What potential does this game have?
I'm new to the forums, so this might have been brought up before, but regaurdless here we go..
Does this game have the potential to encompass larger operations, other than just Market Garden, or other "specific operations". Could this game engine possibly expand to encompass all of Europe, All road and rail systems, etc. So that the bigger picture can take place.
It seems to me the system for units and movement etc. is already in place, so what is limiting this engine from going to the next 'continental' level.
Instead of controlling a few divisions in the Hells Highway area. Why not all of Western Europe, in a lengthy campaign where control of all the forces involved in the ETO is allowed.
Why not the entire North Africa campaign as well?
Barbarosa anyone?
The main question is, what if any barriers are there that would limit this game's 'engine' from expanding to the larger level.
If it could make this expansion, I think it would bar-none the best ww2 strategy simulation EVER to appear.
THINK BIG!
Potential of HTTR
Moderator: Arjuna
RE: Potential of HTTR
Offhand the following limitations come to mind:
(1) CPU processing power. In order to maintain the level of detail and still scale up the scope, you need CPU cycles. As I understand it, the game already pegs most current technology CPUs in the largest scenarios.
(2) Financial resources. PG is small and is catering to a niche market. So, you are going to see measured and incremental improvements with each product they roll out. But I don't think PG is going to attempt to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
(3) A certain degree of increased scale and scope is reasonable, but at a certain point (such as the modeling entire theaters) the focus of the series changes from being what PG has defined as being its product line to something very different.
(4) Even without a radical change of scale and scope, there is plenty of room for PG to significantly grow the series both in terms of material covered and features offered.
---
However, I do think one day the natural elegance of PG's solution to gaming complexity and interaction (meaning chain of command, interact at any level, micro/macro manage as you see fit) will eventually be adopted by other developers for other gaming systems. In the long run, I don't think this innovation will remain exclusively the offering of PG.
(1) CPU processing power. In order to maintain the level of detail and still scale up the scope, you need CPU cycles. As I understand it, the game already pegs most current technology CPUs in the largest scenarios.
(2) Financial resources. PG is small and is catering to a niche market. So, you are going to see measured and incremental improvements with each product they roll out. But I don't think PG is going to attempt to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
(3) A certain degree of increased scale and scope is reasonable, but at a certain point (such as the modeling entire theaters) the focus of the series changes from being what PG has defined as being its product line to something very different.
(4) Even without a radical change of scale and scope, there is plenty of room for PG to significantly grow the series both in terms of material covered and features offered.
---
However, I do think one day the natural elegance of PG's solution to gaming complexity and interaction (meaning chain of command, interact at any level, micro/macro manage as you see fit) will eventually be adopted by other developers for other gaming systems. In the long run, I don't think this innovation will remain exclusively the offering of PG.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
RE: Potential of HTTR
Those were some barriers that I expected to hear.. especially the CPU thing.
Maybe PG could 'sell' their 'technology' or outsource it to a larger software developer that could conceivably construct a game of such size.
I agree that radical changes arent neccesary. They could probably add whole armies to the system already in place, the problem of the CPU usage then becomes the only real barrier.
What I was contemplating was having Large Army/Corps sized units given objectives of seizing entire areas (i.e. regions, oil fields [;)] large areas). Not just objectives like bridges, and small areas and such.
For instance a hypothetical campaign could be Paulus 6th Army going for Stalingrad to seize the route to the oilfields. But not just have the 6th Army, but all of Army Group South... This is just a rough hypothetical example of course.
Maybe PG could 'sell' their 'technology' or outsource it to a larger software developer that could conceivably construct a game of such size.
I agree that radical changes arent neccesary. They could probably add whole armies to the system already in place, the problem of the CPU usage then becomes the only real barrier.
What I was contemplating was having Large Army/Corps sized units given objectives of seizing entire areas (i.e. regions, oil fields [;)] large areas). Not just objectives like bridges, and small areas and such.
For instance a hypothetical campaign could be Paulus 6th Army going for Stalingrad to seize the route to the oilfields. But not just have the 6th Army, but all of Army Group South... This is just a rough hypothetical example of course.
RE: Potential of HTTR
Sell or license their technology? Serious?
Well, I had consulted to quite a few Internet startups prior to the tech meltdown. And, for many, the end game was not really traditional business success, but to be acquired by a bigger player so that they could cash out.
PG seems to be a rather traditional group of dreamers/business people. Meaning that they seem to love their baby that they are building and nuturing. Of course, they want to be financially viable, but I think that is primarily so they can invest even more in their baby as opposed to cutting it loose for a buck. On the other hand, no one has offered Dave $5,000,000 USD for the company yet. After all, he and some of the others are getting on in years ... so, you never know.
