Has there ever been a 'hard' sci-fi space combat videogame?

[Starglider]

I'm not sure... I personally know quite a few nerds (among them myself) who enjoy playing board games like Twilight Imperium with actual pieces because of the weight and feel. Maybe it's because it's actual quality stuff and not paper cut in nice shapes, like most board games out there.

That's true, but games like Star Fleet Battles and Attack Vector Tactical have hugely complex rules compared to a typical wargame (say WH40K). Software support would be really useful even when playing the games physically - as it is if you've ever wanted to actual play out a 300-person skirmish in D&D instead of just deciding the outcome of the non-PC fights by GM fiat.

[Satori]

Playing out a 300 man skirmish in D&D isn't at all complex. only the 5-10 High level casters at all matter. the rest are just scenery.

Hell, i did a much larger battle in D&D for fun. Mages on two teams throwing out spells to "control" the enemy army and gain a tactical advantage for the mooks on their side. Dance, puppets, Dance!

But i take your point.

[Drooling Iguana]

Why not have a tabletop game that includes some sort of Java-based cellphone app to handle the heavy calculations? Now that just about everybody carries a portable computer with them it should be easy to get the best of both worlds.

[Starglider]

Why not have a tabletop game that includes some sort of Java-based cellphone app to handle the heavy calculations? Now that just about everybody carries a portable computer with them it should be easy to get the best of both worlds.

Well, it's nice if everyone can see the results. In my experience the ideal solution is a (second hand) projector mounted directly above the gaming table, though I have been accused of being an extreme technophile who uses any excuse to deploy overengineered solutions. Seriously though, something like the Microsoft Surface would be ideal, and those things will probably be dirt cheap in five years time.

[Nyrath]

That's true, but games like Star Fleet Battles and Attack Vector Tactical have hugely complex rules compared to a typical wargame (say WH40K). Software support would be really useful even when playing the games physically - as it is if you've ever wanted to actual play out a 300-person skirmish in D&D instead of just deciding the outcome of the non-PC fights by GM fiat.

Yes, for a while I was dragooned by Ken into making an Attack Vector: Tactical support program for Palm PDAs. Then the PalmOS platform became extinct, and so did the support program.

What Ken does have is lots of sophisticated printed game aids with nomograms and whatnot, to ease the burden on the players. They may be cardboard, but at least they can be used without a computer. And produced without the expense of hiring a software development team.

[Stark]

I'm not sure... I personally know quite a few nerds (among them myself) who enjoy playing board games like Twilight Imperium with actual pieces because of the weight and feel. Maybe it's because it's actual quality stuff and not paper cut in nice shapes, like most board games out there.

Also that playing a boardgame is a social experience. One cannot duplicate the table chatter and atmosphere with a chat program.

This is beyond the fact that board games can lend themselves to a greater degree of freedom and flexiblity at need.

As well say that STGODs make tabletop RPG sessions obsolete.

Get OVER yourselves. People like you disgust me; you a) can't understand how automating the rules and reducing new sourcebooks to patches might hurt their business (software piracy might be easier than photocoping) and b) have some overly romanticised idea about 'social experience'. Trust me, I've tried to play Phoenix Command, and a tiny Java app replacing all those stupid fucking look-up tables would make the game FASTER, more ACCESSIBLE and not reduce the mystical nerd-nonsense 'social experience' AT ALL, just like the nomograms Nyrath mentions.

The idea that all the manual tracking and arithmetic in complex games is totally necessary to the 'experience' and can't be avoided without RUINING IT OMG is fucking absurd, and I expected more from Ace. PS Ace; Java app that plays the rules does not preclude the use of physical props. Then again you play TI which isn't really that complex (and sucks but anyway) so seriously go look at the amount of book-keeping AV:T needs for every single ship and tell me automated tracking and number-crunching wouldn't speed the game or make larger battles more practical.

Oh sorry you think rules-lawyering is 'atmosphere'.

[Faqa]

I'm not sure... I personally know quite a few nerds (among them myself) who enjoy playing board games like Twilight Imperium with actual pieces because of the weight and feel. Maybe it's because it's actual quality stuff and not paper cut in nice shapes, like most board games out there.

