Modern Naval Wargame?

Slick91 · Post by **Slick91** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 6:39 pm

Is there any interest in creating a turn based, modern (Cold War) naval & ground wargame?

Let's say a conglomeration of War in the Pacific/Uncommon Valor and Harpoon (boardgame/not computer).

Disclaimer: I’m not looking for investors or programmers for a start-up opportunity. I am curious to see if there is genuine interest in a naval wargame of this magnitude and the realistic possibility of it being created. If so, maybe this could spark some development interest from Matrix. They are one of the very few companies out there that can do a wargame right (the first time).

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 6:51 pm

Skick have you been to Wargamer lately, they have some naval enthusiasts as well.

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:30 pm

You should make more "diferentiating" poll.

For instance I'd say I am very interested in the late cold war game (such as Harpoon 4 should be, if it's ever finished), and almost completely uninterested in "modern", post-2000 naval game.

Oleg

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:57 pm

It's possibly an over done setting, but me, if I am going to play a naval game odds are it will have to be between 1930s and 40s to have my attention.

Modern warfare really doesn't have the appeal for me.

Today a carrier is really just a floating airbase to torment small nations, over an overly expensive target for a real military power.

And submarines today are really just floating nuclear missile bases.

Actions like chasing the Bismarck, or outwitting the Japanese at Midway are no more. And that is basically what I would expect in a naval game if I was interested at all really.

Slick91 · Post by **Slick91** » Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:28 pm

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
You should make more "diferentiating" poll.

For instance I'd say I am very interested in the late cold war game (such as Harpoon 4 should be, if it's ever finished), and almost completely uninterested in "modern", post-2000 naval game.

Oleg

Good point.

Generally, I would have to assume that it would be geared around a Harpoon setting such as the 1980 during the technological peak of the Cold War. This would be a must for a long campaign setting. The smaller scenarios could be based on current or future scenarios. The other aspect would be any futuristic or hypothetical conflicts such as a “Blue Water” Chinese Navy vs US/NATO.

You wouldn’t have to worry about any production elements, only logistics. Imaging the scope of a Cold War World Theater with naval, air, and ground forces. Who cares about 3D eye candy and a real time sim if you could zoom out and zoom in to the brigade level of ground combat and track individual ships or aircraft as in Uncommon Valor.

If something in the scope of the Pacific Theater in WWII is being tackled, why not have a hypothetical Cold War gone hot. Maybe the poll should actually be a “Cold War Modern Ground/Naval Wargame?” Can a moderator change that heading?

Mr.Frag · Post by **Mr.Frag** » Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:38 am

I don't think Turn Based would have much appeal, but most certainly there is interest in seeing a modern engine that is capable of real timing current technology and dealing with the past. Do up a good enough engine and you can cover all naval aspects back to the days of sail (ie: a sail is just another form of propulsion system that can be damaged by combat)

I'd personally love to see something like Harpoon II that covered everything from Jutland through to today at a naval level...

Time scales just don't work for me when you are talking naval combat, there should be no pause key (turn based) that lets you deal with the realities of commanding a task force. They didn't have pause when overloaded with information, so we shouldn't have it either. There's just something about having a Kirov battlegroup unload at you with everything under the sun and watching real time as those missiles come in at 1000 miles an hour+ and you have seconds to react before your entire fleet becomes a coral reef.

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Fri May 02, 2003 2:40 pm

Originally posted by Mr.Frag
There's just something about having a Kirov battlegroup unload at you with everything under the sun and watching real time as those missiles come in at 1000 miles an hour+ and you have seconds to react before your entire fleet becomes a coral reef.

Or watching an Alpha strike come towards you!

Or watching your screen fill with countless shipwreak missiles inbound towards you CV battlegroup....and knowing that you don't have enough defensive missiles left:(

Oh man those were the days!

DavidW75 · Post by **DavidW75** » Sun May 04, 2003 11:24 pm

For die hards I recommend Harpoon 3. Till H4 comes out:mad: I've always been interested in the air side. Imagine directing the air war over Germany. Any interest in that aspect? No reason you couldn't use the same engine.

Slick91 · Post by **Slick91** » Mon May 05, 2003 5:12 pm

Originally posted by DavidW75
For die hards I recommend Harpoon 3. Till H4 comes out:mad: I've always been interested in the air side. Imagine directing the air war over Germany. Any interest in that aspect? No reason you couldn't use the same engine.

That would be my dream come true game, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (WWIII), real-time, Air, Sea, Land, on a theater (or global) scale down to "manageable" units and logistics.

What I mean by that is I don't want a Hearts of Iron abstract where units move in blocks of hundreds of miles. But, I don't want to be having to physically direct every plane, ship, and tank.

And yes, what I'm smoking is very good indeed!

Just PLEASE don't even try to add 3D graphics!!! That was the biggest mistake of Harpoon4's development.

brent_2 · Post by **brent_2** » Mon May 05, 2003 7:13 pm

Originally posted by Slick91
That would be my dream come true game, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact (WWIII), real-time, Air, Sea, Land, on a theater (or global) scale down to "manageable" units and logistics.

What I mean by that is I don't want a Hearts of Iron abstract where units move in blocks of hundreds of miles. But, I don't want to be having to physically direct every plane, ship, and tank.

And yes, what I'm smoking is very good indeed!

Just PLEASE don't even try to add 3D graphics!!! That was the biggest mistake of Harpoon4's development.

I'm with you on this Slick....I am also doubtful about the addition of 3D to harpoon - I don't think it needed it.

