carlton@apollo.HP.COM (Carlton B. Hommel) (08/14/90)
hammersslammers1@oxy.edu (David J. Harr) writes: >I am considering doing a port to the Macintosh of a tactical simulation >board game. What features would YOU like to see the computer handle for you >in a game that was adapted from a board game? What do I want in a tactical simulation board game? First, comments on the simulation: o First, I want to win. But, I don't want a cakewalk. There should be a range of settings, from blow-em-away, to nigh-impossible, to you-lose. Make the computer opponent smarter, not faster. This isn't an arcade game. o I want to know what the rules are. Sure, go ahead and make a continuous CRT, instead of the more standard 1-1 2-1 3-1 columns. Have the computer calculate morale, supply, and elan on the fly. But, I want to know the algorithms its using. o I want a wide selection of starting unit types, with an option to create my own. o I want to be able to make my own senarios. (So I can see how my newly created unit types hold up against the standards...) o They human will be observing the computer's tactics, for use in later games. Clearly document any tactics the computer will use, but the player can't. Describe what extra advantages the computer gets at the harder skill levels. In conclusion, I would ask that you not make a "puzzle" game. don't make me guess what the rules are. Second, comments on the user interface: o I want the counter to indicate the type of unit. This was my major complaint with the Ancient Art of War. Although you could differentiate your units with different formations, they all looked the same in the senario map. o Yes, the Mac is a mouse machine. But I want complete keyboard functionality. All frequently-used menu options should have keyboard equivalents. Individual units should be selectable by cycling through with the TAB or some other key. o Let me make graphic decisions, like whether I have a hex grid, or want units to flash when killed. o If you must copy protect, use a manual lookup. KeyDisks break. Make the lookup interesting. Be prepared to have it broken by someone with a disassembler, and the patch publicised. o Don't use graphics that have no effect on game play. If there is no terrain or combat difference between a river and a canal, have them look the same. o Allow easy saving and restoring. o Consider using standard Mac PICT and " snd" resources, to allow customization. o Let me scale the map from individual units, to grand overview. o Two-player would be nice, but not necessary. I'd be able to make more comments, but I'd need more information about what you're looking for. Carl Hommel carlton@apollo.hp.com
jcoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (D. Joseph Creighton) (08/14/90)
In article <4c2f90e6.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> carlton@apollo.hp.com writes: >hammersslammers1@oxy.edu (David J. Harr) writes: >>I am considering doing a port to the Macintosh of a tactical simulation >>board game. What features would YOU like to see the computer handle for you >>in a game that was adapted from a board game? > >o First, I want to win. But, I don't want a cakewalk. There should > be a range of settings, from blow-em-away, to nigh-impossible, to > you-lose. Make the computer opponent smarter, not faster. This > isn't an arcade game. Agreed. Too many games either allow you to win no matter what the settings, or see you die at low level settings, since it was designed with a CRAY as a player... >o I want to know what the rules are. Sure, go ahead and make a > continuous CRT, instead of the more standard 1-1 2-1 3-1 columns. > Have the computer calculate morale, supply, and elan on the fly. > But, I want to know the algorithms its using. Hmmm... Here, knowing the algorithms for your *own* side is fine, since you are controlling strategy and placement of the units. But I think that the enemy algorithms should be 100% secretive. No real army knows the others' weakness *that* well. If you want an inside edge, make the game with a limited supply of scout-type units that can travel fast and far, but cannot defend themselves very well. Good for recon and advance scouting! >o I want a wide selection of starting unit types, with an option to > create my own. I like the Falcon weapons selection: You can have what's available at your supply depot. Sometimes the frustrations of war - even if you're winning - can make the game more of a challenge. >o I want to be able to make my own senarios. (So I can see how my > newly created unit types hold up against the standards...) Excellent. Also, maybe a training level, with dummy units and an evaluator at the end. >o They human will be observing the computer's tactics, for use in > later games. Clearly document any tactics the computer will use, but > the player can't. Describe what extra advantages the computer gets > at the harder skill levels. No, no, no. No documentation on computer tactics! You do that, and it's back to arcade action. Make the difficulty settings run with a lesser number of "tacticle" mistakes on the computer's part. Arcade: the enemy unit can barely coordinate itself. True-to-Life: you've got a tacticle genius on your tail! List all available human tactics, but leave the ememy behind that veil of mystery. Again, maybe some high-flying spy plane has found them and has possible strength evaluations, but no hard facts. >Second, comments on the user interface: > >o I want the counter to indicate the type of unit. This was my major > complaint with the Ancient Art of War. Although you could > differentiate your units with different formations, they all looked > the same in the senario map. Yes, some kind of letter for computer available formations. If you customize, maybe make the indicator a number (or vice versa). >o Yes, the Mac is a mouse machine. But I want complete keyboard > functionality. All frequently-used menu options should have keyboard > equivalents. Individual units should be selectable by cycling > through with the TAB or some other key. Agreed. >o Let me make graphic decisions, like whether I have a hex grid, or > want units to flash when killed. More like a grid on or off when looking at a map, and possible a notification from someone on a communication link to the destroyed unit: "Sir, unit x is gone!" or "We've lost unit x!" >o If you must copy protect, use a manual lookup. KeyDisks break. > Make the lookup interesting. Be prepared to have it broken by > someone with a disassembler, and the patch publicised. Hmmm... True, locked disks can be broken, but thhen again, I haven't found a single manual look-up format that wasn't either also easy to copy or a pain in the butt to do. Your choice. >o Don't use graphics that have no effect on game play. If there is no > terrain or combat difference between a river and a canal, have them > look the same. My experience with Falcon again suggests