PDA

View Full Version : 40k as a computer game



Erwos
19-12-2005, 11:33
Anyone ever seen 40k implemented as a computer game? I'm giving it a try myself, and I must conclude that GW has made some of the most complicated play mechanics ever. I'm not new at this sort of thing - I implemented a reasonably large subset of D20 into another game I was working on. 40k is just huge.

The problem is that it seems like GW likes to toss in weird special rules as frequently as possible. Take "artillery", eg rapiers, for example - sounds great on paper, but it adds huge amounts of complexity to the shooting phase. This is not to mention squad positioning, which is nearly arbitrary in some respects - I simplified it down to "the center of your squad is the base point for all distance measurements", which may or may not have been a bad compromise - we'll see. Factor in template effects and the like, and, ick, it's like it never gets better.

Sorry for the rant, but it's becoming fairly obvious to me why no one's ever faithfully translated 40k to the computer screen...

-Erwos

Kimi
19-12-2005, 13:37
I've got no idea on how to program anything higher up tham making my calculator play tetris, so I've go no idea on how hard it is to do.

From just thinking about it, it will have to be based on vectors. Have point (0,0,0) as one corner of the board and work out. It would be easy to make a table to play on of any size, and all tarrain could be done just as easy. It's not really too hard to work that out. Random Number Generator for dice is easy. All the rules can be done on validation checks if they broken down, it'll just take time.

The squads could be done by selecting them, then moving each guy. They'll all be given a range of 6, would be the magnitude of a vector. Then once all the guys are moved, use some validation to see it they're in a legal position.

That would work for multi player, but you'd have to make some AI to play against you if there was no one else.

Griefbringer
19-12-2005, 13:45
Sorry for the rant, but it's becoming fairly obvious to me why no one's ever faithfully translated 40k to the computer screen...


Well, it is rather questionable whether there is really any point in faithfully translating the mechanisms of any miniature game into a computer game - the two genres have rather different strenght and weaknesses.

SuperBeast
19-12-2005, 13:49
After Dawn of War, does anyone need to translate an exact copy of 40K?

The one to watch will be Warhammer: Mark of Chaos.
Apparently, the developers have converted the rule-book mechanics to real-time.

dugaal
19-12-2005, 14:04
Wow. ive been toying around with the same thing, although its taking a backseat to all my actual coding assignments. I had a similiar location model; squad class had its vector location, while units linked to it had a coordinate offset from that. I found that it was equally easy to just give units their own x and y vals when it came time for squad movement, and selecting hth targets. and with the multitude of special rules... just requires alot of aptly placed condition blocks (im trying to get vanilla mechanics down before I start with unique stuff though) and yea, vectors are definitely the way to go.

Id be wary of what you would do with a finished project however, as the GW rules are copyrighted, and even if you freely distributed it, you might still encounter 'problems'.
Im sure there is good reason past video games didnt accurately mimic the ruleset. Either, as you say, its not practical for a fun computer wargame, or there are fears that "people might not play the mini game". As quick and dirty simulator it has its benefits though.

[edit] started posting before SuperBeast, but thats interesting that wfb will be ported accurately, that game is looking phenominal

Gecko
19-12-2005, 14:17
i think something like this would be invaluable. then it would give us a medium to test our random one off lists (*cough*eldar armoured company*cough*) and see if it is possible to lift the list off the page before committing to the army or having some outragous proxy game with a friend.

getupandgo
19-12-2005, 16:40
I think you'd be able to make a 40k mod for Close Combat 2 with a bit of work.. seems like the perfect engine for it.

Zabuza
19-12-2005, 16:45
I agree with Superbeast, keep an eye on "Mark of Chaos." From what I've seen, the developers have hit the nail on the head.

Griefbringer
19-12-2005, 18:41
Id be wary of what you would do with a finished project however, as the GW rules are copyrighted, and even if you freely distributed it, you might still encounter 'problems'.

There is no copyright on rule mechanisms, only on their particular written formulation.

However, if you add in all the GW units with their proper names (and if you call the game anything resembling Warhammer 40000), then there becomes the issue of trademarks, which is a whole different boat of trouble.

bnf
19-12-2005, 19:05
After Dawn of War, does anyone need to translate an exact copy of 40K?

I love Dawn of War and play it a lot, but it has very little to do with the 40k rules.
I'd buy a turn based 40k simulation.

Cheitan Shadowless
19-12-2005, 19:31
I love Dawn of War and play it a lot, but it has very little to do with the 40k rules.
I'd buy a turn based 40k simulation.Chaos Gate GET. :D

damz451
19-12-2005, 20:20
i'd try and make it using a similar concept as megamek is for battletech, it works pretty well and is faithful to battletech

Erwos
19-12-2005, 21:56
From just thinking about it, it will have to be based on vectors. Have point (0,0,0) as one corner of the board and work out. It would be easy to make a table to play on of any size, and all tarrain could be done just as easy. It's not really too hard to work that out. Random Number Generator for dice is easy. All the rules can be done on validation checks if they broken down, it'll just take time.

