My very abbreviated take on what has happened

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

What's so interesting about that? Contrary, prior to computers all games were made like that and people still bought and played them (not as if there was any other choice however).

This is inaccurate also; there were many board games specifically aimed at the solitaire player. I believe the first was B-17: Queen of the Skies (This was in 1983, still in the prime time for board games). It was followed very quickly that year by Ambush! (with 3 add-ons), Iwo Jima (1983), Move Out (1984), Mosby's Raiders (1985), Battle Hymn (1986, with one add on), Eastern Front Solitaire (1986), Patton's Best (1987), Tokyo Express (1988), Tarawa (1991), and even Solitaire Advanced Squad Leader (1995 1st Ed, 2001 2nd Ed). These were all designed specifically with a form of "artificial intelligence" in order to provide a single player with a programmed opponent. They proved to be popular, but the computer I think replaced the need for these. The computer never replaced FtF cardboard because the human element is still the draw there - the social aspects. But Solitaire ASL is still popular and new Ambush modlues are being sold on ebay by TPP.

In addition, many other games started to sport a "Solitaire Suitability" rating on the back of the box - in essence, marketing them on their ability to be played solo. In fact, I believe every single Victory Games title carried this rating, and I think even AH started to carry it?

There was a lot of ink spilled in the hobby press throughout the modern hobby's existence, beginning in the early 1960s and the appearance of the first wargaming magazine about the number of people playing solitaire, and even different systems for doing same in conventional games. I'll address your comments on necessity in another post.

[ July 17, 2007, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by slysniper:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Given that by their nature the "closet players" as you call them (others calls them "core market base" incidentally - guess what, you're not part of it) are incommunicado, the chances of you "teaching" them anything are nil. You just wasted your "breath", or at least, the time it took you to type that.

Oh, Thank you for typing that Mr Dorosh.

I Thought for sure that the 10 people who still visits this site were all closet players and that I was directly speaking to them. May I say respectfully " Who spit in your cereal today" what a attitude!!. All that you need to get out of the comment is, Maybe as gamers, we should do more to promote all these closet players in finding the benefits of playing others instead of the AI, thus helping promote the concept of "Do these games really need AI". Yes it was written sarcastically, but I thought some might see the point without having to show their debate skills.

"You are such a Master of that" thanks once more </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

I think I have heard BTS also say what Michael said in the first part of his post, that BTS believe their fan base consists of a large majority of solitaire players who take on the AI exclusively.

I wonder how BTS can be so sure of that? Was there a CM buyer survey that's been done to confirm this?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But one can look at the estimated sales figures, the number of registered users here, and the number of registered users who post in forums other than the CM forums (these have all been reasonably estimated in other threads and are readily available), one gets an interesting picture.

Just because you don't register or don't post here doesn't mean you are only concerned with play solo. Buying a copy of CM is not even evidence that the customer ended up liking, still plays or has any interest in the future features of CM. You could have bought the game, hated it and turffed it. Maybe the only real people who like and play and will continue to buy and play and support BTS are the ones who post on these forums and others.</font>

[Sequoia]

Not to hijack the thread, but the first solitare war games I can think of were Fall of Rome, 1973, Operation Olympic, 1974, and Wolfpack, 1975, all by SPI and Strategy and Tactics issue games.

[Michael Dorosh]

Correct - my research has been on tactical stuff so my biases are evident.

Those sound like grand strategy (was Wolfpack?); the ones I mentioned were tactical for the most part, with a couple of operational titles and one strategic.

Far from being off topic, you raise a great point.

The timing of those first solitaire titles is significant. The wargame market didn't really open up until about 1970. The first tactical game didn't even exist until 1969, and S&T's game-in-a-magazine format was the first real competition for Avalon Hill. Until then, it was one or two releases a year from 1958 to 1970, almost always operational in nature, always for 2 players, with cookie cutter CRTS and 4-colour mapboards.

So what you're saying is that solitaire board wargaming is just as old as wargaming's true golden age - when other companies began to get competitive and feel their way into other genres - tactical games, solitaire, etc. I think that's significant, especially in the face of the assertion that there was "no other way to play".

[slysniper]

Now that was more civil, Michael.

Most of what you say is likely correct, that for whatever reasons, the majority of players presently are solitare players. There is plenty of clues and reports to that. The question "why" might still be a unanswered issue. The thing that this topic brings up though is that "Is this trend likely to be the same in the future". That is a question that cannot be answered with present facts. The thing to think about is things that help one to predict future events.