Otoh, the addition of new graphics to the display - better weather, day/night etc is what makes me interested still. I suspect I would want to play without using the 3D views...

A combination of UV and H2 would be perfect imho

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Mon May 05, 2003 10:37 pm

We are currently making good progress on our complete makeover of SimCan's Cold War battles in Germany game.

We also have work ongoing on thier WW2 tactical naval games.

Nothing is in stone, but The SimCan Cold War naval games are in the pack waiting in the wings to get their "ultimate make over".

DavidW75 · Post by **DavidW75** » Tue May 06, 2003 2:34 am

Yeah I can't wait till Flashpoint:Germany is done

I don't care for the 3d, but I would like some visual to set the mood. Video clips, audio clips are great, take Steel Beasts nothing like hearing artillery rumble across a valley, plus maybe a 3d model to view in an encyclopedia or unit report. I'll probably pick up H3 now since they pushed H4 back.

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Tue May 06, 2003 2:41 am

Originally posted by Slick91

Just PLEASE don't even try to add 3D graphics!!! That was the biggest mistake of Harpoon4's development.

Hmmm... that particular decision most certainly wasn't the "biggest mistake" on H4 development. H4 development is so full of mistakes, wrong decisions, bad luck, and plain stupidity that to say 3D graphics is "biggest mistake" is just plain wrong...

BTW I love good graphics, be it 3D or 2D. Development time spent on a GOOD graphics in a game is never wasted IMO. Yes, I love incredibly complex games, but that's beside the point.

Simple games, complex games - they are all more enjoyable with good graphics. Nothing like seeing Kirov launch salvo of missiles in all their 3D glory. I don't want to play DOS-a-like games on my multi-megahertz PC...

O.

Slick91 · Post by **Slick91** » Tue May 06, 2003 4:49 pm

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
Hmmm... that particular decision most certainly wasn't the "biggest mistake" on H4 development. H4 development is so full of mistakes, wrong decisions, bad luck, and plain stupidity that to say 3D graphics is "biggest mistake" is just plain wrong...

My point of the 3D being the biggest mistake among countless others stems from my opinion that if they had never bothered to include 3D they could have allocated much more resources to the hardcore elements and improvements from prior versions. If they had done that, then the game would probably already be out by now. The game would have been much further along in development every time it hit one of those crutial decisions of if to cancel it or not.

It is a fact that the first developer that SSI picked was fired because they were focusing on cute 3D eye candy such as moving elevators and little pointless details.

So, I take up your point that it is just plain wrong to say it was the biggest mistake. Opinions are just like a$$holes, everybody has one and everyone thinks their own doesn't stink!

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Tue May 06, 2003 5:01 pm

"Moving elevators" is too much and really pointless, even from my point of view...

But what I wanted to say is - I generally LOVE eye candy. Does that make me shallow? I wouldn't say so... I play incredibly complex and time-consuming games, I never quit my PBEMs unless in really desperate position etc. I am ready to swallow all the heaps of numbers and data any game throws my way, but I STILL want it to look NICE on my screen.

I appreciate effort developers invest into graphic side of their game(s).

I think there are many gamers that share my opinion re "eye candy" (they're not necesarilly here on this forum) and from the developer and publisher's POV it is clever to allocate resources to game graphics (2D or 3D).

O.

Slick91 · Post by **Slick91** » Tue May 06, 2003 8:32 pm

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
[B...I am ready to swallow all the heaps of numbers and data any game throws my way, but I STILL want it to look NICE on my screen.

I appreciate effort developers invest into graphic side of their game(s).

I think there are many gamers that share my opinion re "eye candy" (they're not necesarilly here on this forum) and from the developer and publisher's POV it is clever to allocate resources to game graphics (2D or 3D).

O. [/B]

I agree with your point. If a game doesn't look good, it won't sell good.

It is a hard call to make on a developer. It seems the majority of them think every game made these days MUST have a 3D element in the graphics department.

The war gaming market seems to crave detail and accuracy in the game's mechanics vs. accuracy and detail in the art and graphics.

IMHO, Matrix Games does a great balance of accuracy and graphical appeal. But, it seems you can always use more of both...

showboat1 · Post by **showboat1** » Mon May 12, 2003 11:01 pm

I would be very interested in a naval warfare games that cover any period from Civil War era to 2003.

Some would say that the present day doesn't hold that much interest, after all there really isn't a navy in the world (or a realistic combination of navies for that matter) who could oppose the US Navy. However, conflicts between say, France and Britain, or China and Taiwan, or the EU versus Russia would hold some interest.

On a side note, how about an oft neglected period of time like the 1950's or 1960's. The struggle to resupply Europe during a ground war (ala the original Harpoon only earlier) would be quite a challenge. Maybe a PACWAR/WAR IN RUSSIA conglomeration modernized into the 1950's and 60's. Lots of potential hypotheticals!;)

Kobe for Prez · Post by **Kobe for Prez** » Wed May 14, 2003 12:28 am

The Mississippi River Campaign won by Grant and the Red River Campaign won by Taylor have always fascinated me. Would love a game that covered the river warfar of the Civil War. Also have ALOT of interest in the 1895-1905 period. Lots of interesting gaming to be had there, Tsushima Straights, Spanish-American War to name of few.

Great point about the 1950's-60's! There's an area that probably has gotten very little attention. Something like the combo game you mentioned would be great.

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Wed May 14, 2003 5:00 pm

Anyone from Matrix want to comment on this topic??????????

James Taylor · Post by **James Taylor** » Fri May 16, 2003 12:06 am

This might satisfy you guys in the mean time.... www.battlegoat.com