Why doesn't SP Camo Workshop and Matrix work together?

Why doesn't SP Camo Workshop and Matrix work together? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Skotty -> Why doesn't SP Camo Workshop and Matrix work together? (8/4/2000 1:25:00 AM)
After reading a few threads regarding OOB's, unit icons, map and terrain issues,etc, some members of the SP community has compared SPWAW and SP2WW2v3 to each other, including myself. What I would like to know has there ever been a plan or serious consideration of the the two camps working together? I know as far as the code nuts and bolts, the builds of the games are on SP2 and SP3 respectively, so those aspects are very different, but the actual game designs could be applied to either build. I just start to see a duplication of effort and a possible overlooking of resources. SPWW2v3 OOB's have been refered to as "more mature" than SPWAW's. Paul mentioned that Matrix didn't want to compare notes with SP Camo's OOB's. Why not? This is a historically based game and this seems just another resource to be looked into. The SPWW2v3 maps have much more dynamic map levels at a higher resolution which works very well. On the other hand, SPWAW has superior armor VS ballistics, superior graphics, superior sound and it's Win98 native code. I honestly believe that a cross pollination of both camps would produce great benefits to the entire SP community! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] In a side bar, I see Wild Bill gets around a bit. I was happy to see his presence in the scen design of Combat Mission when I first fired it up last week. It was a great feeling of familiarity, making me say to myself, " Rite the f### on, you go Bill!!!" I feel the CM definately benefits from WB's input. I LOVE both games(SPWW2v3 & SPWAW), and play both in about equal dose's. I often say to myself in the heat of battle" Wow, the dir fire from my PZIVc whacked 3 guys in an inf squad on the first shot, then nothing for the next 2 shots, meaning the hit the dirt, wish SPWAW dir fire did that. But I sure wish the ballistics model from SPWAW was in effect when my PZII got killed from a 15mm MG shot. And sound... wow..... etc..etc..etc" Thanks again to ALL the folks making the wargame genre better. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Skotty

Warhorse -> (8/4/2000 2:17:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Skotty: After reading a few threads regarding OOB's, unit icons, map and terrain issues,etc, some members of the SP community has compared SPWAW and SP2WW2v3 to each other, including myself. What I would like to know has there ever been a plan or serious consideration of the the two camps working together? I know as far as the code nuts and bolts, the builds of the games are on SP2 and SP3 respectively, so those aspects are very different, but the actual game designs could be applied to either build. I just start to see a duplication of effort and a possible overlooking of resources. SPWW2v3 OOB's have been refered to as "more mature" than SPWAW's. Paul mentioned that Matrix didn't want to compare notes with SP Camo's OOB's. Why not? This is a historically based game and this seems just another resource to be looked into. The SPWW2v3 maps have much more dynamic map levels at a higher resolution which works very well. On the other hand, SPWAW has superior armor VS ballistics, superior graphics, superior sound and it's Win98 native code. I honestly believe that a cross pollination of both camps would produce great benefits to the entire SP community! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] In a side bar, I see Wild Bill gets around a bit. I was happy to see his presence in the scen design of Combat Mission when I first fired it up last week. It was a great feeling of familiarity, making me say to myself, " Rite the f### on, you go Bill!!!" I feel the CM definately benefits from WB's input. I LOVE both games(SPWW2v3 & SPWAW), and play both in about equal dose's. I often say to myself in the heat of battle" Wow, the dir fire from my PZIVc whacked 3 guys in an inf squad on the first shot, then nothing for the next 2 shots, meaning the hit the dirt, wish SPWAW dir fire did that. But I sure wish the ballistics model from SPWAW was in effect when my PZII got killed from a 15mm MG shot. And sound... wow..... etc..etc..etc" Thanks again to ALL the folks making the wargame genre better. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] Skotty Hello, while on the surface it would appear to make sense, it goes much deeper than that, and is a 'political' issue I guess. I won't go into it any more than that, unfortunately it is not meant to be;-( I've got no beef with them myself, but I guess everyone can't always see eye to eye as it were! ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

