Grog and the Car Designer - A Parable

[General Bolt]

I want my car with 5 wheels instead of the usual 4. Make that 6 if you count the spare in the trunk.

All-right complete redesign:

How about a massive online game where every one gets a company. All battles are operations of approx 15 minutes gametime each. Maybe 4 minutes of replay order time between movies. The operation is continuous. If real life interferred with the game, at the end of a battle you could put your coy in R&R until you returned.

At the end of a battle, you are graded based on ground taken, kill/loss ratio. If you do poorly your are given green replacements to fill the ranks. Scoring well means regular or better replacements, and extra squad, a few support weapons, and maybe a tank added to your TO&E. Gaining these additional troops is kinda like the CC games adding troops after a victory. CC had a limit to the number of troops. Here you could just keep growing. To the divisional level. But if you ever achived that level in the four minutes of game play you'd never have time to control you man and would quickly get whittled back to size.

Just dreaming...

[Salkin]

I think Other Means has some Excellent points Steve. It would be great if you gave us a few screenshots of the new engine in action and maybe a small description of what's going on .

This will, even if it is a very early version, give us a ballpark to limit our ideas, so to speak.

Al, get over yourself and save your energies. Battlefront is working on the next big thing and their earlier work isn't half as unfinished as you make it sound. I challenge you to come up with even one strategy game as good as CM.

Oh , and to get back to my earlier point:

Steve, I can understand if your current work isn't finished enough to display without some very upset people on this forum but I still want to emphasize that it would make it much easier for us to give input.

Without any frames to give input we are likely to base our suggestions on the current engine (cup holder stuff).

Another thing is (here comes the fanboy bit):

You made such an excellent work on the earlier Combat Mission that people like me and (if I understood the post correctly) kipanderson don't want to disturb your creative energies but just let you get on with it.

//Salkin

*Great* Another thread dedicated to Dorosh .

(just kidding Mike)

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You've obviously missed the point. When Grog was asked to imagine a better car, he came up with very small, narrow things. Even when he designer prodded him to "think big", Grog refused to.

Steve

Another way of looking at this, and one that might add insight as to why we are tossing out these small and minor ideas instead of "thinking big", is to picture the parable between a housewife and Architect. When the architect asks her for ideas on how to build the next dream house, she will do so from the POV of a housewife (read player), not as another architect (read game designer). The majority of housewives know nothing about wiring, plumbing, etc. They do know they could use more room here, easier access there, better lighting here.

We are the housewives of CM

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Salkin:

Al, get over yourself and save your energies. Battlefront is working on the next big thing and their earlier work isn't half as unfinished as you make it sound. I challenge you to come up with even one strategy game as good as CM.

Name one star in our solar system as good as the Sun. Same kinda question, isn't it?

There ARE no other company level 3D WEGO games out there, so saying CM is best doesn't mean much. I know what you are trying to say - yes, CM is a great value. It is very much unfinished due to a lot of compromises that were incorporated in the design. These were necessities for one reason or another, but that isn't the point.

You can crucify BF.C for leaving it that way, or applaud them for moving on. I tend towards the latter, myself, but both points of view are valid from the perspective of the viewer.

[ February 11, 2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Mace]

I'd hate the car body shape because it's made out of tiles that are restricted to a narrow range of heights, and the process of starting the car is a bit clunky.

If I have two issues with the current game not related to gameplay, it's the tile based terrain generation system and the unit selection interface.

For a terrain generation system, I'd prefer a system for assigning contours heights then drawing them free hand, with snap to grid available if needed.

Rivers, creeks and lakes would be represented by filling low terrain up to a nominated contour height with a 'water' volume, with the option of turning the volume on and off in isolated low spots.

Ground cover would be selected from a palette and sprayed or painted onto the contour layer (Let's see, I'll have mainly grass cover but with a rough/grass mix over here...)

Roads and rail lines will be on another layer and can be drawn free hand on the map and can be nominated to either follow the terrain contours or remain at a set height (want a bridge across the river? no problem. A rail line cutting through a hill...easy). Again these 'transport' lines can be selected from a palette (trail, track, rail line, unsealed narrow road, sealed narrow road, sealed double road, sealed double road, paved single road). Again snap to grid is available if you wish to draw a straight road from point A to point B.

Buildings (with or without pavement) can be placed and orientated at any angle.

All terrain elements can be right clicked so that attributes can be turned on and off (I'll have this building on fire, this bridge demolished)

Vegetation would be another 'sprayable' or 'painted' element that can be selected from a palette.

