Matrix Games Forums

I'm Just curious as to why you guys keep working on RHS if AE is coming out "soon". Don't get the wrong impression here, I think you guys are genious in being able to do what you have already done. Do you think you will still have a 'cult' following after AE is released? Did you try to be a part of the AE team. I really don't know all the players and like I said just curious. [&o]

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

I'm Just curious as to why you guys keep working on RHS if AE is coming out "soon". Don't get the wrong impression here, I think you guys are genious in being able to do what you have already done. Do you think you will still have a 'cult' following after AE is released? Did you try to be a part of the AE team. I really don't know all the players and like I said just curious. [&o]

Because we will want to mod AE, and keeping RHS up-to-date helps ensure that we will know what we have to mod to set up the variant scenarios we're interested in.

We did propose what became AE - but before it had a name - on the board.

A number of concepts introduced by RHS have been adopted by Matrix. Most - but not all - are to be part of AE (e.g. blimps, four engine transport planes, dedicated recon bombers, submarine bombers for submarine carriers).
But consider that WITP itself was modified so there can be functional Russian ships and ports.

We (both CHS and RHS) havve enjoyed "just in time" technical support from Matrix - and at least once we (both CHS and RHS) were given a technical disclosure - so we could implement unused code (cavalry units in CHS and RHS, but not official Matrix scenarios - at least at the time it was done - have their own symbol).

We were not aware of how AE workers were compensated (apparently they may get paid after there is money from sales - and not unless and until that happens) - until after I said I had been offered money - more than once. Joe Wilkerson responded "at least someone is getting paid - no one working on AE has recieved a cent" - something like that. I promptly posted this information so AE workers could get recognized for their efforts without demanding pay in the sense most of us do when we go to work. Joe once said he had proposed I do something - it was rejected (he didn't say by whom) - but that "soon" I would have a task. It never happened - and the politics of that is outside my knowledge. But to have been nominated - never mind for what - by Joe is in my view high praise.

One other RHS team member - Cobra - apparently did do some work for Matrix on more than one occasion - but I don't know if either was for AE - he honored non disclosure agreements and never revealed details - even off the record.

The why is essentially two fold:

1) We will use the data and ideas in an AE variation of RHS - since AE did not adopt a number of important RHS concepts we want to fold them in anyway - and since we are not allowed to do so before it is released we will do it afterward - it will need on the order of a year - if we are lucky.

2) If AE is not ever released or not really functional in some critical sense - it has happened - see the first computerized WITP which never worked (by Simulations Publicaitons I think - the MAC version was released but failed, the PC version was never released at all) - we will continue to evolve the WITP form of RHS.

RHS is experimental - and over time we learn more about what works, what does not work, and also we get suggestions on the Forum - and there is no reason not to use what we have learned for the benefit of new game starts.

Finally note software always takes longer than planned. I planned to do RHS in "about two months" - but needed two years to make it close to functional - with lots of help. That was about two years ago. AE was officially stated to be planned for release in June last year - and "not going to be late" - but that isn't how software usually works out - and AE is no exception. We have no idea how long it will be - and so why not do the best possible with current software?

I exchanged some emails with JFD about Victory at Sea--it was an interesting story. Basically, the game company overreached the available technology. Jim did provide game data and a concept for the game engine, but that probably reflected a board game approach. I suspect nobody involved had a clue about the necessary complexity of the game engine and particularly how to build an AI.