This is the mail archive of the xconq7@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Xconq project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: What to do with Xconq


EastnFront@aol.com wrote:
> 
>  <One of their problems is that all the implementation costs them way more
>  than they can expect to get in return.  Historical wargames are a rather
>  narrow niche, which is OK - there are fewer generals than privates too,
>  and everybody thinks that's a good thing :-) - but in the commercial arena
>  it means that a lot of cool ideas will never be implemented. >
> 
> For some titles I think you are right. But, one of the more ironic things
> is that many new wargames do have all sorts of complexity and what I
> would call fluff and no substance. Counting every man, vehicle and gun.
> And, having many other governing factors to control them. But, then do
> a lot of silly things, like making no allowance for attrition like breakdowns
> or even immobilization's. Or, if they do, the return rates are the same for
> all nationalities and for all units equally.

I think you're seeing attempts to "do what computers do best" and to make
bigger investments in the hopes of bigger payoffs.  But they don't call
economics the dismal science for nothing - when reality sets in, they cut
the developers off and say "OK, you're done now, we need to ship in time
for Christmas".  So you have these mixes of ambition and limitation.

> Sorry, I hadn't. I will have to check it out. While I personally prefer
> operational-level games 5km. to 15km. it still might give me some
> ideas. In that area, I think I remember seeing a Crusader game
> about 6 months ago? It seemed to have graphic problems from
> what little I remember of it.

You're thinking of the Gazala module?  I'd like to know more about graphics
problems with it, I thought it was OK in that respect...
 
> I do see many of TOAW's features as you say as something to shoot
> for. One of TOAW's biggest downfalls was that while you could edit
> many things. You couldn't edit the terrain movement costs or combat
> effects or even make new ones. There was ahistorically too low of unit/
> equipment stacking. This fixed number was based on the hex size (and,
> it couldn't be edited). And, again TOAW treated all countries the same
> in this regard. Though, I doesn't sound like Xconq has any of those
> problems?

While Xconq has lots of knobs and switches, it certainly doesn't have
all that you like to have.  Right now units and sides are still too
cookie-cutter; there are only a few properties that are individually
settable.  Nobody has added more because the demand hasn't been there;
but if you say "I need X feature to make my game design work", that
will give it implementation priority.

> OK, well I will have to look at this, after I get done with work for one
> of those commercial wargaming companies that I am complaining
> about. ;-) To see if there is something that I am interested in helping
> out with? Well, OoB/ToE work is especially my forte. And, infact that
> is what I am doing for this company.

The existing Xconq games that (IMO) would be most exciting to develop
further are the Normandy scenarios based on the ww2-bn module, nw-europe,
which is a division-level game, and divisional-level Pacific theater games
(coral-sea, midway).  These are more like demos than finished games, they've
given me a real appreciation for the painstaking effort that goes into a
finished game design!

I'd also like to see a WW1 strategic game, and a division-level Eastern Front
game, but since there are so many unfinished game designs in the library, I'm
holding off on adding completely new sets of rules right now.

Stan

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]