The Future of RTS...& the 7 Deadly Sins

[Moro_Nick]

.
-- Let me kick off this next movement dealing with creating asymmetric conflict opportunities in RTS game play by defining
my modus operandi, heuristics and terms.

-- The process I use in designing GPMs (as well attaining balance) is very like reverse engineering. I do it for Campaign and MP.

-- I begin by framing my goals as precise questions like - "How would I attain start of game parity between those players
inclined to Turtle and those inclined to Rush ?" I would also declare my presumption: "The fun of Turtleing is as valid as
the fun of Rushing."

-- So here is the MO in context: "How would I go about creating Asymmetric GPM opportunities within over arching game balance ?"
The presumption being, of course and as always, that asymmetric conflicts are deep fun.

-- Other simultaneous considerations in all this would be the critical Flow-CTA-UIs (Cognitive Task Analysis and User Interfaces).

-- Now I will define what I mean by Asymmetric Conflict by quoting just a wee bit from a series of articles I wrote last year on the subject...

Asymmetric Warfare:

* The conventional front line has become antiquated, if not obsolete.

* Thus breaking the traditional emphasis on massing a single Phalanx

* This also fundamentally redefines & shifts maneuver from committed, inflexible linear momentum to nimble coordinated hit and runs.

* Those simple statements reflect a "sea change", a whole complex of fundamental re-configs in military doctrine over the last decade & into the present 21st century.

* And what forced this radical shift in thousands of years of conventional doctrine:

* The harsh reality of a Nation-State (Super Power or not) going head to head with a faction (many headed & decentralized) that is vastly inferior in resources, fire-power & sheer numbers but still capable of achieving offensive parity !!

* That, in a nut-shell, is "Asymmetric Warfare".

* For you Chess players out there this tactic is embodied in the Queens Gambit....

-- In the context of the WZ Game World:

* In the 22nd Century, Post-Nuclear Winter world of WZ...there will thems that have & thems that have less & want more... in that time-frame, & under does harsh world collapse conditions (civil & ecological) what would drive factions to engagement & shape the manner of those conflicts:

* Resource & Personnel Scarcity which would lead to these "Asymmetric Engagements" wherein

* No Front-line can be predicted because it can happen anywhere that Intel suggests an Achilles heal to your opponent. It can of a sudden also erupt on multiple-fronts simultaneously.

* And these are some of it's Digital / Electronic Warfare facillitators:

* PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions)

* WMD (Weapons of Mass Disruption like WZs unimplemented ECMs or the Nexus Intruder Virus) which would fall under the heading of Non-Lethal Weapons.

* In short, Intel Gathering Tech becomes paramount within this doctrine (like Intelligence Turrets tied to M.A.V.s or U.A.V.s)...

* OR: Information or Subversive Intel IS Ammunition !

* And this is the heart of "Advanced C-3 Doctrine" (Command, Control & Communication Systems).

* There are many more details which I cover under a series of the inter-locking articles that spell out the key concepts that make up this new "21st Century Military Doctrine":

* "Perpetual Unpreparedness"

* "The Digital Battlefield" (facilitated by,Intel UAV/M.A.V assets, Advanced C-3, ECMs, Intelligence Turrets, etc.)

* "Velocity Warfare" (NOT "rush" in any way shape or form)

* "Situational Awareness"

* "Re-visioning Aufstragstaktic & Blitzkreig" in light of digital tech.

* "Deception, Stealth, & Network Swarming" (again, NOT to be confused with ant-swarm, canon-fodder, Rush.)

-- NEXT: Some RTS implementation nut's 'n bolts...(I say "some" because while I am not gonna give away the whole ball of wax
I think I will state stuff of practical interest.)

- Regards, Moro

[Moro_Nick]

.

-- Here are a couple images to mull over. One is D.A.R.P.A.'s Deep Green and the other is an early iteration of
my RTS G.C.I. or Global Command Interface (I've simplified the design since this version plus linked with a special ability unit GPM for
a level playing field..)

[Moro_Nick]

.