The squads could be done by selecting them, then moving each guy. They'll all be given a range of 6, would be the magnitude of a vector. Then once all the guys are moved, use some validation to see it they're in a legal position.
You could certainly do it like that - but at the end of the day, is moving around _every model_ one by one really going to make a big difference to anyone or even be fun, verus using some sort of squad formation mechanic? It struck me that the best compromise was allowing a player to specify how far apart each squad member was (0-2 inches) and in what rough formation they were in to calculate the area taken up by the unit (note to self: make provisions for multiple base sizes).

And, frankly, moving every damn model is one of my least favorite parts of 40k. I don't think it would be much better on a computer screen.

As for all the other suggestions, those are new games with a 40k theme. I've been trying to actually reproduce the turn-based original :). Mark of Chaos is apparently real-time, which means that they're not actually reproducing WFB. Dawn of War is a fun game, but again, mechanics are absolutely nothing like 40k.

I agree that trademarks are a big issue, but I have a way to work around that, too. For now, though, just reproducing the game (which isn't such a trademark minefield) is enough for me.

-Erwos

EmperorsChamp01
19-12-2005, 23:20
Theres Chaos Gate and Rites of War. They are both Turn Based games and capture the Feel of 40k.

boogle
19-12-2005, 23:47
and both are really horrible games

Cadian 21st
19-12-2005, 23:47
I wouldn't mind buying a computer based replica of WH40k. It would certainly help to clarify what order some rules occur in at the same time - there seem to be some discrepencies. Something akin to MTG's (Magic the Gathering) "Apprentice" program would be fine. As long as both players play it fair, it can make games so much easier then trying to get a whole group of people together. As well, there's a number of random combat calculators online that you could use (with permission of course) to figure out the course of events. Throught hat, you'd probably be able to generate the tables required for Armour Penetration. If one of us made one, regardless of how grand the graphics are (if there's anything more then little dots), I'm absolutely sure that there'd be quite a demand for it.

Cadian 21st
19-12-2005, 23:55
Theres Chaos Gate and Rites of War. They are both Turn Based games and capture the Feel of 40k.

- It would never be the same as 40k.


You could certainly...now, though, just reproducing the game (which isn't such a trademark minefield) is enough for me.

- If we could make a squad type system like that used in Sierra's Lords of Magic, I'm sure it would work. The units keep in a squad format (usually 3 in that game), but have a minimum and maximum distance they can wander between. Set the amount to be the equivilant of 1"-2", and you'd be set. Then players would just have to click the squad and click where the squad wants to move and BANG, you're squad will react to the terrain and move with much more fluidity.



After Dawn of War, does anyone need to translate an exact copy of 40K?

- I'd hardly count DoW as 40k. What base building/unit production do you do in 40k, like with DoW? That's SUCH a waste for people who just want a copy of the minature game. Sure, it makes for a good RTS, but is that what we want? I'd perfer to play a "Turn-Based RTS" if you will that follows the same rules and principles of 40k. I'm suprised why GW didn't actually make that. The only hard parts about designing a game like that would be Special Rules/Genomorphs/Doctrines/Army-Variants, and even those usually just affect base stats, which you could set in the "If/When" statements.


I agree with Superbeast, keep an eye on "Mark of Chaos." From what I've seen, the developers have hit the nail on the head.
- I dunno what MoC is, but I'll check it out. Let's hope it's better then DoW.

Icarus
20-12-2005, 00:20
I don't think you'll ever be satisfied. A computer game replica of 40k would be relatively pointless, as people can just play tabletop and get more enjoyment out of it, painting their army etc. It probably wouldn't be a very good computer game either. There was a mod for Dawn of War that let you select an army prior to the match, so cutting out the RTS building stuff. Thats the closest you're likely to get.

Cadian 21st
20-12-2005, 00:58
...but it would be useful for trying out new units, etc, without actually wasting hundreds on a useless tactic.

Erwos
20-12-2005, 03:28
...but it would be useful for trying out new units, etc, without actually wasting hundreds on a useless tactic.
This one of my main reasons for the project. I don't think there's anything that can replace two beautifully painted armies facing off against each other on a good, flocked table with dramatic terrain. However, that sort of scenario doesn't lend itself to rigorous playtesting - getting together a game is pretty difficult, since you've got to both be there in person, and the physical movement involved slows down the game considerably compared to a computer version. It's not a replacement - it's a supplement.

