Cold War hobbyists needed for input on game design!

[barbarossa0067]

Hey guys... just here to announce work on a new computer game about the cold war and global thermonuclear war.

If anyone has any thoughts on kinds of units/rules/abilities/scenarios they would like to see, they need to stop by:


and drop into discussions. We would LOVE input from the community now while we are still designing the algorithms and design document. Later, and some of the more interesting ideas people come up with may be left out!

[Scott Tortorice]

Well, after playing DEFCON, I say we could all use another nuclear war game! :D

I would like to see a game that was less RTS-oriented and more turn-based.

[barbarossa0067]

Do you mean the nuclear war game thing for real? Or sarcastically?

;D Just curious.

I used to be a turn based gamer myself. But I can't get into making things turn-based. To me turn-based is the echo of a time when we didn't have machines which could make everything happen at once for us. Mechanics had to be developed which made everything "feel" like it was happening at the same time, even though it wasn't. Like "opportunity" fire rules in most tactical combat games.

I must have 200 turn-based games sitting in my basement that I no longer play.

BUT! I would never try to tell someone that they need to change their style of play. Even "unrealistic games" like chess, which is definitely turn based, can be very fun.

But I think cold war should be RTS. After all, the cold war was RT.

;D

Thanks for your comment.

[Scott Tortorice]

No, I was serious. I would like to see a turn-based nuclear war game. Why? Nuclear war, being of intercontinental proportions (I am assuming that is the scale of your project) belongs in the realm of grand strategy. Invariably, grand strategy games require more than a little time to digest all of the relevant information, formulate a strategy, and issue the orders. I think this is why you will find just about 99% of WWII grand strategy games are turn-based.

Simply, turn-based games allow for deeper strategy because the player has time to think about his next move.

Now, turn-based does not necessarily mean just I Go-You Go. It could also be a We-Go system, a la Combat Mission where both players enter their orders and then have the computer resolve the turn simultaneously for both players.

DEFCON is a RTS game. I do like the RTS format for DEFCON because it is thrilling to watch the missiles slowly inch their way across the screen. However, what I don't like about DEFCON is that because it is RTS, you often find yourself micro-managing the fleet and air battles when you'd rather be plotting your continental targets.

Perhaps the solution lies with a hybrid? Part turn-based, part RTS?

[Troy Goodfellow]

I think this is why you will find just about 99% of WWII grand strategy games are turn-based.

Actually, I think this is mostly because almost every WWII grand strategy game was made before RT gaming was feasible. Hearts of Iron shows that with the proper real-time scale, you have lots of time for planning and threat assessment.

The whole real-time/turn-based thing is a false dichotomy for me. Most games have pause buttons now if you feel under pressure. Defcon even lets you slow the game down to a crawl. Turns are important in games where you have a lot of decisions to make in a small space, like a city in Civ or a front in a large wargame. Grand strategy games where most decisions are national or global can certainly be done well in real time.

Back to the original post...a good Cold War game should capture the proxy wars and ideological battle for clients. So some sort of prestige meter and international influence thing is essential.

Unless you are just interested in an alternate war game. In which case, I got nothing.

[barbarossa0067]

Interesting thoughts. I can't say they are wrong. And I can see how both systems are useful and have their advantages and disadvantages.

;D