RyanCrierie
Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin
Let's flip this script a bit. What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, not computer tech (mouse with a keyboard was awesome, better resolution of screens and size which is still ongoing today, CPU/GPU throughput increases) and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things. NOw I will say that having those hardware advances have led to adding new capabilities to wargames on computers. A mouse was revolutionary back in the day as I could now easily click on a unit and destination and order a move versus using keyboard inputs only. The thing is we still have that same basic mouse today.
This is something I think many have missed.
---------------------------
1981: The Battle of the Bulge: Tigers in the Snow by SSI.
This game is pretty much as old as I am. 
1984: War in Russia by SSI.
-----------
Many early SSI games are basically Atari 8-bit / Apple II; so they're limited by the capabilities...which isn't a lot to work with.
It's not until about 1988 that we get SSI's first decently good DOS games (the earlier DOS games are basically at Apple II level graphics) with TYPHOON OF STEEL:
This is followed up by Norm Koger's RED LIGHTNING in 1989:
We're finally sort of getting *somewhere*
By 1991, SSI games (CONFLICT: MIDDLE EAST) now have the option of using the mouse; but because many players still don't have a mouse; the UI has to take this into account, and is still designed around non mouse players.
In 1992; the EGA graphics have improved some for CONFLICT: KOREA 50-51), but still very much keyboard driven:
It's not until Great Naval Battles: North Atlantic 1939-43 in 1992 that SSI starts to get close to a mouse-driven interface; and you see a more "modern" UI appear in CLASH OF STEEL in 1993:
It's still EGA, but more sensibly laid out.
Then in 1994, we have the "Revolution".
I can't emphasize enough how world changing PANZER GENERAL was.
It was the first game to combine a fully mouse driven interface and high resolution 256 color graphics in a way that the average person could get into.
Unfortunately, not everything was the same:
WCS II: Tanks in 1994 still had many "keyboard" conventions; probably because back then, designing a game engine was hard, so engines were "recycled forward".
Then in 1995 we had the Second Revolution
Steel Panthers gave us the same thing that Panzer General did; a nice easy UI, high resolution graphics etc to get into.
A year later in 1996, we got Age of Rifles.
At this point, SSI never really made the change to Windows 95 -- I think that's what killed them -- too many of their game engines were programmed in DOS, and there wasn't enough money to convert things over to fully Win95 based.
Talonsoft, however was quite forward looking -- they made a decision early on to go pure Windows, and that apparently saved them a lot of time because one of the major things about Windows was that it helpfully abstracted away a lot of things that previously had been big things in DOS, such as hardware management or memory management.
It also helped that they'd gotten two very good programmers as contractors:
a young (at the time) up and coming programmer named John Tiller
Battleground Series (1995):
Tiller's game engine concepts would then go on to be used in the next major evolution by Talonsoft:
East Front (1997), which would in turn spawn West Front (1998), East Front II (1999), Rising Sun (2000), and Divided Ground (2001).
Meanwhile, Tiller had kind of left to work with HPS Simulations for the first Panzer Campaigns in 1999, again using an evolved version of the Battleground game engine he'd designed in 1995
This is from Alamein, but good enough.
Elsewhere at Talonsoft, Norm Koger from SSI was basically working on a super evolved version of his CONFLICT DOS engine and created TOAW in 1998
Followed up by TOAW II in 1999 and COW in 2000.
I believe TOAW was really the first wargame to truly take advantage of Windows features like right click context sensitive menus, and windows menu bar UI, rather than trying to "Reinvent" the wheel; and that's why it was so successful.
Around 1999, another Ex SSI guy named Gary Grigsby was contracted by Talonsoft to design an air war game. That he did, delivering Battle of Britain (1999), which was followed by Bombing the Reich (1999).
This is where it gets a bit crazy. You can see in BoB/BTR the exact same UI conventions and such that would later be used in:
Matrix' Uncommon Valor (2002)
Matrix' War in the Pacific (2004)
Before he created an "all new" game engine for Matrix' War in the East (2010).
Elsewhere, Victor Reijkersz created his "People's Tactics" engine in 2004 as a freeware game, before making a commercial game with Advanced Tactics for Matrix in 2007.
Basically, what I'm trying to say here (and probably failing) is that unlike other genres of video games; wargames are an incredibly small community -- there's nobody here to tell you in books or seminars how to make the best 3D engine or how to make the best pathfinding AI for your first person shooter -- much of this is all self taught or held closely; so you see the same people show up year after year.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 
Do you mean HOI'4 has success in WW'2 by illuminati or by random chance.
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