Matrix Games Forums

It would be great to see some cross pollination between Matrix Games' designers. A good example is CoD-the talk of expanding the game into a "kit" is great-but the real undiscovered virtue of the game is the miniatures resolution aspect of combat.

I don't have $1,000's of Nap minitures, nor room to put them-how about working out a deal with the makers of "Tin Soldiers" for the miniatures resolution? It seems a great match. I would love a Napoleon in Russia game by Frank (with a cleaned up version of the CoD engine), with a miatures component by the "Tin Soldiers" guys.

Yes, I mentioned this in an EiA thread. It may be time to get them all working on the Holy Grail.

Standardize and modularize the games. Get a total war type tactical game and also an isometric turn based tactical game and standardize the data so that when I am playing Campaigns of Napoleon when it comes to a battle I can choose to have the game resolve it or if I have purchased the other games, I can resolve it in real-time, turn based, or a miniature game. Then the results are again applied back into the campaign.

Go the other way also. Do a turn based/PBEM political Napoloeonic game. When wars need resolving, either they are resolved by that game or it can feed the relevent, standardized data into the strategic game.

I'm always willing to share my data map with another designer so that two games can pass data back and forth.

I'm always baffled by this kind of comment. I have difficulty finding the time to play a strategical or operational game. Then I find people complaining because they can't stretch the game to mindboggling length by adding a full tactical component and playing out all battles in detail.

Don't you people have jobs or families? Are you millionaire bachelors with nothing else to do in life? I don't mean to be rude here; I'm genuinely puzzled.

The Holy Grail game wouldn't be a time sink, as I envision it.

Firstly, all modules/options would be optional so you can skip over the tactical simulators or naval battles or politics if you just want to do operational wargaming. There's a time saver right there.

But more, I'd love it if the operational game could be played in something approximating real time. Play it by email with friends and spend an hour or two doing your moves once or twice a week. When it came time to do a pitched battle, gather friends together to fight it out online maybe in an afternoon.

I'm frustrated by the current trend of 3d tactical simulators to make battles last 5 minutes which means it becomes twitch gaming rather than a game of patience, timing, and observation. Likewise, campaign games that embrace time are a godsend. Campaigns on the Danube plays fast, but it develops slowly. You look 3-5 turns a ahead at times and only slowly can you begin to piece together exactly what is happening. This is different from 99% of other games where campaigns are sprints to the finish line.

I don't generally play tactical (battle) games, but I did try Sid Meier's Gettysburg when it came out. Although good in some ways, I felt it got some things completely wrong, and I suspect that other battle games are much the same.

1. I agree with you about the time acceleration. A game shouldn't be described as "real-time" when in fact it runs much faster than real time.

2. Orders can be transmitted instantly to any unit on the field? Ridiculous. Gettysburg with radio telephones...

3. All units have to be constantly monitored and micro-managed, otherwise they will behave stupidly. In real life this micro-management was certainly impossible and not quite so necessary.

Reading accounts of battles, at least of pre-20th-century battles, I feel they were so chaotic and so out of control that it's futile to try to make an intellectual exercise out of them. A good leader could influence a battle somewhat by making a few key decisions, but he wasn't in constant control of events in the way that games players like to be.

I prefer strategical or operational games because such a game can be both realistic and interesting to play. I doubt that a realistic battle game would be very interesting to play, because the player would have so little control over it.

Once upon a time there was a little gem called 'Austerlitz'. Graphics were minimal and units were simply coloured 3D blocks. The genius though was that you played a single commander. As a subordinate, you recieved orders from above that the computer generated, expressed as a sentence or two in English. As a commander, you gave orders to your subordinates, again, expressed as a sentence in English. "Davout, hold right flank defensively from Sokolnitz South."

The big failings in it were weak AI and a clunky command/text system that had you spending too much time finding the right phrasing. Modern systems could do this so much better. Take the command and control level of Campaigns on the Danumbe and craft a battlefield sim around ity and it could be fascinating.

My original thought was also that two seperate designers-one good with the operational design of wargames, and the other good with the turn based tactical side.

I also didn't really mean something like Rome TW with diplomacy, real time etc. I'm talking a pretty "pure" wargame. Turn based. Tin Soldiers seems to have done a good job on the tactical turn based imatation of tabletop.

In terms of time-turn based saves you having to sit for hours while a battle unfolds. You can come back at any point. Whether you can leave the game for "just one more turn" is a mark of how good it is, though.

Hi!

I think its a great idea!

Strategic game with computer "miniatures battle" tactical resolution.

It would be especially kewl if the game would allow the player to mod the miniatures by painting them the way he wants as well.

Ray (alias Lava)

Lava wrote:

"It would be especially kewl if the game would allow the player to mod the miniatures by painting them the way he wants as well. "

Exactly!!
[:D]