Jump to content

question for Hubert


Recommended Posts

With the recent discussion about commmander over Europe (or whatever it was called that I wasted my last weekend on) and the new WaW expansion coming up ( you better have some fast server to download that from the second it is released smile.gif ...) I was interested in something. How many people bought SC1 and SC2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just wondering the other day, Hubert, what ultimately got you started (and inspired) to work on SC1? What was your initial goal for that game and what was the most surprising (and disappointing) aspect of the process?

I used to work for SSSI (Empire Earth, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War) and am always interested to hear about this stuff, especially from smaller developers. What you can divulge, anyway. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by targul:

As the producer of Civil War General. I really understand barely enough here Hubert.

I lost my butt on that game and have never done another.

If you are doing enough to etch out a living with this I salute you.

Barely mind you and I'm sure with your experience you can relate... many don't realize just how tough it is to sell in this market and to make a living and in the end if I had a regular job I'd probably be making more especially when you factor in the development time and loss of revenue between projects.

Luckily I love what I do and make just enough to get by, that and having a supportive wife who helps to pay the bills between games is a definite plus smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by targul:

As the producer of Civil War General. I really understand barely enough here Hubert.

I lost my butt on that game and have never done another.

If you are doing enough to etch out a living with this I salute you.

Btw, what is the link to your game? I'd be interested to check it out when I have a chance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Timskorn:

I was just wondering the other day, Hubert, what ultimately got you started (and inspired) to work on SC1? What was your initial goal for that game and what was the most surprising (and disappointing) aspect of the process?

Initially SC1 was a little project I wanted to do before I went out looking for a real job. I started coding it when I was 26 right when I finished university and figured even if it didn't sell it might look good on a resume. That was the time to plunge in and take the risk because I figured after that life would get too busy and much riskier especially when you buy a house, get married and have kids... first one on the way btw so I am pretty excited about that.

Inspiration of course came from Panzer General, Clash of Steel and Axis and Allies. My main focus was to sort of create a cross between the three, streamline the game play and of course the interface. Nowadays this sort of sounds like a familiar story but of course this was the first game to do this so I'll let it speak for itself ;)

That and a few unique features such as having HQs work as supply wagons etc., give and gain experience bonuses and a few others and the game was born.

Truth is it was very low budget, first game all the code, layout and graphics were done by myself... with sounds, and a few touch ups to the look before it was published so I never really expected it to do well but it seemed to have hit a nerve within the community and lucky for me just enough to hide in my office and work on SC2.

For surprises, generally it was the length of the project... being my first game I never expected it to take quite as long as it did and even now I am still learning that things often take much longer than you expect them to. That and having players enjoy the game so much is always a nice surprise smile.gif

I used to work for SSSI (Empire Earth, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War) and am always interested to hear about this stuff, especially from smaller developers. What you can divulge, anyway. smile.gif
Well I am equally impressed by both you and targul, you never know when you are surrounded by so many "brothers in arms" so to speak. smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting thread: I loved the sticky (droped latter) on SC1 board where BF asked where people had heard about SC1. The varied responce's surprised me alot, I personally noticed it in a gaming mag write-up while fliping pages at some electronic store.

? Where is everyone else hearing 9heard) about sc2: many of us came over from the SC1 days... but we have alot of new people as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Hubert that game went on retail shelves in 1994. I dont even have a copy of it anymore other then the copy from the copyright office.

I am not a programmer. I have a good friend who was an awesome programmer and he wanted to develop it. I wanted to do WWII something similiar to War in Europe. (It was just prior to the release of Computer War in Europe.) Anyway I paid to develop and distribute the game.

Total cost was slightly over 350K. I recovered slightly over 10% of that. It is funny I still see copies of it in stores in there dollar bins once in awhile.

It was a horrible game even I didnt like it. First I dont care for that genre second the AI simply sucked. Hesds up it was okay though. But I had spent all I had agreed to so I published it and took my hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a risky, harsh business. Most companies work for 2-4 years on money loaned to them by a publisher, with the expectation they'll recoup that amount plus some profits. It's an immense amount of risk and pressure. I think HC is doing it right, low-budget and lower risk, slowly building up an IP and a fan base. And eventually, hopefully, SC3 or 4 or whatever future game you make hits a nerve and you see sales quadruple or more.

Some people hate EA because they keep pumping out updated versions of new games each year (Like Madden), but it's a business model. From a gamers perspective we say, "Revolutionize the game!" but to EA that just screams "Risky business". So they take what works and add parts to it each year, and millions of people buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought 3 copies of SC1 and two of SC2. I'd do more if I could find people interested in wargames like this.

Right now I'm just holding onto my one SC2 copy awaiting the expansion in which case I'll distribute the SC2 copy to some lucky gamer.

By the way HC, will I need the original SC2 for the expansion pack or can I purchase a whole new package with all the updates/patches? Will I lose any of the old scenarios or will they all be included, especially the entry "Fall Weiss" for H to H competition?

Now....it just seems that you(HC) made a little subliminal referal to another aspiration....HMMmm. I'm not sure....I could be misleading everyone, but if I had my preference I sure would like to see the SC model expand to encompass the Pacific WW2 theater.

I know that's a tough call, the dynamics are so different and then there is all that complication for the AI to deal with. Not an easy endeavor.

Its like this, I've been through many wargames over the past 45 years and I've never been exposed to a truly good Pacific game in the strategic scale. One that plays easily as the SC engine allows yet has that resilient depth for replay. I've looked, I've hoped, I've actually been excited about a few prospects, but it hasn't happened yet.

IMO, HC, you have the gift for that creation, it won't be easy, probably not profitable, initially, but then there is this SC legacy for basis.