Example, this hobby presently is a dieing hobby in some sence, it is not growing in size, most of those in it today were in it 20,30 and 40 years ago, yes there is a few that find there way into it that are young but not in the numbers that reflect even the growth expearenced in the late 60's or 70's.

Present sell of what works in the market and where future efforts will focus because that is where money is made. The days of making the game you want and finding a way to market it is already sliping away and will likely be hard to ever change in the industry.

So my point, the games that will be a big success in the future is the ones that attracts a larger share of all them younger gamers, will fit the needs of those that finance them and somehow meets the needs of the consumer.

It will interesting to see how Shock force does.

Because one of the facts that might show up is that the younger players might show up within it, not for many reasons thought of in the past but for the simple fact that WW2 or earlier events is not of much interest to that age, but something protraying present day conflicts might be a big plus. The release of this game might be the biggest clue we will have as to the direction of this Hobby in the future

[Michael Dorosh]

I don't believe the dire reports of wargaming dying off, either. Certainly, there needs to be "entry level" games, but I think Combat Mission is exactly that. Check out the popularity of the ASL Starter Kits, Axis and Allies Miniatures, and some of the other easy to play board games for proof that that genre is not dead either.

Steel Panthers: World at War is a pretty good entry-level game for anyone interested in turn-based company-level actions - available as a free download, no less.

The ASL forums boast a large number of ASL players that weren't even born yet when I first heard about Squad Leader and then ASL. The CM forums also boast a pretty good mix of shall we say "veteran" gamers who started with Tactics II, and very young gamers still in their teens - you'd never guess from his posts that stoat is still in high school, for example. He has more historical knowledge in his noggin than the majority of posters here regardless of age, plus the ability to discuss it intelligently and dispassionately.

I don't fear for the future, but I share your concerns about the proper vehicle for carrying the hobby forward. Will CM:C be the way to go to ensure wargaming carries on into eternity?

I think a better question is - does CM:C have to do that? Are we that scared ****less that wargaming will die off tomorrow that every damn product has to shoulder the burden of "saving the hobby"?

Can't we just design something for fun? Because that is what the basic premise, as I see it, should be for CM:C. Nothing earth shaking, just another way to enjoy what is now a classic.

Like the 101st Airborne at Bastogne who bristled at the notion that Patton had rescued them, I don't think the hobby needs to be "saved" by CM:C. I honestly don't. It will always be here.

Take a look at the thread I started in the General Forum about all the guys who "invented" their own wargames before they even knew such things existed. Computer game designers are no different. While commercial board wargaming only started in 1958 (1954, if you count Charles S. Roberts' first design), miniatures have been around a lot longer - the first formalize rules came out, I think, in 1911 - by H.G. Wells, no less, and the Kriegsspiel rules as used by the military were drafted in the mid 1800s. Chess dates to ancient times as do other games. There's no way we'll ever live in a world without some form of wargaming.

[ July 17, 2007, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Micheal Wittman]

I'd buy the game if it was human vs human only, as

that is the only way I ever play any game. Thankfully the "AI" is not good enough to play against, or we'd have a "Terminator" type reality on our hands.heh

[slysniper]

I don't believe the dire reports of wargaming dying off, either. Certainly, there needs to be "entry level" games, but I think Combat Mission is exactly that. Check out the popularity of the ASL Starter Kits, Axis and Allies Miniatures, and some of the other easy to play board games for proof that that genre is not dead either.

Yes, maybe it will not die, but does it have to remain such a small supported hobby as it is presently. I would like to see a game that would bring more to the hobby because of what the game is offering, thus a reason to think how we approach the hobby might require some interventive change.

I don't fear for the future, but I share your concerns about the proper vehicle for carrying the hobby forward. Will CM:C be the way to go to ensure wargaming carries on into eternity?

No, I do not fear seeing the hobby die but I wonder at times if the future will produce good products for our use or will we be left with our classic games that are old tech because all the designers will be filling the needs of the market which will not be us because we could not understand how to make true wargaming grow in popularity.

I think a better question is - does CM:C have to do that? Are we that scared ****less that wargaming will die off tomorrow that every damn product has to shoulder the burden of "saving the hobby"?

No, no certain game needs to carry the burden, but hopefully one has the magic touch to bring many new players to it and then to open their eyes into this hobby.

Can't we just design something for fun? Because that is what the basic premise, as I see it, should be for CM:C. Nothing earth shaking, just another way to enjoy what is now a classic.

