PDA

View Full Version : Computer modelisation



SolkaTruesilver
11-01-2011, 14:46
(Note: I know very well that Games Workshop will probably disallow/curse/hunt down to death any commercial experience of the kind. But maybe there are still existing fanmade software)

While reading the Battle of Terra thread in the background subforum, people heavily emphasized the ludicrousity of trying to reproduce such large endeavour.

I told myself that if there has ever been a computer program made to reproduce the Warhammer 40K game in a 3d rendering, with all the rules hard-coded, coherent unit movements, automatic dice-rolling, distance/scatter automatic, etc.. you could reproduce large-scale battle without having to worry too much about the logistics involved.

hell, you could also stage long-term battles/campaigns over the internet with friends.

Does anyone here ever tried/heard about something like that to have been tried?

Godzooky
11-01-2011, 14:58
(Note: I know very well that Games Workshop will probably disallow/curse/hunt down to death any commercial experience of the kind. But maybe there are still existing fanmade software)

While reading the Battle of Terra thread in the background subforum, people heavily emphasized the ludicrousity of trying to reproduce such large endeavour.

I told myself that if there has ever been a computer program made to reproduce the Warhammer 40K game in a 3d rendering, with all the rules hard-coded, coherent unit movements, automatic dice-rolling, distance/scatter automatic, etc.. you could reproduce large-scale battle without having to worry too much about the logistics involved.

hell, you could also stage long-term battles/campaigns over the internet with friends.

Does anyone here ever tried/heard about something like that to have been tried?

Wouldn't you rather just play Dawn of War in that case? Most people enjoy the hobby because it is so visual and encompasses many different aspects, not just gameplay. Painting and modelling are a huge reason why many people are into this hobby.

Although I appreciate your point about handling large battles more efficiently, conversely you would miss the chance to marvel at swathes of models, superheavies and FW goodies that you get with big games, not to mention the social aspects.

Charax
11-01-2011, 15:03
the Vassal engine provides a great way to play games online. the rules aren't coded, but it's easy to make addon modules that cover lots of things.

wont be pretty (for that use Dawn of War) but it will allow largeish-scale games of 40k online

Charistoph
11-01-2011, 15:16
Even DoW cannot perform the level of complexity that the OP is discussing. Even Epic can only show a small slice on the board. For pc games, Supreme Commander can provide an Epic level of scope, but for the Battle of Terra, you're looking at Civilization or Risk to duplicate it.

SolkaTruesilver
11-01-2011, 15:18
The thing is, I don't want to play Dawn of War.

Dawn of War is a very nice game set in the WH40Kverse, but it isn't the game of Warhammer 40K.

I don't like the fact that you can add more unit to the battle once it begun. I don't like the fact that you have to build up your base. I don't want a classic RTS of "build up and conquer". I want a game of Warhammer 40K that is elegantly played and modelised over the computer.

Now, if they could make a Ground Control (1) mod with WH40K units, that'd be fun. But in the meanwhile, I'm just wondering if anyone ever heard of a nice computer modelisation of the WH40K game, depicted in a somewhat clear and nonclumsy and understandable way (Final Liberation, I'm looking at you)

Gazak Blacktoof
11-01-2011, 15:50
As you said in your opening post, you're not going to get a computer programme running exactly 40K the table top battle game because GW would give those involved an ass kicking.

The closest you'll get to experiencing the siege of terra is probably either playing out key moments as games of EPIC or 40K, or else playing the horus heresy board game.

EDIT: Even you were given a computer programme to deal with the rules, and with the scenario and models set-up, it would take a staggeringly long time to play using 40K rules.

SolkaTruesilver
11-01-2011, 16:13
You'd think, even if the rules are coded to automatically be resolved, it'd take too long?

I mean, example: I have Fire Warriors shooting on a Tactical Marine squad. the computer knows their BS rating, their weapon's S, the Marines' T, and the Armor save involved (if the AP bypass the armor, then the computer would select the best available save).

I select my Fire Warriors during shooting phase. I click on the Tactical Marine squads, and instantly, 3 of the tactical marines turn red, signifying casualties. If I wanted, I could have a window showing me the involved rolls to make sure there are no shennanigans. But in the end, the whole "Fire Warrior shoot Tactical Marines" is resolved in half a second. My Fire Warrior turn grey, showing that their shooting phase is over, I can select another available unit on my board.

You'd think it would take too long?

Gazak Blacktoof
11-01-2011, 18:54
And how many units are involved in the siege of Terra?

The calculations to resolve an action might take a fraction of a second but there's going to be a lot of analysis paralysis with a planet, sky and orbit full of troops, tanks, titans, planes and spaceships.