-- What we are doing here, make no mistake, is deliberately getting away from GPMs based on WW 2 to more reflect what is actually going on in 21st century military doctrine, technology & practice because -

-- 1.) there are way more than enough WW 2 based Strategy games out there of AAA quality

-- 2.) it will enable fresh, broader, deeper scope fun in heretofore NOT possible Sun Tzu "Art of War" GPMs (this the main driving force) and

-- 3.) frankly, I'm tired of turning a blind eye to 3rd rate Sci Fi prognostication that assumes accepting absurdities based on pure lazy, tunnel-vision, game design.. For example: we must ignore AT4s, MK47 ALGL Striker 40s, M312 .50-Caliber (12.7mm) MGs, Barrett M82A1s, Mark 211 .50-caliber Multipurpose Ammunition, etc....otherwise the devs can't artificially suppress infantry to make armor totally dominant. And in their place devs throw in the later game some cool lasers and rail guns and, hopefully, gamers won't even notice the ridiculous tech inconsistencies and bull chit false flags along the way... I don't think the price of admission for playing an RTS & having fun has to be lopping-off 50 points of IQ.


-- That said... what we are getting into is called NCW - Network Centric Warfare and the following is what it means in RL....

-- Network Centric Warfare (NCW), or Network Centric Operations (NCO), is a newly emerging military doctrine that aims to exploit technical advances in information technology and telecommunications to improve situational awareness and the speed of decision-making.

-- The vision for Network Centric Warfare is to provide seamless access to timely information to all war fighters and decision-makers at every echelon in the military hierarchy. This enables all elements, including individual infantry soldiers, ground vehicles, command centers, aircraft and naval vessels, to share the information collected to be combined into a coherent, accurate picture of the battlefield.

-- Having rapid access to reliable situational awareness and a relevant common operational picture results in faster strategic planning and more effective tactical decisions. Targets can be more rapidly detected and intercepted, and tragic “friendly fire” events can be more successfully avoided.

-- Key elements for achieving the Network Centric Warfare goal, include::

* Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) sensors, mounted on manned or unmanned airborne, ground or seagoing platforms. These ISR sensors may operate in the visible, infrared or radar spectra.

* Control stations for the operation of unmanned platforms and distribution of tactical data.

* Reliable communications links.

* Sophisticated control software interface, enabling all tactical elements to be located on continuously updated digital map.
Integration of surveillance video, from manned or unmanned ISR platforms, with digital map.

* Man-portable or vehicle installed Remote Video Terminals (RVT), for direct reception of ISR video and telemetry by mobile ground forces

* Airborne Radio Frequency (RF) relay systems for range extension.

-- Central to the Network Centric Warfare concept is system compatibility and interoperability. The different elements in an Network Centric Warfare system must be able to interface and ‘talk’ to each other if the system is to be effective.

-- So now we come to WHAT & HOW do we implement in a FUN RTS ?

-- Below is a graphic illustration that sums up NCW..

-- In the context of WZ 2100 - the Command Relay Center could have new meaning and functionality....
and Commanders a critical asset in MP instead of a disposable liability.

.

[Moro_Nick]

.

-- Some more interesting pics to mull over illustrating NCW - Network Centric Warfare ....

-- BTW... It's been declassified in the last 2 months that the success of the "Surge" in Iraq was predicated on the
deployment of U.A.V.S (in particular, the "Predator") within the NCW framework....

- There are other U.A.V.s known as M.A.V.s ("M" for micro) that are also absolutely breathtaking in their field deployment
possibilities... for example like this latest M.A.V. work....


.

[Moro_Nick]

.
-- I was gonna spell-out the implementation nuts 'n bolts but on review I realized I had already provided in abundance all the
necessary components for enhanced actionable intel and examples of UIs to facilitate the GPMs flowing from said intel on battlefield
maneuver currently not possible because command and control game mechanics are too crude and modeled on WW 2. When the
only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail - time for a surgeon's tool kit.

-- Instead I saw I had not provided sufficient detail of what I meant by "High Velocity Warfare" and so I will here quote in it's entirety
my article on the topic which is at the heart of infusing new blood and sinew to the RTS genre.

High Velocity Warfare Part 1

* Some Characteristics of High-Velocity Warfare: Heurisms drawn from War Game Experiments...


- Heurism (1.): "As a general rule, high-velocity armies can conduct more effective & less risky disruption ops against their enemies."