That was how it has been in the past, but the future games need to be exceptional. They are judged on realism, graphic, game play, ease of use, substance, correctness and replayability.

most are done for computers, all these type of things add up to years of work and that by skilled people. The make your own game in the basement is gone as far as making out to the market in mass. If we do not gain numbers to be a market then we will be lost by the times.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm on the same page as you, slysniper - I keep waiting for a game to come along that will be all things to all people. 7 years after CM:BO, I am still waiting. It ain't gonna happen. The programming challenges are too dire.

Now, this may be where Lt Bull is absolutely right - designing a tactical game in which squads can not only mousehole, parachute, fly gliders, climb walls, repair guns, drive captured vehicles, clear tunnels, fire flares, etc. etc. - and then have an AI that can handle all that - is probably asking the impossible. It would be so much simpler just to design a game for humans to do all that and not worry about an AI.

So if your (and his) argument is that we need one game like that to prove the concept works - that a human vs. human game that includes as many arcane functions as the ASL Rulebook is possible - then I'd like to see it, too. Unfortunately, no one is going to spend 3 years of development time on it.

It might happen by some basement code development team - but these are the same guys Lt Bull is laughing at in post 1. Aren't they?

[slysniper]

So if your (and his) argument is that we need one game like that to prove the concept works - that a human vs. human game that includes as many arcane functions as the ASL Rulebook is possible - then I'd like to see it, too. Unfortunately, no one is going to spend 3 years of development time on it.

It might happen by some basement code development team - but these are the same guys Lt Bull is laughing at in post 1. Aren't they?

This could be part of the point, to drop the AI, to help push the level of the games in other areas to higher levels and in some way help the developer cut cost and design issues.

But it still goes back to how to get them buyers to change their concept of wanting to play others instead of themselves, it is the fact that the designer will not change the approach unless present trends of all these hidden buyers would start to change, where they learn to find the enjoyment of what can now be offered over the internet.

I personnally was one of these closet players since back in the late 70's.

thousand's of hours of solitare play, not that I did not want to play others. But as many stories already point out. The few players I found were either unemployed, nuts or kids with too much time on their hands. The pool of players were very limited even though I lived in a major city, game companies sponcered events were normally a thousand miles away. When you did find someone that you could get along with, it was still hard, since the games tolk so much time, there was interpreting the rules and points of view, the game enjoyment was lost many times because of this, it was not like playing risk or monopoly with someone, it just beyond a social game type of activity, not saying it cannot be social. So solitare was a way to simple enjoy the game, so I do see clearly why the hobby is like it is.

[slysniper]

But then came close combat to the market, I could find someone on line almost anytime, the games were quick, normally around 30 minutes, there was no rule issues, cheating was minimal, and most everyone seems more interesting when you do not have to deal with them in your own home. The world changed, no longer would AI be more than a poor way to test the game, real players from all parts of the world, different styles, different backrounds, what a breath of fresh air to the interest in my life.

Combat mission added to it, placed me into that 3d envirement that the player has always wanted, could still play small quick games, but with the PBEM function, now larger more complex games could be tackled and still not worry about coordinating your time with someone else. The simple aspect of making it open enough so now the adverage user could design new maps and games, that is what made this game the thing that changed the hobby. not because it was playable vs the AI, even though I know the majority of players have played it that way only.

I cannot see the future, but I try to understand what I see, my kids long for interactive play against others, the AI is there to learn the game but they allways want to play others. From what I see in them, A great game has nothing to do with AI, it has to do with how much they can control the game, the effects and realism it gives them and how many things it can do so as to not be boring or predictable, that is what determines the shelve life and investment for them. It is this type of person that games will be sold too for the next 20-30 years, might at least try and figure out what is needed to make the next great leap forward, because what the hobby is doing presently will not get it there.

[ July 17, 2007, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I suspect the hobby is doomed to always limp along as a poor second cousin - its like lacrosse will never surpass hockey as a money-making spectator sport in Canada. Wargaming is a niche market - you know that better than anyone given your lengthy experience with the genre - and the resources anyone will be willing to devote to it are limited.

Even in the wake of 9/11, or the release of SPR, of the 60th Anniversary of D-Day, there hasn't been a huge impetus to bring wargaming into the mainstream. Call of Duty seems to be doing well, but that's not wargaming, it's Doom with funny clothes on. And CoD is about as close as the mainstream will get to wargaming, that and WWIIOL.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see it happening.

Next leap forward? I think CM is it for now. I can sympathize with the frustration, then, at the delays with CM:C. For now, its what we've got. But then, in 1998, no one foresaw any great revolutions, and I think CM:BO was exactly that. (Muzzle Velocity beat CM to the punch in being a fully 3D WW II tactical wargame, but it wasn't a "serious" game and it didn't have the exposure or quality of CM).

