Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.games:1106 rec.games.board:5539 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!wbt From: wbt@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games,rec.games.board Subject: Re: What would you like in a port from a boardgame? Message-ID: <1990Aug15.132620.15869@cbnews.att.com> Date: 15 Aug 90 13:26:20 GMT References: <106478@tiger.oxy.edu> <4c2f90e6.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> <1990Aug14.133704.4472@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Organization: AT&T Network Systems - Columbus, Ohio Lines: 69 In article <1990Aug14.133704.4472@ccu.umanitoba.ca> jcoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (D. Joseph Creighton) writes: >In article <4c2f90e6.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> carlton@apollo.hp.com writes: > >>o I want to know what the rules are. Sure, go ahead and make a >> continuous CRT, instead of the more standard 1-1 2-1 3-1 columns. >> Have the computer calculate morale, supply, and elan on the fly. >> But, I want to know the algorithms its using. > >Hmmm... Here, knowing the algorithms for your *own* side is fine, since you >are controlling strategy and placement of the units. But I think that the >enemy algorithms should be 100% secretive. No real army knows the others' >weakness *that* well. I think you're confusing mechanics and tactics. It's reasonable for the player to want to understand game mechanics, be it something as basic as "how fast do my tanks move" or something more esoteric like "what's the difference in firepower between a Soviet infantry squad and an American one. This is quite reasonable; remember that unlike actual field commanders, players don't have years of experience in these sorts of matters tucked under their belts. Is it unreasonable to expect a German 1944 Panzer Regiment to halt a Soviet Tank Corps in its tracks ? What if the Germans are defending in mountainous territory, or behind a river line ? Prepared positions ? The commanders would have some general notion, such as ,"about a 50/50 chance", and the player should be able to get that same information. >>o I want to be able to make my own senarios. (So I can see how my >> newly created unit types hold up against the standards...) > >Excellent. Also, maybe a training level, with dummy units and an >evaluator at the end. The entire game is a training aid with dummy units. I don't follow. >>o They human will be observing the computer's tactics, for use in >> later games. Clearly document any tactics the computer will use, but >> the player can't. Describe what extra advantages the computer gets >> at the harder skill levels. > >No, no, no. No documentation on computer tactics! You do that, and it's >back to arcade action. I think you've overlooked the key part of the statement... "Clearly document any tactics the computer will use, *but*the*player*can't.*" As a default, I expect that the computer has to obey the same rules I do (after all, they're mostly rules of nature, with some small variation between opposing forces). However, I understand that for play balance, etc, it may be necessary to allow the computer to "cheat." I must know where and how it is able to do so. Does it ignore part of its casualties ? Then I need to know if the casualties displayed on the screen reflect that fudge factor or not, because if it tells me I've brought that tank company to quarter strength and it's really still at half, I have to know. I'm blind to the computer, if the game's done right; I only see those units I've contacted or spotted via recon. Maybe the computer doesn't have this handicap, and always knows where all my stuff is. If so, I need to know that. I *don't* want a real-time report of what tactics the enemy is using; I just want to know how his capabilities differ from mine. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com "C" combines the power of assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language.