I've decided to show you all a very detailed example of what I am talking about. Here is the entire land combat system from my Cold War game, and I'll even tell you that it is called "Territories: The Hot War". It is the game that I have always remembered as "The Civilization Killer". I originally came up with this game while playing Civilization 1 during the first few months it had been released in 1991, while I was working at TFG. I took it as a challenge, that I had to come up with something better. And after 3 months of obsessively playing Civilization it finally came too me. The key!!! "The Civilization board game SUCKS!!! Which strategy wargame would be the best when translated to computer just like Sid translated this... MegaSupremacy!!! And Territories was born...

I would normally never reveal a system I had come up with that is this cool, but I might as well since this will be what I will have to show around in a few months anyway. Realize that, through "Rube", the basis of this game is running on a "treadmill of time"... not "turns" as you know them. Territories, in a way, is "creeping along in real-time". So I can apply an Avalon Hill concept known as "assembling the battle". Much planning is required on the players part. You don't simply move your pieces into a territory and roll the dice. The battle is "assembled" as you played the previous 1 and half turns, little by little. One unit, modifier, bonus action, whatever are present in that battle little by little over the last 10-20 minutes or so. It took a lot of planning, and thinking, and preparation for you to "assemble the battle" over the last 14 phases of the game, and through their sub-phases as well. But then, at the moment of combat... a single die roll that resolves it all in, literally... seconds! Like magic... Avalon Hill/SVC/Kavik Kang game design magic!!! This system is about 20% Avalon Hill, 40% SVC, and 40% me. This is an example of where a Big Three designer can get too in a design document... and with their "tool set" before anyone else even knows it exists. I really am giving away something special here to make the point, as I would imagine many of you will agree with after you have read it.

*** Territories Land Combat System ***

Combat on land is almost entirely inspired by a combination of concepts from three different hobbyist games. Land combat is structured like an Axis & Allies "battle board", handled by Fortress America's "combined arms bonus" combat system, and the "damage points" generated are applied by Federation & Empire's Damage Allocation System. There are 6 types of units that can participate in land combat (Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Tank, AA Vehicle, Artillery, Fighter). There can be a maximum of 2 of each type in any given territory. A superpower home territory may have 2 of each type of unit present, while a minor nation can have 1 of each type of it's own units present *and* 1 of each type of unit of a superpower (only if at the highest Relationship Level with that superpower) for a total of two of each type. The superpower forces are better than minor nation forces. However, when a superpower orders a minor nation to go to war with another minor nation the superpower can pay extra for "military aid and advisers" in which case the minor nation forces are the equal of superpower forces for that single fight. The option to provide "military aid and advisers" is also one that is always available to the rival superpower during their immediate "out of sequence" response they are allowed during such an invasion, and so the rival power can equalize the situation by raising the defenders forces to being the equal of superpower forces (or gain an advantage if the attacker did not do this). This is a relatively expensive option for both sides. They might also provide some air power, as mentioned above, assuming no rival superpower forces are present (if they know what's good for them, anyway). Each type of unit has a certain number of hit points (1-4), and each type of unit generates a certain number of damage points for a successful hit (1-3). If the attacker qualifies for the combined arms bonus then no terrain modifiers apply, if the attacker does not qualify for the combined arms bonus then terrain modifiers do apply and add either 1 or 2 hit points to the defending units in defensive terrain. A "die roll" (i.e. the dreaded "RNG") determines how many hits are scored and how many damage points are generated based on the unit types scoring the hits. The attacker then has the option to use "directed damage" to specifically destroy land units of his choice, but this costs double-points so it would cost 4 damage points to destroy a 2 hit point unit with directed damage. The attacker can choose to just "let the damage fall" and allow the defender to resolve all of the damage points on a 1-1 basis (this is, in fact, the most common decision, unless...). The 2 damage points generated by Artillery, if it hits, are *doubled if they are used for directed damage* (wait a minute... that isn't artillery... F&E players know a "Mauler Cannon" when they see one). Also, Directed Damage cannot be used against Artillery. Artillery is only present for minor nations, who conduct most of the combat in the game, at the higher relationship levels. The defender must destroy a unit at 1:1 ratio if sufficient damage points remain un-allocated to do so. Any points remaining insufficient to destroy any unit present are ignored, they do not carry over. The defender then shoots back by all the same rules except that the attacker never gets any kind of terrain bonuses, destroyed units still get to shoot back before being removed. The attacker then has to resolve the remaining 1:1 damage against his forces remaining from the defender returning fire, and may be able to mitigate 1 damage point by creating an unusable (odd) point. And it's that simple. Land combat in Territories is essentially the "battle board" from Axis & Allies, Fortress America's combat system, and Federation & Empire's Damage Allocation System (including Mauler Cannons, "directed damage", the "free Infantry" acting like "free fighters", and the "formation bonus" making Artillery immune to directed damage). There might be 2% of me, just tying it together and the additional effects of the land combat die rolls (you'll see...), in the land combat system, it is almost entirely a combination of elements from those three games. It's the best of all three worlds, it really is, and it happens in seconds. An entire fight takes literally less than one minute to resolve between two online players, at most there might be 3 combat rounds and go a little over a minute, but 1 or 2 rounds are much more likely (once the attacker loses the combined arms bonus it is usually best to retreat for that turn and try again next turn)... and yet there seems to be so much too it from the player's perspective.

