of us is (still) dreaming of the 'perfect' wargame. But no company seem to go and publish it.
So let me shock you:

Why don't we make it ourselves?


Dave

---

Dave

You've one partner right here,
I'm no nothing of computer programming or graphics exct but i think i'm OK at design, scenerio's, game system mechanics, (ie, i could design one hell of a boardgame with your outlines but who has a 1/4 acre hall to put the map in?)
(definately no AI, total waste of time)

A simultanous(or alternating) system would need something like a 7 pulse weekly turn (similar to the pulses in WiR but with Air far more integrated, no player directed attacks independent of the combat phase. Everything integrated into plotting)
And only combat needs to be so, all other, production/research exct can occur before or after the simultanous segment of the game turn.

Much of the system could be similar to WiR but with the addition of many extras (theres about 30 i can think of at this moment)
For example, a few would be
Battle Group shells that would be attached to Corps (or armies) that hold only 2 to 3 units.(only one a Div)
Parra drops.
Commando units and attacks.
Full research rules linked to economy.
Espionage
And of course. A full naval system including commerce and Carrier/air/sub

A huge project but, well, i've got the rest of my life free. And if i had millions this is one of the first things i'd spend it on.
(a true geopolitician at heart)

Anything can be done if you want it enough.


Loki

Greetings, The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Computer games of course go one byte at a time. If the system is simple it does not mean it can not address multipe funtions.
War is pretty simple.
1 Equpment types and ratings and sources
2. Unit types and ratings and sources
3. supply types ratings and sources

movement based on size of hex, length of turn and speed of units.

combat attacking side has it's combat factors counted
defending side has it's combat factors counted

modififers for leaders, terrian etc added/subtracted

A combat results table is consulted

combat resolved and result applied.

I don't think a world map is really required unless your looking at corps or above scale.

Personally I like the Division to be the normal unit (but holding 'counters' such as corps are great ways to have lots of divisions without using lots of 'counters' on map

Smaller subunits are needed.

A map from the Artic to the Red Sea and from the US East Coast to the Urals should work (bigger then any yet designed in a division level war game)

Are we talking WW2?

I don't think I can help, if we don't cout maybe testing, but I strongly support the idea. Hopefully my support will steel your will to make this game a bit more <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Mogami:
Greetings, The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Computer games of course go one byte at a time. If the system is simple it does not mean it can not address multipe funtions.
War is pretty simple.
1 Equpment types and ratings and sources
2. Unit types and ratings and sources
3. supply types ratings and sources

---

Exactly, it looks daunting in one piece but it's made up of hundreds of quite simple action/formulas.

They just have to be strung together. It's the graphics that i'm a TOTAL ignoramus at.

Loki

You probably want to keep things simple in the beginning. Not to much detail. And what prog. languages, tolls etc should be used? Its tricky to combine many different people with differnt programming backgrounds. BTW a webbased game would probably be easiest to start with but thats my opinion!

So

I, and others can design a world spanning game. I've 1/2 of one already designed , oob's are mostly missing, but it is a 'paper' game with heavily modified WiF maps and alternating game turns. And it is open ended,, want to have a 'Third Reich' in power in 1975?, or 2000? I've scores of pages of tech/unit/air/naval setup already done.
Designing a global game is not so hard, turning it into a PC game is bloody difficult.
I'm willing to learn a language (c++ or other) to contribute on top of design.

More than this? I have to sleep sometime.


Loki

I would like to contribute too. I can do some programming and would sure want to participate in design. So, if you set up a group or something, count me in.

Another thing: I'd like to see a WWI strategic game on this scale as well and I think that it would be easy to generalise from the game engine that seems to be in everyone's mind here.

On the other hand, it does need to be kept simple and also (in my opinion) portable across varous platforms (i.e. a linux, Mac and other versions should also be done).

Hi folks,
a lot of very good replies.

First of all, it should be a game engine. (Thanks to Ed. I should have written this exactly.) No scenario can satisfy everybody. Why make one single program for each theatre instead of doing one engine and only different scenarios. That's why I focus on a maximum level of flexibility.
I usually think of an division-level game but look: If almost everything can be edited it depends only on the scenario designer what comes out at the end, maybe a Roman empire scen. or whatever else.

This is the way it could work:

1. A maximum of maybe a few thousand units per side. (Units means the lowest-level units.) The way you call the units depend on the scenario design.
2. A maximum of maybe up to 10 hierarchical levels. (I mean the command structure. In a division-level game there would be divisions, corps, armies, army groups, whole fronts, high command for example, that would be 6 levels.) The way you do this depend on the scenario design too.
There must be any limits. Not just because resource management. A totally unlimited game would probably too difficult to make.
3. The best thing would be if you could give orders at each level but that's a bit too much.
4. Full aerial and naval implementation.

These 4 points would mean that you could design every scenario of human history. (No sci-fi because no space combat.)