Larry Holt -> (8/4/2000 3:07:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Skotty: ...What I would like to know has there ever been a plan or serious consideration of the the two camps working together? I know as far as the code nuts and bolts, the builds of the games are on SP2 and SP3 respectively, so those aspects are very different, but the actual game designs could be applied to either build.... Skotty I believe that the two organizations used to work together. Once the code to SP became availible, SPCammo chose to continue developing the original DOS code while Matrix chose to rework it as native Windows code. While the two games may look alike, they are not compatible at the code level so things that are easy to change in one game, are not in the other, etc. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Paul Vebber -> (8/4/2000 3:24:00 AM)
The two groups started working together. They were "one group" up through the intial version 2 of SP:WW2. But when the SP3 code became available, some of us wanted to move to that code base to further develop the game and make more sweeping engine level changes than some others. Specifically because of the opportunity through the SP3 online code to bring the game to Windows and the goal of interactive realtime play. There were also "artistic differences" as they say, in how the game should be developed. There are dozens of decisions in how to "tweak the engine" to get the results you see, and as you say you like certain aspects of what we did in some cases and SP Camo in others. At some point you get to irreconcilable paths and the only way to keep everybody happy is to split. So that is what happened. The bottom line is that the two groups wanted to pursue indpendant paths towards what they saw as their "perfect SP game". How is forcing these two divergent paths back together helpful? There is as much chance you would get the two aspects of the games you DIDN'T LIKE as the ones you did! And invariably what you thought were the "good ones" were some else's pet peeves. And there is only so far you can go into making the game "user configurable" We can't have "SP Camo/Matrix" buttons for every choice of variables in the whole game! Now there was an agreement that both parties could use the SPWW2 stuff - Camo used the SP2 code base to start from, and we used some of the icons until we phase in our own. But from there on out there was really no going back. It was not possible, nor deirable to "cut and past" things from one game into the other. They are are just too different. Both groups took some of the same things forward, so some of the features between the two games are very similar. Others are quite different, because from the "big list of stuff to change" each group added its own ideas and reprioritized it based on its desires. You can't just combine the lists, because some things like internet play, are just too hard to do in the DOS game, while Windows carrys certain baggage with it. So what does "work together" really mean? OOBS seem a good place to start, but wait - SP Camo likes to use "home language" names for things, we have stayed more with "generic names". And becasue of the most recent changes the formats and much specific data are different. So what seems "simple" is more difficult to execute than it first looks, assuming that there is even basic agreement on the data in the first place (see Tiger front turret thread :-) The "maturity" I refer to in the SP:WW2 OOBs is as much organizational and fact checking as "basic research". Since the SP:WaW engine uses different data, ultimately all the cross referencing across OOBs and logical ordering of entries must be done step by step, and that takes time, whether we used the unit and formation names SP Camo used or not! The QA on over half a million pieces of data takes months and moths and for consistency 's sake really has to be done by a very small team of folks (ultimately by one person in the final analysis). We already share the same principle user base and have heard pretty much the same requests over the years, with two independant "camps" you the user has twice the chance of seeing something you want implemented! But I get the feeling that by "work together" what people want is a big SP Chinese menu so they get to "pick form column A or column B" to customize the game by picking form thfeature sets of both games to set i up to their liking their liking. That is just an impossible task given the fundamental differences in the two code bases. Believe it or not we get complaints already that in essence say "its too much trouble to have to configure the game to make it how I want...why couldn't you get it the way I want it in the first place!" Its simply impossible to be all things to all people. That is a big part of the reason the two groups have "compartmentalized" to a great extent. Two independant looks give you twice the chance of geting the things you want in one or the other. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited August 03, 2000).]

Skotty -> (8/21/2000 6:36:00 AM)
Thanks for the lenghty and thoughtful replies everyone. I kinda figured it was a combo of artistic differences and too many cooks in the pot syndrome. I remember it being mentioned also the Scott Grasse was involved in the project at one stage but had to bail due to some real life event intrusion or event. Hope all is well with him. He did great work all the way back to SP1 and I even tried out his single unit mod to SP3. Thanks again for the replies. Skotty

Wild Bill -> (8/21/2000 9:54:00 AM)
Hey Skotty, now that matter is cleared up, let me thank you for your kind words. Yep, I've been involved with CM for 18 months now since the early Alpha Days. It was my honor to be the scenario design team leader for the game. A great game and a great summer for gamers with all this wonderful WW2 stuff coming our way. Who says wargaming is dying [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif[/img]? Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

g-man -> (8/5/2000 8:04:00 AM)
Hmmm... I don't think Wild Bill realizes just how much he is respected and known in computer wargaming circles. He has proven to be the top of the heap for scenario design, and his passion and love for computer wargaming in general benifits us all. Matrix is fortunate to have Wild Bill as part of its team. BTS is fortunate as well. Even TGN benifits greatly. The most fortunate are wargamers who get an un-ending supply of scenarios from WB who has proven his passion and love of the hobby so many times that my hard drive is full! As to SPWAW vs SPWW2, two different games entirely. I like both, but I think SPWAW went the right path. The new gun calculations are best and armor/slope is the way to go. I shouldn't have used "right path", just SPWAW is much more enjoyable and best for me. SPWAW is a significant improvement to SP. Though it may have been better to have SPWW2 and SPWAW teams work together, they didn't, ways parted, and in the end, I am very thankful at least one group went the SP3 way and SPWAW finally saw the light of day. This baby shines and with more on the way (version 3.0, shp's, and OOBs/LBMs), this SP is the best. Give me more. [This message has been edited by g-man (edited August 04, 2000).]

