quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Same thing here. Games like WaW are a dime a dozen as this style is basically the new "light alcohol content, low carb, yuppie beer" of the wargame market. I like my stouts, ales and pilsners thank you very much[8D].

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Guys, when Joel talks of using the GGWaW "technology" or "engine" for a new grand tactical game, he's not saying it will even at all look or play like GGWaW. Think of an engine like you would the basic frame of a building. GGWaW might look like a standard corporate office, but and future project could look like the Sears Tower.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

No, it was Oleg Madox and 1C that did PF half backed. They already said before it got sent to UBI that they didn't want a third disk, so they would ship and then make a patch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

[No reason why 2by3, like Nimitz, had to listen to MacArthur and assault Japan from a single approach. The fact that Nimitz withstood the pressure and stayed the course meant that the Central Pacific Drive augmented Dugout Doug's. So, why not approach the problem in two directions instead of one? Produce a WaW for the ignorant masses to play with and grab a sliver of the lucrative RT market, and the money goes to 2by3 with a portion going to the development of games for wargamers. Ours may well be a niche market but 2by3 at least have a near monopoly on it. No point in everyone running in the same direction.

Like my family used to do at BBQs, give the kids hot dogs and give the adults steak.[8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

No, it was Oleg Madox and 1C that did PF half backed. They already said before it got sent to UBI that they didn't want a third disk, so they would ship and then make a patch.

The number of CDs is the decision usually made by publisher, isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Guys, when Joel talks of using the GGWaW "technology" or "engine" for a new grand tactical game, he's not saying it will even at all look or play like GGWaW. Think of an engine like you would the basic frame of a building. GGWaW might look like a standard corporate office, but and future project could look like the Sears Tower.

Yeah, and it could look like Grandpa's Two-Holer Sears & Roebuck Special Bung Fodder Outhouse, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

You also have to factor in the cost of people besides the 3 of 2by3: Mike Wood seems to have been spending most of his time on it for quite a while, also the cost of the supplying the art. I don't know how the Matrix/2by3 finances are organised for WitP but I doubt that the portion of DR and Matrix added together will be a "pittance". But I agree 2by3 probably aren't living on Cheetos, whatever they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi
But I agree 2by3 probably aren't living on Cheetos, whatever they are.

Think "Pocky" and you will have an analogous concept - cheap junk food. [;)]

Dave Baranyi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bodhi

You also have to factor in the cost of people besides the 3 of 2by3: Mike Wood seems to have been spending most of his time on it for quite a while, also the cost of the supplying the art. I don't know how the Matrix/2by3 finances are organised for WitP but I doubt that the portion of DR and Matrix added together will be a "pittance". But I agree 2by3 probably aren't living on Cheetos, whatever they are.

Think "Pocky" and you will have an analogous concept - cheap junk food. [;)]

Dave Baranyi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

As for checking it out why don't you buy it, look at it then sell it to Ron Saueracker for 1/2 price who in turn can look at it and sell it to Tankerace at another 1/2 price discount, who can the sell it to Pasternaski, etc, etc,etc. By the time it gets around to me you can pay me ten bucks to take it off your hands. You might have to leave Mogomi off the chain. He can't be still having internet connection problems. Maybe he got wind of this and decided to dig a hole and pull the dirt back over him.[&:][&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Tough crowd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. ... it will use the technology in GGWaW ...

*sigh*

I don't think you understand what I mean by technology. All I'm referring to is the method that the programmers use to put art on the screen, and the way that many game rules and art are structured to be easily moddable in data files instead of in hard code. They have nothing to do with how the game plays. If we were setting out to do UV today, we would use the GGWaW engine becuase the technology is much easier to work with. This doesn't mean it would be area movement like GGWaW. In fact that game could be done to play exactly as the current UV plays. Eastern Front using the GGWaW technology will still play exactly as we expected it to play back in 2000 when we first designed it. Eastern Front is much closer to WitP in detail and gameplay than it is to GGWaW. Am I not being clear about this?

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

quote:

BUT I WILL BUY A CIVIL WAR GAME!!!!!

Amen to that brother!!!!

Since the demise of Civil War Generals II I have surely missed my 2nd favorite war!!!!


