In Development (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Deathtreader -> In Development (4/26/2018 11:09:23 PM)

Hi all,

For awhile now the only game title shown as being in development is the moribund Combined Arms. We all know that none of us will live long enough to see that published [:(]

Sooooooo........

Surely there are other games in the pipe that are far enough along (maybe Southern Storm for example) that could beef up the In Development section.

I can't be the only one who's curious about the future. [:'(]

Thanks!

Rob.




ringoblood -> RE: In Development (4/26/2018 11:21:45 PM)

No comment [:D]




IainMcNeil -> RE: In Development (4/27/2018 10:50:05 AM)

There are many games in development but until they're officially announced we cant have a forum for it. Currently they're also split between Matrix & Slitherine. We're looking to make the whole site & forums more navigable for the future so you can find what you want. There are 20-30 releases before the end of this year counting new platforms and DLC's so a lot happening.




rico21 -> RE: In Development (4/27/2018 4:24:17 PM)

8 months x 30 days == 240 days / 25 releases == 10 days.

What, a game will be out in ten days and we did never speak about it?[:D]




demyansk -> RE: In Development (4/27/2018 10:52:37 PM)

Games in development, heck, I still need to play all my other games




tentackle -> RE: In Development (5/2/2018 4:04:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: demyansk

Games in development, heck, I still need to play all my other games

Yep, mate)




wodin -> RE: In Development (5/16/2018 2:03:19 AM)

I'd like to see new innovative games. Ones that do things differently and rethink how wargames can be played. Rather than new games using same engine as other releases , say WH40K using Panzer Korps engine and .mechanics of a new era using pike and shot engine. Nothing wrong with these but you can't beat a new game that has a new engine and does new things. Like When Airborne Assault came out of Combat Mission and wego or more recent the rpg aspect to DC Barbarossa

Also frustrating when it seems a game is a missed\wasted opportunity to do something special. Take Check your Six. Things like pilots not named and planes glass not transparent (bit of a thing about this). No proper campaign where you could have managed your pilots, had ground crew ratings, injured pilots, medals and more detailed pilot stats, things that would be hard to do in a boardgame. Use the power of the PC but keep the games core mechanics and talking about the make sure all boardgame features are included. Personally I wouldn't be happy with a game I've developed it I thought all that could be done has been within the confines of scale, war, theatre and time period




rico21 -> RE: In Development (5/16/2018 4:28:19 AM)

Well, I do not have the time to comment on the design of all the new wargames, but if I did, I would not compare the tactical games with the operational games and even less with the strategic games, that a new game that I do not like, may please others.
I would avoid saying what I would do knowing that I would not do it, it would show my incompetence.
Finally, for short, when I wipe my mouth, I take a table napkin, not a towel.




JReb -> RE: In Development (5/16/2018 2:12:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

I'd like to see new innovative games. Ones that do things differently and rethink how wargames can be played. Rather than new games using same engine as other releases , say WH40K using Panzer Korps engine and .mechanics of a new era using pike and shot engine. Nothing wrong with these but you can't beat a new game that has a new engine and does new things. Like When Airborne Assault came out of Combat Mission and wego or more recent the rpg aspect to DC Barbarossa

Also frustrating when it seems a game is a missed\wasted opportunity to do something special. Take Check your Six. Things like pilots not named and planes glass not transparent (bit of a thing about this). No proper campaign where you could have managed your pilots, had ground crew ratings, injured pilots, medals and more detailed pilot stats, things that would be hard to do in a boardgame. Use the power of the PC but keep the games core mechanics and talking about the make sure all boardgame features are included. Personally I wouldn't be happy with a game I've developed it I thought all that could be done has been within the confines of scale, war, theatre and time period



+1. My thoughts exactly.

There was some concern when Matrix and Slith merged that there would be this drop off in the more complex games and lighter fare would be the main focus. I think we are seeing some of this now with the latest releases from Slith being pretty light; Check Your Six, Empires Apart and March to Glory. Personally they just don't offer enough for me as a player to keep my interest. Hopefully the developers will stick around for awhile and continue adding depth to those games.

