What do you want to see next from Matrix?

[degen]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I can agree with Degen.

Matrix Games has treated us and treated us and treated us. Where does it end?

SPWaW is done folks. It works. Every item that has needed a patch (to my knowledge) where the word "need" is functionally of value, was created as a result of creating the latest version.

I remember christmas day hearing that the snd folder got messed up as the files were nestled in a redundant folder. Little errors like that basically. But considering the people involved were working themselves to perhaps crazy levels to give us a completed game in time for christmas morning.

Now there will always be those that don't agree with some aspect of the games "realism". We are all wargamers, and it is a personal affliction of wargamers, that we all "know better than the other guy".

But I would like to see some stalwart individual, or group of individuals, stop talking with their keyboard, and start talking with their wallets. After 8.0 I think it is time the game's needs were taken up by a private group and left to them to fiddle with it if anyone feels it is actually important.
Leave Matrix Games to get on with their future, and stop expecting them to endlessly fiddle with a game that plays just fine (regardless if you think that machine gun was to efficient, or that bazooka seemed odd).

It is forgotten in most cases, that each time the game is fiddled with, it means a major rush of fresh downloads. Each download has cost someone cash, and that someone is normally Matrix Games. Ok David has explained the actual cost before, but to put it in terms you can relate to, picture each download costing approximately the same as a modest priced wargame. So if you have downloaded the file say 20 times over the course of enjoying it over the years that Matrix Games has been evolving it, you have basically gotten matrix Games to invest in 200 plus bucks on giving you that free game.

That is no small thing.

Which is why it is time, the overly fussy crowd should be asked to shoulder this burden, or just enjoy that game, and stop insisting on minor minutae get fiddled with.

I play Steel Panthers WaW regularly. I have yet to play a game, and get a result, and get angry over the result, and quit the game due to its obvious grotesque level of inaccuracy.
I frankly don't even see the results.
I play the game with the perspective, was it fun, did I need to concentrate to win, was it to hard to win, or was it do darned simple to win. It never is about, did that MG get a result that is historically idiotic.

I want Matrix Games to move forward and onward.

Forward to me, is finishing Combat Leader, and cornering the market for turn using tactical wargaming at this scale of combat. It would please me to see it in a years time after release, become the industry favourite, and to hear David just paid off his mortgage or something hehe.

I want what Matrix Games is doing, to have been practical.
I want them to still be here in 5 years.

Well said Les. SPWAW has been a hecka of a good ride and I doubt that I have received as much value from any other game.

I believe a good exit strategy is needed for SPWAW so that Matrix can concentrate on products that pay the bills.

[Jane Doe]

What i would like to see covered... hmm

A SpWaW (or SB or CM) crossed with TOAW (or KP or others) all in one game.

How would it work? easy[8D]:
There would be a big 1km or more hex-based map where you play at the operational scale, then each time you assault the enemy in a hex or even just enter enemy held territory (or the other way around), it would ask you if you want to recreate the assault or the advance, or the defence or whatever, at the tactical scale.
If you do not want, the results would be managed by a die roll.
If you say Yes though, you would then be transfered to a much more detailed hex-based (or not hex based) map of the 1km hex you just assaulted when in the operational phase.(or maybe a map showing the important objective in order to capture the entire hex, etc)
I don't think anyone would want to play each and every operational movement in the tactical phase (it would totally wreck the rythm of the game), but you could certainly choose any unit, say a division, and decide to play each and every encounter they go through pretty much like a mega-campaign, except it would be more appropriately* called giga-campaign
Simple isn't it?[8|]

So what do you think of my idea? comments? insults? anyone?
Panzer Campaigns games would be a piece of cake compared to that game!

As you might see, I have faith in you guys at Matrix![;)]

[Belisarius]

Combat Leader, dangit. [:D]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

The notion mentioned by Jane Doe is indeed possible as it has already been done before.

The older game D-Day the Beginning of the End, was a game recreating the Allied retaking of Europe. Each battle ie each time you commanded a counter to attack an enemy hex, could result in what the game referred to as a Microminiatures battle. This was basically a game of individual units combat that predated games like Steel Panthers.

The battle could also just be resolved without all that fuss.

Now if a game that is likely 10 years old nowcould manage this, then it is not like it can't be done. Although combining Steel Panthers type gaming with The Operational Art of War type gaming is definitely not going to fly with PBEM in my opinion. But I suppose it would attract some, as I have heard this sort of request before.

