Free War and Strategy Computer Games Forum.

Forum Home

Discussions

Games in Development.

Help Wanted: Ci...

Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

2/17/2007 1:16:07 AM

host

15 posts

Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

I received from Mr. W.R. Hutsell the original source code for his DOS games - VGA Civil War Strategy, EGA Civil War Battleset, Wars of Napoleon, and World War II in Western Europe. I am heavily considering rewriting the games as freeware games for Windows, but am absolutely lacking in the area of graphical talent. I am looking for a skilled graphic artist who might be interested in working on this project with me - or multiple artists. Please reply to this thread if you are interested or believe you could be of assistance in some other way.
Initially I think I would just rewrite the Civil War Strategy game with the same basic features, except for Windows. From there we could add on additional features, hopefully eventually integrating the tactical level in the game as well, as Mr. Hutsell did in his final work, Wars of Napoleon.
David.

3/2/2007 12:29:35 PM

Andreev

3 posts

Re: Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

I'm not a great artist and have little time right now, but here are my thoughts:
1. My experience with rewriting UNIX code for Windows was with Borland CBuilder 5.0. In the times of C++, not C#, it was a great program for creating "standart" user interfaces.
2. If you could create small tasks out of a great one, I think I could be of some use.

3/2/2007 4:25:48 PM

CSABARON

5 posts

Re: Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

The goal of the games should be "easy to learn, but hard to master." In regards to any additional features added to current gameplay.

3/2/2007 6:40:25 PM

host

15 posts

Re: Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

    Andreev - My experience is much more centered about Microsoft's .NET Framework 2.0, especially VB.NET/ASP.NET. I think I would probably code in either VB.NET or C#.NET. Though, there would probably still be projects to be broken off (e.g. scenario design).
    CSABaron - I agree that the games should be "easy to learn, but hard to master." While some people found Hutsell's games simplistic, I found them to have a unique mix of playability and challenge. I would like to heighten the intelligence of the AI while at the same time avoiding a significant increase in complexity.
    The tactical side that I would like to eventually include was successfully added by Hutsell himself in Wars of Napoleon. It allowed one to choose whether to take on the tactical battle - or allow AI to handle it. I would allow the same.
David.

3/2/2007 8:56:14 PM

CSABARON

5 posts

Re: Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

Those were my thoughts exactly. The original game play could not be beat. Mr. Hutsell did a fine job.

-Brandon aka CSABaron

3/15/2007 10:28:16 PM

steelhorses

3 posts

Re: Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

host wrote
some people found Hutsell's games simplistic, I found them to have a unique mix of playability and challenge. I would like to heighten the intelligence of the AI while at the same time avoiding a significant increase in complexity.
The tactical side that I would like to eventually include was successfully added by Hutsell himself in Wars of Napoleon. It allowed one to choose whether to take on the tactical battle - or allow AI to handle it. I would allow the same.

I'd be very interested in this version of the game. One of the things that keeps me hooked to the game is the ability to finish a game rather quickly. So many war games become massive crusades that require hours and hours even days and weeks to complete let alone master.

1/11/2008 6:40:36 PM

Blackbird

2 posts

Re: Help Wanted: Civil War Strategy/Tactical Game.

host wrote
... While some people found Hutsell's games simplistic, I found them to have a unique mix of playability and challenge. I would like to heighten the intelligence of the AI while at the same time avoiding a significant increase in complexity.
...

After playing countless thousands of games against the CWS's original AI, there are some observations I'd like to make:
1) The existing AI does an excellent job, overall. But it does seem to have a few weak areas.
2) "Retreat" or "reinforcement by railroad" behavior for the AI's side when one of its smaller armies alone faces overwhelming attack seems very limited or non-existent, much of the time. The AI's response in such situations seems to be merely building a fort and/or awaiting inevitable extinction, rather than to attempt escaping by railroad or even by normal movement.
3) After the AI has played the Union side in more than two or three straight games in one session, if the AI continues playing as Union in subsequent games, it ceases initial sending its ships to attack Rebel cities, but instead seems to assign them only to raiding (but showing the fleet symbol at Philadelphia). This continues throughout the balance of that and subsequent games unless/until the Rebel side creates a fleet and sends it to raid (thus provoking a fleet battle). After that, the AI operates its Union fleet in a normal mode that includes attacking cities during the balance of that game... but the limitation to raid recurs at the start of the next subsequent game if AI still is chosen to control Union forces.
4) The AI seems not to perceive any value in attempting to re-connect an isolated army with the main forces to either reinforce it fully or evacuate it by rail. Once an army under its control becomes isolated, particularly in a port city, it will fortify and (rarely) recruit to it, but virtually never will it attempt either a breakout or mount a serious attempt to rescue it. Again, it just passively awaits eventual destruction by superior forces. In some cases, I've observed such isolated armies park in a port fortress after all opposing forces have been moved to several cities distance... and never attempt a breakout that would work havoc with its opponents rear (even for the smallest army).
5) When the AI is controlling Union forces, often a new army will be recruited in Philadelphia that will simply be left there to grow and grow and grow, never being employed in combat unless/until an enemy force approaches to within 2 cities distance of Philadelphia (eg: Pittsburg, Harper's Ferry). Then (and only then) it will go into motion as a force to be reckoned with. However, this seems an extremely narrow and ultra-conservative view of employing reserves and maneuver.
6) The AI rarely if ever employs a small, mobile army or two in capturing neutral or enemy-loyal cities that have been bypassed by the main-conflict battle line, even though that will materially affect the size of one's force replenishment, open possible alternate rail-movement or evacuation pathways, and contribute to at least one of the end-conditions for victory in subsequent rounds.

Most of these weaknesses seem detached from any historical realities of the conflict, and instead seem to be merely limitations within the AI design - probably due to an original need to keep the programming compact so as to fit on a single 360Kb, 5" floppy. By incorporating just a handful of added "initiative" and "creativity" elements into the AI's decision habits, its behavior could be made much more human, realistic, and varied from game to game... all without perturbing the historical authenticity and balances of the game.

Page 1 of 1

Discussions

Games in Development.

Help Wanted: Ci...