In the interest of balance so I'm not just bashing Matrix/Slith unfairly, I would add that CMANO, Desert War and FOG2 are quality releases with lots to like in each title. I guess its about personal preference.

But I would love to see a new game come out that has new, innovative look and feel that has never-done-before mechanics and features. Especially tactical scale, squad or platoon, maybe company level with a carry-over campaign system. Oh yeah baby! That's the game I want. [&o]




IainMcNeil -> RE: In Development (5/16/2018 2:31:41 PM)

We'd love to publish more hardcore wargames but they take a long time to develop and there are not many people able to make them and the pool seems to be shrinking. There is a real shortage of wargamers who can code to a level needed for modern commercial games. Games have become more technically demanding and it limits who can perform the role. And programmers coming from a more mainstream background struggle to get to grips with concepts and ideas from wargames. There is a real shortage of personnel, limiting how many we can have in progress at any one time.

This is not a change we've instigated or any form of strategic decision, just a result of circumstances. If there are more wargamer/programmers out there we'd love to hear from them!





Zorch -> RE: In Development (5/16/2018 4:06:06 PM)

I prefer to be surprised.




wodin -> RE: In Development (5/16/2018 7:06:35 PM)

Lost me abit there...


quote:

ORIGINAL: rico21

Well, I do not have the time to comment on the design of all the new wargames, but if I did, I would not compare the tactical games with the operational games and even less with the strategic games, that a new game that I do not like, may please others.
I would avoid saying what I would do knowing that I would not do it, it would show my incompetence.
Finally, for short, when I wipe my mouth, I take a table napkin, not a towel.





Blond_Knight -> RE: In Development (5/16/2018 7:16:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IainMcNeil

We'd love to publish more hardcore wargames but they take a long time to develop and there are not many people able to make them and the pool seems to be shrinking. There is a real shortage of wargamers who can code to a level needed for modern commercial games. Games have become more technically demanding and it limits who can perform the role. And programmers coming from a more mainstream background struggle to get to grips with concepts and ideas from wargames. There is a real shortage of personnel, limiting how many we can have in progress at any one time.

This is not a change we've instigated or any form of strategic decision, just a result of circumstances. If there are more wargamer/programmers out there we'd love to hear from them!



I remember seeing you guys putting out a request for C++ programmers more than once I believe. I really wish I could get involved but Powershell and Linux scripts aren't exactly what you're looking for.




bazjak -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 11:06:55 AM)

I would be happy with an update for WITP AE just to make it easier to play on my laptop
I just can't seem to get the switches correct to get it to play properly
Modernise it and it could be a new game all over again
Just look at the interest in the forum




ezzler -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 12:20:21 PM)

I just want the battles from WiTp.

I thought that was in the works a while back. A sort of Carrier Strike game?




MrsWargamer -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 12:57:43 PM)

Hardcore doesn't always bring in the bucks.

A business exists to make money.

Anything not producing, is a burden to the business.

My local hobby store is relocating (better landlord I suspect) but is also downsizing some stock categories. R/C and trains. I actually was surprised that R/C wasn't profitable. But we have a model railroad club in town and even that isn't enough. The thing is, the owner mentioned all the model railroaders have 'mature' collections. By 'mature' he meant, they had established layouts, and they simply didn't need anything.

I suppose you could say I have a 'mature' wargame collection. I saw Order of Battle on sale, and initially, it was "wow, yippee, I want it." Then my wallet yelled out, "you don't need yet another wargame of the same friggin war, at the same friggin scale, just because it is slightly different." So I was "oh alright, I'll pass on it."

I mostly come here to chew the fat. The thing is, I'm hardly a customer any more. I bought several titles I got on impulse I didn't really need.
And some of those were the monster titles. There IS only so many ways to game WW2. You can only play ONE game at a time. I own Gary's titles and I own Tillers titles, and I own TOAW III and I own Ron's Schwerpunkt designs and to a point, they're different, and to a point, they're all the same.

