Limburgia Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hello All, I have spoken and thought alot about Victory! updates. I have plenty of ideas and knowlegde of bugs and things that do not work correctly. I also have plenty of ideas about how things could work in the future. But the that does not matter, because other things are more important. First thing that should be done is: 1) rebuild victory so changes can be made 2) improve the victory input programm 3) improve the turn results Then new things are possible so the waiting is for stage 1 Stage 2 could be (should be if you aks me) - fix the known bugs in Victory -add the missions that are missing in the game (try to avoid adding new things just the missing things attack split and split embark/disembark, etc) - increase max number of missions (or integrate missions) Stage 3: - New Victory! rules - New Victory! techpacks (new counties, other time table) - New Territories, map - New Special games etc etc Stage 1 and 2 are most important because without these Stage 3 will not be possible. These stages will only cost RTG time and money. Stage 3 will be the cashcow because lots of different types of games and special rules can be made. So I hope RTG will find the time soon to improve the victory! game to the next level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Limburgia, Maybe I'm reading things in your note that aren't there, but you strike me as having quite the attitude. I'm probably missing the non-verbal communication here, and I don't want to start throwing mud , I just wanted to let you know. I don't agree with the stages you propose. I don't see why RTG should first put a lot of energy in fixing and improving Victory v1, before throwing it all away to develop Victory v2. From what I understand from Russ Victory v2 will be a complete redesigned version of the game. Only thing to stay the same for certain will be the map. Besides that, everything is open for discussion. I totally agree with the changes you propose for stage 2, but I think reprogramming Victory first will take an awful lot of time, so doing it twice does not seem a good idea. Russ, maybe you can shed some light on this. Hamish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasputin Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Hamish - I think you may be reading something into what Limburgia was stating. I'm a software developer, application developer, programmer, or whatever term you wish to use. Limburgia seems to have out lined a very good approach to a new Victory. His stage 1 item 1 is meant to be a new code base that allows for rapid enhancement and expandability. Basically this could be stated as a new gaming engine. The new engine would allow for new rules and rule modifications that are configurably changed rather than requiring coding changes. Good idea!! Most developers miss this point!! That step would also provide a very good testing ground for the new code because nothing but the code should change making it invisible to the players. Done well this code wouldn't be thrown away. It would be used as the foundation of the new game. Once that is complete and tested then designing a new entry program is a very logical step. Especially if step 1 has been accomplished well!! Limburgia - Can I venture to say you are in the software business?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltira Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 As a professional developer with experience in retail software as well as in-house and vertical market software development, I'll throw iin my $.02. A staged plan as this would be an excellent plan of action, assuming as Rasputin stated that the 'fixing' of Vic I was to build a new engine, and prove the reliability of this engine in some form of cross comparison of results from old and new engines. This method allows for an engine that is easy to upgrade to the sorts of ideas being thrown around for Vic II while lessoning the complexities of the testing needed on a final Vic II because the core would at that point be tested. A major issue in software today is that due to the complexities of modern software, it is difficult at best to know that every possible scenario has been tested. By staging and testing on each stage, the permutations and combinations that need to be tested can be greatly reduced to manageable levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Limburgia Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Yes I am a software developer And Yes the plan is to make a game engine to make updates possible. It is not the plan to redo the programming each time the plan is to make a game engine that can be expanded. example: If the formula for ground units is made in a new game engine it does not matter if Russian T-34 are fighting or Iraqi T-70. I have been an RTG player for years now and I have been reading this and the previous forums weekly and there have been lots and lots more posts about victory 1.5 and 2.0. I think the list of proposed changes is over one hundred by now. If RTG was to undertake that project in one time with new entry programma, output programma and rule book and play testing it will take a long long time. So I hope they cut the pie in parts and start with a game engine soon Good luck Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatball Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 You know what I'd really like to see is some sort of consolidation of turn processing dates. I know it would be more difficult, but I think it would be more realistic to have all turn run at the same time. Hear me out why. Right now as it stands an enemy, if done right, can get two full sets of orders processed before you even know what's going on. Now I know communication in WWII wasn't the fastest, but considering that two turns equates to two months, that seems a bit too much. If someone is running their Panzers around in my country I'm sure I'd hear about it within a week or so There's two ways you can change this. 1) Have all turns run simultaneously. Yeah, a bit more doing, but takes a lot of the guesswork out of it. And for those of you that think it can't be done, take a look at the PBeM game Galaxy/GalaxyNG, they do just that. 2) Turns process like they do currently, but at the end of each turn cycle everyone is sent a final "What happened" report so they know how things really stand in their country and can plan their next set of order accordingly. I know either of which is a major departure from how things are now, but I think it would lead to more realistic strategy/tactics instead of just using loopholes to beat the snot out of your enemy before they even know what's going on Flames, comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasputin Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Limburgia - As you can tell I've given a lot of thought as to how Victory! II should be designed. Your approach is right on the mark with what I had in mind. Great minds think alike!! Meatball - I've played in games with same day processing and there is merit to them. I think it would lead to more realistic strategy/tactics instead of just using loopholes I have to disagree with you here. Realistically nations don't say on this day at this time we will fight. That isn't the way it works. I truely believe same day processing in Victory would remove an element of the strategy and the tactics in an unrealistic manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Gents, I understand your point about wanting to cut up the work that has to be done into smaller portions. But from what I've understood from Russ, Victory! 2 will not only have seriously different rules, it will also be programmed on a completely new platform. New programming language, the works. I seriously doubt that updating your code on one platform will make programming on the new platform that much easier. But I'm not a professional, the only programming I've ever done were very minor projects. Hamish P.S. If you're all programming aces, why haven't you built a Windows version of the order entry program? I have tried and failed miserably, but you guys might be able to get some serious work done. I know I would be forever grateful..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasputin Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Hamish - The new platform you are discussing is a given and not a problem! I've actually discussed the new design with Russ personally. I do understand your concerns, but your level of expertise doesn't fit the project at hand. As a business owner myself, Russ has a duel edged sword. He and Pete are only two people with many games to run and lifes to live. The two of them can only do so much at any given time and a well thought out and designed engine takes time. Lot's of it! On top of that, until the code is written and the new games are being played it is a total expense to the company which is the catch 22 for them! Software development is not cheap, even if you're doing it all yourself! What I'd like to see is having the design done so well that is would bring in many more players for RTG and opponets for us. I believe the foundation of Victory! has the ability to provide a renewed interest in PBM's or PBEM's and is a relief to the hack and slash video games of today. Why haven't I designed a new entry program. Easily answered, why waste my time, energy, and code when a new system is going to be developed? I'd rather put my time and energy into developing or assisting with the development of the new engine with RTG. Plus as an added bonus you and I could get together to kick some tail. And if that didn't work out we could try kicking each others tail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltira Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 Gents, I understand your point about wanting to cut up the work that has to be done into smaller portions. But from what I've understood from Russ, Victory! 2 will not only have seriously different rules, it will also be programmed on a completely new platform. New programming language, the works. I seriously doubt that updating your code on one platform will make programming on the new platform that much easier. But I'm not a professional, the only programming I've ever done were very minor projects. Hamish P.S. If you're all programming aces, why haven't you built a Windows version of the order entry program? I have tried and failed miserably, but you guys might be able to get some serious work done. I know I would be forever grateful..... First I know for myself, I assume the others as well, were taking it as a given that this staged idea is starting with new language and platform. While staging can make the programming easier, it makes the testing and validation doable. Without the staging, then to really test it enough to validate it, would be a much larger job than writing it. Even with automated testing tools, the permutations become astronomical with something like this. Where as if you duplicate the existing first, its quite easy to validate it, as you simply collect the orders files for say 10 turn of a game from turn 1, then run them all through both, and compare results. As long as you make sure that every option of ever order is used several times by several players, then this is a fairly simple but strong validation. And would be the bulk of the work, as at that point, most rules changes would doable by altering configurations, will little programming changes to get it up to Vic II. As to a Windows order entry program, if I were to write it, it would be almost as complex as the Vic game engine itself, as it would combine all the features of the victory manager, without its bugs, and even more management and planning features. For example, give what I want to MCR, and start and end points, let it figure out the best routeing. If you want to discuss hiring my services for such a job, lets talk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatball Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 I have to disagree with you here. Realistically nations don't say on this day at this time we will fight. That isn't the way it works. I truely believe same day processing in Victory would remove an element of the strategy and the tactics in an unrealistic manner. I agree Rasputin, but unless you're going to send out an end of turn "update" to everyone as to what's really going on, it's even more unrealistic to think that someone could put in two set of orders (two in game months) that could be processed before you could react to any of the outcomes of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamish Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 I don't mean to be stubborn (it's just who I am, sorry.....) but I still fail to see how reprogramming and improving the current game engine on a new platform and then developing a new game engine is going to save time and/or money. As an economist turned IT-pro I completely understand the risks involved with developing something, and I think I have some idea about how much time, effort and money go into developing and testing a new version of Victory!. And of course I wish nothing but the best for RTG. (And for us, too.) That's why I would gladly contribute to this project. I just fail to see how fixing the problems in the current version and rebuilding it for a new platform is going to help in developing the next version. Many of the features that need debugging or reprogramming may not even return in the next version. That sounds like wasted effort to me. I get the feeling we're not understanding each other here. Please explain the stages you propose in more detail, we might be agreeing and not even know it. Hamish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltira Posted July 10, 2004 Report Share Posted July 10, 2004 I think more than anything else terminology. The stage one would be a new game engine, and 90% or more of the stage 2 codeing would be done at that point. Designing in a way that abstracts everything, allows for most changes to be just changing configuration changes with no code changes needed to be done. It does make it more complex in design, but less complex in using it, and in adding new features. Also makes much less likelly that adding a new feature will break something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rasputin Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 Hamish - Ok, let me try to explain it. Part of this misconception is you are coming from a position that we would be doing nothing more than reprogramming the current Victory! That isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about developing new code that would allow for Victory! and Victory! II and Victory! II Pacific. The new code would be designed rules based allowing for the rules to change without the need for reprogramming. We'd then fix the current problems and test it using Victory! This would prevent the problems from arrising in the new games and verify the new engine is ready for a new set of rules (Victory II). As Beltira stated, that is 90% of the work towards a new improved version of Victory!! Part of the reason we are having a misunderstanding is we are the professionals. You are trying to understand something with a fixed concept from a position of just enough knowledge to be dangerous. I don't mean that badly, nor am I trying to start any difficulties. Just trying to be honest so we can move on. This envirnoment is a very difficult place to gain the understanding of modern day coding techniques. Please, trust us professionals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd Posted July 11, 2004 Report Share Posted July 11, 2004 As to a Windows order entry program, if I were to write it, it would be almost as complex as the Vic game engine itself, as it would combine all the features of the victory manager, without its bugs, and even more management and planning features. For example, give what I want to MCR, and start and end points, let it figure out the best routeing. Nah, not if you use the right tools for the job. I know, because I have written a visual order entry program. Well, technically it's still under development, as a couple of orders still cannot be entered (for example, all primary orders must still be entered through victory.exe) Nevertheless, it goes a long way towards eliminating manual order entry. Jan Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.