Also that playing a boardgame is a social experience. One cannot duplicate the table chatter and atmosphere with a chat program.

This is beyond the fact that board games can lend themselves to a greater degree of freedom and flexiblity at need.

As well say that STGODs make tabletop RPG sessions obsolete.

Get OVER yourselves. People like you disgust me; you a) can't understand how automating the rules and reducing new sourcebooks to patches might hurt their business (software piracy might be easier than photocoping) and b) have some overly romanticised idea about 'social experience'. Trust me, I've tried to play Phoenix Command, and a tiny Java app replacing all those stupid fucking look-up tables would make the game FASTER, more ACCESSIBLE and not reduce the mystical nerd-nonsense 'social experience' AT ALL, just like the nomograms Nyrath mentions.

The idea that all the manual tracking and arithmetic in complex games is totally necessary to the 'experience' and can't be avoided without RUINING IT OMG is fucking absurd, and I expected more from Ace. PS Ace; Java app that plays the rules does not preclude the use of physical props. Then again you play TI which isn't really that complex (and sucks but anyway) so seriously go look at the amount of book-keeping AV:T needs for every single ship and tell me automated tracking and number-crunching wouldn't speed the game or make larger battles more practical.

Oh sorry you think rules-lawyering is 'atmosphere'.

Your original comment was:

Ha! The obviuos reason why boardgame manufacturers would resist a simple java app that plays their game is because it would instantly put them out of business. Thus we get stuck with clunky and book-keeping intensive games that could easily be streamlined by a computer, but then the market for cardboard squares dries up.

Which sure as fuck sounds like an advocation of playing board games by computer. Ace and I expressed our opinions against this advocation.

If you are playing a game with huge amounts of arithmetic, fine, whatever, take the bookkeeping off your hands so you can enjoy the fun parts. I have no problem with that.

Jesus H Christ, Stark, do you even think these days before begining to go "FAT NERDS, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!"?

you a) can't understand how automating the rules and reducing new sourcebooks to patches might hurt their business (software piracy might be easier than photocoping)

Uh, what? Admittedly most board games I've played have been from Fantasy Flight Games, but they have ALWAYS offered the rules in pdf format on the internet. Rules aren't the barrier, the new pieces are.

[Stark]

So you missed out point? Starglider and I were having a laugh at absurdly complex games using (reasonably) complex maths where the book-keeping aspect is massively time consuming and easily automatable by computer. However, having a program that is 'the rules' (or even in many games 'the lookup tables') would mean people would simply download it and never buy the developers actual paper products because they instantly became useless aside from art, fluff etc.

Sorry, if you think 'streamlined by computer' == 'play a computer game roffle' you're just an idiot. Even fucking DnD is way, way faster with digital character sheets, RNGs and rules - but this doesn't mean you're playing Neverwinter Nights. It means you can focus on roleplaying and fun instead of tallying blood points or computing angular velocity or whatever. Indeed, it means games like AV:T don't need to have the 'fudge factors' they have with issues like acceleration and thrust which exist SOLELY to keep book-keeping down.

Oh shit, is book-keeping a limiting factor on scale or complexity in boardgames?!?!?!?! If only you could automate these functions!

[Oskuro]

FUCK YOU! I was going to post a reasonable comment on the differences and virtues of boardgames and videogames, and then you guys had to turn this into a flamefest!

Also, back on topic, I'd give my vote to Space Combat too. Although you need a certain degree of masochism to truly enjoy it.
Also, it's free, so go try it, it'll be enough of a punishment for making me delete my elaborate post.

[Covenant]

Space Combat is funny. I created a ship in it that handled similarly to wing commander fighter by mapping the thrusters to my joystick and placing them in a nose array. So while it's probably as realistic as you can expect from a lot of games with regard to physics, you can easily turn it into a pretty standard flight game if you put your wits to it. Overall, fun doohickey, and an interesting tech demo to show that you can do something fun with actual spaceship science. It makes your ships feel slippery, but it really takes not that long to figure it out--and an auto-halt of rotation saves your butt if you manage to get stuck in a tumble.

[Starglider]

I created a ship in it that handled similarly to wing commander fighter by mapping the thrusters to my joystick and placing them in a nose array.

