Board Game Arena

cpt_von_ondine wrote: ↑05 April 2021, 00:03 Looks like Victory Road and Ardennes have a lot of different units that I image would add to the complexity of the programming.

Image is not a problem if a vassal module exists, it's the case for all games I have mentioned here.
Map complexity (number of locations, number of hexes) is more a problem (more than 3000 hexes in USE )

If size is an exponential issue for the difficulty of development, perhaps something very small

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/161 ... -6-bridges

(Apparently it was distributed free at an event in 2005 by its current publishers so I'm guessing they would be amenable to an approach).

And it might be nice to have some range in complexity. I understand, but have not played, that the No Retreat games are similarly small and low complexity.

I meant to type imagine, not image. I was trying to say they Liberty Roads (I mistakenly typed Victory Roads) and Ardennes have a lot of different unit types. I imagine having to program how all those different unit types behave might add to the complexity of the game/programming. I haven't read the rules though so I can't say for sure. I'm just going off some of the images posted on BGG. WW2: Barbarossa to Berlin has a smaller variety of unit types.

That being said, Liberty Roads looks like a good game and it has a pretty high rating on BGG.

1) CATACLYSM, a second world war
More political than operational, you are at the head of state and decide how your country will react or act militarily, politically and even in the home front. Check it out, it has both ETO and PTO. 7 Scenarios which focus on different scales and theater of operations. The usual Full war from 1933-?? , but also the 1939 turn in Europe, the soviet front 1941-1944, the pacific war, the WHOLE STUFF.
Ranging from 2 players to 5 players.

2) FIRE IN THE SKY, The Great Pacific War 1941-1945
This one is beeing republished by Phalanx i think. The PTO in all its glory, with a focus on an asymetrical game. The japanese start strong but have to manage an ever decreasing resource pool, while the US are getting stronger with each year. Very interesting and quite challenging.

3)STORM OVER STALINGRAD
Old but clever representation of the Stalingrad theater. Good point: Short rules!

4)PACIFIC GO
This is too much under the radar. A game which gameboard is hard to find online. I made a board myself and tried it, it's also interesting in the asymetrical way the Japanese have to deal with low supplies and the US trying to dig deep into the ennemy lines from island to island.
The designer Wataru Horiba has a tweeter account but i have no idea what his reaction would be to a BGA version.
One good point though: THE RULES ARE 8 PAGES LONG^^


Whatever you do, we will back you up and thank you!
For the record, watching you create a wargame in BGA made me take lessons in html/css to go closer to the BGA developper community. But that's a long way^^

I'm really enjoying the BGA version of USE and I'm really excited to see that there are plans for further historical wargames. I find the ideas of Paths of Glory, Barbarossa to Berlin and Normandy '44 particularly interesting. If Empire of the Sun was an option, I'd really get into that as I'm learning the game by email at the moment.

I've got an alternative suggestion to through in with the excellent options discussed so far: Combat Commander: Europe.

I think this hits all of your criteria. The only disadvantage is that the designer has recently passed. However, there is a great deal of support for this game at GMT and in the community.

Charlow wrote: ↑12 April 2021, 08:49
I've got an alternative suggestion to through in with the excellent options discussed so far: Combat Commander: Europe.

I own a copy of this one, I think it fails Lunalol's complexity test for the development work - too many independent elements that need programming.

RobertBr wrote: ↑12 April 2021, 08:56

Charlow wrote: ↑12 April 2021, 08:49
I've got an alternative suggestion to through in with the excellent options discussed so far: Combat Commander: Europe.

I own a copy of this one, I think it fails Lunalol's complexity test for the development work - too many independent elements that need programming.

I must say that I'm a bit surprised that you think CC:E is more complex than USE. I have both games as well and think that USE is a good deal more complex than CC:E. However, I must admit that I've never attempted to code a wargame so I'll leave such determination to the experts.

Although I guess the number of hexes will quickly multiply with 12 maps in the basic set and many more in the many expansions.

Charlow wrote: ↑12 April 2021, 11:27 I must say that I'm a bit surprised that you think CC:E is more complex than USE.

You have misunderstood my remark. Lunalol gave several responses in the thread about what makes a particular element 'complex' in coding terms. Essentially things that require no additional overhead to a human being (such as a card that says do X) require coding. For that reason Lunalol was very specific that games driven by card decks are much more complex to code than traditional hex and counter games. Without any knowledge of the details CC:E in which a very large deck drives several interlocking aspects of the game seems problematic (it is also a black mark against Paths of Glory, though my recollection is the deck is much smaller in that case)

RobertBr wrote: ↑12 April 2021, 12:04

Charlow wrote: ↑12 April 2021, 11:27 I must say that I'm a bit surprised that you think CC:E is more complex than USE.

You have misunderstood my remark. Lunalol gave several responses in the thread about what makes a particular element 'complex' in coding terms. Essentially things that require no additional overhead to a human being (such as a card that says do X) require coding. For that reason Lunalol was very specific that games driven by card decks are much more complex to code than traditional hex and counter games. Without any knowledge of the details CC:E in which a very large deck drives several interlocking aspects of the game seems problematic (it is also a black mark against Paths of Glory, though my recollection is the deck is much smaller in that case)

There is a great deal of repetition in the card text for CC:E. There are 10 Orders, 20 Actions, and 35 events. These get mixed on the cards as cards have an event, an order and an action on them (each faction has 72 cards), but that should be easy to code once the 65 basic elements (orders, actions and events) are coded. There are multiple terrain types and different level, but that is expected for a game of this type. Each of the 12 map sheets has 150 hexes. Only one sheet is used per scenario.

The rules are much shorter than those for USE and correspondingly lower complexity in general.