Well, I had consulted to quite a few Internet startups prior to the tech meltdown. And, for many, the end game was not really traditional business success, but to be acquired by a bigger player so that they could cash out.
PG seems to be a rather traditional group of dreamers/business people. Meaning that they seem to love their baby that they are building and nuturing. Of course, they want to be financially viable, but I think that is primarily so they can invest even more in their baby as opposed to cutting it loose for a buck. On the other hand, no one has offered Dave $5,000,000 USD for the company yet. After all, he and some of the others are getting on in years ... so, you never know.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
RE: Potential of HTTR
Indeed, if I am not mistaken it has been explained a couple of times that according to performance profiling they have been doing, a lot of juice is currently required from the CPU in the largest scenarios to calculate and re-calcute multiple unit routes and LOS, while also taking into account terrain (I think the grid is 100m X 100m, so it gets quite heavy on large maps). Going larger than that would make impossible for some users to run these scenarios on their machine.
But it was also said that as CPU power increases and they refine the engine, anything is possible in the future [:)]
IMHO, to have a strategic game however (like the whole European theater of WWII) would require a large re-scaling and overhaul of the engine since it was primarily designed for operational-level warfare.
But it was also said that as CPU power increases and they refine the engine, anything is possible in the future [:)]
IMHO, to have a strategic game however (like the whole European theater of WWII) would require a large re-scaling and overhaul of the engine since it was primarily designed for operational-level warfare.
RE: Potential of HTTR
Interesting discussion.
HTTR realistically simulates combat - ie it handles each weapon and each AFV/pers target. This is fine for the tactical and operational level that we are pitching at. Here the unit scale is company/platoon and the underlying movement grid is 100m ( albeit we actually move/locate units in 1m increments ). Once you increase the unit and movement grid scales you also need to rewrite the combat and movement systems. This would be a major effort. We started full time work on this game engine in 1996. There is well over twenty man years of effort. We need to recoup some of our investment before we could entertain committing the time required for such a major change. So as Mark has mentioned, we will be focusing on this scale and evolving the engine with each product release.
But don't despair. One day I would like to do a larger scale simulation. I cut my design teeth developing Trial of Strength, a board wargame covering the entire Eastern front. I reckon a War in Europe simulation would be a hoot. But for now we need to stay the course already set, make some profit and then we'll be able to reinvest in a different tack.
HTTR realistically simulates combat - ie it handles each weapon and each AFV/pers target. This is fine for the tactical and operational level that we are pitching at. Here the unit scale is company/platoon and the underlying movement grid is 100m ( albeit we actually move/locate units in 1m increments ). Once you increase the unit and movement grid scales you also need to rewrite the combat and movement systems. This would be a major effort. We started full time work on this game engine in 1996. There is well over twenty man years of effort. We need to recoup some of our investment before we could entertain committing the time required for such a major change. So as Mark has mentioned, we will be focusing on this scale and evolving the engine with each product release.
But don't despair. One day I would like to do a larger scale simulation. I cut my design teeth developing Trial of Strength, a board wargame covering the entire Eastern front. I reckon a War in Europe simulation would be a hoot. But for now we need to stay the course already set, make some profit and then we'll be able to reinvest in a different tack.
RE: Potential of HTTR
WOW, a TOAW scale for strategic manuvering which can drill down to a HTTR scale to tactically manage an actual battle would be awesome.
How about this for the future, the ability to rewind an ongoing battle an hour or so. Not allowed to do anything or change an outcome just scroll back time. Sometimes I'm watching something up close in one area and miss something elsewhere on the map. Be great to be able to scroll back time and repeat it.
How about this for the future, the ability to rewind an ongoing battle an hour or so. Not allowed to do anything or change an outcome just scroll back time. Sometimes I'm watching something up close in one area and miss something elsewhere on the map. Be great to be able to scroll back time and repeat it.
RE: Potential of HTTR
I dont know much about programming, or software theory. But possibly, instead of making a huge European map. PG could create a 'program' to encompass all of the different operation size scenarios they plan on making in the future, and connect them in a very thourough way, so that the outcome of the prior operation effects the outcome of the next.
Thus, instead of making one huge map of europe, make several small operational maps, but tie them together in a way that is seamless and feels as if it is one continuous campaign.
Thus, instead of making one huge map of europe, make several small operational maps, but tie them together in a way that is seamless and feels as if it is one continuous campaign.
RE: Potential of HTTR
What about scaling it up to the whole world war but having the smallest unit be a division or bigger.
Kind of like Hearts of Iron but with this gaming system.
Of course everything would have to be scaled up. Time included. And Air power would have to be modelled
differently. Perhaps assign squadrons as support forces. Same with artillery.
Just a thought.
Kind of like Hearts of Iron but with this gaming system.
Of course everything would have to be scaled up. Time included. And Air power would have to be modelled
differently. Perhaps assign squadrons as support forces. Same with artillery.