Right... either your ship was absurdly light or your thrusters were overpowered so that you could ignore angular momentum... did you bother to model thruster fuel consumption?

So while it's probably as realistic as you can expect from a lot of games with regard to physics, you can easily turn it into a pretty standard flight game if you put your wits to it.

If it's physically accurate, then that will only work if you stick to very low speeds relative to the power of your engines.

[Faqa]

So you missed out point? Starglider and I were having a laugh at absurdly complex games using (reasonably) complex maths where the book-keeping aspect is massively time consuming and easily automatable by computer. However, having a program that is 'the rules' (or even in many games 'the lookup tables') would mean people would simply download it and never buy the developers actual paper products because they instantly became useless aside from art, fluff etc.

Sorry, if you think 'streamlined by computer' == 'play a computer game roffle' you're just an idiot. Even fucking DnD is way, way faster with digital character sheets, RNGs and rules - but this doesn't mean you're playing Neverwinter Nights. It means you can focus on roleplaying and fun instead of tallying blood points or computing angular velocity or whatever. Indeed, it means games like AV:T don't need to have the 'fudge factors' they have with issues like acceleration and thrust which exist SOLELY to keep book-keeping down.

Oh shit, is book-keeping a limiting factor on scale or complexity in boardgames?!?!?!?! If only you could automate these functions!

And yet this evolved from a discussion on whether one could whip up a web-based version of some starship board games.

In this context I pointed out that the face-to-face aspect, among other things, of board games is an advantage for them.

YOU chose to be a dick and interpret this as "Hurr hurr, I am a moron who likes lots of bookkeeping to show off my nerd cred".

For the record, if I were to play a game with such esoteric and irritating figures to track(haven't to date), I would probably have no objection to opening up an Excel sheet or whipping up a script or what-have-you. In essence, on the point you are trying to make, we are in agreement.

Your original statement that prompted both my response and Ace's mentioned that NO ONE WOULD EVER BUY A BOARD GAME IF YOU COULD SIMULATE THE RULES ONLINE.

Reference:

Ha! The obviuos reason why boardgame manufacturers would resist a simple java app that plays their game is because it would instantly put them out of business.

I wasn't contesting whether that's true or false, I was simply pointing out why it might be false.

On that note -

If your board game can easily be turned into computer form, then you're doing it WRONG. One of Twilight Imperium's best attributes, IMO, is the fact that it's cards can break any rule in the game. That's not impossible to simulate on a computer, of course, but the design required puts it a bit beyond a "simple java applet".

Then again you play TI which isn't really that complex (and sucks but anyway

Why does it suck, in your opinion? I so rarely hear anything but praise for TI that I'm curious.

Seriously though, something like the Microsoft Surface would be ideal, and those things will probably be dirt cheap in five years time.

Having Googled this, I can only agree that is basically the ultimate gaming table in some ways. Although I would prefer plastic pieces to put ON the board. Unless we got magic holographic tech to go with it.

I was going to post a reasonable comment on the differences and virtues of boardgames and videogames

Do you recall it? I'd like to hear it.

[Covenant]

I created a ship in it that handled similarly to wing commander fighter by mapping the thrusters to my joystick and placing them in a nose array.

Right... either your ship was absurdly light or your thrusters were overpowered so that you could ignore angular momentum... did you bother to model thruster fuel consumption?

Yeah, it was a tiny little dart--lots of fun to use. It was all properly modelled. It's no secret that a very light vessel with adequate thrusters can zip around pretty well. It's fuel capacity was microscopic, but for my purposes of just buzzing around like a starfighter, it was entirely adequate. Note, I said act like a Wing Commander starfighter. These craft were not known for fast acceleration or high speed combat. The dart was agile, but relatively slow, and had relatively weak acceleration compared to any of the larger ships.

If you wanted to make a 'real combat' game out of this, I'd recommend adding increasing amounts of useless weight from weapons and so forth, to require you to build a boat large enough to yield to newtonian constraits, rather than replicating my little microdart. The AI was pretty brutal using them as well.

[Sarevok]

Faqa Stark is not arguing that boardgames should be replaced by computer versions. Rather he suggests that simple apps that can do the boring number crunching normally done by hand lets you focus on the fun part instead of struggling with formulas, tables and charts.