Us old board game guys really know a lot of "tricks" that can be used with 2 six-sided dice. Kind of like this. To resolve land combat, air combat first happens by itself as part of generating damage points. The planes, if both are present, duel, then any survivors are fired at by the AA Vehicle if it is present (which also gets to fire in land combat). Fighters are the most often used military unit of the superpowers and any fighters will almost always be lent superpower fighters (often the attacker with no enemy fighter, but sometimes the other power may have placed one ahead of time and an attacker still thinks they can win without their own Fighter), and they take a lot of AA fire. The superpowers lose and replace a lot of Fighters over the course of the game, they are their primary military tool in this game. After air combat had already resolved itself, along with the most of the combat, the player winds up seeing the forces that remain at this point and how many damage points have been generated as the first thing as the screen appears. Several things may have happened when these die rolls were made other than just having generated these damage points. Two dice are rolled for land combat, one blue and one red. This makes any die roll modifiers have less impact, for one thing. Infantry hits on 10 or better, MechInfantry hits on 9 or better, Tank hits on 8 or better, AA hits on 7 or better, Artillery hits on 8 or better, Fighter hits on a 6* or better. Non-superpower forces suffer a -1 die roll modifier if not "aided and advised" by a superpower. If doubles are rolled for a specific unit that also hits, the damage of that unit is doubled for purposes of Directed Damage exactly as Artillery damage always is. If Artillery rolls doubles it generates 3 doubled damage points instead of 2. For every red die that is a 1 the Relationship Level of the nation hosting the war moves one level in Warsaw Pact's direction, it moves one level in NATO's direction for each blue die that rolls a 1. If the "NATO blue" dice roll (one for each unit) is a 6 the US gets $100, 2 gets $200, 3 6s is $400, 4 6s is $800 million, and all 5 sixes (from the Fighter) are $2 billion. Warsaw Pact gets the same for the red dice. Notice that a roll of 1 probably means no damage was done, and so the population is rewarding your restraint of firepower within their borders. A roll of 6 probably means you did damage, which probably means a higher intensity of combat, so more things were broken and consumed... things the minor nation cannot produce itself and must buy from you. These effects are not in the game just because they are cool, they are both accurately representing real non-combat aspects of the battle. War is good business for the superpowers... and you sure can do a lot more with 2 dice than you can with a programmer's 0-100% rating, can't you? Even fractional accounting wouldn't help you here, would it? Not as primitive as you believe they were...

