Re^4: RFC hierarchic modelling documentation

First I should say that my beloved Car Wars implementation feels a bit irrelevant, now. :-) I did most of it and started making a real lib out of this instead. This is a hobby that I lost control over and took time off to finish.

computer game called AutoDuel, which was based on the same ruleset.

I haven't seen it, but... did that game really implement the whole rule set??

All exceptions and links between weapons, different loads in one magazine, variants of turrets like external weapon pods/rocket platforms/sponsons, different kinds of rockets and laser links, component armor etc, etc?? It implemented a real time game, so why should it?

(Update: I missed the text "it wasn't able to match the complexity of the full ruleset" about AutoDuel. Totally missed the argument.)

given the success of the AD&D computer gaming market, I cannot imagine that the current Car Wars ruleset would be that difficult to model.

It hasn't been done, as far as I know. And there were lots of computer people that loved it.

You have lots and lots of exceptions, etc. If you start implementing away, it will become really, really ugly. I started this as a hobby when I got the idea to model the cars as hierarchic structures and make them OO, so I could override behaviour everywhere. Then it becomes quite neat!

Also, the finished object tree would be relatively easy to extend so you can have "behaviours" like possible moves, taking damage and when it is legal to shoot (and hit). Ergo, something that could play the game, too.

(-: That said, I was at the Nordic Perl Workshop this weekend. I got a feeling there were a dozen people in the room that could throw something together over a weekend. :-)

Ruleset modeling has a ton of real-world uses.

There should be real world uses to make things easily that is very hard otherwise, but I have no idea which.

If I knew who it would be worth money to, I would probably have sold it because I really could use the money or a high paying job. :-)

(-: So, if you think up a good use, send a suggestion for enough money that I will go back on promising to publish it. It better be much, since I'd have to change name and move a long way. :-)

N B The previous paragraph was a joke. (-: I think. :-)

Comment on Re^4: RFC hierarchic modelling documentation

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: RFC hierarchic modelling documentation by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Oct 24, 2005 at 13:21 UTC
All exceptions and links between weapons, different loads in one magazine, variants of turrets like external weapon pods/rocket platforms/sponsons, different kinds of rockets and laser links, component armor etc, etc?? Just out of curiousity, did you ever play with the complete ruleset on the tabletop? Or, did you use some useful subset that was easy to work with. My experience with RPG's is that even the hard-core gamers never use the full rulebook. It's just too darned cumbersome. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]
Re^6: RFC hierarchic modelling documentation by BerntB (Deacon) on Oct 24, 2005 at 13:49 UTC
CW is not a full war game, so there were no problems to play. (Weren't you an old player?) About implementation: This is/was a hobby. If it was easy, it wouldn't be a hobby. :-) About playing: Rules to play CW is easier than design rules -- and those are harder for computers than for people. (-: For a munchkin like me, designing was most interesting, anyway. :-) (Besides, if you go to a game Convention, they play with the full rule set, so you need to play like that at home too.) Anyway, I put the CW implementation on the shelf until this is done. Then I'll probably ask for hobby programmers to help me implement an editor, a game player and a web-based UI. And the hardest part -- try to talk to SJ Games... Update: (-: This will probably make me end up in worst of the year, but... :-) It would probably be a smart idea NOT to release the library until after an agreement with SJ Games. I want the project to be completed, by SJG or by a group of CW-enthusiasts. I don't think SJG cares about CW anymore -- it should still be in their interest to get a version done, as long as the source isn't published and doesn't make a later version from them impossible. SJG might want to refuse and ask someone to try to do a version using my lib. I have to think on this.	[reply]