As Cadian21st so well put it, how do I determine whether a unit of CSM bikes or a unit of Raptors is more effective in my particular army, used with my particular play style? The only real way to tell is to give both a whirl - but that would cost at least a hundred dollars if you're a WYSIWYG purist. An accurate, true-to-the-tabletop-version computer game would be the perfect answer to the problem. Hell, an even mostly-accurate version would be helpful.

I'm not sure there's any way around altering some rules, just in terms of making the game usable on a computer. Take, for example, multiple armor saves in a squad. If you kill everyone with the majority armor save, the targeted squad can then start taking wounds on models of the owner's choice. Yet, to speed things up, I make the assumption that they should start being taken on the next armor save majority. It's not a bad assumption per se, and it's probably in the spirit of the rules, but it's still not technically the same as what the 40k rulebook specifies.

-Erwos

Lord Humongous
20-12-2005, 04:11
Just my opinion, but putting the mechanics of 40K into a computer game is not really that great an idea; there's other fine games that work well on computer.

What would be much more fun for me to play with is a computer environment that simulated the table top gaming environment- IE, let me set up terrain, set and move models, measure distances, "roll dice", get nicely rendered views from diffrent angles, and so on. This would not be game specific (it would work for any minature game that you had data files of models for) but there could be "player aids" specific to various games, like say an option that lets you move your models exactly 6 inches if you wish to do so, for 40k.
Whats the point? Well, the obvious thing to do would be to make it networkable, so you could play table top minatures games against anybody who had the program, not just the relatively few folks you can find in your own local area!

Laiden
20-12-2005, 10:31
Wow, the complexity of a 40K game would be insane. Although, I would deffinately be #1 in line, even though I just started playing a week ago :P

Erwos
20-12-2005, 11:17
What would be much more fun for me to play with is a computer environment that simulated the table top gaming environment- IE, let me set up terrain, set and move models, measure distances, "roll dice", get nicely rendered views from diffrent angles, and so on. This would not be game specific (it would work for any minature game that you had data files of models for) but there could be "player aids" specific to various games, like say an option that lets you move your models exactly 6 inches if you wish to do so, for 40k.
Whats the point? Well, the obvious thing to do would be to make it networkable, so you could play table top minatures games against anybody who had the program, not just the relatively few folks you can find in your own local area!
This is also a really fantastic idea :).

-Erwos

Muzzle
20-12-2005, 13:35
Originally Posted by Lord Humongous
What would be much more fun for me to play with is a computer environment that simulated the table top gaming environment- IE, let me set up terrain, set and move models, measure distances, "roll dice", get nicely rendered views from diffrent angles, and so on. This would not be game specific (it would work for any minature game that you had data files of models for) but there could be "player aids" specific to various games, like say an option that lets you move your models exactly 6 inches if you wish to do so, for 40k.
Whats the point? Well, the obvious thing to do would be to make it networkable, so you could play table top minatures games against anybody who had the program, not just the relatively few folks you can find in your own local area!

Hear Hear!

heretic
20-12-2005, 15:50
Rites of War was a HORRIBLE game, and nowhere near the mechanics of the TT game.

Cadian 21st
20-12-2005, 21:18
I'm sure it could be done - the programming is a nightmare, but it wouldn't take too too long. Our group over here might get started on it and see what we come up with - I'm absolutely sure that they'll help out! What better way to try a second army even? If a newplayer were unsure of what to go (say Tau and Necrons), then they could "playtest" them on the computer game, rather then chooses based on what they heard from other people (though the actual power and playability of armies isn't what draws me to them - it's how they look, lol). The only thing I can garuntee you is that the graphics will be absolute crap - maybe nothing better then stick figures 'cause we don't all have 3dMax sitting at home :P

Cadian 21st
20-12-2005, 21:18
I think GW would kill us btw - we'd be cutting into thier sales

philbrad2
20-12-2005, 22:53
and both are really horrible games


I agree they were clumky in mechanics overly involved. They are closer to the tabletop game than DoW but what would you sooner have a straight computerised version of the tabletop game or a strategic game that is based in the 40K universe??? DoW is the (current) pinnacle of 40K computer games and its impact has been huge. 40K and computers have finally met a balance.

:chrome:

heretic
20-12-2005, 22:55
DoW did what other games didn't - get people into the TT hobby (I know of 2 people personally)

the other games, such as Chaos Gate, Firewarrior, and Rites of War were mainly for existing 40kers

Cadian 21st
21-12-2005, 07:43
DoW is the (current) pinnacle of 40K computer games and its impact has been huge. 40K and computers have finally met a balance.