* Disruption ops are those aimed at deceiving, delaying & diverting the enemy prior to a major battle. The commander conducting disruption ops attempts to break the forward momentum of the enemy, disorganize its formations, & dislocate its combined arms integration prior to fighting the main action.

* In the past, the equivalent velocity of opponents made such actions a highly risky affair. Disruption ops - economy-of-force actions - put small friendly forces into hostile territory without significant supporting arms. As a result, when such ops were attempted, they most often accomplished little while sacrificing the friendly force.

* When there is a velocity & info advantage, such actions become much more effective. Disrupting units can advance securely & quickly into unoccupied key terrain & ambush enemy lead elements or raid enemy vulnerabilities in the rear. When the enemy reacts, high-velocity units can retreat quickly & elude capture.

* High-velocity disruptive forces can continue to prevail against much larger but slower opponents, at times making it nearly impossible for the enemy to advance as a cohesive force.

- Heurism (2.): "As a general rule, when one side has a velocity advantage over the other, there are fewer large-scale battles."

* The reduced number of battles comes about simply because although the friendly (high-velocity) side can choose to engage the enemy at will, the enemy cannot force a fight on the friendly side.

* When threatened with superior concentrations of combat power, the friendly force moves away rapidly.

* The exception to this is when the enemy attacks to seize critical terrain that the friendly force must defend & retain. Even in such situations, velocity gives the friendly force an advantage because it can concentrate faster than the enemy can. Still, these kinds of encounters resulted in the most friendly losses.

- Heurism (3.): "High-velocity warfare results in more small-scale engagements in previously unused portions of the area of operations."

* One of the unexpected results of experimentation was that in place of massive battles fought on traditional battlefields, high-velocity warfare resulted in multiple small-scale engagements in obscure places.

* This phenomenon resulted from the high-velocity force sensing enemy dispersed movements & accelerating its marches to intercept such movements, which led to ambush-like skirmishes. The high-velocity force, rather than conceding to hammer-&-anvil clashes of massed combat power, inflicted a thousand stings on an enemy unready for combat.

* This sustained result in experimentation suggests that a velocity & info advantage must change the way we analyze terrain. Traditional approaches to choosing engagement areas must give way to small-scale interception & ambush opportunities in bad terrain.

- Heurism (4.): "Enemies tend to mass & slow down when faced with a high-velocity friendly force."

* Experimentation pointed clearly to the tension between the competing goals of concentrating combat power & maneuvering combat power on the enemy side.

* A high-velocity friendly force makes enemy maneuver a risky affair. As enemy forces attempted to distribute combat power in a flanking movement, friendly forces propelled by knowledge & great agility would routinely intercept, surround, & destroy such movements. As a result, the enemy adapted by refraining from risky maneuver & instead kept combat power massed.

* This in-turn afforded friendly forces the opportunity to bloody the edges of the enemy's massed retrenchment with multi-vectored, simultaneous, hit & runs. Thus turning the enemy's massed combat power & defensive posture of curtailed maneuver into another disadvantage.

* Keeping the enemy off-balance by causing it's forces to react continuously to either-or choices (always on the defensive) each leading to losses no matter what, was to harry to frustration, eroding enemy morale mercilessly. This also tended to narrow the enemy's perception of offensive opportunities & initiative ability - an over-all degradation of it's situational-awareness..

- Heurism (5.): "High-velocity attacks lead to the large-scale dislocation of enemy strength."

* When the friendly force attacked enemy defenses, its advantage in knowledge & speed allowed the friendly commander to surround, isolate, and destroy vulnerable aspects of the enemy force, leading to a rapid general defeat of the enemy. In these types of engagements, traditional attrition dynamics were not manifested. Velocity created great asymmetry.

- Heurism (6.): "High-velocity forces can get themselves into trouble faster."

* The balancing truth about high-velocity ops is that knowledge & speed do not always replace firepower & security. On occasion high-velocity forces raced into trouble.

* Underestimating enemy resilience, willpower, & even agility, friendly forces sometimes got themselves surrounded & destroyed. When these setbacks occurred, they tended to happen to only a sma''ll portion of the force - mainly because the high-velocity force did NOT often have the need to concentrate.

* The lesson learned was that although the friendly force accrued decisive advantages through information dominance & velocity, a resourceful enemy could still inflict pain if friendly vulnerabilities were exposed.