CM will continue to evolve - if CMX2 makes a big enough splash, it may spur on either BF.C or some other company to make some revolutionary leap - BF.C might even be planning that right now - like you say, time will tell.

My money is on the hobby just limping along as a niche market, though. It always has been - even in the 1970s, Avalon Hill sold as many adult party games as it did wargames.

It may take a visionary like another Jim Dunnigan to come along - he revolutionized the industry with S&T - a game in every magazine, reader feedback surveys, it was him who designed the first tactical wargames. Maybe he's out there.

Maybe he's your son.

[Lt Bull]

I just want to refine my statements a bit more.

My discussions relating to the merits of a CPU opponent are really only refering to the kinds of CPU opponents that you would expect in more tactical/strategic/thinking games like CM (or CMC), which generally end up being wargames. These games generally place the human player and their opponent (CPU or human) head to head in opposite but identically responsible roles. These games are fundamentally different from say single player FPS where the player is responsible (generally) for controlling ONE character but the "CPU opponent" in this represents the collective mindset of perhaps hundreds of individual "first player enemies". By the pure nature of these types of games (and others), the CPU opponent is indivisible from the actual human game playing experience and definition of the game and hence my discussion does not refer to them.

I like how a whole thread has developed on the validity of putting in computer opponents and that being the hold up, when it was just a floated theory (it seems) and the problem could be something much different.

I've been thinking about current computer game design philosophy and it's pitfalls for a while now. It is no surprise it has headed in this direction.

On computer opponents and their necessity (though I play very few games against the computer), some people just don't want to play other people and there a couple reason people haven't mentioned.

1) Some people just aren't really competitive. They don't want to have to worry about taking a game that seriously. They want a semi-serious experience of playing a computer.

2) Winning. Not a problem to play a computer and win yet have it give you a slight challenge. If you are looking for relaxation that might help out.

True and there are many games which are ideally suited to and cater for that need. However I do not believe "serious" computer wargame designers (like BTS) go the loving level of detail and effort in their games in an effort to woo these types of "semi-serious" players.

3) Time. Playing a computer you control completely when and where you want to play. A person is a hugely different issue.

Absolutely. However PBEM is quite time eccomincal if you have a decent/regular/understanding PBEM opponent. Still, it all boils down to "how much do you really like and want to play the game?"

4) Practice. Even if you intend to play other people a lot of people feel the need for a half-way decent computer to learn the game.

Totally agree. So if anything, why not create the most basic, token of CPU opponents (if you can call them that) in games, commonly refered to as "bots" in FPS. They serve the purpose of a token opponent that allows the player to at least experience and familiarise themselves with the game, controls, concept etc before going online multiplayer.

Originally posted by Micahel Dorosch:

This is inaccurate also; there were many board games specifically aimed at the solitaire player.

True, but it is probably safe to say that it was a small percentage of the total game market however. And again, apart from a few exceptions mentioned, weren't these games just solitaire versions of the "real" multiplayer games people really wanted to be able to play, against other humans, but couldn't, for reasons that have already been suggested? In this respect they are comprimises on the actual kind of gaming experience/challenge that people really wanted.

Admittedly, much of my thoughts with regards to all this discussion arose from my recent foray into the world of ASL, more precisely VASL. It occurred to me that here is a landmark and seminal "old school" type of cardboard wargame desgined in the 70's before computers that in many ways was the inspiration behind so many of the computer wargames we play today, like CM, and hugely successful as far as wargames of it's day go. The rulebook for this game is something like 400+ pages in total. The more I got into it, the more I realsied just how deep, detail, diverse and interesting "a game" it was to play and experience (only against humans!), despite the pages and pages of rules and exceptions you personally had to learn, sometimes just for specfic scenarios, whose scope variety and variation are as diverse as the rules. I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed this complex yet otherwise tecnhically primitive albeit "manually" driven computer game that can only be played between two human players. It is not surprising that many CMers were once ASLers (or still are). CM is essentially like playing ASL but without the counters, hexes, die and need to referee the rules yourself.

NOTE: Had it not been for computers, internet and VASL, I would NEVER have bothered getting into ASL.