something akin to "scenery off" or a mode when the scenery is disabled to allow for better responce. Here, you could cut out all but simple vector graphics in a battle, since filling in of patterns and detail will only slow things down. Don't get rid of the scenery entirely - it could provide a necessary reference point to orient yourself. >o Allow easy saving and restoring. Natch! :) >o Consider using standard Mac PICT and " snd" resources, to allow > customization. I don't know what kind of customization you would need here. To go and change the images *in* the game itself would not be something I would see as necessary. Same for the sounds. I can't see why you would want, for example, a "boom" to go "quack." >o Let me scale the map from individual units, to grand overview. Perfect (as with Ancient Art of War at Sea). >o Two-player would be nice, but not necessary. Yes, but over either a network or a smiple Imagewriter cable through the phone ports. No two-people-on-one-machine format like you see with Strategy Conquest. >I'd be able to make more comments, but I'd need more information about >what you're looking for. Same here. But I'm sure you've just gotten an earload as it is. :) >Carl Hommel >carlton@apollo.hp.com ___--- +------__--~~~ _~--------------------------------------------------------+ | __-~~ _~ "You could feel the wind at your back in those days... | _-~ ~_ the sound of the sea beneath you...even if you take | ~-_ ~_ away the wind and the water, it's still the same. The | |~--_ ~_ ship is yours, you can feel her, and the stars are | | ~~--__ ~_ still there, Bones." - Kirk, The Ultimate Computer | +----------~~~---_~_-------------------------------------------------------+ | Hailing Frequencies Closed. "Captain" D. Joseph Creighton | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
wbt@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (08/15/90)
In article <1990Aug14.133704.4472@ccu.umanitoba.ca> jcoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (D. Joseph Creighton) writes: >In article <4c2f90e6.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> carlton@apollo.hp.com writes: > >>o I want to know what the rules are. Sure, go ahead and make a >> continuous CRT, instead of the more standard 1-1 2-1 3-1 columns. >> Have the computer calculate morale, supply, and elan on the fly. >> But, I want to know the algorithms its using. > >Hmmm... Here, knowing the algorithms for your *own* side is fine, since you >are controlling strategy and placement of the units. But I think that the >enemy algorithms should be 100% secretive. No real army knows the others' >weakness *that* well. I think you're confusing mechanics and tactics. It's reasonable for the player to want to understand game mechanics, be it something as basic as "how fast do my tanks move" or something more esoteric like "what's the difference in firepower between a Soviet infantry squad and an American one. This is quite reasonable; remember that unlike actual field commanders, players don't have years of experience in these sorts of matters tucked under their belts. Is it unreasonable to expect a German 1944 Panzer Regiment to halt a Soviet Tank Corps in its tracks ? What if the Germans are defending in mountainous territory, or behind a river line ? Prepared positions ? The commanders would have some general notion, such as ,"about a 50/50 chance", and the player should be able to get that same information. >>o I want to be able to make my own senarios. (So I can see how my >> newly created unit types hold up against the standards...) > >Excellent. Also, maybe a training level, with dummy units and an >evaluator at the end. The entire game is a training aid with dummy units. I don't follow. >>o They human will be observing the computer's tactics, for use in >> later games. Clearly document any tactics the computer will use, but >> the player can't. Describe what extra advantages the computer gets >> at the harder skill levels. > >No, no, no. No documentation on computer tactics! You do that, and it's >back to arcade action. I think you've overlooked the key part of the statement... "Clearly document any tactics the computer will use, *but*the*player*can't.*" As a default, I expect that the computer has to obey the same rules I do (after all, they're mostly rules of nature, with some small variation between opposing forces). However, I understand that for play balance, etc, it may be necessary to allow the computer to "cheat." I must know where and how it is able to do so. Does it ignore part of its casualties ? Then I need to know if the casualties displayed on the screen reflect that fudge factor or not, because if it tells me I've brought that tank company to quarter strength and it's really still at half, I have to know. I'm blind to the computer, if the game's done right; I only see those units I've contacted or spotted via recon. Maybe the computer doesn't have this handicap, and always knows where all my stuff is. If so, I need to know that. I *don't* want a real-time report of what tactics the enemy is using; I just want to know how his capabilities differ from mine. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language.
paul@surf.sics.bu.oz (Paul Davis) (08/24/90)
The ultimate board game? I want the ability to design and program pieces. Design should take into account physical tradeoffs and resource constraints but allow for some flexibility. Programming could start with just a Move x,y type command and some condition checking and looping. They would need to be able to send messages ie. 'Encountered enemy' to the command point as well. I would like more strategy games to be real-time or a semblance thereof. That would give an advantage to the player able to quickly create and modify his piece's programs. I have the idea of developing groups of basic pieces with a set of behavior directives and then running these in essentially hands off mode to see how successful the algorithms are. Something like complicated strategic cellular automata. ?? It would be nice to 'can' algorithms in procedures so that you can quickly substitute one sort of behavior for another, ie. 'attack' and 'retreat'. Definitely two player, definitely two machine. Preferably unlimited players with the ability to enter and leave a running game. I've thought of unlimited territory, with a fractal algorithm generating it as players move around, then storing it for others to happen across. I'm not sure when to say 'That is all' but this could and should be done by wrapping rather than hard borders. I often wish Strategic Conquest wrapped at the sides and corners. That is all for now. paul@surf.sics.bu.oz.au send messages ie. 'Encountered enemy' to the command point as well. -- Paul Davis Internet/AUSNET: paul@surf.sics.bu.oz.au School of Business Mail to: P.O. Box 65 Bond University Bond University phone: (075) 952 291 QLD 4229 Australia