A Summary of HvW Doctrine Before Continuing:

* We have much to unlearn & much bias to set aside.

* Imagination & unfettered experimentation are the keys to success.

* We must turn our attention to the study of high-velocity armies of the past in order to see the asymmetry that results from a disparity in speed & knowledge.

* More importantly, we must be ready to challenge every assertion, every principle, & every hallowed precept of symmetrical warfare.

Any of the successes Terrorists have achieved over the last decade is because that is exactly what they have done

* The path to success, both in our Information Age doctrine & on the battlefield, is balance.

* The ideas presented so far in this thread are aimed at moving the debate, not predicting the end state.

* To exploit the potential of digitization, we must get past traditional ideas & think seriously about "high-velocity warfare".

* However, in each stage of experimentation & development, we must also recall that warfare is a dynamic process. The enemies will not cooperate with our intentions, and they will adapt to our successes.

Tomorrow's leader must strive for an asymmetrical advantage - & be ready for a symmetrical threat.

.

High Velocity Warfare Part 2: "Digital Battlespace" (DBS)


* Bear in mind that in the context of a 3D Rts DBS comes down to "Command & Control" GpMs (Game play Mechanics) & Commander GUI (supportive A.I. embedded in a clean Commander Command UI). Also the implementation of "U.A.V.s" (gathers position, numbers, tech strength, etc or a Threat Analysis) & ECMs (Electronic Counter-Measures or the game balance off-set along with Hacker Units).

* Introducing DBS to RTS GpMs is the heart of where we're headed in all this and how it will be accomplished is thru the aforementipned implementation of '''Commander Deployed U.A.V.s'''(Unmanned Aerial Vehicle recon-drones that can be quite miniaturized or micro as in M.A.V.s)

* Even though it will, without a doubt, have far reaching consequences for Military Doctrine applied to RTS GpMs, it essentially springs from the latest answers to 3 questions that have been asked since the first brutal conflict between bands of humans.

* They are:

- Where am I ?

- Where are my buddies ?

- Where is the enemy ?

* Henceforth I will refer to the technical advances of the last decade or so that directly impact these questions as "Situational Awareness".

* Now I will make a series of closing statements that are gonna be like a slap in the face to those who pride themselves on being deeply informed in matters of traditional Military Doctrine from Sun Tzu's "Art of War" & Caesar's Campaigns to the latest armed forces field manuals based on a pervasive, immovable blindness aka, Fog of War.

* Closing Statements:


* All Pre-Information Age truisms or received wisdom concerning the art & science of warfare must be held suspect for they could only conceive an uninterrupted ignorance in battle. Thus constrained, they cannot envision or summon a different future.

* The aim here is to, at least for the moment, free our selves from the conventional wisdom of the past and instead delineate a radically different future for military ops. One built on continuously updated information & velocity.

* Situational awareness is the most revolutionary technology in the history of warfare. It is more important & far reaching than the invention of the wheel, gunpowder, or the internal combustion engine.

*Once harnessed by intellect & vision, situational awareness will give birth to a whole new way of warfare. A way of conducting military ops that will be unlike anything we have seen in the past.

* The most important vision we must capture is that situational awareness should result in a tenfold increase in velocity.

* Why is this so ? How can the addition of computers, digital communications, & position location tech (GPS) increase the speed of our units ?

* Unless we replace our heavy combat units with aircraft, is it reasonable to suppose that we can move significantly faster than armies of the past ?

* The answer is a resounding YES !

* I'm gonna stop here.

* I believe the train of thought that many reading this will likely follow will be a combination long-range turkey-shoot (Artillery / PGMs) & attrition.

* If that is all you can see as a result then you will have missed the mark entirely.

* Think about it some more.

- Adios & good fortune to all who can walk the talk, Moro
.

[Moro_Nick]

...............

-- I shall lay a capstone of 3 pics over this time-capsule of a thread. It'll likely all make more sense sometime down the road -
a year from now I'd wager,.

-- These pics also clearly illustrate in detail what would take me more reams of prose to expose (which few read anyway) but,
more to the point, maybe some will be inspired by them (along with the other pics above) to re-examine unquestioned
presumptions and quite stale, ineffective, GPM-UI design....

.

[whippersnapper]

...