I then started to wonder what if. What if the game of ASL was never "invented" back on the 70's. Let's say we had to wait until NOW before someone actually came up with the rules and concept to make the game and rules as we currently know it, with the exception that it was fully intended to be played multiplayer between two players "ON" (or via) a computer interface head to head (essentially like you can do now in VASL, but with a WAY better interface and with all sorts of extra immersive enhancements and features that didn't change the gameplay in anyway, just made it look and play more smoother). If you prefered, you could even play the game solitaire, but only in the way people always tried to play ASL solitaire. The game conept itself, in theory, as history has already proven, would be hugely popular amongst the "grog" set of wargamers. It could be argued that it would be even MORE popular a game to play in this version of it's incarnation that in it's actual 70's cardboard origin because, it now being a "computer game" with multiplayer capability, with direct access to an interconnected worldwide community of gamers, finding someone suitable to play with would be a breeze, compared to the limitations players had in the 70's-80's of finding suitable local opponents.

NOTE: This incarnation would certainly also be easier to play/learn than the original (like one might find when playing computer chess) as it could be customised to automatically enforce and regulate the rules, as well as do all the mundane things like score keep, turn track and the like, even run through animated tutorials if required.

The point I want to highlight is that in this hypothetical modern incarnation of the game ASL, although the game was instead intended to be played ON a computer (as opposed in cardboard) it was still never the intent that the game be played AGAINST a computer opponent, a fundamentally huge distinction. The guy who designed the game only ever had the human player in mind and in no way ever had the concept (burden!) of a CPU player/opponent cross his mind, and so never felt limited to "dumbing the game rules/features down" so that a CPU opponent could understand and play the game. If there was a particular rule or feature he or other players didn't like or wanted added, he certainly didn't have to think of the implications of "retraining" the CPU opponent to understand them also (like I am sure many computer game designers do today).

More to the point: As history has probably already proven, a game like ASL as we know it is simply just way too complex/intricate/varied/specific/dynamic in it's rules and scenarios to ever realistically think that a competent CPU opponent could ever be programmed, within the budget, timeframe and resources typically available to your typical computer wargame developer (well maybe within the development CMC timeframe it could be ).

So what becomes of the very fun, challenging and entertaining to play game we know of as ASL (probably the most successful, respected and cherished precomputer wargame franchise ever) in this hypothetically belated and computer interfaced modern incarnation scneario? Well, from what some of you guys are saying, it not only would never, but should never see the commercial light of day. And why? Simply because it is a computer game with no CPU opponent, and it seems some of you would rather play NO game (eg. CMC) than possibly see the same game but only as a multiplayer game. Doesn't something not seem right here?

And herein lies the root of the point I am trying to make.

Can you see the very real possibilty that some truly great (computer) gaming ideas (CMC?) might not even be seeing the light of day simply because of the imposed/self imposed burden of having to code a competent CPU opponent because the budget/time/resources wouldn't allow it or would simply be impossible to do?

This is the issue I have with this fixiation on telling game designers that the CPU opponent is central to and indivisible from what we expect in a "computer" game. It implies, in one way or other, that otherwise awesome human-centric game rules/features should only exist in the game if a CPU opponent can be coded to understand them.

But this is not (and should not) be how games should be thought of in the first instance.

I just want to clarify what I mean by "the game" or "human game playing experience". I am refering to the kinds of control/responsibilities/decisions/interaction a HUMAN player experiences within the game REGARDLESS of who/or what the opponent is. So it is basically everything about "the game" within a computer game that DOES NOT include evaluations on the quality of the CPU opponent or any gripes entailed with playing/finding a human opponent. So basically, forget about any issues you have with your opponent: Do you (would you)like PLAYING the game?

All the rules, the tactics, strategies, possibilities, details etc that engage you when you play the game? Do you like playing "the game"?

I am sure that there are many computer games out there that otherwise were great human game playing expereinces (as described above) but just sucked when you played them because it was single player only with a retarded CPU opponent, or because the multiplayer aspect to it was weak and buggy and obviously ill considered/supported, which practiacally made the game not much fun as a whole. This is why it annoys me when people, when rating computer games, seem to think the CPU opponent is a reflection of what the game is about or "how good a game is it". In my book the quality of the CPU opponent (good or bad) is irrelevant in my evaluation of the game playing experience itself (or even as a reflection of how good a game designer the creators of the game are).

It's like I think gamers and even game designers have gotten the whole process of game design the wrong way around. Instead of "the game" itself (as experienced by a human player) being CENTRAL to the whole reason why the game exists, this freakn dumb a$$ed CPU opponent entity is now central to the game and seen as driving the whole market. Instead of definitely creating a computer game that players would want to play REGARDLESS of whether or not a freakn CPU opponent can play it, no, we must stop and check with the CPU opponent before we go any further.

