Wish List

Didz · Post by **Didz** » Tue Oct 02, 2001 5:10 pm

Ok! I've calmed down.

Now, its time to get serious.

Having torn my hair out (not that I have much) as N1813 went belly up can I express my heart felt desire that Matrix don't make the same mistakes they did.

One thing that would have pulled N1813 out of dung heap they threw themselves in was the simple expedient of allowing tactical battles to be settled off-line and the results fed back to the campaign engine.

Not only would this have avoided the problems they got themselves into with their real-time tactical interface. It would have extended the market for N1813 as a campaign playing aid for tabletop battles.

I throw this idea at your feet to do with as you will but think about it. It ought to be a reasonably simple option to introduce as the tactical engine must interface with the campaign database at some point to record battle results and allowing players the option to dictate these results means that those who want to fight the battles using their favourite tactical system can do so and still play your game.

It also means that if at a later date you or anyone else wants to produce an alternative tactical game extension the hooks are already present to allow it to happen.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Oct 02, 2001 6:35 pm

Originally posted by Didz:
Ok! I've calmed down.
Not only would this have avoided the problems they got themselves into with their real-time tactical interface. It would have extended the market for N1813 as a campaign playing aid for tabletop battles.

If this game ends up with a "real time tactical interface" I'll scream bloody murder and threaten to track David and Paul down and scalp them with a large bowie knife! This is a grand strategic corps level game. There won't be any operational or tactical level to this, beyond perhaps selecting a "strategy", which some might call a "tactic", for each side for each round of combat as was done in "Empires in Arms". The description now says a strategy will be selected for the battle, not for each phase of the battle, so this is even further away from any tactical level.

If they want to add hooks to export a fight to an operational level game that's fine, but the priority they should follow now is to get this game working well as a grand strategic game. Later they can take a poll to see just exactly how many people are really interested in being able to export combats to an operational level game.

P.S., my apologies to David and Paul, I got a little carried away there, your scalps are perfectly safe. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Le Tondu · Post by **Le Tondu** » Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:20 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

If this game ends up with a "real time tactical interface" I'll scream bloody murder and threaten to track David and Paul down and scalp them with a large bowie knife!

P.S., my apologies to David and Paul, I got a little carried away there, your scalps are perfectly safe. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Ed,
I know exacly how you feel. I hope that this game is not ruined by making anything "real-time" (which is an oxymoron).

Certainly having tactical level battles would add a lot of work. I'd be happy without them if we could have a very high level of control over the composition of each coprs. I'm talking about the transfer of infantry battalions, artillery batteries, and cavalry regiments between the different corps.

Having the game keep track of the strengths of the battalions, batteries, and regiments is also very important. Also, having the game display the current corps or army OOB with respective strengths shown would definitely be a big plus.

Yes, I could do without the tactical level battles. This game is a strategic level game after all.

The more detail -the better it will be, IMHO. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Rick

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Oct 02, 2001 9:37 pm

Originally posted by Le Tondu:
The more detail -the better it will be, IMHO.

Absolutely, give us the flexibility to alter a corps's makeup, including control over infantry, regular and elite, artillery, and cavalry. I wonder if they're planning anything like this.

sol_invictus · Post by **sol_invictus** » Wed Oct 03, 2001 1:27 am

That degree of control is a bit much to hope for, but of course we can hope. Its gonna be a long cold winter waiting for this game.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Oct 03, 2001 9:26 am

Originally posted by Arinvald:
That degree of control is a bit much to hope for, but of course we can hope.

True enough, there is some hope involved, but this is a computer simulation, there are many possibilities that can be done in a computer simulation that can't be done in a boardgame. As you say though, I've got my fingers crossed. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Its gonna be a long cold winter waiting for this game.

Lord, ain't that the truth. And I'm still waiting for WitP, and Combat Leader too.

Didz · Post by **Didz** » Thu Oct 04, 2001 5:34 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

If this game ends up with a "real time tactical interface" I'll scream bloody murder and threaten to track David and Paul down and scalp them with a large bowie knife!

I'm 100% with you on that thought only I'll be aiming slightly lower.

There seems to be a fetish for 'Real Time' in the wargaming market at the minute. Don't get me wrong I actually like the idea of animated movement etc. But 'Real Time' usually means continuous movement and that immediately kicks PBEM into touch which in turn means no playable multiplayer capability.

Even if Steve Green can sort out the bugs and design flaws in N1813 its still a dead duck as far as PBEM is concerned and thats where the main Wargaming interest exists. We want to play each other not the dammed computer.

I am currently dabbling with Europa Universalis which seems to have a similar basic concept to this game and boy is that an example of a game where the designer missed the point. It actually has everything. Its a beautiful game except for one mistake and a missed opportunity.

Mistake: The campaign moves are Real Time even though the format is perfact for a turn based game. Therefore no PBEM option and this game would take 100's of hours to play on-line. Result, your stuck with the computer and Paradox missed out on a huge potential market.

Missed opportunity: The game does not include a tactical representation of battles. When two armies meet the army icons poke sticks at each other for 30 seconds or so(very annoying after a few hours of play) and then you get told who won. This is not a problem but if only they had allowed the player to interupt the game and play the battle off-line it would have added enormous appeal to the wargame fraternity and boosted sales still further.

Blackhorse · Post by **Blackhorse** » Fri Oct 05, 2001 11:50 pm

I'll be very interested to see how diplomatic relations are portrayed.

The Grand Strategy board games I've seen of the period were very simplistic. Napoleon won his early victories by picking off his opponents one-by-one (occasionally two-by-two!). But in most games there is no incentive for a player-country to sit on the sidelines . . . so each game becomes the French vs. the Grand Alliance almost from the very beginning.