"Game balance" has been bandied about in this thread without any definition of what is meant. An oversight on my part
I will now address.

Game balance is in the eye of the beholder.

I generally don't put a heavy stock on Wikipedia references because the entries are not Primary Source... however
on the subject of game balance the entry is quite decent:

Game Balance

A game would be called unbalanced if one or more players have an unfair advantage over the others.

A more complex definition of game balance that critics have described is that, when players have multiple options or routes to victory, most or all of these options are about equally effective or feasible. To be perfectly balanced, each of these options would have to be strategically identical (in which case they wouldn't be substantial choices at all). In a game where various options (such as armies in a real-time strategy game, fighters in a fighting game, or character classes in a role-playing game) have significant qualitative differences between them, the game is balanced if the options are roughly equally likely to lead to success despite their differences. In a suitably balanced game, players would make such choices based on their personal preference, strengths, and playing style, rather than on an inherent advantage in one option. If one option were weaker than the others, then it would rarely be selected by any player and will not contribute to the complexity of the game.

When trying to create a complex or strategically rich game, game designers typically strive to maintain balance by using a careful selection of game mechanics, while offering the greatest possible number of these options, which in turn increases the difficulty of balancing the game. Balanced games are generally more enjoyable, and are considered better-made, than unbalanced ones.

From all of that let me derive a not so obvious corollary:

- Gamplay mechanics are critical to balance and are not synonymous with stat tweaks. GPM's can be subverted by stats but stats cannot create great GPMs.. The winning approach is to have GPM player style profile types inform stats...

Think everything else that goes into potentially successful RTS design has been covered but I could very well be mistaken as I readily acknowledge fallibility. If there are any crucial oversights feel free to tackle their articulation here and will appreciatively engage...

Hasta la vista, whipper

.

[whippersnapper]

.

Besides rolling-up the proverbial sleeves and getting your hands "dirty" dealing with the balance of an actual game...
I have found the following Net articles inspiring, insightful, & handy in grasping the nuts 'n bolts challenges involved...
.

[whippersnapper]

.

There are no short-cuts to game balance and thought experiments are of very limited utility.

Rhetorical pronouncements about balance are purely hypothetical and should not be given the credence of pragmatics -
that is, data derived from MP stress-tested MODs. Which, admittedly requires a bunch of work on both sides of implementation -
after making the mod itself peeps have to play lots of MP and report results of every engagment over some time. And that's the
challenge for the simple reason that most are too lazy to bother with any of that. A line or two of posted opinion is so much easier.

For example: The troop transport could be enabled to carry 2 pieces of armor max or 10 Borgs max or 4 borgs + 1 armor max.

The impact on the game - there is absolutely no data to suggest it would be "terribly imbalancing" or imbalancing at all.
On the other hand, enhancing, diversifying, MP game play ? Collect the data and see for yourself.

Long and short of it - anything said on a particular game's balance, in any area, that is not based on data collection from MP
stress-tested MODs is purely speculative and should be treated as such. Treating speculation as gospel truth is an act of faith
based mostly on lassitude, nothing more.

- Regards, whipper
.

[cumandgetit]

even speed reading this took some time, whippersnapper. worth it imho, if your interested in what makes for a
good gaming experience and what doesn't. what's funny about the whole thing is that the experience can be
summed up in one word, fun, but to understand how to make it possible in a game is, well, anything but
that simple.

if i may, i would suggest looking at three works you might find worthwhile since it looks to me like your into a
steady diet of the written word:

"The Well-Played Game: A Playful Path to Wholeness" by Bernie DeKoven. you can by the pb for $16 or
go to his website and get a .pdf for $5. This cat has become like a guru of "fun". I really like what he's been up to
for years.

"The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses" by Jesse Schell. The word awesome is so over used that
it's almost worthless so let me say instead that this work is an endless marvel in a field populated with scores
of useless, second rate efforts. As with most anything code or game making in book form this is not cheap
but i think it's worth every penny.

"The Art of Game Design: A Deck of Lenses (Cards)" by Jesse Schell. This is going to sound weird but
not only is 100 card deck a real tool in game design but it's also useful in brainstorming anything outside of a
game that you may want to make more creatively engaging and fun.

let me know what you think if look at any of it. maybe we can talk shop sometime on irc or whatever.

more power to you, bud. cumandgetit xD

[whippersnapper]

.