[Faqa]

Faqa Stark is not arguing that boardgames should be replaced by computer versions. Rather he suggests that simple apps that can do the boring number crunching normally done by hand lets you focus on the fun part instead of struggling with formulas, tables and charts.

I got that part. As I noted in my post, I even agree with him on that part, and have never disputed it.

But that was NOT obvious in the post that caused to me to post here in the first place. I am simply irritated that he chose to go "Bookkeeping, nerd, lolz" in his reply rather than simply explain himself.

[aimless]

I created a ship in it that handled similarly to wing commander fighter by mapping the thrusters to my joystick and placing them in a nose array.

Right... either your ship was absurdly light or your thrusters were overpowered so that you could ignore angular momentum... did you bother to model thruster fuel consumption?

Yeah, it was a tiny little dart--lots of fun to use. It was all properly modelled. It's no secret that a very light vessel with adequate thrusters can zip around pretty well. It's fuel capacity was microscopic, but for my purposes of just buzzing around like a starfighter, it was entirely adequate. Note, I said act like a Wing Commander starfighter. These craft were not known for fast acceleration or high speed combat. The dart was agile, but relatively slow, and had relatively weak acceleration compared to any of the larger ships.

If you wanted to make a 'real combat' game out of this, I'd recommend adding increasing amounts of useless weight from weapons and so forth, to require you to build a boat large enough to yield to newtonian constraits, rather than replicating my little microdart. The AI was pretty brutal using them as well.

How well do you have to make a ship so that it doesn't make the game go all wonky? Just messed around for a tiny bit and whenever I try to use the ship the screen goes black and I can't do anything

[Covenant]

How well do you have to make a ship so that it doesn't make the game go all wonky? Just messed around for a tiny bit and whenever I try to use the ship the screen goes black and I can't do anything

I'm not sure--it's possible the shipfiles are corrupted. I bet there's a faq or a forum.

[Stark]

Whoa, Faqa is so stupid he just said '... cards can break any rule in the game. That's not impossible to simulate on a computer, of course, but the design required puts it a bit beyond a "simple java applet"'.

Are you for real? Honestly. You're even talking about an integer/chit based game for fuck's sake, and you're claiming 'card says do xyz' is even difficult? Jesus fucking christ. It'd be ABSOLUTELY TRIVIAL unless you were fucking stupid enough to make an app designed to perform the rules functions of a game that couldn't actually perform this rules function. Honestly, I think you ARE that stupid.

You're such a patheticly conservative an unimaginate nerd that you honestly think MS Surface would be incompatible with stupid plastic spaceships! The stupidity is literally mind-boggling. It's clearly impossible to put a stupid plastic spaceship on a table with pictures on it, that's for sure.

OH WAIT THAT'S THE ENTIRE BASIS OF TI3.

[Faqa]

Are you for real? Honestly. You're even talking about an integer/chit based game for fuck's sake, and you're claiming 'card says do xyz' is even difficult? Jesus fucking christ. It'd be ABSOLUTELY TRIVIAL unless you were fucking stupid enough to make an app designed to perform the rules functions of a game that couldn't actually perform this rules function. Honestly, I think you ARE that stupid.

Wow. And I thought I was overreacting to you in my previous post. No, you just ARE that much of a fucktard.

The design required would pretty much dictate that everything be modifiable. EVERYTHING. For example, there are simple cards that simply "Give you X cash". But then there are cards such as "Switch between the influence and resource values of a planet", cards that apply before taking damage to a vessel, cards that apply afterwards, cards that come before card selection, cards afterwards....

Again, all doable, not even THAT hard. BUT NOT SIMPLE NOR STRAIGHTFORWARD. And certainly much easier to do when you just have humans reading the cards and doing the actions. Which was kind of my point in my previous post.

You're such a patheticly conservative an unimaginate nerd that you honestly think MS Surface would be incompatible with stupid plastic spaceships! The stupidity is literally mind-boggling. It's clearly impossible to put a stupid plastic spaceship on a table with pictures on it, that's for sure.