- DoW is the pinnacle of RTS's today. There is NOTHING like it. It pwned Starcraft/Warcraft (which were pinnacles for what, 5 years?). The only RTS I find comparable to it is Shattered Galaxy (Free-to-play at http://www.sgalaxy.com - They nailed the Squad and Weapon Customizability IMO, though it's not a 40k game).
- You're quite right that they've met a balance, but there still should be that installment for the "little 9-year old with 3 weeks allowance" who played DoW, loved it, but can't afford the hobby. This would give him more of a "taste" of the gameplay, without breaking his bank. True, it's not the same, but who said it was? It's just a supplement to 40k, and I doubt it'd ever sell very much. I may well take this task up sometime next month.


DoW did what other games didn't - get people into the TT hobby (I know of 2 people personally)

the other games, such as Chaos Gate, Firewarrior, and Rites of War were mainly for existing 40kers
- Exactly...though the games sucked altogether and weren't quite what I was looking for.
Rites of War - They tried being more TTish then DoW, but ended up too RTS still.
Firewarrior - A bad FPS-comparative to all the other FPS's out there. Hopefully Call of Duty 2 will rival Counterstrike's dominance, but I doubt it, lol. Nevertheless, FW was doomed before it hit the racks.
Chaos Gate - I haven't actually played it yet, and I doubt I ever will. It looks the same as RoW and DoW, but older. :p

Xander-K
21-12-2005, 08:11
DoW isn't the pinnacle of anything... its good yes, but not that great IMO. If you want a game with more strategy and thinking then get Medieval: Total War (not Rome).

If you want a game that is more fun? well get Starcraft, or even Emperor: Battle for Dune - both of these are much more balanced than DoW if you ask me, and allow for more varied combinations to attack with.

DoW has the edge in graphics, that is all.

philbrad2
21-12-2005, 14:56
I agree with your thoughts on RTS games, DoW isn't the be all and end all. I still love C&C. However its the best RTS 40K offering in the genre and in closeness to what goes on on the tabletop. Its a lot more representative of the tabletop game than say Firewarrior (urggggh) or the likes of Chaos Gate or Rites of War. Which to be fair, considering the age of CG/RoW they were of a comparitive programming/gaming level to other games of the genre when released to what DoW/WA is today.

:chrome:

Tiberius Frost
21-12-2005, 15:53
[QUOTE=Cadian 21st there still should be that installment for the "little 9-year old with 3 weeks allowance" who played DoW, loved it, but can't afford the hobby. [/QUOTE]

Well, to be honest, all you need to play 40k is a tape measure, a table a bucket of dice and a bunch of plastic counters to represent models. You can fill in the gaps with real models as you go.

And I thought it was standard practice to proxy a unit that you were planning to buy before you got it?

Icarus
21-12-2005, 17:35
If you want a game that is more fun? well get Starcraft, or even Emperor: Battle for Dune - both of these are much more balanced than DoW if you ask me, and allow for more varied combinations to attack with.

DoW has the edge in graphics, that is all.

I'd strongly disagree. DoW does something which no previous strategy game had achieved, by making expansion essential to victory. I loved games like Starcraft but they are basically about who can collect resources faster. In multiplayer terms that starts to wear thin. On the other hand Dawn of War takes away the normally resource turtling and forces players to think about how they are going to control the board. I wouldn't say its a fantastic game, but its a pretty good one, with some genuinely innovative concepts. They could have made C&C set in the 40k universe, but instead they chose to raise the bar, and im glad they did.

And I hate this term 'balance' that keeps cropping up with regards to both PC games and the tabletop. Balance is vanilla. Its boring. If two sides are totally balanced, they lack flavour, they lose style. I prefer a strategy game with realistic differences between armies, not a dumbed down approach.

Xander-K
21-12-2005, 18:55
I wouldn't say its a fantastic game, but its a pretty good one, with some genuinely innovative concepts.

there is nothing innovative about DoW, you get certain checkpoints where you get your resources from, just like any other rts the only difference being the amount of resource points and how fast you can get them. Even this isn't new, there have been several RTS' that use this system of resource collecting.


And I hate this term 'balance' that keeps cropping up with regards to both PC games and the tabletop. Balance is vanilla. Its boring. If two sides are totally balanced, they lack flavour, they lose style. I prefer a strategy game with realistic differences between armies, not a dumbed down approach.
you completely misunderstand the term balance in that case, by balance I mean there is no one faction that is completely dominant over the other, they all have very varied strengths and weakness' but there are no single units that will own the battlefield.

heretic
21-12-2005, 20:30
what I dislike about DoW is the resource system, instead of maybe using the TT points system. No reinforcements, and stuck with the slot choices.. it'd make it harder to play.

highlight for a DoW spoiler

I beat the game by sacrificing a few dreads while I bombarded the DP from space which I would never have done on the TT

Follow
21-12-2005, 22:06
First to the legal issues: If you're not making any money at this and distributing your game freely, then GW has no issue. However, if they can prove that distribution of that game is harmful to their business even though you are making no money; they can make an issue. I think they can prove the latter, but more on that later.

