new scenarios in the plannig?

[hank]

I like the smaller scenario's too. The Bzura sce is much fun. When you get in some of the later battles of WWII there were great conflicts within the larger battle on both fronts. Especially the big ones like Kursk, Moscow, Stalingrad (the Aksay River battle of Raus), Smolensk, Kharkhov, Leningrad ... and on and on ... and west front battles within DDay and BotB around Caen, Falaise, St. Lo, Arracourt, Lorraine, Nijmegan, Arnheim, Huertgen Forest, Bastogne, etc etc etc.

I like the way HPS structured their battles where you had the one big campaign with numerous smaller scenarios within that battle (of various sizes ... half or third of the overall campaign down to smaller one week battles).

another 2 cents for the day

[henri51]

If one takes the trouble to read what Vic said almost 2 years ago about future plans and afterwards about this game and AT Gold, it is fairly obvious that the next two scenatios will be North Africa and Leningrad, which is a good choice.Of course he could have changed his mind, but as has been pointed out, conflicting with Grigsby's game is to be avoided, Norway may be too amphibious and maybe not worth a whole game, another France game will not sell well, and this game is better adaptable to North Africa than most, and doing only ONE front of the Eastern Front has not been done much.

Henri

[Vic]

Hope to give some info in a few months about where things are headed. (getting AT Gold ready in the meantime)

For this interval period I want the engine completly bug free.. which upcomming v1.04 will get very close too.

Also I am thinking of opening up 1 or 2 free-lance scenario designer positions with VR Designs. More about that later.

best regards,
Vic

[henri51]

I am really looking forward to AT Gold. IMHO scenarios like WaW would be worth paying for by themselves. As amatter of fact I hope that there will be such a scenario in AT Gold.

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: Vic
Also I am thinking of opening up 1 or 2 free-lance scenario designer positions with VR Designs.

I'll do it.

BCG

[hank]

Will there be a job description available when the decision is made? ... a list of skills ... if programming skills are required (C#) ... what reference library does a person have access to ... map making skills ... tools needed ... etc etc.

I'm just curious what a scenario designer skill set would require ... besides enthusiasm, historical knowledge, enthusiasm ... cartographic skills ... enthusiasm ... etc

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: hank

Will there be a job description available when the decision is made? ... a list of skills ... if programming skills are required (C#) ... what reference library does a person have access to ... map making skills ... tools needed ... etc etc.

I'm just curious what a scenario designer skill set would require ... besides enthusiasm, historical knowledge, enthusiasm ... cartographic skills ... enthusiasm ... etc

yes i will... hope to post something on saturday!

but enthusiasm will come below patience in the order of priorities

[jeffreysutro@jeffreysutro.com]

[font="Times New Roman"]I am interested in how subsequent iterations of this game will be related to each other. I know of three ways it has been done in the past by other designers, though there are probably more.

One is the what SSG did in the past with their Decisive Battles series starting with "Korsun Pocket", then going to "Battles in Normandy", "Battles in Italy" and finally "Battlefront". Each game was similar to the one before with an updated game engine and new rules. When a new game came out the old games were not updated to the new standard so the older games became "obsolete" after a time. The games were incompatible with each other and scenarios from one game were incompatible with the other games. In my opinion this is not a very good model for how future development of Decisive Campaigns should proceed.

The second model is what HPS does where each game in the series is separate, but when a new game comes out with improvements all the older games are then all patched up to the new standard. Each game though is a separate purchase. I like this idea better than the old SSG model, since it ensures that all the games play the same (no need to relearn the rules each time you want to play a different game) and that all the games are fully up to date.

The third model is what SSG has been doing with their newest system which is to sell a basic game (in this case "Kharkov, Disaster on the Donets") and then sell scenario packs that work with the game engine. Each update to the engine also applies to all the scenarios. I feel that this is the best model since it means that all the games / scenarios are using the same rules and features, and one update updates everything. In addition, there is some cost savings since the scenario packages are (at least slightly) less expensive than a whole new game would be. [/font]

[Ken7]

This is a SUPER game. Difficult but a heck of a lot of fun to play. Way to go Vic. kudos. [:)]

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: jeffreys

[font="Times New Roman"]I am interested in how subsequent iterations of this game will be related to each other. I know of three ways it has been done in the past by other designers, though there are probably more.

One is the what SSG did in the past with their Decisive Battles series starting with "Korsun Pocket", then going to "Battles in Normandy", "Battles in Italy" and finally "Battlefront". Each game was similar to the one before with an updated game engine and new rules. When a new game came out the old games were not updated to the new standard so the older games became "obsolete" after a time. The games were incompatible with each other and scenarios from one game were incompatible with the other games. In my opinion this is not a very good model for how future development of Decisive Campaigns should proceed.

The second model is what HPS does where each game in the series is separate, but when a new game comes out with improvements all the older games are then all patched up to the new standard. Each game though is a separate purchase. I like this idea better than the old SSG model, since it ensures that all the games play the same (no need to relearn the rules each time you want to play a different game) and that all the games are fully up to date.

The third model is what SSG has been doing with their newest system which is to sell a basic game (in this case "Kharkov, Disaster on the Donets") and then sell scenario packs that work with the game engine. Each update to the engine also applies to all the scenarios. I feel that this is the best model since it means that all the games / scenarios are using the same rules and features, and one update updates everything. In addition, there is some cost savings since the scenario packages are (at least slightly) less expensive than a whole new game would be. [/font]

Hi Jeffreys,

One thing i like about HPS is that they dont talk the talk before they walk the walk.

I am trying to do the same thing.

So basicly i will not be making many statements on the future directions of things untill i can actually make it happen.

However i can say that when the next DC title comes out, the older ones (currently only DC:Blitz of course) will be upgraded.

To be honest i cant wait to start on the next DC title, but as said elsewhere on the forum have to put some more time into AT Gold first which is scheduled for Q1 2011.

Best regards,
Vic