Just a thought.
-
JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: Potential of HTTR
Anybody remember "Fire Brigade: The Battle for Kiev 1943"? [;)]
That scale (div/corps) would be ideal for modelling very large theaters of war...
That scale (div/corps) would be ideal for modelling very large theaters of war...
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
RE: Potential of HTTR
On last days I have been writing some ideas about a grand strategy game with scaled real-time and vectorial movement, avoiding the traditional hex/province terrain division and allowing free movement and flow of combat.
All the time I had HTTR in my mind, but expanding to a bigger level. In my thoughts I have wrotten that a full new dimension (or various) should be added to control politics, production, logistics, manpower management, etc. So movement model would only be the base. This could take years with a small team.
But now, thinking about strategic level, just see playing the whole Battle of the Bulge in one map, being batallion smallest unit. Or the battle for Stalingrad, or whatever battle along the war. Would requiere much less work (but yet a lot of work), scaling should be done, and tweaking of some combat aspects. Addition of air power management, and better rtillery model, but BTW I think it could be done with current engine with some work.
All the time I had HTTR in my mind, but expanding to a bigger level. In my thoughts I have wrotten that a full new dimension (or various) should be added to control politics, production, logistics, manpower management, etc. So movement model would only be the base. This could take years with a small team.
But now, thinking about strategic level, just see playing the whole Battle of the Bulge in one map, being batallion smallest unit. Or the battle for Stalingrad, or whatever battle along the war. Would requiere much less work (but yet a lot of work), scaling should be done, and tweaking of some combat aspects. Addition of air power management, and better rtillery model, but BTW I think it could be done with current engine with some work.
RE: Potential of HTTR
I hope this engine never goes grand strategic... it would ruin the game IMO. I could see having the smallest unit be at Battalion level (especially for some of the large Russian Front battles), but any bigger than this and I quickly lose interest.
I would rather the game go down in scale and represent the tactical level with individual vehicles and squads.
But you guys keep dreaming [;)]
Bil
I would rather the game go down in scale and represent the tactical level with individual vehicles and squads.
But you guys keep dreaming [;)]
Bil
Ah, well, since you do not wish death, then how about a rubber chicken?
Sam the Eagle
My Combat Mission Blog:
https://battledrill.blogspot.com/
Sam the Eagle
My Combat Mission Blog:
https://battledrill.blogspot.com/
-
JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: Potential of HTTR
ORIGINAL: Bil H
I would rather the game go down in scale and represent the tactical level with individual vehicles and squads.
Aren't there enough tactical level wargames already? My personal "dream" would be a game similar to Fire Brigade (produced by Panther Games btw) but with a scale of bn/regimental -level perhaps. Proper abstraction of LOS, which is the resource hog here, could make games of higher scale possible with HTTR-like game engine, AFAIK.
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
-
CriticalMass
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:37 pm
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
RE: Potential of HTTR
ORIGINAL: Keke
Anybody remember "Fire Brigade: The Battle for Kiev 1943"? [;)]
That scale (div/corps) would be ideal for modelling very large theaters of war...
Indeed I do. I paid £150 (GBP) for a whole 1/2 MB of Amiga RAM just to run it. And that without a demo [;)], just a couple of pictures in a magazine review.
I decided to ignore my orders and to take command at the front with my own hands as soon as possible
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel
- Lieutenant General Erwin Rommel
RE: Potential of HTTR
ORIGINAL: Bil H
I hope this engine never goes grand strategic... it would ruin the game IMO. I could see having the smallest unit be at Battalion level (especially for some of the large Russian Front battles), but any bigger than this and I quickly lose interest.
I would rather the game go down in scale and represent the tactical level with individual vehicles and squads.
But you guys keep dreaming [;)]
Bil
Why? It's just natural evolution
Early or later something like this game engine will be done for grand strategy, it's just a superior level in modelling combt than the tirefull hexes and provinces, with their limited movement and game dynamics, war in not llike that, wr is like HTTR, it's neccessary and eventually someone will do it
However right now I'm more interested with strategic level, running the whole M-G in one map would be just awesome
RE: Potential of HTTR
Does anyone remember the ill fated Road to Moscow?
I hope I have that name right.
My understanding was that the game mechanics were similar
to HTTR but the scale was going to be Operation Barbarosa.
How's that for a grand scale!!!
Game never made it to publication but they did release some previews
and screen shots: e.g.:
http://www.cdmag.com/articles/001/024/r ... eview.html
I hope I have that name right.
My understanding was that the game mechanics were similar
to HTTR but the scale was going to be Operation Barbarosa.
How's that for a grand scale!!!
Game never made it to publication but they did release some previews
and screen shots: e.g.:
http://www.cdmag.com/articles/001/024/r ... eview.html