Once you already have a means to simulate something, logically, you don't need more.
Granted, not all of us a very logical crowd :)
But businesses tend to succeed when they master logical choices :)




vonRocko -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 3:08:32 PM)

New development needs to focus on a better AI. It seems to me that the AI in new games are getting worse, not better. After a few decades I would've expected much better AI.
Devs got a bit lazy, focusing on multiplayer at the expense of a decent AI.
IMHO




IainMcNeil -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 3:26:39 PM)

AI is extremely hard to do right and sadly doesn't look good in screenshots so games that focus on AI fail and die. Its easy to say but the reality is devs are pushed by commercial concerns to focus on things that sell the game and not enough people are willing to pay enough to make AI a focus. The more complex the game the harder it is to do AI so it gets exponentially harder to solve for more detailed games as you spend a pile of time making the game complex and a pile more making the AI play it properly. There isn't an obvious solution.

Suggesting it is lazy development is beyond insulting! Multiplayer can be hugely complicated as well so hardly an easy option over AI! If everyone worked as hard as game developers the world would be a for more productive place!




vonRocko -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 3:37:13 PM)

Sorry, no insult was intended. I understand it is complicated, but this seems to be the only thing that hasn't improved over the years.




berto -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 3:51:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

New development needs to focus on a better AI. It seems to me that the AI in new games are getting worse, not better. After a few decades I would've expected much better AI.
Devs got a bit lazy, focusing on multiplayer at the expense of a decent AI.
IMHO

I don't know about the "lazy". I think that devs have been focusing on flashy graphics, whiz-bang UIs, etc. At the expense of devoting time and energy to AI development. No less effort, just a redirection of effort to what the market seems to crave most. Which is not better AI. Not saying AI is unimportant; it just seems that to most casual players (where most of the sales are) having a decent AI is farther down the wish list.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IainMcNeil

AI is extremely hard to do right and sadly doesn't look good in screenshots so games that focus on AI fail and die. Its easy to say but the reality is devs are pushed by commercial concerns to focus on things that sell the game and not enough people are willing to pay enough to make AI a focus. The more complex the game the harder it is to do AI so it gets exponentially harder to solve for more detailed games as you spend a pile of time making the game complex and a pile more making the AI play it properly. There isn't an obvious solution.

+1




zakblood -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 4:10:23 PM)

sign of the times is that most players do want eye candy and online Multiplayer more than single player, so the developers imo have given them what they have continued to keep asking for, not that i agree also, being a single player gamer myself etc, who tends to not play online in hardly any game now, well not war games anyway, just not good enough or have the time or ability etc,...

but do understand also that it's what sells, and war games as a whole compared to elsewhere eg FPS etc don't on the same scale, so in numbers terms, it's better to give player on the whole what they ask for, and from a testers point of view and forum mass reader, more ask for eye candy and Multiplayer still than AI for single player.

but saying that, imo the AI has improved over the last few years with some games, war games this is giving me at least more of a challenge than in the past, and when you get to a given age, you can remember what it used to be like etc, with V FOR VICTORY MARKET GARDEN or ARNHEM THE 'MARKET GARDEN' OPERATION as 2 examples etc, against Desert War 1940 - 1942 or lets say Campaign Series Middle East 1948-1985, or even the likes of games from the Flashpoint Campaigns Series, any of which give you a good run for your money on the AI stakes.

with the gronards types giving a real challenge on a given difficulty level WITE / WITW or WITP etc and don't even get me started on the Command Modern Air / Naval Operations series, as the AI is masterful to say the least, so there has been some large improvements on the AI side in some given games, i could name others, which for me do stand out as enjoyable in the single player side, but then again, i guess it also depends on you're skill level as well, which maybe higher than mine,... [:D]




MrsWargamer -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 4:30:53 PM)

Hmm I couldn't care less if AI was just given the boot from future efforts. I could just as easily respond to the assertion that devs are lazy with maybe gamers that refuse to locate human adversaries are even lazier. Not saying anyone is, but, it seems a fair response.

There is NOTHING wrong with playing a hot seat game as both sides.
And the multiplayer interface here through Slitherine Group is in my view the pinnacle of human vs human wargaming.

Demanding a wargame possess an AI in my view often is more likely to damage a good wargame design instead of aid it.




rico21 -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 4:31:02 PM)

In the future, we will buy a game designed for multiplayer without AI.
To play alone, we will purchase an external program that we will link to this game (or another!).
What is certain is that this "miracle" program will not be developed by the video game industry.
Prepare you to play games in no english language.[:D]




IainMcNeil -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 4:55:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

Sorry, no insult was intended. I understand it is complicated, but this seems to be the only thing that hasn't improved over the years.


