Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Future of ww2 games - lets make the stand

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Future of ww2 games - lets make the stand Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Future of ww2 games - lets make the stand - 12/1/2002 10:18:28 AM   
Kuniworth

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 4/29/2001
From: Umeå, Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi guys, great to be back.

So the years go by. We see some new games coming but we never get this total grognard ww2 game covering the whole world. Sure there are many great games outthere covering europe most of the time but I want the whole war and no company at all endorse such a game. We got pacific war fans, war in russia fans, third reich fans, strategic command fans, Hearts of iron fans, clash of steel fans and so on. Lets come together once and for all. And lets do it NOW.

Therefore as a ww2 consumer, Im now taking this step to once and for all get a great game all of us want. So my proposal is this;

All of us interested will do a name-collection and then send it to the gaming-compaines demanding the ultimate ww2 experience. In return we promise to buy the game and work for a strong community supporting it. I know that this may seem crazy but Im ready to go as far as I can to get this. The strategy-war gamers deserves it and I´m confident that there are thousands and thousands all over the world ready to support this idea. Thus making the game a great business-idea.

I want a game based on the Wir model which still is the best up to date. However many games got good ideas which could be implemented so I say this is the communities simple terms;


-The game should cover the whole world war 1936-1947

-Turnbased game like war in russia, one week-turns and hexbased.

- Unit-model used in War in russia. Corps with divisions in it.

- Availibility to play USA, Italy, Germany, France, UK, Sovietunion, Japan.

-Production like in War in russia. But a very good research-model should be used.

-User friendly interface.

- Great looking graphics to ensure the game attracts new strategy gamers. Realistic map, like the outstanding map proposed by 2by3 games to their eastfront game.

- Simple but deep and realistic diplomacy level. See world in flames politics model or Hearts of Iron.

- Great AI. Chance for multiplayer and email-games. Maybe an AI that lurns your tactics like the 2by3 eastfront game.


This is our terms. What do you think of this? Please reply to this thread. And if you are ready to work with me write to

[email]kuniworth@hotmail.com[/email]


Lets make this happen. We can do it.


/ Andreas, Sweden

_____________________________

"Those men on white horses are terrifying...but we´ll match´em with our lancers!"

Napoleon 1815
Post #: 1
- 12/1/2002 11:48:32 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Well Kuniworth might look dreadful as a cheerleader but he sure has the enthusiasm requirements all sewed up now doesn't he heheh:)

Now from what I have seen of Hearts of Iron all it is missing is hexes for my opinion. I think the industry is going to have a great deal of trouble going past this game for my money's worth. I am expecting to buy it. And if the game works adequately, I will not be looking to buy another game (it would only be a redundant game).

Hearts of Iron is the whole war, in fact it is apparently the entire globe (someone has reported a win against the US with Brazil eh).

Now Strategic Command is clearly what happens when you don't spend enough effort making WW2 look like WW2. The design looks nice initially, then you realise it just won't fly (hence the reason I don't own a copy).
Operational Art of War is what happens when you ignore the fact some people don't get off on complex. I like the game, but it is NOT beginner friendly at all.

I am currently unwilling to play WW2 at the Steel Panthers level (it would be accurate , but god the turn length heheh).

I re downloaded War In Russia just to refresh my memory of the look of the game. Yep it is still the DOS era ain't no one but a desperate grognard going to play it ugly.
But hey the game ran well on my XP machine eh, so I will give it that much.

Still if we are going to give any eye to emulating that game, it will sure have to clean up the graphics big time. There is no way anyone is going to sell a game that looks that far down the tech tree.
Not when the majority or "wargamers" think Battlefield 1942 or Combat Mission is what a wargame looks like.

AI, nope I say dump the AI idea.

If you are suitably bored that you will play this sort of game against the computer, just get over the fact you can't find a human opponent and play both sides.

I play both sides with a lot of my board games, and they are more fun solo against myself, than when playing against a half wit AI.

Production, I vote for making the game unable to exceed potential production levels of the real world countries of the time to a certain extent. If I want a fairy tale game I will play Axis and Allies.