SolkaTruesilver
11-01-2011, 19:03
For large-scale engagement, I'd probably create some priority macros to move troops not involved in critical engagement. I have to agree, I don't think people want to have to individually move every. single. units.

But it'd be nice to have them individually tracked, just that they could operate independantly from the player until the later decides he wants to administrate them. The point of a large scale engagement over a small scale is that your actions will have a larger impact on the whole, as to a small scale, the engagement is all in all (except in campaigns, but it's generally reflected by simply abstract victory points, etc...) If my soldiers manage to get a hold of Overseeing Tower 3, it might be important to the soldiers fighting 7 kms appart.

I don't necessarely want to have the gameplay be bogged down into a single large-scale megabattle. Just have the small-scale engagements have a direct and non-abstract impact on the whole of the battle.

But I am still puzzled as to how to manage this in an appropriate manner. We'd probably need an elaborated command structure, the way Hearts of Iron 3 has.

intX
11-01-2011, 20:06
What the OP is describing reminds me of Combat Mission: Afrika Korps (http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmak/cmak.html). It is a turn-based multiplayer game that could simulate large engagements as well as skirmish. It was done in a 3d rendered environment as well.

AndrewGPaul
11-01-2011, 22:38
Email Peter Jackson and ask him what sort of computer setup they needed to simulate the battles at Helm's Deep or Gondor. Those battle scenes are basically what you're asking for; AI simulation of each and every individual human, orc and goblin present on the battlefield. Bet it's more processing power than your desktop PC. :)

sigur
11-01-2011, 22:43
I don't quite get what you want? You want a "big battle" and chose the biggest and baddest that everyone jumps at right from the beginning because it's the biggest well-known one? What are your aims in that whole thing?

AndrewGPaul
11-01-2011, 22:45
Another thought is that, if you're using a computer to do all the calculation and simulation, why on earth would you bother using the 40K rules as the simulation engine? Wouldn't you rather get something half-decent?

Charistoph
12-01-2011, 01:11
Email Peter Jackson and ask him what sort of computer setup they needed to simulate the battles at Helm's Deep or Gondor. Those battle scenes are basically what you're asking for; AI simulation of each and every individual human, orc and goblin present on the battlefield. Bet it's more processing power than your desktop PC. :)

Actually, most of the processing power isn't in maneuvering or tracking the position of the units, it processing the graphics in high detail, and all the minutes details such as scarfs, hair, and cloaks fluttering in the wind that take up all the horsepower (hair being the worst, ask Pixar about Sully in Monsters, Inc, or Violet in the Incredibles), not tracking the individual units.

For comparison, get some friends and boot up Supreme Commander and get the biggest land map, and have everyone minimize their graphics settings. Then have them build their bases and just start churning out units, but not attacking everyone until they can't be built any more. Everything will run fine until it has to run the graphics of them running and shooting at each other, then it bogs down, incredibly.

AndrewGPaul
12-01-2011, 08:57
Does Supreme Commander model the actions of 100,000 individual simultaneously?

Charistoph
12-01-2011, 16:17
I don't know the specific number, but it and Solar Empire offer the largest "landscapes" and numbers to field. SC has no standard limit to force size like Warcraft does, but like Command & Conquer is more dependant on the resources to determine the number of units on the field.

SolkaTruesilver
12-01-2011, 17:01
Another thought is that, if you're using a computer to do all the calculation and simulation, why on earth would you bother using the 40K rules as the simulation engine? Wouldn't you rather get something half-decent?

The 40K rules offers, IMHO, a various background and different units to use against each other that can mingle very well both into a large-scale and small scale engagements.

The setting is simply so rich, there is practically nothing you can't do. You could even justify having an army of medieval soldiers fighting hyper-advanced various power armors (Primitive world invaded by the Tau).

But any software that could render this whole gameplay could be easily tweaked around with more interesting rules as the game go, obviously, since you don't have to simplify everything with 1d6 die rolls.

Hell, if you want to really get ambitious, you could always include 2nd edition WH40K. That'd take longer to hard-code than the software itself :evilgrin:

AndrewGPaul
12-01-2011, 21:56
That's not what I asked. The 40K background offers all those things you mention, but that's nothing to do with the rules, is it? A suitably powerful computer simulation can do a vastly better job of simulating combat than any set of traditional wargames rules, and I think using the 40K rules as your simulation engine is a flawed idea.

"Hell, if you want to really get ambitious, you could always include 2nd edition WH40K. That'd take longer to hard-code than the software itself"

Not much better. If for some reason you're wedded to the idea of using a set of GW rules as the engine for your game, why not use the Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch rules?