Sorry for over reacting - I'm a little touchy when people use the word lazy in the same sentence as developer. Some of the comments on the Steam forums make my head boil. :)

Its true - sadly AI currently has to be written for the specific set of games rules you've written. Change the game rules and the AI has to be modified to cope with it. So each new game generally requires AI from scratch. Until AI becomes good enough to "learn" itself then I suspect game AI isn't going to make much progress. We're hoping to experiment with something like this in a future release but we'll have to see how it goes...




Lobster -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 4:57:21 PM)

If you don't make something and then constantly improve that something then that something will never become better. The only way a game's 'AI', or any gaming 'AI' in general, will become better is if it is used or included at all. That will in turn require the money to make it better. If people stop buying games with anything but multiplayer with no AI then the game developers will stop improving gaming AI because the money isn't there. One thing I can depend on. The AI will not drop a game because it is losing.




Mobeer -> RE: In Development (5/17/2018 7:15:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IainMcNeil
...
sadly AI currently has to be written for the specific set of games rules you've written
...


This approach is part of the problem; the AI needs to be written whilst the game rules are being developed, not as an after thought. Developing the AI alongside the rules means that the rules can be changed if the AI can't manage them. Leave the AI as an afterthought and it's bound to have problems.




MrsWargamer -> RE: In Development (5/18/2018 1:29:34 AM)

"One thing I can depend on. The AI will not drop a game because it is losing."

There's not much point playing an AI game once the AI has effectively thrown the game with an outrageously stupid stunt even a blithering idiot 6-year-old wouldn't do.

I think the venerable, awesome Steel Panthers's Long Campaigns are an utter waste of time. I've built forces that AI simply can't cope with. It takes no effort. It takes no skill. It's like kicking puppies playing the AI in the Long Campaigns.

The AI is an overrated necessity. I'll just say it, we ONLY have AIs in our wargames to placate whiny wargamers that refuse to actually do something to find a human adversary, or who simply refuse to accept playing the game vs themselves in hotseat mode.

AI is a waste of money.

I have NEVER defeated the AI even once and felt satisfaction at winning.

The only victories I have ever savoured were vs a human.




loki100 -> RE: In Development (5/18/2018 3:51:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

quote:

ORIGINAL: IainMcNeil
...
sadly AI currently has to be written for the specific set of games rules you've written
...


This approach is part of the problem; the AI needs to be written whilst the game rules are being developed, not as an after thought. Developing the AI alongside the rules means that the rules can be changed if the AI can't manage them. Leave the AI as an afterthought and it's bound to have problems.


He didn't say that.

The comment is that each game needs an AI built for its rules so at the moment there is not a generic 'Slitherine AI' that is adapted to each game but that each game needs its own created against that games' rule set




IainMcNeil -> RE: In Development (5/18/2018 11:08:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

quote:

ORIGINAL: IainMcNeil
...
sadly AI currently has to be written for the specific set of games rules you've written
...


This approach is part of the problem; the AI needs to be written whilst the game rules are being developed, not as an after thought. Developing the AI alongside the rules means that the rules can be changed if the AI can't manage them. Leave the AI as an afterthought and it's bound to have problems.


Obviously we don't make changes the AI cant cope and a lot of great ideas get shelved because the AI can't cope with it, but even changing stats and balancing can impact the AI. Its really is a pain in the ass to get right! Fixing a bug can affect the AI. basically every single code and data change you make has a chance of impacting the AI. The main issue is though that you cant use the AI from the previous game and build on it. Whereas you can use the engine code or multiplayer code, so they continually get better but AI stays where it was.




vonRocko -> RE: In Development (5/18/2018 11:44:34 AM)

"I'll just say it, we ONLY have AIs in our wargames to placate whiny wargamers that refuse to actually do something to find a human adversary, or who simply refuse to accept playing the game vs themselves in hotseat mode"

The whole reason I play pc games is not needing a human opponent or playing "hotseat". I have boardgames if I want that.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.710938E-02