Diplomacy. Well there are likely oodles of ways to model diplomatic repercussions into the game. But I would rather like to see it as an option that can be turned off. Because frankly I am unwilling to attempt diplomacy with a brain dead AI, and solo leaves me talking to myself heheh.

I would like the game to allow as many sides in the game as possible. And that will of course only subdivide the game more thus making more work potentially in a solo effort.
As I see it, if you don't like to think a lot, stop playing wargames.

Interface. Man I could care less how good a game is, if the running of the game is more work that using a board game.
So with that in mind, the interface has to be well designed well aranged and very fast to use.
I have heard plenty of people gush on and on about some games of the past.
Clash of Steel might have been ok at one time, but the interface sucks by todays standards. It ranks up there with a mouse pointer that feels like it is dragging through mud. Total turn off and instant death for my interest level.
I only play computer games if they are easier than board games.

I have seen Computer Third Reich 2 thumbs down
I have seen the demo of Computer World in Flames middle finger up.
I have played Strategic Command, sorry but the market already has Axis and Allies man you are to late on beer and pretzels.

These three games blew it on either AI interface or just plain wrong design choice.

If Hearts of Iron pleases me, i will have the game Kuniworth is looking for (and this thread is moot).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 2
- 12/1/2002 12:18:49 PM   
Kuniworth

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 4/29/2001
From: Umeå, Sweden
Status: offline 		I´ve already got it but it is real time strategy. ANd the areas ytou conquer are too large. Therefore I prefer the War in russia model.

_____________________________

"Those men on white horses are terrifying...but we´ll match´em with our lancers!"

Napoleon 1815

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 3
- 12/1/2002 12:19:24 PM   
Kuniworth

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 4/29/2001
From: Umeå, Sweden
Status: offline 		I got Hearts of Iron monday but it still lacks a lot.

_____________________________

"Those men on white horses are terrifying...but we´ll match´em with our lancers!"

Napoleon 1815

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 4
- 12/1/2002 5:01:05 PM   
Muzrub


Posts: 1780
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline 		Kuniworth


You have my support.
[email]muzrub@hotmail.com[/email]

_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.


Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 5
- 12/1/2002 9:34:38 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Well Hearts of Iron is NOT turn based of course, but I was aware of that. A bit unforunate of course.

That it is RTS, is a term that might be open to argument, but then it is merely an argument over the worth of term really.

If the game can be paused, if the game's time factor pace can be paced down slow enough so that it makes a difference, I might be willing to grant that the "time" is sufficiently "real" to warrant the term having any practical meaning.

If the time simulation is reasonable, then there might be a point to the term "strategy" having some merit. If there is no realistic time simulation, then there won't be any point to "strategic" thinking. You will be limited to "tactics".

From what I have heard around though, there might be enough to satisfy my basic needs. Of course if the game was turn based, my needs would be met even more so. But then the time factor as designed for Hearts of Iron would have to be adjusted to standard increments.

Still, the only meaningful detail will be (for me), is the AI capable of making this game (even if the "time" is sufficiently "real") worth playing. Because an accurately scaled game with a dumb AI is really just as bad as a poorly designed game with a dumb AI correct?

Now as it goes, we still have a window for a game company/designer to provide us with a good turn based fully global WW2 game that incorporates research and production, economics and politics as well as a detailed military simulation.

Of course some game companies are going to look and see Axis and Allies and say ok the schmuck consumer already has his game, and the supposedly superior gamer has his Strategic Command (and they will no doubt settle for disagreeing with me, that the game doesn't cut it).

A lot will conclude that there is no money in satisfying a small niche market that wants a game up to A3R standards.

So Kuniworth, your burden (and as this is your thread, you are in charge, hence it is your burden) is to show not us, but the wargaming market that you can actually make money off of this dream.

As it goes, after being here for about 2 years, a normal response to a forum poll is lucky to get 30 or so replies (regardless of the question).
If you can get 30 guys to say they will support your game, guess what, you still have nothing.

If you can get someone to front you 50-100,000 bucks, you might have a chance (at what we are not certain of though).
Of course you might also have merely found a wierd way to spend all that cash making a wargame for a few hundred guys, and in the end, not see you making any sort of profit.