Second, DoW is a cool game, but has nothing to do with 40K besides the names of stuff contained in the game. It could have just as easily been another Starcraft and we wouldn't have known the difference at all. I didn't like Rites of War at all, and being an Eldar player at the time when it came out; I was very annoyed by it. And Chaos Gate, while it is the best translation of 40K to tabletop is really nothing more than X-Com with different skins. I still play Chaos Gate now and then; I really like that game. There was also another game that was done on Epic scale whose name for some reason escapes me, but it was something of a mix between Chaos Gate and DoW. That was a decent game too, though really really buggy.

In reality, it would be comparably simple to just transfer the TT game straight to the PC. The other games they've made have been MUCH more complex than that. So why haven't they done it? My assumption is that GW doesn't want their customers sitting at home on a video game instead of going out and buying their products and playing at gaming stores. If they made a 100% accurate version of the game with all of the armies available on the PC; it has the potential to destroy their business and relegate them to game development only. I mean, if I could get a game of 40K anytime I wanted on terrain I could customize any way I wanted, with people from all over the world and use any army I want without paying money and painting them; I would have no reason to go to the hobby store at all. I really hate doing all of the other things involved in the hobby; I just like to play the game! ;)

So to go back to what I said earlier, if I'm right on the reasons that GW hasn't already done this themselves; they will probably be able to prove that you are harming their business even though you're not making money from your product. If they can prove harm to the business, then you will be shut down by them.

But I've been waiting for something like this for 10 years; so best of luck to you in making this happen! :D




Follow :)

Rogue428
22-12-2005, 09:02
What would be much more fun for me to play with is a computer environment that simulated the table top gaming environment- IE, let me set up terrain, set and move models, measure distances, "roll dice", get nicely rendered views from diffrent angles, and so on. This would not be game specific (it would work for any minature game that you had data files of models for) but there could be "player aids" specific to various games, like say an option that lets you move your models exactly 6 inches if you wish to do so, for 40k.
Whats the point? Well, the obvious thing to do would be to make it networkable, so you could play table top minatures games against anybody who had the program, not just the relatively few folks you can find in your own local area!


Okay. You REALLY REALLY want to look into a little independent Java application called Little Cyber Wars. It is simply a Tabletop Simulator...as in, it simulates a tabletop and gives you a tape measure. You make the terrain as sprites in photoshop or whatever, you make the minis...and play.

My out-of-state friends and I have had a blast playing 40K, we load up LCW and Teamspeak (LCW includes a chat prog, but its easier to talk) and play 40K....difference is that all the minis and tabletop are virtual.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/littlecyberwars/

This is a screenshot taken from a 1000 point game of Eldar vs Daemonhunters.

Link here for the picture (Warning...it is big!)
http://www.apocprod.com/images/Pictures%20for%20Posts/Turn%205.jpg

If anyone is interested. I have a pre-set scenario I made for 40K that doesn't have any units, but comes with background terrain, moveable terrain (hills, forests, ruins etc.), templates, and status markers. Just add your units and you're ready to go. (I don't remember if I included Proxy markers or not....but that would be easy to add...in fact, I think I'll do that after this post.... just add some troop bases, termi bases, and large round bases.)

Hope that helps.. the learning curve is a little steep, but overall it is very easy to use once the scenario is built. i should also add that all of us are avid TT players, but this helps because we're out-of-state from one another and we'd never get to play otherwise.

mujadaddy
23-12-2005, 02:18
Nobody gives any love to Space Hulk? :D

Corn Berserker
23-12-2005, 11:46
I think the original Ground Control would be the perfect game which to base a new 40k game or even just a mod. The graphics engine may be old but there's still never been a prettier sight on a strategy game than watching heavy tanks rolling across the sand with the camera tracking along next to the wheels in GC. The game had squad tactics nailed perfectly, tanks had different armour values at different angles, a perfect control/camera system, terrain that made a tactical difference and there's no base building rubbish.

It may not be entirely faithful to the table top rules but it would be bloody cool anyway.