Go take a walk off a cliff, you lying little shit. I said that I would "prefer to put plastic spaceships ON the table", when I thought Starglider meant simulating them as part of it. In what fucking world exactly, does that translate into "MS Surface is incompatible with plastic spaceships"?

Oh, right. In Stark-land, where we don't read posts so much as look for keywords to go off about, probably because we are sad little individuals incapable of critical discussion. Fuck you. Anyone can see what I wrote.

[Starglider]

Are you for real? Honestly. You're even talking about an integer/chit based game for fuck's sake, and you're claiming 'card says do xyz' is even difficult? Jesus fucking christ. It'd be ABSOLUTELY TRIVIAL unless you were fucking stupid enough to make an app designed to perform the rules functions of a game that couldn't actually perform this rules function.

To be fair, some games do rely on a significant amount of human judgement to execute the rules (e.g. Magic : The Gathering is chock-full of bizarre corner cases) and programming them would be a real pain. However based on my very limited knowledge of Twilight Imperium, it is not one of these.

Again, all doable, not even THAT hard. BUT NOT SIMPLE NOR STRAIGHTFORWARD. And certainly much easier to do when you just have humans reading the cards and doing the actions. Which was kind of my point in my previous post.

Anyone who passed their freshman year of computer science should be able to code that kind of thing - although a bad programmer will make a huge horrible buggy mess of 'if' statements to handle everything, instead of a suitably generic engine. Decent enemy AI is much harder but is a 'luxury feature' in this context.

I said that I would "prefer to put plastic spaceships ON the table", when I thought Starglider meant simulating them as part of it. In what fucking world exactly, does that translate into "MS Surface is incompatible with plastic spaceships"?

Ideally you'd want to be able to do both, so that you can have big games that need more ships than you have models for, and so that new players can download a trial version that doesn't need the models etc. As Stark pointed out, this can be a problem for gaming companies if they think a significant fraction of players aren't actually that fond of models, and would play without them if they could to save money (and/or time).

In any case playing on an active display would be a big help for AV:T, since it could display the possibly movement vector cones for each ship, validate your moves, keep track of damage and z position as little displays next to the model etc. Even for WH40K, imagine having weapon and movement ranges instantly displayed as concentric circles around any model you touch; then you'd touch your desired targets, results of the shooting would be calculated, and killed units would be marked with a cross for removal. I wish I'd had that when I was in my teens because it would've made our epic battles go about twice as fast.

I'd also note that gaming with modern videoconferencing (e.g. playing Wesnoth with Skype running on the other monitor) still isn't as nice as being in the same room, but it's good to have as an option when that isn't possible, and it's a lot better than just text chat.

[Faqa]

To be fair, some games do rely on a significant amount of human judgement to execute the rules (e.g. Magic : The Gathering is chock-full of bizarre corner cases) and programming them would be a real pain. However based on my very limited knowledge of Twilight Imperium, it is not one of these.

I enumerated several instance above, and there are a LOT more. For another example, there's a card that allows fleets to pass through hexes populated by other fleets. Not that that would exactly be hard, in and of itself, but I'm trying to make the point that every rule can be broken by a card, thus the need to make the rules flexible.

Anyone who passed their freshman year of computer science should be able to code that kind of thing - although a bad programmer will make a huge horrible buggy mess of 'if' statements to handle everything, instead of a suitably generic engine.

Trying to code TI with 'if' statements would result in spaghetti code sufficient to feed an Italian family for a year. Seriously.

I agree that anyone with a basic grasp of proper design should be able to do it, though. Like I said, doable, but not simple.

Ideally you'd want to be able to do both, so that you can have big games that need more ships than you have models for, and so that new players can download a trial version that doesn't need the models etc.

Essentially, the only real problem I see with ships as part of the surface is that if a certain area is cluttered with ships, trying to get a specific one would be a pain unless the user interface was really delicate.

If the Surface really takes off in the gaming market, I imagine plastic pieces will become more of "bonus for nerds" thing than an intristic part of the game(not that this means they'll die out - Munchkin still makes plenty of money off selling D10s for their game, despite the fact that all you really need is pen and paper).

Although I maintain that rule flexibility is still one great advantage of a physical set.