Why can't/aren't computer games primarily and originally concieved with this "human game playing experience" comes first approach/philosophy? If they were, we would see games IN THe FIRST INSTANCE be released WITHOUT any CPU opponent, but instead be geared around multiplayer. Not only would these games probably be a much better "human game playing expereice" than other CPU opponent-centric releases, but it is quite possible that they would be cheaper, easier and much quicker to produce (and therefore sell), as you would have dispensed with the costs and issues related to the CPU opponent. Lets look at what might happen next...

1. People buy the game in basically the same numbers or more than other similar themed CPU opponent-centric release

CONCLUSION: You have just proven that if people like "the game" within your computer game, they will buy it and play it (by finding opponents to play) REGARDLESS of whether it has a CPU opponent. Just playing your game is so good, they are prepared to "forgive you " for not releasing it with a CPU opponent. You have basically achieved in much less time and at much less cost (and therefore at much higher profit) what other CPU opponent-centric game developers aspire to do. You can safely say you have a skill in designing games people just want to play and can sell them exclusively on those merits alone.

Only NOW, you might want to consider being greedy and designing a retraded CPU opponent version of the game that might apture and suck in the OUTLIER market who AREN'T that intereested in "the game" (if they were they would have already bought the original multiplayer only release) but would think it fun and buy if they could at least play it solo against a retarded animated CPU oppoenent to keep themselves amused. You might however actually find that your game is so anthromorphic in character (loved by some many players!) that you conclude that it woud take the combined might of all the computer programmers at Microsoft Corp a year to even get code a competent CPU opponent (yes, there is a M$ joke here that can reverese the intent of this statement ).

(Note now that in this scenario, these closet gamers are no longer the "core" market that determines what computer games should be. They don't even play any role in really establishing a benchmark for whether the game is successful or not!)

2. People buy the game in numbers significantly less numbers than what that they do other similar themed CPU opponent-centric release

CONCLUSION: Despite your loss on investment being significantly less than if you had deliveried an identical "human game playing expereince" but one with a CPU opponent (which had would have cost you more time/money), a few things might be contributing to this:

a) You did not leverage the resource which is the Internet enough to enable players to quickly find/meet and play each other, perhaps by creating a central player homepage/server/meeting place etc. This most certainly is key to any success.

Be paitient. Change in peoples habits adapting to new concepts often takes some time and getting used to.

c) The human gaming experience behind your game idea might possibly be just a bad idea of very limited commercial appeal to begin with. Maybe designing games isn't really your thing. Maybe you could invest a bit more money and spend another year or so programming a retarded CPU opponent for your game and market it towards the closet single player gamer. They are more interested in the single player aspect of the game.

Are you starting to see my point?

Michael. I appreciate your comments, but please try not to swamp this thread with so many posts so quickly. I am having trouble keeping up with them and would not want others reading your pages of posts to lose focus of the discussion I have presented and to think that because there is no response to what you say, that there is only one side to what you are saying or your interpretation for what I am saying is correct. From what I recall I am the one going out on a limb going against the grain with something new to say. Remember you will get your chance to create you own new thread and tell everyone how right you were and how I end up looking like an ass when all is revealed.

[ July 17, 2007, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Micahel Dorosch:(sic)

This is inaccurate also; there were many board games specifically aimed at the solitaire player.

...apart from a few exceptions mentioned, weren't these games just solitaire versions of the "real" multiplayer games people really wanted to be able to play, against other humans, but couldn't, for reasons that have already been suggested? . </font>

[slysniper]

BACK TO LT BULLS COMMENTS,

I think that the concepts you have thought of are very open minded, Most here would love to see a modern ASL with the latest graphics, all the options of war, A forum with thousand of players waiting to play and a system that does a good job of preventing cheating and manages all the rules and calc's so that you can enjoy the game. Could not a game like this be made quicker, cheaper and more realistic if the AI was forgotten. Yes, the answer is not hard to see, it is staring us in the face. So your comments to say why not try is valid. Would money be made, again ASL proves that a market is there, could this not tap into it and quickly if again the designer would forget about having AI. Of course

What is more interesting, as you have mentioned, could this not open the door to more creative designs, other games that no programmer presently dares to dream of because he cannot handle how to get the AI to do all the things he desires to Sim. Put the power back into the hands of the user, Make the games for the most incredible thing on earth, the human mind and see what type of games could be made.

