Re: What to do with Xconq

[Stan Shebs <shebs at shebs dot cnchost dot com>]

James McCann wrote:

> > * Adopt more standard game graphics conventions.  While there are
> > arguments for using multiple OS-specific windows, it goes against both
> > principle and tradition.  The principle is that the suspension of
> > disbelief doesn't happen if cookie-cutter dialogs and window panes are
> > always popping up, and the existence of the tradition should be
> > obvious to anyone that has played computer games for a few years.  In
> > practice, this means that the tcl/tk interface hasn't been such a good
> > idea, although it's handy for game design.  My current front runner
> > idea is to use SDL to run the main window(s), and add some GDL
> > mechanism to specify the graphics sets to use.
> >
> 
> I hate tcl/tk (actually I love being able to throw an interface together
> w/ a handful of commands but tcl is the most horrid language ever
> written.  Ugh) and I think you should use a straight SDL and develop
> a native GUI which would be the same across all platforms.  I think
> that is what is expected in games these days.

tcl is definitely in its own conceptual world.  I was at Apple around
1990 when John Ousterhout came to give an early talk about tcl, and we
were very underwhelmed - expect and tk didn't come along until later!

The big minus to SDL is that the game still needs dialogs and scrollbars
and all that.  Commercial games seem to have people that actually write
toolboxes for each game, but that seems excessive for Xconq, plus which
at that point the ugly AI code starts looking a lot more fun... :-)

> How about a 2 scale campaign game where all battles are fought at
> a tactical level and strategic movement, resupply etc. take place
> at a much higher level.   I have always thought that the coolest
> computer wargame would be multi-scale and would have lots of people,
> each w/ distinct roles.  Like SPI's monster game "Campaign in North
> Africa" w/ (iirc) 3 people per side, 9 hex maps and tons of paperwork.
> We never did play the game, we just kind of boggled at the complexity
> of the whole thing.  W/ a computer to take care of the tedium of
> bookkeeping it would be much more enjoyable.  Perhaps xconq "clans"
> would pop up and battle out WWII.

That's like the Holy Grail of wargaming, eh?  ww2-42.g is only corps-level,
but already pretty unwieldy!

I think one of the appeals of Panzer General is that you can play the
engagements in sequence, with the overlying campaign "filled in" for
you.  HoMM comes to mind also, where you roll around the big world, but
then switch to hex-grid battle screens for combat.  I can see something
for Xconq where you play strategically, but if a specific battle is
important, you ask to zoom in just for that battle, work the tactics
for it, then zoom out to see the overall result and continue strategizing.
If you're just mopping up, you can stay at the strategic level and just
rely on the generic odds (presumably because they're massively in your
favor).

For multi-player with this kind of system, pbem is probably required;
how would you assemble enough people at the right times?

Stan