Follow
23-12-2005, 20:07
Nobody gives any love to Space Hulk? :D

There was an old DOS based Space Hulk game that was made for the 486 back in the day. Oh what fun it was for its day, and Assault Cannons killed Genestealers like they were paper. :D




Follow :)

Xander-K
23-12-2005, 21:00
yes, yes they did, although the best weapon by far on that game was the flamer, you could fill a whole corridor almost with flame and the genestealers just ran into it :)

Follow
23-12-2005, 21:26
yes, yes they did, although the best weapon by far on that game was the flamer, you could fill a whole corridor almost with flame and the genestealers just ran into it :)

I'd forgotten about the flamer, it's been years since I played that game. :)




Follow :)

WLBjork
23-12-2005, 22:33
Computer games set in the 40K universe:

Space Crusade (Board game conversion)
Space Hulk ((Board game coversion?)
Space Hulk: Vengeance of the Blood Angels (FPS/strategy)
Final Liberation (Epic, and IMO the second best 40K game written to date)
Rites of War (uses the 5-Star Generals engine, nothing like the TT game)
Chaos Gate (X-Com-esque)
Fire Warrior (the abomination)
Dawn of War (the best to date, one of the top 5 RTS titles).


Over time, GW have come to the conclusion that if you're going to put the games onto the computer you might as well take advantage of this. Real Time and First Person are prime examples of how this can be done. Another excellent example is to add physics effects (although I'd look at Source/Havok rather than what went into DoW!).

Sildani
24-12-2005, 15:38
Erm, I may well incur wrath, but I'd love to see 40K translated to, say, the PSP, using Final Fantasy Tactics mechanics. Select a unit, and its range of movement appears: so many grid squares. Select its destination, and off it goes. Easy for vehicles and single models. Squads, just get them there, then choose a formation. Or move them into a formation yourself. The grid system would simplify programming, and make the game more accessible to new players, while not stifling maneuvering.

Why PSP? It has a lovely screen, enough graphic muscle to make some very nice 3-D models, and it's portable, so you could get your 40K on anywhere. Give us "silver" models, and include a basic paint program for our custom armies, as well. I'd be very happy.

mujadaddy
24-12-2005, 22:26
You've got my vote Sildani... Now get-to-programming!! :D

Erwos
28-12-2005, 03:20
Quick question: you're all aware of the rule that if the number of wounds is greater than the squad size, the shooter can pick a model to be "singled out" for a single save from a weapon of the shot player's choosing.

What heuristic do you guys use to choose the "singled out" model and weapon?

-Erwos

Erwos
28-12-2005, 03:29
First to the legal issues: If you're not making any money at this and distributing your game freely, then GW has no issue. However, if they can prove that distribution of that game is harmful to their business even though you are making no money; they can make an issue. I think they can prove the latter, but more on that later.

Again, this only applies if I distribute something that uses their trademarks or copyrights. It's pretty well-established that game mechanics are not protected. I've been involved with D20 for quite a while - I know how this works.

In any event, you're kind of wrong - GW _must_ come after me in some fashion to protect their trademarks, regardless of whether I'm harming them or not.


In reality, it would be comparably simple to just transfer the TT game straight to the PC. The other games they've made have been MUCH more complex than that.

You're joking, right? The _basic_ mechanics of the tabletop game are trivial to implement. Actually implementing the corner cases (mixed armor comes to mind immediately) is a nightmare. Have you ever tried doing this, or are you just guessing? And, frankly, the mechanics in DoW and Chaos Gate were mathematically simple, because the game devs had the option of _not_ putting in so many rules that only make sense when you can physically roll dice together (ie, a for/while loop is not at all the same).

-Erwos

Lord Dante
28-12-2005, 05:00
Well im a 3D application prog and general 3D artist ninja. did lots of work on various DOW mods.

Taking the table top to PC game isnt that tricky - its lot easier then starting from scratch.
As long as your engine allows you to stick stats into it, ie an indvidual minis stats, it shouldnt be that hard. Ive consideed the project myself quite a few times.

Instead of going all 3D to start, just do an overhead map with symbols to represent differenct models. that keeps it very simple. work on each phase...
the more I think about it, the easier I think it is to do.

As for what I dream of - I just want a 40K MMO, that would be cool.

Adept
28-12-2005, 06:09
Apparently, the developers have converted the rule-book mechanics to real-time.

Wouldn't have been much work. The Total War team did most of it already.

Erwos
28-12-2005, 13:16
Instead of going all 3D to start, just do an overhead map with symbols to represent differenct models. that keeps it very simple. work on each phase...
the more I think about it, the easier I think it is to do.
I'm hoping to include multiple rendering backends - one for 3D, one for 2D, and one for what you've just described (roughly - I personally call it "battle report" style). Fancy graphics are really not the focus of my little project, though.

-Erwos

Follow
28-12-2005, 18:28
Again, this only applies if I distribute something that uses their trademarks or copyrights. It's pretty well-established that game mechanics are not protected. I've been involved with D20 for quite a while - I know how this works.

In any event, you're kind of wrong - GW _must_ come after me in some fashion to protect their trademarks, regardless of whether I'm harming them or not.