- Mostly focused on my own bbs these days but for such a post I'll make an exception. Thank you, cumandgetit, I got the PDF
of DeKoven's book and read it in a single sitting. A revelation, like a Vulcan mind meld. What I mean is that you know those
times when there's something in your head that you can't quite wrap yourself around but you know it's an important piece of the
puzzle and worth the struggle to try and explain to yourself so you can pass it on to others and also make use of it in your work -
well that's the experience I had. DeKoven gave me a clear conceptual framework I much needed. Invaluable, in a word.

- I did some research on Jesse Schell and the works. The results of that combined with your recommendation has caused me
to excitedly put my order in (tax write-off for me) and I'll be getting 'em both delivered Tuesday in time to take on my trip to California
(couple weeks in the Carmel, Monterey & Big Sur areas shooting hi-res photos for texture & model assets, among other primary
activities like showing my gal a good time for Valentines). For these recommendations I thank you as well.

- Talking shop sounds fun and I'll PM you the particulars of our channel. Probably won't happen till I get back home to Colorado -
weekend after next. Got a laundry list of stuff to do before I leave and then while I'm away I try to keep my virtual-comp activities
limited to the occasional email and, for the most part, alternate between just being fully in the timeless moments of what the natural environment has to offer, which is spectacular in these areas, and then those quiet reflective moments at the end of the day sipping
a mature Alexander Valley Zinfandel with my lady... or just as relaxing, an Appletini made with Hangar One Citrus infused vodka ("Buddha’s Hand" citrons). Man that Hangar One vodka is just exquisite.

- So we'll definitely chat. by and by. And again, my sincere appreciation for the heads-up on those terrific resources. xD

-TTYL8R, whipper

- EDIT: One good turn deserves another. Here are couple works I have found singularly useful and fun...

* Game Feel: A Game Designer's Guide to Virtual Sensation by Steve Swink. Nothing like it in the thousands
of works on game coding and design..

* Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century by P. W. Singer. The capstone work in a series well into
the hundreds at this point that exposes WZ 2100 for what it really is - a shallow WW 2 tank game and not at all reflective of 21st Century warfare, let alone Hard Sci Fi 22nd Century warfare. In the same breath that I make that statement I know this is because Pumpkin was forced to abandon
WZ, leaving it unfinished in many critical areas but this can and will be addressed by the WRP and the communities enterprising moders in the
foreseeable future.
.

[whippersnapper]

.

-- Athena sprang full grown from the forehead of Zeus. On occassion a creation can happen that way - a poem, a tune, a story, a melody, a drawing, etc. But more often the creative process happens over time like the building of the pyramids or a motion picture, an album, a novel or a strategy game.

-- Over time you have to be able to maintain passion, focus and feeding the "beast" grist for the creative mill which is what I think of as part crucible (as in metalurgy) and part matrix (much more than what was portrayed in the movie trilogy).

-- You look for inspiration, be you creating a strategy map or MOD or a new game whole, wherever it may lurk - conversation, brainstorming, reading the commentary of pros-mentors who have created successfully for decades, studying classic favorites that have endured the test of
time and play, related interdisciplinary fields such as neurology and cognition, and, of course, yarns from Science Fiction and Fantasy.....

-- In the spirit of themousmaster who suggested I look into the 10 year old TBS game "Lords of Magic" (thanks again , bud, for all your input) I went back to the 10 games that left an indelible impression on me over the years and that I could still play (besides WZ, modified).. Part of the motivation was simply this - if I'm gonna be part of making something let the goal be a game at least as powerful or why even bother.

-- Here's that list (no doubt others would come up with a totally different set of games):

1.) Out of This World

2.) Syndicate

3.) Syndicate Wars

4.) Chronomaster

5.) Alone In The Dark

6.) Dune 2: Battle For Arrakis

7.) Sanitarium

8.) Conquest of the New World

9.) X-COM: Apocalypse

10.) UFO: Enemy Unknown

-- Mostly DOS games from the 90's... all available to try for yourself with DOS Box emulator if your interested.