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Grouchy

A WWII eastfront game on War in russia/Road to Moscow scale.

yes,yes,yes... RtM was very promising project, but unfortunatly we mortals never seen the results

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

The notion mentioned by Jane Doe is indeed possible as it has already been done before.

The older game D-Day the Beginning of the End, was a game recreating the Allied retaking of Europe. Each battle ie each time you commanded a counter to attack an enemy hex, could result in what the game referred to as a Microminiatures battle. This was basically a game of individual units combat that predated games like Steel Panthers.

The battle could also just be resolved without all that fuss.

Now if a game that is likely 10 years old nowcould manage this, then it is not like it can't be done. Although combining Steel Panthers type gaming with The Operational Art of War type gaming is definitely not going to fly with PBEM in my opinion. But I suppose it would attract some, as I have heard this sort of request before.

Indeed multiplayer game would be hell. There would have to be a mixture of Head-to-head and head-vs-AI in every multiplayer game. To only make the concept of a MP game more concrete in this system is bound to create couples of headaches.

The operational phase would have to be in multiple phase. A phase where you advance or plan, and another phase where the combat is resolved and where you choose the battles you wanna play at the tactical level (or if you chose a particular unit... you play every battle it is involved in). If I take what i've just written, it would be more of a cross between V for Victory with spwaw than Toaw.

IMO, multiplayer would be feasable, it is only a new concept not yet elaborated. It is up to us to make it clear...
[X(]

[ratster]

Multi level games do exist, so they can work. The Total War series is a good example. Star General or the Cosmic Balance II are good examples of what happens when it all goes wrong.

[EricGuitarJames]

I suppose this might be covered by the 'UV-Med' suggestion above but I'd like to see the Tunisian/Italian campaign(s) - kind of like the old AH 'Anzio' board game.

[ansravar]

Hmmmm...A game like Super power......World strategic warfare but supported by econimics as well...
Super power 2 looks promising though but we will wait and see........
Hmmmm also perhaps a WWII game like HOI but playable and without bugs......

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: ansravar

Hmmmm...A game like Super power......World strategic warfare but supported by econimics as well...
Super power 2 looks promising though but we will wait and see........
Hmmmm also perhaps a WWII game like HOI but playable and without bugs......

There are two of those scheduled; World In Flames and World At War. Each has it's own forum on the site.

[Jane Doe]

ORIGINAL: ratster

Multi level games do exist, so they can work. The Total War series is a good example. Star General or the Cosmic Balance II are good examples of what happens when it all goes wrong.

Never played any of these games. Are they old?

Anyway, to paint a big picture, what i want is a multi level operational-tactical game set in WWII where your skill as a tactician could influence your operational planning. The way i grasp it is a phase-based operational game (like v for victory) coupled with any kind of tactical element game, whether it's like Combat mission or Squad Battles or Steel Panthers, etc.
This is what Matrix should do next![8D]

[ratster]

The Total War series is out now, but its not WWII era (medieval Japan, Europe). You manuever units on a strategic level, then when they meet you fight a tactical battle.

Star general was one of the original General series (Panzer General, Allied General, Fantasy General, Star General, Pacific General) It differed from the others in that there was a strategic element, (moving your guys around in space) then when you assaulted a planet you would fight a battle on the planets surface with 10 "tactical" turns for every 1 strategic turn . It suffered from bugs, really, really bad AI, etc.

Cosmic balance II is pretty old, 8-bit Atari. It was a follow on to Cosmic Balance which was a tactical ship to ship space combat game, like the board game Star Fleet Battles. Anyway CBII added a strategic layer, and nothing else, it was really poor, but you could exit it and fight the battles(when your ships met on the strategic map) using Cosmic Battles.

There's a lot of games that were great on the 8-bit that have never been remade....

[Hertston]

Not sure about Total War personally. Shogun was OK, but I must admit the "strategic" element of Medieval bored me to tears... although the game was well worth the money just for the MP battles.

No reason why multi-level couldn't work, though. Generally attempts have failed because they have just been too ambitious - to get it right you really are talking the development time and costs of two games. That's fine, if your sales are double too - but would they be ? [&:]

[Greyshaft]

My two major itches - Civil War Strategic and WWII strategic - are both being well scratched by Matrix at the moment so I won't push my luck

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Time factor, how old are you, how old do you wish to be when you complete a single game

Ok I love Steel Panthers as played via a Mega Campaign.

