|
Warpup -> Global Strategy Game Engine (1/21/2001 7:11:00 AM)
|
I'm introducing this topic to combine the call for a global WWII strategy game (noticed this was made by Dennis Huff on August 27) with the disappointment expressed by some on the WWI threads that a strategic WWI game would never be economical to make.
It seems to me that a strategic global game engine which could be adapted for world conflict from about 1900 to 1950 (or 1895/98 to 1945/48 if you prefer) would be feasible. Obviously, a global WWII game would make some money. But if it were based on an expandale game engine, other starting points for global war could be released later or developed by the players themselves. 1895 (Sino-Japanese War), 1898 (Spanish-American War), 1900 (Boer War and Boxer Rebellion), 1904 (Russo-Japanese War), 1912 (Balkan Wars), 1914 (WWI), 1936 (wars ongoing in China and Spain), and 1946 (cold war starts hot, with China or division of spoils in Europe being the starting points) could all be intesting starting points for using the game engine.
I agree with those who posted to other threads who believe strategy should be turn based (although I'm going to try the new Europa Universalis also). Using a turn based approach would allow a large multiplayer pbem, which is where the game could be most entertaining and acheive the largest following. If a player doesn't get his turn in on time to the server, an AI would run his position. The AI wouldn't need to be much better than that in the old Pacific War. Having the AI run the turn would be the penalty for not getting the order file in on time.
There is definately a market for multiplayer pbems. I've been amazed at the efforts of players to make Empires in Arms playable via e-mail (don't think it will ever really succeed, but what dedication!), and also at the money and time spent on pbems such as Lords of the Earth and Renaisance. It's the human interaction that makes these big multiplayer games sinks for money and time. We just need time between turns to do the telephone and e-mail strategy or diplomacy. Note that even if there is a world divided into two sides, there should still be competing national interests to provoke intense competition within alliance conferences.
My idea is that there should be a player for each combatant nation, along with several players in subordinate roles conducting the actual combat on the hot fronts. The front commanders could have their own criteria for success, though as the designers of the old paper and cardboad game Campaign for North Africa admitted, victory conditions for such a monster game seem almost pointless compared to the victory of actually playing the beast.
I would vote for detail on a par with Pacific War, my favorite computer strategy game of all time.
Hope Laurent Favre gets into this topic. He sure has deep thoughts on the WWII strategy topic.
Warren Bruhn
Roseburg, Oregon, USA
|
|
|
|