-- Recently another old strat game was suggested to me. This game is called Sea Battle and it's a comp game almost 30 years old released in 1980 for the "Intellivision" game system. The ROM of the game is 8k ! and the depth of strategy and tactics that can be employed, thinking maneuver over twitching memorization, is stunning to me even today. One benchmark this 30 year old game meets that 99.9% of strategy comp games do NOT meet is that being out-gunned is not a death sentence - through canny maneuver you can live to fight on an other occasion. If you care to see for yourself, the depth of "Sea Battle" , the ROM and various emulators for practically every platform are available.

-- In the category of successful Pros-Mentors with decades of hands-on experience-credits who have shared their insights there are these 2 works:

-- "The Ultimate Guide to Video Game Writing and Design" By Flint Dille, John Zuur Platten.

-- "Challenges for Game Designers" By Brenda Brathwaite, Ian Schreiber

-- In the vein of interdisciplinary influence, in this instance, the field of neuropsychology there is:

-- "Making up the Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World" By Professor Chris Frith at University College London.

-- My sense, as always, is that if just one person gets something positive out of what I post then then the time and effort is worth it.


-----------------------------> A Final Note on 2200:


-- I've received several PMs and emails asking what's the latest, why is the site still closed ?

-- What I am about to say will likely end for good all interest in 2200, which is fine and thoroughly understandable.

-- This will also complete the truth of what has already been stated elsewhere.

-- "SOW 2200" is a commercial venture (the first of 3). Meaning, there is a company and the only thing free will be Demos. Part of the reason for going this route is obviously that making a modest living doing something we love is a good thing and that the quality justifies a capitalist venture.. The other part of the motivation is a preference for the fan-customer relationship, which is quite different than the fan who is NOT a customer relationship. Any other info will come from game portal NEWS coverage down the road and not by me in these bbs. And, btw, there is no reason to open the site till the first project Demo release - after summer '09, looks like...

- Carpe Diem, whipper
.

[whippersnapper]

.

-- What goes into development, broadly speaking, these days ?

-- "Grand Theft Auto 4" took almost 4 years to develop with 1000 peeps working on it to the tune of 40 Million US dollars to produce and finally release !!.

-- Something wrong with that picture. It is absolutely not sustainable even if you have a bonafide "hit" in sales. All Pivotal's games sold well
and made money and yet they where taken apart last year (Pivotal = Pumpkin aka WZ Creators) and kicked to the curb..

-- Also something to be clear about if you're gonna develop a new RTS as an Indie. In not a few ways the vitality and diversity of game creation is
with the Indie community and not the "major" conglomerates.

-- Here is a provocative article on the subject: What's Killing the Video-Game Business? Hint: It's not the economy....

- Regards, whipper.

[whippersnapper]

.

- Nice little article on RTS Design I just came across from the hand of someone whose actually shipped some... Reminds me of that
Jobs quote - "Real artists ship.."

- http://www.dunniwaydesign.com/rts_design.htm

- Regards, whipper :

[whippersnapper]

.

Mission planning decisions, under fire combat decisions - you lead your
forces making decisions every step of the way. It is these mortal type
decisions that yield life & death adrenaline and a sense of pride when you
can walk away blooded, relatively intact in body, but the mind something else
than when it first set out without any assurances. And what it takes in mental
toughness, character, daring, imagination and honor to prevail unscathed but
deeply moved, is applicable outside the battlefield.

The following 2 works belong on the same shelf as Sun Tzu's "The Art of War". Both
commanders have been through the gauntlet of late 20th century, early 21st century,
conflicts around the globe and vividly portray their operational experiences and wisdom
derived from those cauldrons.

All games of martial conflict muster a battery of arts (and artfulness) in the service of
creating an emergent experience for players along this very unpredictable continuum of
decision-making, & at every outing. To the extent they do they succeed. To the extent
they fall short or in any way come across as bogus, they disappoint and are relegated
to the dust heap of no consequence in the fun pastimes of this life.

- "The Mission, The Men, and Me: Lessons from a Former Delta Force Commander"

by Pete Blaber

- "Leadership and Training for the Fight: A Few Thoughts on Leadership and
Training From A Former SPEC OPS Soldier"

by Paul Howe

.........being out-gunned and still finding a way to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat makes
for a blooded warrior's tight smile over a just fate carved with courage and savvy.

.