I'd also note that gaming with modern videoconferencing (e.g. playing Wesnoth with Skype running on the other monitor) still isn't as nice as being in the same room, but it's good to have as an option when that isn't possible, and it's a lot better than just text chat.

Interesting idea. Still wouldn't really simulate table talk, but it would be a start.

[Starglider]

I'd also note that gaming with modern videoconferencing (e.g. playing Wesnoth with Skype running on the other monitor) still isn't as nice as being in the same room, but it's good to have as an option when that isn't possible, and it's a lot better than just text chat.

Interesting idea. Still wouldn't really simulate table talk, but it would be a start.

One good thing about playing online; you don't have to go off into a side room to discuss confidential strategy with your allies. This is even more useful in multi-versus games with diplomacy, as it means that other players don't even know who you're talking to, whereas in person even if you pass notes others at the table will know something is going on.

[Faqa]

I'd also note that gaming with modern videoconferencing (e.g. playing Wesnoth with Skype running on the other monitor) still isn't as nice as being in the same room, but it's good to have as an option when that isn't possible, and it's a lot better than just text chat.

Interesting idea. Still wouldn't really simulate table talk, but it would be a start.

One good thing about playing online; you don't have to go off into a side room to discuss confidential strategy with your allies. This is even more useful in multi-versus games with diplomacy, as it means that other players don't even know who you're talking to, whereas in person even if you pass notes others at the table will know something is going on.

True on one level. On another level, I find that part of the fun of the diplomacy part is that your ally is seen talking to another player confidentially... and what are they saying? Is he offering him a reward to betray you? Is there a plot against you? It helps tension when it's all in the same room.

[Oskuro]

*blissfully ignores the boardgame discussion*

On the issue of realistic space sims, what I felt made Space Combat unwieldy, from a gameplay perspective, was the whole stability issue, or, in other words, how horribly easy it is to start spinning like crazy when there's no air to slow you down.

The game offers a fuel-intensive autostabilizer, though, wich brings me to my question.

I'd like to ask the gameplay and realism buffs here something: How far would it be acceptable (in your opinion) for an space-sim game to enhance gameplay (via autostabilizers and similar helpers) before it ceases to be a realistic simulation? From a gameplay design perspective, I'm partial to having an accurate physical simulation, but an interface with simplified operations for players to manage. I mean, there's no need for a player to establish orbit manually when you can just hit an autopilot button to perform it for you (unless the player wants to go into manual mode).

[aimless]

*blissfully ignores the boardgame discussion*

On the issue of realistic space sims, what I felt made Space Combat unwieldy, from a gameplay perspective, was the whole stability issue, or, in other words, how horribly easy it is to start spinning like crazy when there's no air to slow you down.

The game offers a fuel-intensive autostabilizer, though, wich brings me to my question.

I'd like to ask the gameplay and realism buffs here something: How far would it be acceptable (in your opinion) for an space-sim game to enhance gameplay (via autostabilizers and similar helpers) before it ceases to be a realistic simulation? From a gameplay design perspective, I'm partial to having an accurate physical simulation, but an interface with simplified operations for players to manage. I mean, there's no need for a player to establish orbit manually when you can just hit an autopilot button to perform it for you (unless the player wants to go into manual mode).

The funny thing is that simplified gameplay and realism don't even have to be at odds! Actual spaceflight is going to get progressively more automated. (if you wanted to take realism to the furthest possible degree, small fighter craft probably wouldn't exist, or at least wouldn't be manned).

So as you said of course the underlying physics should be done correctly. Interface helpers would be realistic only as far as they'd actually be useful to an expert pilot who has trained for years. Spin autostabilizers: after playing Space Combat I think I can safely say those would be in included. Autostabilizers that make your ship fly like an airplane (ala Freelancer) would definitely not be, since I get the impression that someone who has mastered Newtonian dogfighting would dismantle a space airplane.

Then you have a plethora of autopilot convenience stuff like getting into orbit that would almost certainly be implemented in real ships. More advanced AI tasks would only be limited by the technical limitations of the age. So really in the this department you could put in whatever you felt was good for gameplay, because in the future it probably would have been invented. And even if automated gun tracking would have been invented, you're sure as hell going to handwave that out of existence