Of course Mogami and Jonas are right you have to do this step by step. These are only the goals for final victory.
But Loki is right too. If you look at the WIR formulas you can see that they are just damn formulas, anything else. To keep the things balanced will be hard. Don't forget your still working on the WIR balance after how many years of playing? But to programme these formulas/rules isn't that difficult.

Another thing:
5. Simultanous movement. What I personally like much is Europa Universalis. It's a real-time game but you can pause and give orders as slowly as you like to. Nevertheless that's one thing that would be very hard to design really good I think. But if it won't work we still would be able to return to a turn-based game. So the risk would be limited.

Very important: programming language, tools and so on.
I would like to suggest VisualBasic as programming language. Don't blame on me now! There are some reasons why I think so:
a. Basic is one of the most simple languages. Even some of those who aren't real programmers should be able to 'read' most of the source code and could suggest modifications or discover bugs. No other common programming language is that simple. Blame on Microsoft - I don't like them too. - but it is simple.
b. There are free VisualBasic editions available for learning purposes. Everyone could use them. Info here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/downloads/tools/cce/default.asp
c. Compiled basic is fast enough for such a game. We don't speak of a 3d-real-time-air/land-combat-simulation, do we?
d. c, Java and so on are much harder too learn. I suggest to do it as simple as possible on the first step and focus on game design. On the next step it could be converted to Java or whatever and made portable.

But these are just some thougts. They depend on how many programmers we would have, especially C-, or Java-programmers. If there are enough, fine. Then we could do it that way.
On of those programmers would be me. It's not that I need to do this. If enough other ones would do this work I'd watch and enjoy. <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> But someone has to do the job.

Tools? If you think of map editors and so on then I believe we have to develop them ourselves. If someone finds one we could use properly this would of course be much better.

So step-by-step I wrote. First there should be a map where units can be moved. Then, what happens when they meet: combat. And so on. The first step will be enough work but would be seperated into many much smaller tasks.

I hope I didn't forget to answer to any question but this should be enough this time.

Anyway much thanks for each reply. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Dave

Post deleted by me cause i was getting a bit silly.
<img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Loki

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Lokioftheaesir ]</p>

Originally posted by davewolf:
Hi folks,
a lot of very good replies.
........
So step-by-step I wrote. First there should be a map where units can be moved. Then, what happens when they meet: combat. And so on. The first step will be enough work but would be seperated into many much smaller tasks.

I hope I didn't forget to answer to any question but this should be enough this time.

Anyway much thanks for each reply. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Dave

---

Dave.

Ok. I can give you a map. What format do you require? I can provide a world map in any basic format (gif/jpg) exct. I do not know any other formats.
WiR Map scale will take at least 4 weeks to finnish. that is a big map.
Hexegon based and including up to 10 types of terrain.

Loki

Originally posted by davewolf:
Hi folks,
a lot of very good replies.

This is the way it could work:

1. A maximum of maybe a few thousand units per side. (Units means the lowest-level units.) The way you call the units depend on the scenario design.
2. A maximum of maybe up to 10 hierarchical levels. (I mean the command structure. In a division-level game there would be divisions, corps, armies, army groups, whole fronts, high command for example, that would be 6 levels.) The way you do this depend on the scenario design too.
There must be any limits. Not just because resource management. A totally unlimited game would probably too difficult to make.
3. The best thing would be if you could give orders at each level but that's a bit too much.
4. Full aerial and naval implementation.

These 4 points would mean that you could design every scenario of human history. (No sci-fi because no space combat.)

Of course Mogami and Jonas are right you have to do this step by step. These are only the goals for final victory.
But Loki is right too. If you look at the WIR formulas you can see that they are just damn formulas, anything else. To keep the things balanced will be hard. Don't forget your still working on the WIR balance after how many years of playing? But to programme these formulas/rules isn't that difficult.

Another thing:
5. Simultanous movement. What I personally like much is Europa Universalis. It's a real-time game but you can pause and give orders as slowly as you like to. Nevertheless that's one thing that would be very hard to design really good I think. But if it won't work we still would be able to return to a turn-based game. So the risk would be limited.

Very important: programming language, tools and so on.
I would like to suggest VisualBasic as programming language. Don't blame on me now! There are some reasons why I think so:
a. Basic is one of the most simple languages. Even some of those who aren't real programmers should be able to 'read' most of the source code and could suggest modifications or discover bugs. No other common programming language is that simple. Blame on Microsoft - I don't like them too. - but it is simple.
b. There are free VisualBasic editions available for learning purposes. Everyone could use them. Info here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/downloads/tools/cce/default.asp
c. Compiled basic is fast enough for such a game. We don't speak of a 3d-real-time-air/land-combat-simulation, do we?
d. c, Java and so on are much harder too learn. I suggest to do it as simple as possible on the first step and focus on game design. On the next step it could be converted to Java or whatever and made portable.

But these are just some thougts. They depend on how many programmers we would have, especially C-, or Java-programmers. If there are enough, fine. Then we could do it that way.
On of those programmers would be me. It's not that I need to do this. If enough other ones would do this work I'd watch and enjoy. <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> But someone has to do the job.