I like your points and what you are saying, sorry if i helped side track this for you to much. but its the first interesting thing i have read for many months from this Forum. I hope others will comment also with valid issues of why this could work or the challenges involved with the concept.

[ July 18, 2007, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: slysniper ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by slysniper:

BACK TO LT BULLS COMMENTS,

I think that the concepts you have thought of are very open minded, Most here would love to see a modern ASL with the latest graphics, all the options of war, A forum with thousand of players waiting to play and a system that does a good job of preventing cheating and manages all the rules and calc's so that you can enjoy the game. Could not a game like this be made quicker, cheaper and more realistic if the AI was forgotten. Yes, the answer is not hard to see, it is staring us in the face. So your comments to say why not try is valid. Would money be made, again ASL proves that a market is there, could this not tap it and quickly if again the designer would forget about having AI.

It already exists as far as VASL concerns. If you want something that checks LOS and interprets the rules without actually playing the game, I think that is also in the works, or at least has been discussed - but why would MMP give up selling 1000 dollars worth of modules in favour of selling a 35 dollar CD and 75 dollar rulebook to go with it?

That's the crux of it. A PC game without an AI is simply a game-assist program. These existed on 5-1/4" floppies in the 1980s. Close Assault was one example; ASL had one for it also. They weren't popular then. Advances in javascript and graphic capability - screen size and resolution are a big factor here, too, in addition to the ability to render in 3-dimensions - have us going in the right direction for viable human v human PC games, but marketability will always be the determining factor.

[ July 18, 2007, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[slysniper]

It already exists as far as VASL concerns. If you want something that checks LOS and interprets the rules without actually playing the game, I think that is also in the works, or at least has been discussed - but why would MMP give up selling 1000 dollars worth of modules in favour of selling a 35 dollar CD and 75 dollar rulebook to go with it?

I know, but it not a clean just open up the game and play the game and the machine does all the work like the modern computer games. The players still need to know all the rules that governs the original game to be good at it, even with all the added helps, its still just that old board game being used on the internet.

Of course they will continue making money the way that makes sence, they will sell until someone else comes out with all that and more in a new package, one as I described, one that gives it to you for that $35 to $50 dollars and uses what is available today so that it will be so above VASL that there will be no comparision.

At least It be a wishful hope.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Every single game I mentioned was purpose-built exclusively for solitaire play. They were actually quite elegant, some of them, in terms of design.

OK. Yeah, I woudln't mind checking them out myself actually . Having another think about these kinds of pre-PC solitaire exclusive games however, I am thinking that maybe their game play experience and kick is more similar in style to say playing the card game Solitaire or even Mindsweeper at the most basic level. I started to think that they may even be more like playing/reading the self contained Fighting Fantasy role playing/dice based kind of books (which I had fond memories of playing) where you aren't really engaged against in a tactical/strategic battle against a tactical/strategic OPPONENT. It is more akin to "putting yourself in hell and seeing if you can fight your way through", rather than a tactical/strategic duel between you and an OPPONENT, like we do in real wargames, where you and your opponent share similar roles on oppoiste sites of a battlefield. I really think that even these kinds of pre-PC solitaire game playing expereinces are more paralleled in the computer gaming world by the "me against the world" kind of games (FPS, Oblivion-style RPG etc), which are the kinds of games which I have aready aluded to at the begining of my last post as being the CPU opponent intrinsic genre exceptions to the kinds of games I am refering to, which have no real multiplayer variant/possibility.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

It already exists as far as VASL concerns...(snip to save space)...but marketability will always be the determining factor.

All relevant points that I would like to address. VASL is NOT a dedicated, boot n' all commercial venture. If it was it would look NOTHING like it would today, and most certianly I would be expecting ALOT more from it I had to pay for it (something that has been floated). The best example for what I think it would be like (or from where creative inspiration could be drawn)w ould be how the typically "bland" boardgame of chess can be represenetd in the latest release of Chessmaster for example (if you ignore any of the CPU opponent features of course) when two people might be playing it head to head on the internet for example, or one player just trying to learn the game in the animated walkthrough tutorials. It just "sexes" the game up with graphics/effects/player aid features etc (probably what we would refer to as "immersion" in CM) without really changing anything about the original game itself. VASL is no where near being anything like what a dedicated, professional and commerical effort could produce.

NOTE: There is no doubt that the absolutely BRILLIANT CPU opponent you find in a game like Chessmaster is undoubtedly one of the key marketing points of the game and resons why people buy it. Though there are many other features to that software that have been added that go beyond the strict definitions of the game we know as "chess" that make it attractive to new players or market sectors (eg. animated lessons and tutorials, fun graphics, animations, sounds etc).