First of all, the name of the thread is "40k as a computer game." To me, this implies you're planning to use trademarks and copyrights, which is not illegal on its own. Using them to make a profit is what is illegal, not reproducing them, or causing harm to their business. In any case, the choice of what you do with the information and how much of it you believe or care to believe is up to you, I'm just providing a heads up.

If you believe that making a game based on their system because there doesn't happen to be a patent on it and not using their trademarks regardless of harm to their business is legal and kosher, you're going to be in for a rude awakening. I wasn't trying to be rude when I replied to this thread, nor am I trying to now. My only purpose here was to warn you against possible outcomes so you might think about them before proceeding too far and finding yourself in possible legal trouble, or at the very least having all of your effort wasted.



You're joking, right? The _basic_ mechanics of the tabletop game are trivial to implement. Actually implementing the corner cases (mixed armor comes to mind immediately) is a nightmare. Have you ever tried doing this, or are you just guessing? And, frankly, the mechanics in DoW and Chaos Gate were mathematically simple, because the game devs had the option of _not_ putting in so many rules that only make sense when you can physically roll dice together (ie, a for/while loop is not at all the same).

-Erwos

Seriously, why is it that anytime I discuss technology issues with programmers or other technologically inclined people and that discussion happens to be even construed as critical (which it wasn't btw), they jump all over this "you don't know anything" kick. I don't particularly care what you think I don't know or how stupid you might perceive me to be, it doesn't concern me in the slightest. But, the basic game mechanics of 40k are certainly *not* complex in programming terms. I've been working in technology as long as I've been working at all, which is about a decade now. Take a simple system from something like X-Com and modify it to fit properly.

In any case, I'm not going to get into a drawn out discussion about the ease of programming in comparison to other games out there, even some endorsed by Games Workshop themselves. Suffice to say that I am of the opinion that if they wanted this sort of game produced, they would have produced it long ago. The fact that it isn't produced is a testament to the fact that they don't.




Follow :)

skyfyre
28-12-2005, 21:56
I believe GW didn't make a game like this because they are afraid it would draw players away from the tabletop game to play the computer game, and be less profitable for them overall. Here are the cons. The computer game is maybe 60$ retail, maybe with a 10 to 15$ fee at most per month to play online. This is pretty standard for most mmorpgs so in order to be competitive, they'd probably have to stick around those prices. However GW wouldn't get the lions share of that money. A lot of that would have to go to the third party group who wrote the actual game for them and the publisher who will most likely have a stake in the game as well. Someone would also have to pay the bill for the development costs, and that can be a really costly and time consuming task in and of itself. The flip side of this though is that for every player who quits the tt game to play the pc game, that's 100% loss from their bottom line, not the developers or the producers.

Compared to how much they can potentially rake in when they have retail items like 10$ wraithguard, 35$ landspeeders and 45$ books, I'm sure they'd be really scared to make an honest, true port to the pc or xbox or whatever platform is hot at the time.

The problem is they are ignoring the fact that they could reach a new audience of players that is so much bigger than the small but dedicated tabletop game audience. The player base for video games in general HAS to be exponentially bigger than the player base for 40k. I mean come on, WOW has like 4 million simultaneous subscribers right now??? ANYONE who is into Worlds of Warcraft could just as easily enjoy a 40k based strategy game. How many players are there in the world that play 40k tabletop, and how many are actually buying a significant number of models right now by comparison? Isn't DOW proof that the 40k brand is good enough to be a roaring success even without a direct table top port? If someone has a DOW sales number I'd love to see it, I'm sure it's huge with the number of awards it got.

It Just seems like GW isn't getting with the times to me. They have a kick ass brand, a built in die-hard following, awesome fluff, an overall asthetic that is just wicked, and an extremely solid game overall. I've been playing 40k on and off since Rogue Trader and have to say in spite of the insane real life monetary cost, it's always been a very innovative, very deep, high quality game.

It does sadden me that they aren't looking around at the rest of the world to see what else can be done. Had they followed along with what other games like Magic The Gathering have done by combining online and real life qualities of games like this, they could easily make a killing and the 40k audience would go from thousands to millions.

I played MTG online for years, but never once stopped buying real life cards to play with my friends. And most of my friends did the exact same thing! GW should really, really learn from this...

Xander-K
28-12-2005, 22:10
they wouldn't be making a mmorpg...read the rest of the thread before you jump in.

Follow
28-12-2005, 22:23
they wouldn't be making a mmorpg...read the rest of the thread before you jump in.

I think he was using the MMO as a point of comparison rather than a literal example. I for one think Sky is right on point here. I'm not sure how the numbers pan out, but I would assume that on average, people do not spend even so much as $10 per month on 40K if they're a casual gamer.

There are other factors to consider though, such as the game losing novelty and subscriber base, etc. On the other side of that issue is the fact that after the initial novelty of the game goes away, the TT players will still be TT players.