Tools? If you think of map editors and so on then I believe we have to develop them ourselves. If someone finds one we could use properly this would of course be much better.

So step-by-step I wrote. First there should be a map where units can be moved. Then, what happens when they meet: combat. And so on. The first step will be enough work but would be seperated into many much smaller tasks.

I hope I didn't forget to answer to any question but this should be enough this time.

Anyway much thanks for each reply. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Dave

---

Just a few points... I'd be more than happy to contribute to a project like this too, although I couldn't guarantee that I'd be able to give it much time.

About implementation technology: I'd suggest Java. Why? 1) Its independent of platform and because the wargamer community is small enough as it is setting up additional limits by the choice of a technology would be unnnecessary. 2) With the new 1.4 version you can (I'm told) do fast fullscreen graphics, too. 3) There are relatively good, free tools. 4) Its not that slow, and besides speed is not really all that essential in a game like that. 5) It offers a nice, clean object oriented development platform (objects would be a natural choice for something like this project, IMO) and it also offers relatively good debugging facilities. 6) The JDK contains (again, I'm told) a system for loading classes from .class files dynamically and instantiating objects from them. This offers a natural extension method, if properly designed.

However I'd like to point out that the implementation technology is not an issue at this point. I'd like to see at least an outline of the game rules (preferably playtested on some sort of makeshift tabletop-environment) and a list of other requirements set for the engine even before I start to think about the general architechture, let alone write a single line of code. In a project of this size it is absolutely necessary to use some sort of software engineering method, even if its not all that fancy.

Originally posted by heiks:
I'd suggest Java.

---

Heiks

Ok, Java. Hmm, are there enough Java programmers out there willing to spend some time?

I'd like to see at least an outline of the game rules (preferably playtested on some sort of makeshift tabletop-environment) and a list of other requirements set for the engine even before I start to think about the general architechture, let alone write a single line of code. In a project of this size it is absolutely necessary to use some sort of software engineering method, even if its not all that fancy.

---

Absolutely right. I'll try to make an overview during the next days, at least from my point of view therefore we'll have something we can discuss. But it will be more a logical system. Maybe someone else can think about some rules. (Hmm, Loki?)

Dave

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:
Ok. I can give you a map. What format do you require? I can provide a world map in any basic format (gif/jpg) exct. I do not know any other formats.
WiR Map scale will take at least 4 weeks to finnish. that is a big map.
Hexegon based and including up to 10 types of terrain.

---

Loki

Your initiative is great but doing a map now might be going the third step before the first. As Heiks mentioned above there should be some rules. Your turn (including others of course)?

Dave

Originally posted by davewolf:

Ok, Java. Hmm, are there enough Java programmers out there willing to spend some time?

---

You've got one here... and if you know C++ you already know Java or if you've programmed anything object oriented, you'll catch the syntax in no time. The good thing in java is that it makes it quite difficult to shoot oneself in the foot. oh, and the nice (relatively) simple GUI-system.

Yes, I like java... so what? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Absolutely right. I'll try to make an overview during the next days, at least from my point of view therefore we'll have something we can discuss. But it will be more a logical system. Maybe someone else can think about some rules. (Hmm, Loki?)

Dave

---

Originally posted by heiks:
Yes, I like java... so what?

---

Heiks

Great! I'm glad to know that the weight isn't just on my shoulders. What I'm concerned about is not a matter of syntax but the program environment. I've only programmed Windows applications now.

Dave

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir:


Much of the system could be similar to WiR but with the addition of many extras (theres about 30 i can think of at this moment)
For example, a few would be
Battle Group shells that would be attached to Corps (or armies) that hold only 2 to 3 units.(only one a Div)
Parra drops.
Commando units and attacks.
Full research rules linked to economy.
Espionage
And of course. A full naval system including commerce and Carrier/air/sub

---

Loki

Some great ideas. I'd like to hear even more of them. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> Especially research is one thing I love (CIV, Master of Orion). But just more design problems: How to keep players from researching jet flight in 1938 for example?

Dave

Originally posted by davewolf:


Loki

Some great ideas. I'd like to hear even more of them. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> Especially research is one thing I love (CIV, Master of Orion). But just more design problems: How to keep players from researching jet flight in 1938 for example?

Dave

---

Dave

Many counties (USA,Germany,UK and others )could have researched Jet turbine Tech in '38 (and did), They may not have made any great advances but every little bit helps. My current files have all major powers involved in turbine research and the proposed game system allows for any amount of effort into a tech.(with some gradiated restrictions)
In real life the germans put a lot into jet turbine reserch and history shows the results. They were not that far ahead of the allies but just 1 year makes them look impressive.
My research rules are fairly flexible. (if you know a thing can be done that is half the battle won, look at fission)
Espionage also is aimed at helping research, a big effort there can do wonders.
So to answer your question. You do not stop players researching jets. You just make sure that any research they do is realistic.

Loki