The terrain elements in the palettes would be dependant on which part of the world the battle is taking place (ie a map for a battle in Northern Africa would have different terrain palettes to one in say Italy)

Oh and some destroyed vehicles/AFVs would be good as map doodads.

I'd actually be happy to forego automatic map generation for this functionality.

Hmmm, I think I just finished my first CMx2 Terrain generation Users Requirement Document.

I'll think about the unit selection functionality later....I've got a headache.

Mace

[DrD]

And the car designer went home, and realized that Grog represents about 5% of the market, and that the 95% of drivers that do not have time to chat with the car designers, and may not know much about cars anyway, are the ones who pay his mortgage.

[Treeburst155]

Great post, Mace! That may be more along the lines of what Steve is looking for.

Treeburst155 out.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by BigAlMoho:

Spin it all you want but:

"No more patches" = ABANDONED.

Obviously, I am not going to get through to you, so I am going to just stop trying and shut up...

Your positivity will be missed.

[flamingknives]

Machine gun effectiveness ought to be modelled on something more than cyclic firing rate. A Vickers can chuck just as many rounds down range over a minute as an MG42, but this doesn't seem to be reflected anywhere in the current engine.

Modelling of grazing and plunging fire would be good.

Variable rates of fire would be nice too, beyond close range 'panic' fire. I'd like to be able to choose between suppressive fire and 'mad minute' firing.

Separation of protection and concealment would be a useful, if fairly obvious addition.

Modelling of fuse types to get different effects, beyond VT and normal. Shermans using delayed action fuses to get airbursts is a good example. Superquick for clearing barbed wire and minefields is another.

Engineering ops, naturally

Hopefully, a new engine will make some or all of these possible. Certainly some of them would never have been possible with the CMX1 engine.

Bravo to BFC for getting so much right on their first engine. Here's to the second being equally groundbreaking!

[aka_tom_w]

There is some GOOD thinking for you:

Green As Jade:

"PBeM doesn't have to have the 'e' or even the 'M'. The heart of it is that I can do my turn at a different time to you. Since CMx2 is going to be revolutionary, there may be a revolution in just how that is acheieved...

GaJ."

if the new game is revolutionary

some new way of doing this:

" The heart of it is that I can do my turn at a different time to you."

Should not be unexpected....

-tom w

[kenfedoroff]

Okay... great... the new engine has a cup holder. Now... when can I down-load the demo?

Sincerely,

Sgt. Smart-butt

[Richie]

OK...

I want PLANES that make really LOW STRAFFING RUNS

and SHIPS with men running around on them with GUNS THAST WORK sitting in a harbour

and MULTI STOREY BUILDINGS with INDIVIDUAL ROOMS and interconnected building complexes

and AIRFIELDS with PLANES ON THEM

and UNDERGROUND BUNKER SYSTEMS and TUNNELS you can move men through

and BLOWN UP TANKS all over the battlefield

and MEN with PARACHUTES falling from the sky

and TRAINS like troop trains and freight trains that might even roll along the tracks through the battlefeild

and CIVILIANS running around that your not supposed to shoot

and normal everyday PASSENGER CARS like those old citroens in city streets ....

Hows that?

Richie

PS: Nice post Mace!

[Andrew H.]

The term "Grog" is the intellectual property of the French Ministry of Defense, who recently renewed the 1812 copyright on the term. You may be permitted to continue to use the term after paying a 40 Euro licensing fee.

That is all.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Like the drink holder... of course the designer is going to make the cup holder suited to the current sized drinks.

IN-TERES-TING... :cool:

[Cull]

Did someone say cup holders?

Sweeeeeet....

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cull:

Did someone say cup holders?

Sweeeeeet....

I think Steve is saying you won't need the CD to play the next one, unlike CM, so we can use the CD tray to hold our Slushies!!!!

OH MY GOD, ANOTHER BONE!!!!!!!!

[Michael Emrys]

You want thinking outside the box, Steve? Okay, grab a handful of this:

I want an operational level WW II game whose smallest units are companies and a turn length of about an hour.

I want a WW II Pacific naval game whose smallest units are ships, air squadrons, and battalions of troops. Turn length about two hours.

I want a game that is a strategic depiction of the air war against Germany. Turn length about an hour.

And I want all this playable on my Mac.

When you are interested in any of these ideas, see me for details.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

OH MY GOD, ANOTHER BONE!!!!!!!!

Yeah, maybe. On the other hand, the bone might be your head. LOL!

