Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Hi,
Compared to designing a boardgame there is some significant additional
work required to create a computer wargame.
In essence it not only requires that you design a good wargame for
starters but then you have to enforce the rules in a computer program +
create a believable AI opponent. Top it of with computer wargamers not
being impressed with just a single battle but demanding a whole set of
scenarios and you can see why designing a computer wargame is so hard.
Can that workload be lessened somewhat ? Let's summarize the
work-factors :
- Design a game of your own
- Enforce the rules
- AI opponent
- Multitude of scenarios
And let's have a look at the current offerings :
On one end of the spectrum we have Cyberboard - a utility that
basically lets you play existing boardgames as pbem computer games.
There's no rules enforcement or AI opponent and most modules and
scenarios that exist for it have been created by the community. The
Vassal engine used for online ASL play is a modern equivalent of this.
Both are freeware and fine programs to boot, but they don't constitude
what we call a wargame.
On the other end of the spectrum we do have what we call computer
wargames - or better yet : what we demand that computer wargames are :
a good basic game, strict rules enforcement, good AI and a set of
scenarios that will keep us going till doomsday. Name any wargame
released in the past couple of years and it will fall in this category
But what about the middle ground ?
Computer games that dropped the "design a game of your own" requirement
by essentially using an existing boardgame design have been somewhat
less than successfull in the past. Empires in Arms is taking a new shot
at this and might change this commonly held view, so it might just be
that up to now the *wrong* games got selected for total pc conversion
projects. The main problem here is copyright issues so a developer
might be better off to design his own game.
Side note : "what boardgames would be successfull pc games" would be a
fascinating discussion too.
Computer wargames that drop the "AI opponent" requirement are rarities
- Kamikaze wargames comes to mind here - they are excellent designs and
well worth to check out if you're into pbem play but they're single
scenario games so they are lacking a bit in the replayability
department. They were successfull enough to get noticed (and bought) by
Matrixgames at one point in time but seem to have been going
independant again now.
Computer games that drop the "Enforce the rules" requirement are a
non-starter for the simple reason that that is what computer programs
are supposed to do : enforce rules on data.
Computer games that drop the "Multitude of scenarios" requirement would
get creamed commercially
So it sure looks like the only requirement that might get dropped to
lessen the workload is "Design a game of your own" - and even that is
iffy - so are pc wargame designers doomed to this workload for all
eternity ?
Not really. Wargame designers are tackling the "Multitude of scenarios"
requirement from a different angle. The Civil War - Bull Run game was
released with rather a sparse set of scenarios, but was designed from
the ground up to be extremely moddable. It's not even out a month, yet
additional user-created scenarios are to be found everywhere. In
essence the requirement didn't change, but the developer shifted part
of the workload onto the community. What made this possible : the
Internet which allows developers and gamers to work together more
closely.
And this also brings us to another new parameter introduced by the 'Net
: more and more gamers are playing online only - this was first noticed
in FPS and RPG types of games but it's now even invading the wargame
bastion. Playing online essentially means that an AI opponent isn't
needed anymore. Oh, it might come in handy to have a sparring partner
to get to grips with the game mechanics when you first buy the game,
but after the first week it's essentially a part of the software that
isn't used anymore. Before tackling the AI opponent problem, which
basically adds a year to the production time of a game - designers in
the future could have a cold hard look at the necessity of it and drop
it - going for online play or pbem play only.
So what would be my advise/suggestion to budding pc wargame designers ?
Create a game by combining design elements from various other games and
create a pc program that enforces these rules and allows for either
pbem or online play, sugar it with a minimal set of scenarios but make
sure it's moddable and drop the AI opponent. This way that wargame
you've been working on for the last couple of years might finally get
finished.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Hi,
Compared to designing a boardgame there is some significant additional
work required to create a computer wargame.
In essence it not only requires that you design a good wargame for
starters but then you have to enforce the rules in a computer program +
create a believable AI opponent. Top it of with computer wargamers not
being impressed with just a single battle but demanding a whole set of
scenarios and you can see why designing a computer wargame is so hard.
Can that workload be lessened somewhat ? Let's summarize the
work-factors :
- Design a game of your own
- Enforce the rules
- AI opponent
- Multitude of scenarios
And let's have a look at the current offerings :
On one end of the spectrum we have Cyberboard - a utility that
basically lets you play existing boardgames as pbem computer games.
There's no rules enforcement or AI opponent and most modules and
scenarios that exist for it have been created by the community. The
Vassal engine used for online ASL play is a modern equivalent of this.
Both are freeware and fine programs to boot, but they don't constitude
what we call a wargame.
On the other end of the spectrum we do have what we call computer
wargames - or better yet : what we demand that computer wargames are :
a good basic game, strict rules enforcement, good AI and a set of
scenarios that will keep us going till doomsday. Name any wargame
released in the past couple of years and it will fall in this category
But what about the middle ground ?
Computer games that dropped the "design a game of your own" requirement
by essentially using an existing boardgame design have been somewhat
less than successfull in the past. Empires in Arms is taking a new shot
at this and might change this commonly held view, so it might just be
that up to now the *wrong* games got selected for total pc conversion
projects. The main problem here is copyright issues so a developer
might be better off to design his own game.
Side note : "what boardgames would be successfull pc games" would be a
fascinating discussion too.
Computer wargames that drop the "AI opponent" requirement are rarities
- Kamikaze wargames comes to mind here - they are excellent designs and
well worth to check out if you're into pbem play but they're single
scenario games so they are lacking a bit in the replayability
department. They were successfull enough to get noticed (and bought) by
Matrixgames at one point in time but seem to have been going
independant again now.
Computer games that drop the "Enforce the rules" requirement are a
non-starter for the simple reason that that is what computer programs
are supposed to do : enforce rules on data.
Computer games that drop the "Multitude of scenarios" requirement would
get creamed commercially
So it sure looks like the only requirement that might get dropped to
lessen the workload is "Design a game of your own" - and even that is
iffy - so are pc wargame designers doomed to this workload for all
eternity ?
Not really. Wargame designers are tackling the "Multitude of scenarios"
requirement from a different angle. The Civil War - Bull Run game was
released with rather a sparse set of scenarios, but was designed from
the ground up to be extremely moddable. It's not even out a month, yet
additional user-created scenarios are to be found everywhere. In
essence the requirement didn't change, but the developer shifted part
of the workload onto the community. What made this possible : the
Internet which allows developers and gamers to work together more
closely.
And this also brings us to another new parameter introduced by the 'Net
: more and more gamers are playing online only - this was first noticed
in FPS and RPG types of games but it's now even invading the wargame
bastion. Playing online essentially means that an AI opponent isn't
needed anymore. Oh, it might come in handy to have a sparring partner
to get to grips with the game mechanics when you first buy the game,
but after the first week it's essentially a part of the software that
isn't used anymore. Before tackling the AI opponent problem, which
basically adds a year to the production time of a game - designers in
the future could have a cold hard look at the necessity of it and drop
it - going for online play or pbem play only.
So what would be my advise/suggestion to budding pc wargame designers ?
Create a game by combining design elements from various other games and
create a pc program that enforces these rules and allows for either
pbem or online play, sugar it with a minimal set of scenarios but make
sure it's moddable and drop the AI opponent. This way that wargame
you've been working on for the last couple of years might finally get
finished.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram