Attack Vector: Tactical [Archive]

GrandpaTrout

12-29-2004, 03:47 PM

Hey All,

Hot4Darmat spotted this neat space combat board game with real newtonian physics. It has a real Iwar feel to the game model. (I especially thought that Hoom and The Corporate might like to hear about it)

This is the link:

http://adastragames.com

A tiny review based on a few hours with the rule books:

(copied from Soup's Forum)

My copy of Attack Vector showed up last night. I only had time to do a quick read, and no chance to play the tutorials. (looking forward to the weekend).

A little info for those who have not picked up a copy (yet). The background info and rule system is very cool. Most of the main rules have a science explanation box that discusses the physics behind what they are trying to model. Things like reactor design, heat sink physics, laser power and range, effectiveness of seeking shells, physics of hull damage.

There are a bunch of cool ideas in the game, many similar to Iwar. The ships only have one main thruster, straight back. So to slow back down you must pivot the ship. If you want to dodge incoming missiles, you must pivot. If you want to point your front armor at someone shooting at you, you must pivot. If you want to bring your weapons into firing arc, you must pivot. All these constraints make decisions while flying the ship critical. Which is cool! (it makes me wish EoC had the same 6 degrees of freedom that Iwar did).

Another neat idea is that a ship needs big extended radiators to cool the reactors. These radiators are stowed while in combat. So a ships combat life span is determined by how long the heat sinks can absorb reactor heat, or how long the batteries last. Once out of heat sink capacity a ship has to break away to get some cooling time with the radiators extended.

The main weapons are lasers, rail gun fired seeking shells, and missile launched seeking shells, plus nukes. Ranges are between 20km and 1000km. Missiles reach a little farther. Weapons have limited firing arcs and take time to recharge.

The damage model is very exact. Entry and exit points are figured, and systems in between are checked for damage. A weapon can actually pass through a ship. Some systems are explosive and can cause chain reaction explosions.

Fuel is tracked, and greatly limits how often a ship can change course. The one described fight was a jousting pass between two frigates (pretty much the style of newtonian physics combat). I expect fleet actions would be quite different.

If slightly extended science is your thing, this is a great game. Even just for the reading.

Cougaris

12-29-2004, 04:39 PM

Hmm, just got back onto my 40k and Warmachine binge/habit.

Its looks interesting.

The box art is suicide-inducing, however.

hoom

12-29-2004, 05:04 PM

I like it...
except for one thing: Its a friggin boardgame! :bulb:

A PC game of that could be very cool :)

GrandpaTrout

12-29-2004, 06:54 PM

Well, it is a board game. But it has just the kind of background info that this forum used to hum with on a daily basis. I guess I am feeling lonely.

It would make a really cool PC game. Something that might need enough buttons to make Parias's desktop sized controller useful.

Starshatter or Nexus might make a fair engine for this sort of thing. Has anyone modded Nexus yet?

hoom

12-29-2004, 11:29 PM

There's even an official forum section (http://www.nexusthegame.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=5&sid=483d9cf70fb55507e06d4bcb29ee4925) for modding :up:
The mod kit uses .lwo :alien:
Most effort seems to have focussed on startrek so far.

Hot4Darmat

01-06-2005, 12:07 PM

I'm eagerly awaiting my trip to MO to collect my copy of AV:T. In the meantime, I've dled all the stuff available from their site, and have been trying to wrap my brain around the movement system. I still find the older VMS system more intuitive, but I know it's inaccurate. The DV system is still abit confusing to me, given the limited examples they've provided. This might be a case where actually providing the formulae might be easier than trying to read through their verbal descriptions. I'm trying to extract a useful intuitive 'rule of thumb' so I can accurately place a ship given changes in facing, thrust and the carryover drift stuff. I thought I understood newtonian physics pretty well, but their examples have only confused me.

As for the whole boardgame vs computer game issue (which they address in their materials), here's a thought: what's the difference between playing chess with a machine, online, or a person? The differences are vast, depending on what you want to get out of that kind of leisure activity. People still play boardgames, cards, backgammon, charades, etc. with one another in the same room because there's an important social and realtime interactive component that makes it more satisfying and rewarding. A well-made PC game will successfully create the illusion of social interaction, but it usually doesn't take long to see past the illusion and feel like you're interacting with a machine. I'm old enough to remember playing board wargames and as much as I love and fully embrace computer games as a whole, I still occasionally miss the whole boardgame thing. Maybe its just a question of taste.

Anyway, I'm prepared to resort to playing AV:T by email with GT and anyone else interested, if necessary, it looks like that much fun.

Second Chance

01-06-2005, 03:42 PM

There is no computer game vs. board game issue, Hot4. You guys were just barking up the wrong tree in this forum. Remember that most of these guys are kids. They live in a different world than we do. And to them, the idea of a game that's not played on a computer (with the obvious few exceptions) is as archaic and pointless as the idea of a slow sunday drive through the quite country is to the tuner-car kids. So it's no surprise that this thread has generated little interest here. Of course games together with your friends are great, but social interaction on that level just isn't on the agenda anymore. I'm even seeing commercials on tv now just trying to get kids to even go outside. And everywhere you look everyone's got a cell-phone glued to their head. Young people today are far too busy doing whatever it is they're doing and can't be bothered to waste time with face to face socializing. It's just who they are, I think. Combined with the novelty of the era. I mean, why does wireless text messaging even exist, much less have the popularity it does. You've already got a phone in your hand. Why would you clumsily type out a text message in that cryptic text-speak when you could actually talk to someone?

I too miss playing games face to face with my friends. Because sometimes we decide to just stop and go out somewhere instead.

I also miss calling a business and getting a human being, rather than a machine. Remember operators? Oh well.

But if you guys are ever in sunny SoCal, bring your AV:T game and look me up.

Nightwatch

01-06-2005, 03:59 PM

Hell, if you don't opject to me pulling out my Babylon 5 Wars Minbari Fleet for the minitures I'd be in in a second.

hoom

01-06-2005, 04:07 PM

I ain't a kid. I don't even have a cellphone :p
I've just never been interested in having to do all the dice rolling/stats tracking/distance measuring etc associated with this kind of game.
Thats what computers are for.
They calculate stuff.

Second Chance

01-06-2005, 05:07 PM

Thats what computers are for.
They calculate stuff. Very true. Computers have made incredibly complex games available to many people. But I would say that games like these, or table-top miniature battles type games, are for people who like to do the paperwork and calculations themselves. They're wonderfully cerebral games.

But I think comparing computer games to board games, and asking which is better, is like comparing chess to basketball and asking which is better. What the point? Better at what? There is no common frame of reference. Each one does it's job perfectly, but I wouldn't expect a fanatical follower of one to be interested in the other. And since this is a computer game forum. . .

Red_Hex

01-06-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Second Chance
why does wireless text messaging even exist, much less have the popularity it does. You've already got a phone in your hand. Why would you clumsily type out a text message in that cryptic text-speak when you could actually talk to someonebut... but... damn. i cant refute the logic. if you got a mobile phone, take phone calls on it. the thing is, even after a century of use, talking on the phone can still be an awkward thing. theres plenty of times when it isnt appropriate. instead of demanding your instant attention right now, a text is discreet. thats why it exists. dont ever forget what a rude thing a phone is. calling someone is like walking up to them in the middle of anything, beating a drum in their face and shouting "im here talk to me pay attention now please hellooo now now me me".

GrandpaTrout

01-07-2005, 01:46 AM

What I like about board games, is that they go slooooow. Really slow. For instance, in a board game, you can get hit by a nuke, and then painfully watch your ships systems get vaporized one by one. Each bit of damage has time to register fully. Each one inflicts emotional damage as you cross it off the ship status sheet.

And you get to plot and agonize. You can nurse those three main laser arrays through the first part of combat, saving the charge for a point blank pass. And then relish the moment you unleash the equivelent output of the north american power grid for one year onto an 8 cm section of your opponents hull in 10 milliseconds. Hehehehe.

Computer games are more like Star Wars. One moment your Xwing is fine, ten seconds later your just a bunch of debris bouncing off Darth's hull. I won't argue that fast paced games are not fun, they are a blast. But they just don't sink in as deep.

I would love to have the computer keep track of everything. I just want to relish in the details! A few turns of "oh man, I am totally sc*wed now" before the game over screen.

That was one thing I love (hate) about Iwar, those last few seconds of end over end tumble, when you no longer had control of your ship and you knew the end was just a few seconds away.

MichaelShane

01-07-2005, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Hot4Darmat
A well-made PC game will successfully create the illusion of social interaction, but it usually doesn't take long to see past the illusion and feel like you're interacting with a machine. I'm old enough to remember playing board wargames and as much as I love and fully embrace computer games as a whole, I still occasionally miss the whole boardgame thing. Maybe its just a question of taste.
It's interesting that that illusion was (originally) the main purpose of the computer RPG; something to play when your friends couldn't come over. Kinda hold you over until the group met again. Now it seems to be the end-all be-all.

To be fair, today's computerized RPG's have exceeded our at-the-time expectations of 1982. But still... I've never once finished a gaming session with my computer and then went with it to an all-night diner to stay up until the dawn talking about the game, drinking coffee, and laughing. :D

Like you, I miss those days. Count me in.

Just give me a couple of weeks to finish the house renovations.

hoom

01-07-2005, 06:48 PM

why does wireless text messaging even exist, much less have the popularity it does. Simple economics.
Texting is cheaper per unit so it gets used more.
The fact that people may actually spend more money on a text conversation than they would have on a short phone call that conveys the same information is a matter of percieved value & makes profit for telcos.

What I like about board games, is that they go slooooow. Really slow. For instance, in a board game, you can get hit by a nuke, and then painfully watch your ships systems get vaporized one by one. Who says PC games can't be slow?
I know & love plenty of slow PC games.
Generally but not exclusively turn based.

Second Chance

01-07-2005, 11:27 PM

First, I want to appologize to GrandpaTrout for the accidental hijacking of this thread. I just went a little overboard lamenting past days. I didn't realize my remarks would drag the conversation off topic. Sorry about that. So these will be my closing O/T responses.

@Red_Hex: LOL, I loved your description of receiving a cell-phone call, very vivid. What's even funnier is how you made me realize just how skewed my perception is. You sound like someone who has known cell-phones all their life. Believe it or not, there was a time when phones didn't demand your attention "right now". It was because they were connected to the wall and had to stay there. Everywhere else you went, you were free of them. They didn't beep loudly during a movie, or at a restaraunt, or in an office meeting. Many a trip has been planned with just that in mind. To me, cell-phones are still a remarkable technology that irrevokably changed the world I live in. Your clever description has shown, very clearly, how our social manners have utterly failed to keep pace with this technology.

@hoom: Your point about text-messages sounds reasonable. But I question whether economics is at the forefront of the text-messaging crowd's mind. What you and Red_Hex suggest are excellent reasons for its use. But the text-message groupies have abused it far beyond all that, as all fad followers always do.

Now back to board games! :p

GrandpaTrout, I completely relate to what you are saying about the delicious slowness of board games. Relishing every moment and filling each turn with plenty of barbs at your friends (opponents).

As for computer RPGs; yes, it is sad that they have somehow become the be-all and end-all of gaming. Because I completely disagree with Hot4's comment on the illusion of social interaction. I think computers fail miserably at creating the illusion of an interactive world. Simply because of the physical limitations of the hardware. Maybe it's because I remember gaming with a great group where anything that was possible was possible, and we spent a lot of time cleverly using every aspect of our environment to achieve our goals. When faced with certain defeat by a larger number of superior forces, whe was the last time a computer game let your companion start a distracting conversation with your enemy by surrendering, while you quietly slipped under the table and tied all their showlaces together before up-ending the table onto them and making your escape? Or let the GM fudge the rules a little because something you were doing was so funny and so brilliant that you just had to succeed? Again, I don't see the point of comparing computer games with socially interactive games that require the complete use of imagination. They're just too different.

I guess I'm just sad at seeing games that no longer require any real imagination (computer games) become the defining aspect of gaming. You don't need to imagine what anything looks like, because it's right there, in all it's tiny pixelated glory. And you don't have to use your imagination to come up with solutions, because the only solution is preprogrammed. And you either do it their way, or no way. You can't "build a better mousetrap" because practically the entire game world is one piece! Every apparent object is actually just a part of the larger whole, immovable and indestructible. Even board games require enough imagination to pretend that that little plastic guy representing you is actually doing the things you say he is.

Ken_Burnside

02-26-2005, 07:20 PM

Ever get a chance to hook up with anyone to try the game?

I'm the designer/developer of this game, and am willing to answer questions here....if people know of an engine that can be had for a reasonable amount of money, I have all the ship art as lightwave meshes and textures, and would love to see an AV:T computer game.

I think you'll learn more about what's going on fundementally from the pen and cardboard version of it, but I won't deny that a computerized version would be a good market.

hoom

02-26-2005, 11:15 PM

Cool :D

Hmm I wonder if Milo could help you with that?
He wrote Starshatter.

FireCrack

02-27-2005, 03:26 AM

Ok, personaly i do understand the purpose of board games. But from what i read in the first post this as a board game is just innane! What happens when you hit another ship? do you pull out a ruler to figure a line from you to it and then consult the 10 page long chart figuring out where every system is so you know what you hit?

I dont understand the concept of having somthing this complex uncomputerised. (though it would be a neat physics class)

Edit, jsut took a look at the site and it seems some things atleast are simpler than i thaught.

Momaw

02-27-2005, 03:58 AM

Slow and complex...

I've always argued that the highly arcadey Mechwarrior series should extensively model internal damage, and that no mech should die unless it had been getting the snot beat out of it for a while. I want to hear autocannon slugs sleeting across my armor, the sickening sparking and crunching of internal systems getting chewed up. I want to feel my mech lurching a bit to the side as the leg takes a hit, see my heat slowly climbing as my damaged coolant system leaks out precious life's blood. I want to feel desperate as I smack the "Manual Weapon Cycle" button over and over, trying to unjam my AC/10 while the enemy inches around the edge of a building, not sure whether I can fight back or not.

That and I want to see more games with a planning stage. We have the processor power now to support AI which can make decisions that are perhaps not inspired, but at least reasonable, if written properly. This should allow more flexibility in mission design instead of rigid scripting, because the PC can react dynamically to whatever the player decides to do. I want to choose where to deploy my lance. I want to choose when and where to deploy aerospace fighter cover, and choose what kind of ordnance they will be packing. I want to direct an orbitting warship's bombardment fire after scrambling like crazy to be in the right place at the right time to coincide with their target window. I want to deploy infantry and armor to suppliment my tactical plans, watching all my careful arranging and timing come together at the end, or try to recover the operation if some critical part of my forces is destroyed.

Bah.

Ken_Burnside

02-27-2005, 02:54 PM

What I've shot for in AV:T is making sure that the record keeping and decision making is as simple as possible to handle the subject matter. The subject matter still requires that you be able to think in a 3-D tactical environment, but the decisionmaking and record keeping you have to do has been streamlined a great deal.

I just taught Dave Ells how to play this morning - we took about 2 hours covering concepts (think about how many hours you spent playing I-War the first time trying to get a feel for how the ships handled when you're used to X wings banking off the numinous aether...it's comparable).

Turn 1, I had Dave calling the steps on the sequence of play so that he'd know the "if A, then B" steps and so on. Took about 40 minutes.

Turn 2 took about 15 minutes

Turn 3 took 15 minutes

Turn 4 took 25 minutes as we stopped dancing for comparative advantage and started ripping into each other.

Turn 5 took about 30 minutes as the conseqences of decisions we'd made on turns 3 and 4 impacted our vectors, and Dave found that I'd squeaked past his uber close range death shot. We started swiveling 'round to cancel vectors and thrust back into engagement range. Did some damage control

Turn 6 took 10 minutes - no shooting, just trying to get a vector that would let us get back into engagement range without exposing something we didn't want shot off.

Turn 7 took 25 minutes as we both considered firing multiple times but kept waiting it out. There was a 30 minute break here for chow and teaching Dave how to launch seekers.

Turn 8 had us complicating each other's vector plots with seeking weapons, trying for either saturation, or a pattern where the choices open to avoid the seekers set up a beam shot on weak armor. Took about 30 minutes, mostly because i kept walking Dave through the procedure again. I kept shooting at Dave with my faster firing weapon, trying to score something that would prevent his looming menace.

Turn 9 had me running light on reactors to avoid heat penalties, and I was starting to damage my engine from thrusting too much. Dave had two opportunities (that he missed) to win the game with a good seeking salvo. One of them he realized just after I'd finished my pivot that brought weapons back into arc. Dave unleashed a titanic blast that tore through my starboard side, causing a battery chain reaction that killed me - Dave had survived SI checks up to a 6. Took about 20 minutes.

Each turn has 8 "decision making opportunities", so the 8 turns and 6 segments it took for Dave to kill me represent 70 "fire/no fire, other maneuver" decision points.

About 3 hours to play the game, including bathroom breaks, table talk and "Damn! You got SO &&^@K lucky!". We both had fun, we'll do it again - and it was a tight enough match that we'd probably be able to play the exact same starting set up and come up with a completely diifferent tactical arrangement.

GrandpaTrout

02-27-2005, 05:27 PM

Hi Ken,

Welcome to the forum! I have not had time to track down another player in my city. Only time to hunt a few chocolates.

What I find really interesting about the game is how you have taken some rather unique design positions (no stealth, instant hit beam weapons, single direction thrusters, heat and power management) and formed them into a challenging game. These elements seem to create a rich field of player choices. (speaking from my limited experience). And very different from the space simulations that tend to mimic history. I would be curious to hear something about your design thinking? How did you arrive at this mix? Incremental from some basis decisions?

It would be nice to have some kind of computerized version of the game. Even if it was a virtual board that could be shared between distant players. My college wargaming buddies scattered to the edges of the US. It would be fun to reconnect. And connect with new players. However, I can understand if that market is too small to form a product around!

As far as real time engines go, Starshatter seems very flexible to modders. And is still in active development. Perhaps Milo will drop in here.

I think the chance to get the EoC (Iwar2) sources has passed forever. The Flux engine is very nearly what you would need. Some small improvements to heat and power handling. And some improvements to how internal systems take damage. A change to remove nose thrusters (and the AI changes that would be needed to support that rather drastic effect). It had good custom GUI support. Easy modding. Multiplayer. Built in Scenario support. Sigh, so close, and now so far.

Ken_Burnside

02-27-2005, 10:13 PM

GTrout:

Thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be here.

I got started writing AV:T in 2000, when I was monkeying around with a spreadsheet and a distance formula, and discovered that a thrust of 1 gee for 63 seconds took you right close to 10 km of displacement.

Was just playing around and went "Hey, that's a minute and 10 km. Even better, if I fudge a gee down to a bit less, it's an even power of 2..."

My aim was to make something that had the tactical depth of old Star Fleet Battles without the, ah, cruft. Preferably playing faster, and based on real science.

It took a bit over 4 years to reach press. Lots of ideas were batted around, used, worked on, rejected, replaced and improved.

The AVID is an adaptation of the PHAD from Tony Valle's air combat boardgame, Birds of Prey; the tilt blocks and box minis and tiles are mine - I felt that attitude and orientation info should be on the map where God and Jim Dunnigan meant unit information to be.. :)

The seeking weapon system is a challenge to wrap your head around, but is the brainchild of Eric Finley, as is the damage allocation system (which rolls to see how many damage points a system absorbs.)

Ken_Burnside

02-27-2005, 10:19 PM

Rodney Kinney is working on Attack Vector: Online, which is a shared virtual hex map done up in Java, working from the Virtual Advanced Squad Leader Code.

Right now, the real thing slowing development down is manpower - I don't have time to green light things, and the subset of people who want to alpha test code for AV Online is kind of small.

The other issue is this - with a "top down view of the hex map", you actually lose the benefit of tilt blocks and stacking tiles. You can have floating labels with that information on them, but they either require a mousover (so can be missed by someone in a hurry) or they clutter up the map with lots of text.

Is there a real live person I can talk to about licensing (as in paying money, not just a mod) the engine for IWar for AV:T? Else, I'll look at Starshatter.

However, the main problem is the "how many hours can Ken devote to this per day" bottleneck. I'm still interested in talking to people on this, and could be persuaded to look into seed money.

MichaelShane

02-27-2005, 11:47 PM

Some of the members of this forum have done some searching for the rights-holders of the EoC code and Flux engine. Hot4Darmat spearheaded those attempts and could probably provide you with the most information in those areas. He will probably stop by or I could pass on your email address if you like.

Are you seeking a simple graphical display coupled with a code engine to run things in a turn-based environment? Or a real-time 3D simulation?

I'll be purchasing your game this week, and look forward to seeing the rule systems. I'd wondered at using Lightwave (scenes) to store the gameboard information for internet play.

shanemaness@netscape.com

Ken_Burnside

02-28-2005, 10:03 AM

Are you seeking a simple graphical display coupled with a code engine to run things in a turn-based environment? Or a real-time 3D simulation?

I'll be purchasing your game this week, and look forward to seeing the rule systems. I'd wondered at using Lightwave (scenes) to store the gameboard information for internet play.

First, forgive me for being an utter newb at computer game development. I will be asking many ignorant questions.

First, I don't see anything that would keep both of the options you described from happening, aside from the price of programming time, and the price of my time to oversee the project. I'd like to do both, eventually.

Right now, AV Online has semi-active development, and fits your first description - it's played on a hex map, the computer does the (trivial) math asked of the players, and it will automate the damage allocation engine. It will be turn based, and the aim is to recreate the experience of playing the game face to face for people separated and playing it online. It's a service to people who like the game.

I intend to sell it as a subscription service; client is free, two very basic ships are free. To use the ship library, and play other people using the ship library, I'll charge a modest fee. The client currently works over IRC as its networking front end, and it's written in Java to be cross platform.

While I want it to look nice, I have no objections to releasing something that's functional and plain and add the spiffy graphics later. It should pretty much require that the player own a rulebook to play the game in my current thinking. I enjoy writing boardgames; I don't want computer games of my IP to cannibalize the boardgames I enjoy writing. :)

We are re-building the ship design engine to work in XML so that XML data files can be used in AV Online as the ship data structures. (We can also parse XML files into the graphical SSDs used to play the game manually.) That ship design engine is going slowly in lurches, but progress is being made. Before you ask - access to the ship design engine is something that's pretty contentuous right now.

GTrout (if he's gone through the tutorials) may be able to explain the problem in terminology you'll grasp better than I can. However, the UI hurdle is this:

We can't change the "camera angle" on the hex map with the code base we have - it was really designed for "counter and hex" display modalities. So the camera is fixed to point "straight down" at the map. This really doesn't work well with tilt blocks/box minis/stacking tiles.

AV: Real Time Online (We'll call it AV:RTO to avoid inconveniencing too many electrons) would be something akin to Star Fleet Command or iWar.

I would want it to use the models I own for the ship - I'd want the damage allocation (handled by the computer) to be based on the same XML files that AV:T uses for ship data. I would want it to be networkable and allow multiple ships, so that you can have real fleet actions in 3-D.

In particular, I'd like to designate a flagship and have the flagship commander get a "third person perspective" of what was going on, and have his game be built around directing commands to players flying individual units, who get a more iWar/first person experience and are dogfighting 5,000 ton frigates in real time.

I would really prefer that it be on a portable, easily updatable code base.

All of this is a "Hmmm, yeah, that'd be cool..." sort of thing. However....

My understanding is that producing a good high end computer game in this day and age requires about 60 man-years of programming/art time, and something akin to 10-15 million of development/marketing/production budget. Furthermore, because of the limited amount of shelf space in retail establishments, the games are pushed like movies. One reason why game companies seem to mostly put out derivative junk and/or franchises, is because the derivative junk is pre-sold and can make back some of the money sunk into programming the prior versions.

My understanding may well be completely incorrect - but that explanation was given to me multiple times. It didn't sour me on the idea - I'd like to do it - it just made it go into the "Yeah, someday..." end of things.

I am in this for love, yes - everyone in my industry is. I'm also in this to make a modest living.

Hot4Darmat

02-28-2005, 10:27 AM

Hi Ken, and welcome to the forum from me, too.

I received my AV:T while in St. Louis in early Feb, as planned (thanks for making sure we made a successful orbital intercept there!), and I've been loving reading the manual and background information. I've only gone as far as reading and buying chocolates, but that's mostly because I've gotten extremely busy in RL, not because I lost interest in AV:T) Like the I-War universe, I find your Ten Worlds background rich and compelling, and I started a new work of short fiction set in that universe (then quickly got overwhelmed in RL, and started worrying that I was going too far off canon for your game, and resolved to do some more 10 worlds background research before going any further).

I have to echo what GrandpaTrout and Shane have said: I really like this system and look forward to finding local players (anyone in Southeastern Ontario reading this?), but would be willing to help with either an online version (playtesting), or help to look for a suitable engine. On the latter note, I did some digging a few months ago in the hopes of getting either a source code release or rights information from the publishers of the I-war games, but things dead-ended in the mess of Argonaut's closure (the last remaining vestiges of Particle Systems), and Atari's sluggish responses to my queries. It got left with an individual's name in the Lyons (FR) office of Infogrames/Atari HQ. A member of the community forum at Soup's site named jasper, based in UK, was going to chase it down from there, but we never heard from him again. End of story, unfortunately. Flux would've been great.

At some point I'd like to talk to you about getting the LW meshes for the AV:T vessels and creating some paper models of them as potential play aids, but that'll be for another day (too busy at the moment).

Ken_Burnside

02-28-2005, 11:19 AM

Hot4Darmat, Shane and Gtrout:

Tell you what - when you guys have all said you've done the tutorial here, I'll post the URL for the (very beta) AV Online client.

As to releasing the lightwave meshes...my attorneys say, sadly, that may not be terribly wise, if I want to retain rights for future media development, such as novel series' and or movie properties.

I'm still looking into what I'd be exposing if I did that, but A) it's lower priority than a lot of things on the list, and right now the answer may be "I wish I could, but it would cost me a lot of revenue down the road."

Ken_Burnside

02-28-2005, 11:22 AM

If you own AV:T, go to:

http://services.adastragames.com/

And register your product there.

There is a player search feature that will let you find players in your area. If you actually enter an email address (optional at the moment), you can be contacted by them.

We are working on some enhancements for these tools.

Momaw

02-28-2005, 12:05 PM

Why can't you just do hexes with perspective? ala

http://www.ravensky.org/momaw/persphex.jpg

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question since I am neither a game developer nor a player of your game. But I hear "hexes" and "stacking", and this is what I think of.

It's not real perspective, it's... uh... isometric? Or orthagonal. I never remember which is which, heh. But you could still use 2d sprites and "build" the picture by drawing lots of them on top of eachother. You could also have a "Rotate View" option fairly easily, to see behind a really tall stack or something; since the art itself does not change between views, only its presentation on the screen.

:weird:

Hot4Darmat

02-28-2005, 12:45 PM

Once again, nice image, Momaw. I'm always impressed by how quickly you can bash this stuff out.

The stacking hexes are only part of the game play features. As an adjunct to hex facing and distance up from the horizontal plane, vessel pitch (attitude/angle up or down from the playing plane), and its roll are also included with the game in the form of stacking tiles that have little angled shelves (there are pictures of the playing pieces on the products page of their site, I believe).

At present the vessels are represented by little printed cutout fold-up rectangular boxes with ship images printed on the different sides (plan, elevation, fore, aft). They're simple boxes but they look pretty good. It's a step above the flat little tiny cardboard squares or hex shapes with ship silhouettes printed on them from the games I used to play, but not a slick as pewter miniatures (or, say small paper model ships) would be. But as Ken has said, that's a business decision that may be an option some other day, but not today.

Ken_Burnside

02-28-2005, 02:13 PM

Can you take a look at the tilt block photo on the web page for the product, and inc orporate them into the image you did?

We'd color code the sides of the tiles (and make them thinner):

White is 1 altitude, light blue is 4, dark blue is 16. We use a black tile to show negative altitude . We also use square tiles - the entire assembly can face a hex corner or hex edge, and this is easier to show with square tiles.

I'd like to show a picture of this to the developer and see if he can do it without a coronary fit.

GrandpaTrout

02-28-2005, 02:21 PM

So the camera is fixed to point "straight down" at the map. This really doesn't work well with tilt blocks/box minis/stacking tiles. Darn. The tilt blocks are very clever. And so is the idea of placing a prediction location marker for each ship (based on heading and velocity). I just imagine a green glowing line connecting the two and its almost as good as a HUD.

You should talk to Milo (John DiCamillo) about Starshatter. I have not done any modding with that engine, but I have seen the great work the Buda5 modding team did. Starshatter seems to have been built with "total conversion" in mind. It supports several physics models including Newtonian.

If I remember correctly Milo did programming work on missile defense systems before going into game programming. I expect you two would have a good time talking about "real" space combat.

The Starshatter forum is here. Lots of nice screen shots.
Starshatter Forum (http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp?URL=http%3A//www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp%3Fforumid%3D115)

MichaelShane

02-28-2005, 11:40 PM

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this. I had to wait for confirmation from others before I mentioned anything.

Mr. Burnside, could you send me an email address where I could contact you? I believe I know a way around your "how many hours can Ken devote to this per day" bottleneck. :)

I'm at shanemaness@netscape.com

Momaw

03-02-2005, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Ken_Burnside
Can you take a look at the tilt block photo on the web page for the product, and inc orporate them into the image you did?

Can I ask why you're looking at duplicating tilt blocks for a computer-rendered game? You're already going to be rendering many different views of the ship in order to support the semi-perspective. You'd need 30 different views with 6 headings and 5 elevations:

http://chapterhouse2.nhvt.net/users/momaw/shipgrid.jpg

Though apparently in your game, ships can have 12 headings. So there's 60 views. If you're worried about it not being obvious enough which way the ship is going, consider using something like:

http://chapterhouse2.nhvt.net/users/momaw/rings.jpg
(apologies for hasty job)

Which would also need to be made for each of 60 possible orientations. You could re-use that set though. heh

Ken_Burnside

03-07-2005, 02:36 AM

Momaw, the reason for the tilt blocks image is because I'm working on two visualizations for a computer game.

One will be, literally, a way to play the boardgame online. For this, I need the tilt blocks and a way to show them over a hex grid that can be done in 3-D with Java, and no built in good 3-D support like OpenGL or DirectX.

The current online adaptation is set to doing a "top down" fixed cam vie of the hex map. Being able to shift the camera angle around the map will help considerably in showing the Z axis of things, and the tilt blocks provide the attitude information unambiguously.

The other visualization is a more traditional PC "shooter perspective" like Star Fleet Command or I-War, and for that game, you're right. I can count on it having hardware acceleration for graphics.

GrandpaTrout

03-15-2005, 07:37 AM

I did a closer comparison between AV:T and EoC. The differences are pretty shocking.

Most warships in EoC pull 7-9g's of accel or faster. AV:T has max accel of 1.25 g.

Most weapons in EoC refire within one second. Most of the AV:T weapons have multiple seconds between shots.

Point blank range in EoC is about 2km. Point blank range in AV:T is 180km. Defined as the closest range that weapons typically do max damage. Some AV:T weapons have ranges of 800km or more. That is 400km past the graphic engines culling distance.

It is this last point that would make for a very interesting change from the standard space sim. The ships are too far to see each other. Ship to ship fights would happen with only HUD designators. The player would not really be aiming the weapons. They would need to aim themselves. The player would be all about getting the right weapons into the correct firing position at the correct time.

Navy fleet simulations sometimes have these kind of "over the horizon" ranges. But I have not seen a game with a first person view with this kind of balance. If pulled off correctly, it would be quite fresh.

MichaelShane

03-15-2005, 01:14 PM

I've been looking over the AV:T stuff too. It almost needs it's own engine type somewhere between real time strategy game and shoot-em-up space simulation. I think the key is camera placements.

Originally posted by GrandpaTrout
It is this last point that would make for a very interesting change from the standard space sim. The ships are too far to see each other. Ship to ship fights would happen with only HUD designators.

Remote optics might be used, and in fact make more sense considering the setting IMHO. I'd suggest the interface for AV:T be not so much 'look out the window' but more of a 'display forward camera view' deal. This would enable the player to call up schematics, camera views, etc. all in a realistic fashion.

Hot4Darmat

03-15-2005, 02:12 PM

It's true, the kind of imaginative experience of space combat that AV:T produces in the player is not going to be easy to translate into a computer game. Too much would be lost by making it simply a top down 'fleet battle' type of game, but it isn't a sim-friendly type of experience either, at least not the traditional flying fighter craft, shoot-at-what-you-see style gameplay. It needs to be a healthy blend of both.

You'd want to preserve the onboard ship perspective to create the cool atmosphere you get with the challenging decisions of power allocation, thrust, vector, firing arcs, repair team assigning, etc., so some sim type gameplay would be essential. But at the same time, you'd need to create the overall tactical situation knowledge, and preserve the feeling of that careful, deadly jockeying for position you can see unfold on the map of a boardgame (admittedly my only experience with AV:T thus far has been in a practice run, but I can see how position can determine much in a given combat...kind of like indoor track bicycle racing, or better yet, the ship to ship engagements in the days of sail a la Master and Commander).

I've always liked the idea of space warfare taking place across vast distances with lots of tense guesswork, sensor dependency (and spoofing), critical timing and missiles. This could be made into a fun computer game, I'm sure, but it wouldn't have the same visceral and immediate appeal of watching PBC bolts rip into the hull of your enemy sitting just a few Km away.

What naval combat game were you thinking about GT? Would any of it's features (UI, info display, etc) provide useful hints for design directions?

GrandpaTrout

03-15-2005, 03:39 PM

An old AppleII game. I don't even remember the name. I don't remember a very useful UI. But games were mostly imagination then. It just had a top down view. And some long distance "binocular" views of the opponents ships, IIRC.

Some things that you would really need to know:

Where are the opponents pointing - so you can fire on tails or flanks if possible.

Where are future predictors trending - so you know where to aim to get an interception.

What is the cone of intercept on any inbound missiles and guided shells. You need to know which direction to point your ship to evade. It needs to be marked as a volume with time, because you can evade by running 'through' a cone.

I was going to suggest that the Wep View would be best. But the more I think about, the less I like that idea. The real skill here is piloting, not gunnery. The AI is doing the aiming and shooting. All the beam weapons are instant hit. Everything else is self guided. The player is just choosing when to fire.

The more I consider it, the more it resembles a 3D racing sim. Only the objects in your path are hit probability diagrams. Most of the time, your pilot AI could be trying to keep the nose of the ship pointed at something - while you designate targets and allocate power.

Maybe the Iwar bridge model would be best? Command, to designate targets and give pilot AI orders. Perhaps command could have a Wep view, so you can always know the exact relation between your ship and the opponent.

Engineering - to try to sort the damage and check heat and power issues.

And Pilot, for when you want to pick the dodging vector yourself.

Another odd thing about the game is that you often want to fire at a location, not a ship. The game often talks about using shells and missiles to herd a target ship into close range. Basically firing to locations that force the ship to dodge towards you. The player needs a way of designating empty space as the firing vector.

Hot4Darmat

03-15-2005, 04:07 PM

IIRC the pre-production concept art, and even some graphic renders of the bridge in the original Independence War featured a large holographic orb in the middle of the bridge (in front of the CMD station, behind the NAV station) that was ditched in favour of the smaller orb display visible on a screen from the NAV station.

A similar holographic display is clearly a feature on the cover art for AV:T. Obviously, this kind of 3D graphic display could be featured as a tactical readout, and may have a number of zoom options to go from displaying the player's ship, to the entire region of space, to the enemy's ship(s). Cones and zones, prediction ranges and probability spheres could be represented in another fashion. Weapons could be directed to fire at PIPs (Predicted Intercept Points) by targeting computers, so that locations in space could be used to constrain enemy movement. [I just made PIPs up, I'm sure something better could be thought up to make points in space targetable, but the acronym for Points In Space just isn't as nice]

MichaelShane

03-15-2005, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Hot4Darmat
[I just made PIPs up, I'm sure something better could be thought up to make points in space targetable, but the acronym for Points In Space just isn't as nice] lol! :D

I'll have to remember that. Next time I'm in front of a game and my wife mentions my colorful choice of words I can sigh and say "No dear... PIS! Points in Space! I was calling for targeting."

Now I just need one for sh*t. :p

It sounds like what the interface would really need is a split-screen (or picture-within-picture) features which could be resized to the user's taste. Quad screens being the largest the player might utilize (otherwise resolution problems might creep into the works?), with the ability to select screen configuration as in Lightwave; 2x2 horizontal, 2x2 vertical, etc.

http://img162.exs.cx/img162/2458/testscreen9dl.jpg

I think it would be the fastest way to present information to the player (and that it would Look Cool :D ). Having the large tactical ORB in one quad, a zoom camera of the craft in another, a navigational display in the third, and ship status or cone and zone in the fourth.

You'd need no joysticks... mouse controls would do fine I'd think. And allow the user to drag in some window types (like the zone and cone) and zoom and move.

Note: The above is just a quickie thrown out to illustrate the point. The gobbledegook figures are not anywhere near correct. Damnit Jim, I'm an artist! Not a mathmatician! :D

Mr. Burnside you're welcome to the pic, crude as it is, if it can serve any purpose. :)

Nightwatch

03-16-2005, 04:46 AM

Space Hemispherical Interface : Tactical? :D

Or just tell her you were speacint Latin : Chit - He knows (pronounced the same as sh*t!) :eek: :p

Ken_Burnside

03-20-2005, 11:57 AM

Guys, thanks for the interesting discussion.

For the three of you trying to play over the internet, check out:

www.vasl.org/AVOL - this was the computer game dev project I was supporting.

Please report questions and such to the Ad Astra forums at:

www.adastragames.com/discus.html

under the Computer Game Development topic.

It is very important that you post those in that forum as I check back here about once or twice a week at best, and the developer of AVOL doesn't check this board at all!

As to what the game is...yeah, you've pretty much nailed the problem.

It's not a twitch game sim so much as it's an information flow management sim. You don't get to stop time and make perfect plans, you make decisions and live with the consequences...and even in a boardgame, we try to encourage "real time thinking".

As to seeking weapons and "Point of Intercept" calculations...

Every ship in the game should have a "trumpet bell" vector indicator that goes "forward" in time. Sadly, I lack the graphic skills to show this well; I can see it in my head, and when I play the game in person, I can mentally overlay the trumpet bell as a function of current and end of turn future position markers.

The length of the trumpet is dependant on the current vector vis a vis the frame of reference and the unit of time used as the baseline. A larger vector means the trumpet bell is longer and skinnier. Larger vectors constrain your maneuverability!

The "manifold" of the trumpet bell represents a constant integration of four factors:

How fast the target can pivot
How high the target's thrust can go
How long the target can thrust for without damaging engines
How much delta V the target can use.

The first two are most important for missile intercepts and using missile salvoes to "herd" maneuver.