Michael

[Yeknodathon]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Another way of looking at this, and one that might add insight as to why we are tossing out these small and minor ideas instead of "thinking big", is to picture the parable between a housewife and Architect. When the architect asks her for ideas on how to build the next dream house, she will do so from the POV of a housewife (read player), not as another architect (read game designer). The majority of housewives know nothing about wiring, plumbing, etc. They do know they could use more room here, easier access there, better lighting here.

We are the housewives of CM

Yes, we housewives are likely to be limited to our immediate needs and concerns. We need a new sample of detergent or demonstration of a very powerful hoover to gain a better understanding of what might be on offer and add to the creative process, if needed.

This housewife is particularly intrigued about current developments and is already finding a space for the new thingy whenever it arrives. So impressed she (he) is with previous products that various cakes and sandwiches have been carefully made (some stored in a freezer in case of delays) should someone stop by with the new thingy for a cup of tea and a quick demonstration around the house.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Other Means,

You've obviously missed the point. When Grog was asked to imagine a better car, he came up with very small, narrow things. Even when he designer prodded him to "think big", Grog refused to.

Sorry, Steve, I don't think he did miss the point. I think you missed his.

His point was that to engage in a sensible conversation about the next big thing, even poor ole Grog needs some context. You didn't tell him whether it was a hovercraft or matter transmission that you had in mind.

You've started giving that context for CMx2, but you've also said you can't describe really what the revolutionary new game will be like because you're not telling your competition etc.

In the absence of knowing what kind of game, in the broad sense, CMx2 will be, of course people have to refer to what they currently know.

The alternative is the approach taken by Treeburst. Look how far that gets: no-where, because you can't confirm or deny whether that's the kind of game you want to discuss.

GaJ.

[Yeknodathon]

Well, I'll say it. I trust BFC. I trust they'll produce the goods because they're passionate about their product and customers.

And yes, it won't be complete or perfect but it is the imperfection that makes something beautiful.

And I may not be able to grasp their vision now but when it comes I want to be at the front of the queue.

And it better have horses and motorcycles or I'll whine a lot while being stunned by the richness of the new game.

[Thomm]

I want a CMX2 game to last for an hour (wall-clock time) on average, two hours maximum.

How is that for a difficult design goal!?

Best regards,

Thomm

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Yeknodathon:

Well, I'll say it. I trust BFC. I trust they'll produce the goods because they're passionate about their product and customers.

Me too. They make great games, even if they have "robust exchanges" with their greatest fans

[Salkin]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Other Means,

You've obviously missed the point. When Grog was asked to imagine a better car, he came up with very small, narrow things. Even when he designer prodded him to "think big", Grog refused to.

Sorry, Steve, I don't think he did miss the point. I think you missed his.

His point was that to engage in a sensible conversation about the next big thing, even poor ole Grog needs some context. You didn't tell him whether it was a hovercraft or matter transmission that you had in mind.

You've started giving that context for CMx2, but you've also said you can't describe really what the revolutionary new game will be like because you're not telling your competition etc.

In the absence of knowing what kind of game, in the broad sense, CMx2 will be, of course people have to refer to what they currently know.

The alternative is the approach taken by Treeburst. Look how far that gets: no-where, because you can't confirm or deny whether that's the kind of game you want to discuss.

GaJ. </font>

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Great parable! Engages the reader, amusing, yet devastatingly accurate in its portrayal of a fundamental disconnect in the communication between the designers and the customers. Reminds me a bit of THE FREE ENTERPRISE PATRIOT (set in the American Revolution) in which the barrel boring machine, instead of producing the mandated smooth bore, goes a bit wonky and produces a rifled cannon with twice the accuracy and three times the range, resulting in a deluge of correction orders from George Washington's outraged weapon procurement group. Why? Because the new guns were out of spec and in violation of contract requirements.

We are in need of a radical new vision, yet find ourselves more nearly resembling the Chief of Patents at the turn of the century who advocated closing the U.S. Patent Office on the grounds that everything important had already been invented. Likewise a pre WW II brain trust utterly missed

predicting the atomic bomb, radar, and computers.

I believe Steve's saying that we're so locked into

a narrow mind frame based on what's been possible under the old engine that we're busy tweaking minutiae when we need to sketch out, in bold, daring strokes, a stunning, breathtakingly innovative view of what may be doable with a brand new, modular, readily reconfigurable game engine. I agree, and I'm guilty of the same sort of narrow thinking he so deftly skewers in his parable.

Regards,

John Kettler