All I can say, if you go down that road you can count on my support....you can count on it anyway, but I will step up the best my time allows to promote such a creation and of course the easy part of economics is a given.

Its a risky business...but so is life...so what?

Actually I see this as an investment for my retirement, same as 401K, Roth IRAs, traditional IRA, pensions, gold, diamonds, equities, cash, real estate, whatever, its just as important.

For when the Lord calls me home I hope that I will be playing SC....ok...maybe in the lineup paddling to catch a nice little freight train(wave) or better riding it....or maybe riding something else ;) .

Well....1 out of three ain't bad. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with SeaMonkey - I would LOVE to see a strategic level game on the pacific! That's where my Dad served, so I'm partial to it.

But the challenges are many, with the size of those islands, all the naval and air warfare, plus the Asian mainland if you covered that.

It's a huge challenge that's for sure. But if Hubert designed it, I for one would buy it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would buy it also but it is a huge endeavor. What might be an easier approach would be to design the Japanese verses China campaign first. The expand as the comfort levels increase.

War in the Pacific is fairly good but too complicated so it is a nice model that would need to be toned down alot.

What would probably work best would be to take one of the old AVH designed Pacific games and bring it to the present with a little more zest.

Nice thing is the units and sea units already function well. So you need a map and the big dog AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too am with SeaMonkey on a Strategic Level game on the Pacific!, i have so expressed this very same yearning many times before!.

This game, if it is made, should concentrate only on the 'Pacific' theatre of Operation's area!. Depending on the Map-Size it may or may not be able to contain much of North America?...or Australia for that matter!.

What is really needed here i think is an ability to 'Blow-Up/Expand' a small-speck of an Island so that opposing force's can fight it out![Perhaps Operational Zones will be needed to make this game work???...encompassing only a certain amount of Pacific Theatre Area?..for each Zone!]. This way, the Historical Island Hopping Campaign can be fully played out [Which would be...Battles for control of the Island in question]!.

How many Islands were ever attacked at one time?,...not too many i would think [Only so many resources to go around], so...if what i say has any truth to it, the game could limit how-many Island's could be under contention at any one time,...if too many Island battles are going on at the same point in time,...it could bog the game down?!?!.

[ June 24, 2007, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Pacific game would need expanded naval and air functions as well.

Carriers and their fighters were a huge factor in determining naval battles. It'd be interesting to see a "slightly" more detailed breakdown of carriers and their flight groups, and somehow capture the strategy of knowing when to attack and when to protect.

Say you can set your carriers to different modes:

A. Attack Carrier

B. Attack Any

C. CAP

Attack Carrier and Attack Any would work sort of like Intercept mode with current aircraft. If a carrier or any other enemy ship comes into LOS of your carrier, it'll automatically launch an air strike against it. If the opposing carrier is on CAP mode, they'll have a higher chance of repelling the attack. If both carriers are on Attack Carrier, simultaneous attacks would occur.

Pretty basic idea that would need much more attention of course, but expanded carrier functions would go a long way to making the "Carrier War" in the Pacific more exciting, and involve some more strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by targul:

Sorry Hubert that game went on retail shelves in 1994. I dont even have a copy of it anymore other then the copy from the copyright office.

..

It was a horrible game even I didnt like it. First I dont care for that genre second the AI simply sucked. Hesds up it was okay though. But I had spent all I had agreed to so I published it and took my hits.

But I still have a copy, Part I and Part II is still in my cupboard. Might be localized german versions (not quite sure, I`m at work at the moment). If anyone is interested, I can check.

I liked the game (I`m very interested in the American Civil War), although it was a bit unbalanced in the later stages. I was never able to make the final Washington Scenario on the most difficult level, but maybe I played it in the wrong way.

Anyway: it was a good game, but a programmer/game developer who wants to earn money has to do mainstream RTS stuff and not TBS.. look what happend to Master of Orion 3 and other TBS games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by targul:

Sorry Hubert that game went on retail shelves in 1994. I dont even have a copy of it anymore other then the copy from the copyright office.

I am not a programmer. I have a good friend who was an awesome programmer and he wanted to develop it. I wanted to do WWII something similiar to War in Europe. (It was just prior to the release of Computer War in Europe.) Anyway I paid to develop and distribute the game.

Total cost was slightly over 350K. I recovered slightly over 10% of that. It is funny I still see copies of it in stores in there dollar bins once in awhile.

It was a horrible game even I didnt like it. First I dont care for that genre second the AI simply sucked. Hesds up it was okay though. But I had spent all I had agreed to so I published it and took my hits.

targul, thanks for the replay and I'm sorry to hear it did not work out as well as originally hoped. Oddly enough I've heard these stories all too often and in general it is a reminder of how difficult this business is and how, for me, I really have to be careful with each business/development decision I make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the very first things I learned when I went into the game industry was that all those wonderful, creative, innovative ideas you had swimming in your brain didn't matter. Design decisions were always weighed towards its potential for marketability, and basically whether it would help it sell or not. Even if it wasn't as fun or practical as another idea.

That also goes in hand with knowing who your target audience is. A game like SC2, if too "simplified" in order to cater outside of the wargaming market, may end up losing sales to both crowds. The casual market may not like it (or just not be marketed to properly), and the grognards are turned off because it's no longer a real wargame.

I feel the SC series CAN break out to a larger audience, but I believe that comes with ever-increasing-graphics and an ever-more-intuitive interface and action-feedback. There's a lot of numbers for people to look at (Strength, supply, terrain, weather, tech, etc) that factor into why a unit may do 3 points of damage this turn if they attack or 0 if they attack next turn. Or why can't I move this unit out of a swamp right now? Why can't I reinforce this turn, but I can the next?

Most of the time it's just the interface and context-sensitive feedback that need some TLC in order to present all this information to a new player in a slick style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...