I was part of the test team, so I played the entire thing near 4 times. Did that over a few months time. Thats a lot of Steel Panthers eh heheh.

Now lets see, that was one formation's fighting over about 1.5 years of combat history at most.

Now to take and fight an entire theater out both at the strategic level, as well as the tactical, hmmmm.

IF you can get someone to design it, and IF you can get someone to actually buy it, you still need the TIME to play it.
As it stands, most games at the higher decision level are either quick and easy as is the case with Strategic Command, or incredibly indepth as in The Operational Art of War series.
To take either of those games, and attempt to game out individual battles that result, at the tactical level, would result in exceedingly lengthy time frames of actual gamer expenditure.

Now granted, the player would not need to fight out each battle, but how would you choose?

This approach though, won't fly in human vs human. Player A wants to game out in detail battle number 1, but player B just wants it resolved.
Can you imagine being the allied player in an attack by Germany on Poland in 39? Oh joy oh bliss, he wants to do each battle. But the moment the allied player is able to do the defense of France, oh nah I would rather just quick resolve those ones.

Won't work.

Tactical games are fun just as strategic games are fun. But a person shouldn't have to ponder how many actual years it will take to finish the game.

[John David]

I really like the Mega Campaign style of add on's to existing games. SPWAW is and always will be my favorite,(too much history dating back to the original SP [8D]) so any addition in this vain to other Matrix games is always welcome.

Wanted to see something like MC's for Uncommon Valor, but that's what War in the Pacific is for. Man, I can't wait for that one!

Finaly, just to echo what Sarge said in an earlier post, it's best for all of us to speak with our wallets. i too want to see Matrix Games alive and well for many years to come, and only we can make that happen!

JD

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Jane Doe

The way i grasp it is a phase-based operational game (like v for victory) coupled with any kind of tactical element game, whether it's like Combat mission or Squad Battles or Steel Panthers, etc.
This is what Matrix should do next!

This has already been done. Close Combat 4 was released in November 1999 and Close Combat 5 was released in December 2000

[ravinhood]

I like the idea of a strategic campaign and a tactical battle for control like the Total War Engine. But, for a wargame based on the Civil War, Napolean, or WWI or WWII, a hex by hex battle system would take a long time. Perhaps if it were provincial like MTW, it wouldn't take as long. But, then again it wouldn't be as realistic either I don't think. Then again neither was MTW! lol As much fun as I have with MTW, I see it more as a tactical game of RISK medieval style. Which was quite fun, but, far from realistic when my Dane conquered the world.

I'm going to be anxious to see how they do this in Rome:TW, since it is going to have over 10,000 squares, each representing an actual battlefield, if/when two forces collied. Somewhere in that game, if what I foresee is correct, once a player has masses of armies on the map, a game turn is going to take a day at least to play out all the tactical battles. On the bright side that will be fun. On the dark side, it will only be fun for awhile before it turns into tedium I think. Once you've seen a few flaming pigs running around and getting stomped by elephants for the umteenth time and crushed the same looking walls of a city for the 1000senth time, I think that game is going to get a lil old. But, it's still on my game buying list for this year. It and Realms III are all I have down at the moment. Man I wish some companies would get off the RTS and FPS wagon and get back down to good old fashioned strategy gaming. Hint Hint Hint Maxtrix....and by that I mean get away from the RUSSIAN FRONT and OPERATION MARKET GARDEN....how in the world you could hit on the two most unimportant parts of WWII to me, I'll never know! LOL, ok so I'm picky and selfish, I want American/British/French/Canadian/Australian/Japanese/German/Polish Troups and I want AFRICA KORP and WESTERN EUROPE and the PACIFIC! The Eastern front is sooooooo boring...to me.

[Firefly]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

Not sure about Total War personally. Shogun was OK, but I must admit the "strategic" element of Medieval bored me to tears... although the game was well worth the money just for the MP battles.

I didn't try Medieval:TW, because of the poor campaign in Shogun, which wasn't helped by the AI 'cheating' and too many battles where you lost because your 10,000 man army couldn't find the opposing 300 men in the fog before time ran out. The 'historical' battles were OK, but someone who knows more about Japanese history than I pointed out that they wren't that historical. I might give the gold edition of Medieval a go when the price drops.

As for Matrix I'd settle for a UK release of HTTR [:D] .

[Randy]

After completion of the Combat Leader series (I must have modern stuff) I think it would be good to do a Civil War series, World War One series, and a Naval Battle series where you control the ships in a manner similar to Steel Panthers