Can you find enough cash in the first place?

I know I don't have any.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 6
- 12/2/2002 1:55:12 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Just cruising and noticed that the tread is not to active (also noticed the lack of response in the other forums kuniworth).

I think by and large man this is the weak link in your hopes though.

to quote your post

In return we promise to buy the game.

Truely this won't mean much to the game companies. Or at least I can't picture any producer getting excited by a handful of niche market wargamers, asking for a game based on "their promise to buy it".

That just isn't sufficient (and I say that knowing a bit about business in my case).

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 7
- 12/2/2002 7:55:11 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		As it currently stands Kuniworth have you been into the Battlefields forum yet much?

They appear to be working on an operational level game. Admittedly this aint no grand strategy design, but I will pick a game that might be made over one that likely will never be created to some extent.

I might end up buying Hearts of Iron only to conclude it is yet another game, where yet again the designer has to cope with the fact that Artificial Intelligence simply isn't worth an once of spit.
I might still buy it (it does appear to be the only contender for grand strategy), but I would rather have a game that is turn based.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 8
- 12/3/2002 12:17:00 AM   
Kuniworth

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 4/29/2001
From: Umeå, Sweden
Status: offline 		Well at least I´ve tried. But I still believe that it would be a market for such a game. Come on Sarge do you wanna play some battle when you can play the whole war. We desperately need a good strategic simulation with operational warfare of the whole war. I can´t believe that Matrix can put out a game about Napoleon warfare iN Europe but not about world war 2.

War in Russia and Pacific war remains still today the best game of larger conflict. Hearts of Iron can never be grognards choice for a strategic game thanx to it beeing Axis and Allies advanced in RTS. It´s a disgrace that no company in over 10 years been able to create a nice graphic looking turnbased strategy game about the ww2.

We this game and we need it now. I KNOW people would buy it even if they are not willing to fight as desperate as me for it

_____________________________

"Those men on white horses are terrifying...but we´ll match´em with our lancers!"

Napoleon 1815

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 9
- 12/3/2002 12:37:44 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		I agree that Strategic Command is just hex based Axis and Allies. Additionally I am learning on another forum that Hearts of Iron might indeed be a very loooooong game only worth playing online gainst people due to it having the same ole same ole AI limitations.

I would like a nice global game that was turn based and genuinely realistic.

I am also wondering if there is enough of us out there though, to convince software makers to produce our wishes.

In so many ways, you can't sell what has no market.

Take Combat Leader being made as an Eastern front initially speaking game.
In spite of the wails and laments of the modern crowd, it is possible, that in spite of their vocal objections to the contrary, there might be just to few of them to matter (where an initial release is concerned).

When it comes down to the crunch, you don't spend 10s of thousands of dollars to please a handful of people...ever.

Mechanically WiR and WitPacific might be well made simulations, but the reality is they will not be making any sales in todays market (which explains why it is a free download eh).

I love A3R, one of the best purchases I ever made. I doubt it can be made a sellable computer game reeeeeeally.
The person would insist on giving it an AI so that joe consumer could play it against the computer.

And the AI might even be brighter than the one made originally for Third Reich. But if it was twice or even 3 times as smart, it would still be down among the drooling moron IQ level thinking processes.

In some cases, the brutal reality becomes sorry bud get a board game and get out and meet people who can meet at yer place to play a good wargame.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, that in some cases, computers just can't replace board games in every instance.

Now there IS software out there that allows you to play actual board games online eh.

Check out this link if you haven't ever seen it before.
http://www.warplanner.com/

That's just the tip of the iceberg eh.

This link might have even more to offer you as well
http://www.vasl.org/vassal/Download.html

But I have not as of yet gained any direct experience with using these programs yet (have not been sufficiently backed up against the wall yet).

The future of Grand Strategy online might be in actually playing board games online eh.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 10
- 12/3/2002 2:11:34 AM   
Kuniworth

 

Posts: 242
Joined: 4/29/2001
From: Umeå, Sweden
Status: offline 		Really Sarge, I still believe a game based on the War in russia engine would be possible to create. Why not - hell it´s 10 years old and still one of the greatest strategy games ever made. Lets be honest what happened in the last 10 years? Not much, we got RTS but not the natural development of a global realistic ww2 strategic game. That´s a shame.