Yes I am really looking forword to this one!!! I think you mean the demise of CivWArGens III by Sierra. They were supposed to make it but it never came out.
CivWarGens II was an ok game (very old now) but I always wanted a great full theater game. Hopefully Matrix will accomplish that!!!

American Civil War by Frank Hunter was full theater but is a very small scale and very dated game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

hehe yes do War in Europe and then combine it with War in the Pacific and connect the maps and voila! a super World at War! [:D]

....goes off to dream... [:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: captskillet

quote:

BUT I WILL BUY A CIVIL WAR GAME!!!!!

Amen to that brother!!!!

Since the demise of Civil War Generals II I have surely missed my 2nd favorite war!!!!


Yes I am really looking forword to this one!!! I think you mean the demise of CivWArGens III by Sierra. They were supposed to make it but it never came out.
CivWarGens II was an ok game (very old now) but I always wanted a great full theater game. Hopefully Matrix will accomplish that!!!

American Civil War by Frank Hunter was full theater but is a very small scale and very dated game.

A Civil War game on the scale of WiTP?? I've died and gone to heaven!!!!! [:D]

I will BORROW money to buy that game when it comes out if I have to ... take out a new mortgage on my house wouldn't be out of the question either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

PLEASE acquire the rights to the old Victory Games title "Civil War" and port it as a computer version. This is, as far as I'm concerned, absolutely the best strategic simulation of the War Between the States. Detailed but not overwhelmingly complex, and designed with mechanics that have the sweetness of butter (the leader rules alone are a study in excellence).

Those who are familiar with this game need only hear "Indians and the Southwest" to know what I'm talkin' about!

Then, let's move on to the VG title "Vietnam" ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

PLEASE acquire the rights to the old Victory Games title "Civil War" and port it as a computer version. This is, as far as I'm concerned, absolutely the best strategic simulation of the War Between the States. Detailed but not overwhelmingly complex, and designed with mechanics that have the sweetness of butter (the leader rules alone are a study in excellence).

Those who are familiar with this game need only hear "Indians and the Southwest" to know what I'm talkin' about!

Then, let's move on to the VG title "Vietnam" ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
For your next grand tactical fix from 2by3, you'll have to wait for our Eastern Front game. ... it will use the technology in GGWaW ...

*sigh*

I don't think you understand what I mean by technology. All I'm referring to is the method that the programmers use to put art on the screen, and the way that many game rules and art are structured to be easily moddable in data files instead of in hard code. They have nothing to do with how the game plays. If we were setting out to do UV today, we would use the GGWaW engine becuase the technology is much easier to work with. This doesn't mean it would be area movement like GGWaW. In fact that game could be done to play exactly as the current UV plays. Eastern Front using the GGWaW technology will still play exactly as we expected it to play back in 2000 when we first designed it. Eastern Front is much closer to WitP in detail and gameplay than it is to GGWaW. Am I not being clear about this?

As for the Civil War game, it will look and feel much more like GGWaW as it is intended as a medium/low complexity strategic game simulating the entire war using relatively "generic" units. It will have around 400 regions like GGWaW (currently, Virginia has 16 land regions and 5 water regions). With monthly turns and so much area to cover, we expect it will take longer to take longer to play than GGWaW (but still far short of the years it takes to play WitP). For those that like WitP and don't expect to like GGWaW, you won't like our Civil War game either for the same reasons. However, we obviously hope there will be a market for the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Tough crowd.

Joel - you guys brought this upon yourselves - we got spoiled by UV and WitP and now you are offering us the war game equivalent of Cheetos (or Pocky) when we've become accustomed to lobster. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

look at the games guys, One uses hexes, the Russia campaign and divisions and supporttroops, althought it isn't really more than a twinkle in thier collective eyes, and ggwaw uses zones or areas. Do not be put off by this, it is VERY complex, using supplies, multiple types of troops, ships, transports, planes, all with a complex tech tree research engine, not to metntion manpower, industry rail lines, resources, strategic bombing .. did I miss anything? No lite-weight is ggwaw guys you are going to love it... if anything it probably will be too hard for the typical player at the harder settings..
Matthew aka freeboy
alpha ggwaw tester

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Thanks guys, I'm hungry now.. all this talk of Lobster and cheetos and pretzels. Off to the Campus food court, ole'!