Why would MMP give up selling $1000s of modules in favour of anything else? They wouldn't because the way I see it, is that they are still relying on their core market to keep them in business (or at least to buy their stuff) and their relationship with that core is not about computers, it about cardboard, like it always was.

I really can see a potential business direction that MMP could take that relates in sort to my "hypothetical computer related reincarnation of ASL" scenario I mentioned in my last post, but in reality, I just think they are too conservative, and probably not thinking any further than their own retirement and graves and the graves of their core market base that has essentially remained unchanged and followed them around since the mid 70's. They are bleeding their core fan base of every last $ rather than reaching out in new creative directions to any other sectors of the market in an effort to keep ASL a commercially viable product beyond the graves of their current customers. They have completely plodded along as if computers, the internet (and all that that entails) don't even exist. It may as well still be 1978 to them. From a sustainable business model point of view they really baffle me. I can only conclude that they are not in it for the long term. It is a shame. A more creative, ambitious, risk-taking and adventourous company could potentially save ASL beyond the generation of it's current aging market. Who knows, maybe another multi-million dollar celebrity will bail them out again when the time come. Maybe when you have those things happen to you your business model doesn't need to make sense .

Yes, a PC game without an AI is simply a game-assist program but that is not a recipe for disaster of course. It's no more like saying a a chessboard, or a football, or a tennis racket are game assist items and not games on their own. You still need poeple to (want to) play them. With the rapid advances we are seeing in computer graphic technology/internet/software design (I certainly would not put game related CPU opponent coding skills in that category however!), you really are limited by your own creativity. Stiffling your creativity in any way (intentionally or unintentionally) may not allow you to fully leverage the potential of those advances.

Originally posted by slysniper:

BACK TO LT BULLS COMMENTS.....

That is good to hear that you can at least see what I am getting at. I do feel that this is a very interesting discussion and I am interested in other peoples views on it. I kind of feel that possibilities might be passing some game developers by.

[ July 18, 2007, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Bruce70]

I don't have the time to weigh into this hefty debate, but thought I'd add my 2 cents:

I have bought most of the CM titles, and while I have enjoyed a few PBEM games and even fewer TCP/IP games, I have mostly played single player.

The reasons for this have mostly been covered above (time, being a big one), but also a lot of the battles I like playing would be boring for a human playing the other side. The computer never complains about what units I give it, etc.

It may well be true that most games of CM are played multiplayer, but that does not mean that most purchasers of the game prefer multiplayer. People who play multiplayer probably have the time to play the game much more than the rest of us, but they don't provide more income for the developers.

I'd also like to rant about AI in general, as I have been known to do a few times on this forum already, but I'll give it a miss this time.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Every single game I mentioned was purpose-built exclusively for solitaire play. They were actually quite elegant, some of them, in terms of design.

OK. Yeah, I woudln't mind checking them out myself actually . Having another think about these kinds of pre-PC solitaire exclusive games however, I am thinking that maybe their game play experience and kick is more similar in style to say playing the card game Solitaire or even Mindsweeper at the most basic level. </font>

[ChrisND]

Ambush! is a great game. I spent many hours as a kid playing it.

Yes, I was a wierd kid. No need to point that out.

[kevinkins]

Man, some you guys have a lot of time on your hands. The length of the posts and sentences within dazzles the mind of gunt like me. It's like reading a victorian romance novel at times in this thread. Oh well back to Wuthering Heights

Signed

Heathcliff

[Bergerbitz]

Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:

Man, some you guys have a lot of time on your hands. The length of the posts and sentences within dazzles the mind of gunt like me. It's like reading a victorian romance novel at times in this thread. Oh well back to Wuthering Heights

Signed

Heathcliff

Ah, you meant "grunt"...right?

Back to lurking...

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Kevin Kinscherff:

It's like reading a victorian romance novel at times in this thread.

LMAO

I just happened across this bit of interesting news.

Computers Solve Checkers—It's a Draw - Scientific American

and here

Scientists hail 'unbeatable' game

"An average of 50 computers were run together every day for years at a time to complete the programme, known as Chinook. At peak periods, more than 200 computers were in use."

Doesn't sound too complex a task to program CPU opponents does it?

The point being highlighted here is that analysis of even apparently very simple games in view of how one would code a CPU oppoennt to think is a science in itself, totally removed from the art of game design, that people want to PLAY.

Here is another interesting related read:

Wikipedia - Solved board games

[ July 20, 2007, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]