But let me ask you this; if there were not a public demand for this then why are the Hearts of Iron forum bubbling with new threads all the time. I think you are wrong, with nice graphics and simple interface I believe we can succeed.

please read my criticism against HoI below(posted in the Paradox Hearts of Iron forum);

First of all let me just say that Paradox is a great gaming company. EU1 and EU2 worked well out and were two games that maybe put the expectation on HoI to high.

Secondly I´m this kind of guy that plays war in russia, third reich and even strategic command and want the big picture. I´ve studied ww2 for 16 years and want game that reflects the important aspects of ww2. I think this misses out on this.


This is my criticism;

RTS - Yes it may work if the game was not so complex. Right now you have to click all the time and you lose picture. You become stressed and make misstake - not strategic ones just misstakes because you forget to move units. And thats WRONG cause we talking about large armies. That wouldnt happen IRL. Thats why I prefer turnbased because to play the game properly in it´s current shape you have to pause all the time. And who got the time to bother about night-attacks or season. Attacks are commited all the time, there are never any pause on the fighting.

THe micromanagement is also wrong. I think the research part is great and also the diplomacy part in large(unfortunate the AI is not so good to make it work) but to place individual convoys, moving units to intercept all the time is just NOT STRATEGIC. Im also unsure if the submarine-moving is ok. to put it short; I miss auto-functions to let you focus on the big picture and thats to bad. HoI will end up attracting axis & allied fans and thats ok, but all us grognards outthere, and we are quite many, will turn our back on HoI.

I´m also not sure if the trade-system works adequate. Because it misses on some vital part as Villain remarked.

Finally we conclude that the idea of beeing able to play every singel country in the world are not working. I´m not sure how Paradox can succeed in patch away all strange happeings when you play aggressive as a minor. The AI is just to hard to code to face all possibilities. Compare that with a game where you only can play the major countris - what a realistic and fun game it would be.


So look. I still believe that this game got some nice features. And I give my respect to Paradox for recognizing the demand for a true strategic and global game about world war 2. It´s a disgrace that since Gray Grigsbys War in russia and Pacific war we have not had a really good game focusing on large campaigns.

I want a game of ww2 for all the people outthere. The company that succeeds in doing this will not only make a buck but also create a feature for strategic gaming.

_____________________________

"Those men on white horses are terrifying...but we´ll match´em with our lancers!"

Napoleon 1815

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 11
- 12/3/2002 2:56:31 AM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline 		Well the heart of my thinking, the meat of the matter is this, I can play A3R on my table easier than I can play it on my computer.

I have War in Russia currently on the system here.
I could also likely play a game such as that easier on the table as a board game.

With me, there is only one justification for making games for the computer, and that is it allows you to play the game EASIER than it would be off the computer.

And yes I know some people are beset with trials and tribulations where board games are concerned, not enough opponents or none at all. Spouses or pets that don't seem to get it, that this is your hobby and has a right to be respected.

I would likely play War in Russia more so if it was re released and cleaned up probably. But there is no money in playing that game re released any more than there was any money in playing any other old game that has seen its day (or someone would have done it with at least one game by now).

Not sure if the War in Russia engine can be altered to go global though. But then I don't know much about code so I can't really comment. I do know that they have produced fine games like A3R and then Rising Sun, but been unable to satisfy enough grognards that the two can become one.

What works for one game will not automatically work for anopther.

RTS and Shooters rule the shelves today for only one reason, it's what the majority of consumers want.
If I was only interested in making money, I would not even make the turn based game of your dreams actually.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 12
- 12/6/2002 1:20:29 AM   
slickric

 

Posts: 51
Joined: 12/5/2002
From: Miami
Status: offline 		How about a game engine like Uncommon Valor but put to the world not just the South Pacific.

_____________________________



(in reply to Kuniworth)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Future of ww2 games - lets make the stand Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.703