The question on whether or not the game would make money though relies solely on the whether the attrition after the initial shock of the game will be greater than the gains from it. As of now, that question is nothing but a large and very risky question mark. GW, while in many ways similar to Magic cannot take their example because their hobby requires more dedication. A normal player can walk into Magic with $10 and be ready to play, a further $100 or so will put said player on par with most others and make them formidable. Also, a player has no problems walking away from said commitment since it isn't terribly expensive to begin with, even though they can't recover their investment. With GW though, $100 gets you nothing, so the commitment is a much larger one with expense as well as time involved. It's on par with Magic with how easy it is to walk away from because investments can be mostly recovered with miniature figures, they don't really depreciate.

So GW can only look at their position as very fragile and risks like making a video game do not look worthwhile for these reasons. Although, GW had better do something and start taking some risks if they don't want to drown soon. ;)




Follow :)

Xander-K
28-12-2005, 23:29
I think he was using the MMO as a point of comparison rather than a literal example. I for one think Sky is right on point here. I'm not sure how the numbers pan out, but I would assume that on average, people do not spend even so much as $10 per month on 40K if they're a casual gamer.

yeah it was a bad example, he was noting the cost of 40k if it was a mmorpg and the monthly subscriptions.

This thread is about making it a strategy game which never has monthly fees over the net, so his ideas of profit for GW would not fit in.

If they made a strategy game with decent enough graphics and game engine as close to tabletop stats, they would lose a lot of money over time.

As for GW taking risks, I think that isn't even a question, they can keep on selling miniatures and people will keep buying because they are a collectors item. All they need to do is update a few codices add few campaigns here and there and the interest in the game won't die.

skyfyre
28-12-2005, 23:35
they wouldn't be making a mmorpg...read the rest of the thread before you jump in.

My intent was to use WOW and MTG online as examples to support the argument that there's a much bigger overall audience and more money to be made in video games in general than there is in tabletop strategy games. Also, there's nothing that says only MMORPGs can have a monthly subscription attached to them. I'd pay 10 or 15$ a month to play a 40k tabletop port to the PC, and I think a lot of people probably would as well.

I think that if GW even managed to capture a mere tenth of what WOW accomplished as far as the number of people who buy/play the game online, it would be a very very profitable venture that would end up expanding their market overal by a large margin and generating more interest in their products, as opposed to shrinking it.

They are only thinking in terms of what they have to lose, and not in what they have to gain imo.

Leksunaattori
29-12-2005, 18:46
After playing Down of War and Winter Assault, I can say, that the Relic has done good job. Almost everything in the games is brilliant, and the aren't any big mistakes. The most enjoyable thing is the style of the playing: you just can't sit down and shoot everything. If you want to win games, you must rush hard, and conquer more and more the map. That makes the game interesting, unlike most of the RPGs, where you just hide the whole game and build a mass army. Other good point in the DoW, is army painter, say no to generic colour themes!

-Leo

Xander-K
29-12-2005, 18:53
I'd pay 10 or 15$ a month to play a 40k tabletop port to the PC, and I think a lot of people probably would as well.

you my friend, are insane. The day they start charging for online strategy gaming is the day I destroy my p.c.

Follow
29-12-2005, 21:03
$10 or $15 a month to have access to any army I wanted in a battle.net style arena with 40k rules where I don't have to pay money for codices and stats were tracked, and best of all....no painting or modelling involved. I would definitely pay for that until the day the game died!

Although, I might be in the minority on that. ;)




Follow :)

Cadian 21st
30-12-2005, 19:01
- Hmmm, maybe go a way like Magic (the Gathering) Online. There's the little offshoot program, Apprentice (found all over the place). The only differences are 1. Graphics, 2. The rules aren't already set as prompts - most of the game is based on player's honesty (as you state in the chat for phases, etc, etc, etc). That "Little Cyber Wars" looks like it'll work. I'm trying to get a 40k setup for that. I'll proly post a link to a 40k image set when I get it done (eventually). This'll work great, IMO, as I moved away from my old gaming group, but still wanna play sometimes with them. We'll see if this works....MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Balragore
03-01-2006, 04:19
Regarding the OP,
I would *Love* to see it happen. I would definately give it a go, and it shouldn't be anywhere near difficult as long as a few good people got on board with it.

gue'fio'la fio shas
03-01-2006, 08:59
I believe this would work. it would be nice. maybe make it turn based and e-mail capable like age of wonders.

but as people stated there is the problem that GW might clamp on it if people played it instead of buying the little toy soldiers.

however a monthly subscription would work or that you had to 'buy' the model online. probably at a reduced price to expand the demographic. but that would be if GW was running it, not you.