Game Integration

Richard_H · #1 April 18th, 2011, 10:56 AM

Have just been reading the previous thread (and thinking it's something I'd like to get involved with) and it's raised a question. Has anybody ever tried to integrate WinSPMBT with a more strategic game, so that one can also play the 'bigger picture'? Wherever you are in this great game, you are (nearly) always part of a larger force, whether it be a division, task force or even a massive invasion force, and I certainly want to metaphorically look up sometimes and ask "Hey, I wonder how the rest of the war's going?"

I doubt that any computer-based strategy game will get anywhere near the 92-nation scope of this one, but if anybody's found one or has tried anything on these lines, please let me know.

Thanks
Richard H

Roman · #2 April 18th, 2011, 01:39 PM

Hi Richard. Bridging the gap. The only games I know that integrated strategic and tactical aspects are Medieval Total war and Napoleon Total War. But the tactic is very basic.
Join the previous thread and see that we can invent.
Various heads think better.
There were war games that implemented the strategists (and still do) long before there were computers. Must be investigated as usual. We could implement this type of game at the strategic level and the outcome of battles with our loved game SP.

Double_Deuce · #3 April 18th, 2011, 04:59 PM

There have been several attempts over the years. The key is finding a game/system that handles the strategic part (mainly the ability to track the forces on the larger map) as well as getting players to take on the higher level command roles. Seems few people want to be "in charge" of any team when it comes to actually playing and even more are less interested in being in positions to be ordered around by those "leaders".

Richard_H · #4 April 18th, 2011, 05:26 PM

I wasn't necessarily thinking of a multi-player environment, and I certainly understand folk's reluctance to "take orders" - bit too much like a work environment

I'm mostly a solo gamer, and just wanted to know if anybody had found a decent strategic engine, or whether I'd have to design one (paper-based, I'm no programmer!) myself.

@ Roman - will do!

Double_Deuce · #5 April 18th, 2011, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard_H

I'm mostly a solo gamer, and just wanted to know if anybody had found a decent strategic engine, or whether I'd have to design one (paper-based, I'm no programmer!) myself.

I'm actually converting a campaign system for tabletop miniatures to handle this part. Seems to be coming along pretty well at least so far. Now I just need to put it into an actual document instead of a bunch of notes.

Roman · #6 April 18th, 2011, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard_H

I'm mostly a solo gamer, and just wanted to know if anybody had found a decent strategic engine, or whether I'd have to design one (paper-based, I'm no programmer!) myself.

I'm actually converting a campaign system for tabletop miniatures to handle this part. Seems to be coming along pretty well at least so far. Now I just need to put it into an actual document instead of a bunch of notes.

Double_Deuce is closer to get¡¡¡¡ Bravo¡¡¡

Imp · #7 April 19th, 2011, 09:48 AM

You can use a strategic game like TOAOW to keep track of units & use a lot of its rules i.e movement supply or simplify them a bit. As this lists units in each formation tanks AA AT etc using the editor to quickly adjust at end of each battle is generaly good enough. Okay you abstract a bit unless want to keep a spreadsheet & record in detail, got 7 AA units left for example doesnt tell you what but just abstract from full strength unit. Easy enough to keep tabs on diffrent formation types tank mech etc & types 1st 2nd line. Playing even a small front like this though you will lose a few years of your life

Important I think to make the game work is R&R to easy n game just swings back n forth, to repair units really need to come out of the front line abstarct it by saying if attacked while doing R&R 1/3 of units cannot take part. Also using something like if reduced below 40% disbanded enter reinforcement pool makes things easier. Treating citys as resource makers gives a reason to take them to citys "producing" your R&R points dont all have to produce the same making some more important than others, lose that city you lose its R&D points so things get tougher.

RightDeve · #8 April 19th, 2011, 10:11 AM

Really interesting, myself have been thinking about it too, but don't know how.
Especially if it comes to PBeM then there is one jury to rule both sides.

What Imp said is interesting; anyone has had any success with Panzer Campaigns / Modern Campaigns?

Richard_H · #9 April 19th, 2011, 05:46 PM

Imp - TOAOW? Speak English please, Professor, you're talking to an old man here!

But yes, R & R points v important in the strategic world. Also stuff like oilfields, factory complexes etc. Bomb those out of existence & your opponent may have the shiniest kit in the world - and zilch with which to run it!

Double_Deuce · #10 April 19th, 2011, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard_H

Imp - TOAOW? Speak English please, Professor, you're talking to an old man here!

But yes, R & R points v important in the strategic world. Also stuff like oilfields, factory complexes etc. Bomb those out of existence & your opponent may have the shiniest kit in the world - and zilch with which to run it!

That would be The Operational Art of War III PC Game. Advanced Tactics: Gold might also be good for that purpose to some extent but not sure how detailed into individual unit tracking it goes.