Wild Bill -> (8/5/2000 9:25:00 AM)
Your letter, G-Man, is of the greatest encouragement to me. I thank you very much. Yes, I am passionate about wargaming as many of you are. There is a mystical rapport wargamers share, loving history, loving the challenge, and just having a grand time with the computer. Things do work out for the best. Gamers choose which they prefer...or both if that is your preference. A lot of talent and time went into both games. And we are enjoying the fruits of these labors. Again, my heart-felt thanks to you, my friend and all of those of you out there who support what I do. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Raindem -> (8/6/2000 10:43:00 PM)
I've played both games and I've got agree with g-man's conclusion. Although I love SPWW2's scenario linking setup, SPWAW is definately on the right path and more advanced than Camo's game in most respects. Either game beats the old Avalon Hill "takes 3 years to play a game" system. RD

Wild Bill -> (8/7/2000 12:52:00 AM)
We will have linked campaigns in 3.0. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] I have already done one called "Preparing the Way." Another is getting there, EF, "Heroes of the Motherland." So look forward to some hard fighting in NA, SIcily and the Eastern Front. See if those units can survive. Thanks, Raindem. We are greatful for your kind words about our work...Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

robot -> (8/8/2000 12:49:00 AM)
I for one am thankful for both games. I started playing wargames with a deck of playing cards. Moving them all over the floors and engaging by slamming them into each other. Had my own set of rules in what i could do and not do. Then on to the board games. Which by the way had to be saved by putting some where that my younger brother could not get too. Always hoped some how i could see them move and shoot at each other by there selves. Now as i am getting into the twilight time of life, that day is here. I have lived to see the premere of games. Sure there will be better and more improved versions. But i for one can say i have seen and i haved played what i dremt about as a kid. My thanks to all from both camps who has given me a lifelong hope to play a game that makes my heart pound, my palms sweat, my eyes to tear and my voice to break when i win. This is as close to real war as you can get with out getting hurt at all. Thanks to all the great people who have given of there time and dedication. ------------------ Robots wear armor for skin.Grunts wear skin for armor.

troopie -> (8/8/2000 9:32:00 AM)
I have to agree with robot. I like both games and glad I can play them both. The SP series and AOR move me. I care about those little pixels. The Panzer General series and the TOAW series are great games, but I feel like I'm at a TEWT. With SP and AOR I'm at battalion or Division HQ respectively, getting reports every few minutes, sweating it out with the boys on the line. Or I'm the company commander, seeing men I went to school with die, putting them in danger because I must. "My, God I was at school with Harry, now he's jumping with Charlie Co. Wish I could be there with him." I cant think of any other wargame, haven't played CM, that does that. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete

Grisha -> (8/9/2000 6:56:00 PM)
Heroes of the Motherland?!?!? Bozhe moi! I can't wait! Za Rodinu!!!! uuuuuurrrraAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wild Bill -> (8/9/2000 10:31:00 PM)
Grisha! Just the man to help me. I need the Russian name for Comrade and for Colonel. Can you help me out? Trying to give a little flavor to the text. Looks like 16 linked scenarios right now in one campaign...Sept-Dec, 1941, about the 4th Tank Brigade which later became the first unit to be named a Guards Unit. In November their designation was changed from the 4th Tank Brigade to the 1st Guards Tank Brigade because of their valor in action. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Larry Holt -> (8/10/2000 2:10:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Wild Bill: Grisha! Just the man to help me. I need the Russian name for Comrade and for Colonel. Can you help me out? Trying to give a little flavor to the text. ... Wild Bill Comrad is Tovarish. Colonel is Padpakonic. The spelling may vary. Since Russian uses the Crylic alphabet there are two theorys of translation: to translate phonetically or literally. For instance, the Russians don't use H to start names so mine could be translated as "Golt". ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

Larry Holt -> (8/10/2000 2:30:00 AM)
WB, For some Russian flavor try: http://www.history.enjoy.ru/ Enjoy it with some vodka, ice cold. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

sami heimola -> (8/10/2000 3:01:00 AM)
Linked campaigns? Great! How about Finnish "Back To Karelia 1941-44" campaign;)? It could be named as "Heroes of the Fatherland" too:D... Sami quote: Originally posted by Wild Bill: We will have linked campaigns in 3.0. :D I have already done one called "Preparing the Way." Another is getting there, EF, "Heroes of the Motherland." So look forward to some hard fighting in NA, SIcily and the Eastern Front. See if those units can survive. Thanks, Raindem. We are greatful for your kind words about our work...Wild Bill

Wild Bill -> (8/10/2000 6:44:00 AM)
Thanks, Larry. Yes, I know a little about their alphabet, not that much. I know this accounts for the various spellings of names of locations on different maps...WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.875