Never interrupt the player of a strategy game with a tactical game. If they were wanting to play a tactical game they would have chosen one of those instead. Nobody actually plays the 3-way interlocked Star Fleet Universe. They just marvel at it's incomprehensible massiveness and the *idea* of actually playing it. Then they play SFB or F&E standing alone. Human beings don't actually live long enough to play the interlocked Star Fleet Universe, I'm not kidding, it is the most extreme example of the concept. It sounds great on paper, it doesn't actually work well in the game. But you also want more than just an instant quick resolution result screen with no player input at all. Territories does exactly that... thanks to Axis & Allies and Advanced Squad Leader (structure), Fortress America (system), and Federation & Empire (resolution). Just as with naval power and air forces, all aspects of land combat in this game are portrayed only from the highest strategic level (or "from the farthest viewpoint") as is appropriate for a grand strategy wargame. There is no "tactical combat mini game" for resolving combat, not really, there is an ***illusion*** of a tactical combat mini-game. It resolves almost instantly, and yet is still much more than just a "quick combat" results screen.

Much planning, preparation, decision making, and positioning has been done leading up too it, and there are so many strategic-level aspects considered and riding on it, that it feels like much, much more than it actually is. Through the Advanced Squad Leader inspired turn phases, you probably paid for military aid and advisers during an earlier phase, for example, in preparation for the attack... or sent a fighter to help during the first air phase that happens before land combat. Maybe you bought the nation an extra unit at the beginning of your turn. You might have even attacked with bombers in an independent air strike during the 3rd air phase, you probably escorted them with a fighter when you did, and you had to arrange this strike during your opponent's turn *before* your current turn even happened. If you needed to use Fighters to suppress Strategic AA for the Bombers... you had to have done that on *your own* turn *before* the other player's *previous turn*. The Civilization City Display inspired national maps of the minor powers allow a placement in terrain that only provides a bonus when not being nullified by the combined arms bonus. Terrain is really just part of the combined arms bonus system, but it feels like more than that. However, at the "point of contact", when combat actually happens, it is almost instantly resolved with a minimal amount of player input. They've already done "all the cool stuff", during this turn, their opponents turn, and maybe even their own previous turn as well. All that is left at the point the player perceives as the actual moment of combat is to roll the dice and resolve the damage. Then wait a moment if playing online, and resolve the remaining damage against their own forces from the enemy's return fire. The player needs to make two decisions, and do two things, each round of combat. It takes, literally, a few seconds. But if you fully think through everything that led to, prepared for, and rides on that brief, almost instantaneous moment, and understand how deceptively intricate Steve Cole's F&E Damage Allocation System underlying these two very simple decisions actually is, you will see that this is another one of those "game design magic tricks" that the SFB Staff *should* be famous for. And it's a really, really good one.

So, to illustrate this for you, this is how land combat actually works. Independent air strikes against land forces are similar, using up to 2 Bombers and 1 Fighter, and had to have taken place during your opponents previous turn. As the attacker it is your turn and, just like Axis & Allies, you move forces into territories (almost always a minor nation) which create battle hexes. All land fights are 1 v 1, only the forces of one territory can attack any other territory at the same time. You then click on the battle hex and are brought to the combat version of the Minor Nation Display. Instantly, the information is already there, you are presented with the results of air combat, the number of damage points generated, and the option of destroying units of your choice at a 2:1 damage point-to-hit point ratio. If an enemy Fighter is present and the AA Vehicle has hit, it does not contribute to the land combat and instead the enemy Fighter is destroyed. Fighters would have dueled first if both sides had them, but that is very rare. "Tactical air combat" happens by itself along with the generation of damage *before* the player got here, so the player is instantly presented with AA resolved and the end result ground combat damage points to apply. If artillery has hit, 2 of your points are doubled if you choose to use Directed Damage and destroy a specific enemy unit of your choice. If doubles were rolled by any units that hit you may have more directed damage to allocate, and you can just "let the damage fall" at 1:1 wherever in this equation you think is best. The more doubles you roll, the more choice you have of which enemy units are destroyed, and the less the enemy gets to decide for themselves... assuming you don't also want to "use" some damage at 2:1 before "letting it fall" at 1:1. Against the AI, the instant you do this you will be presented with the end results of the enemy doing what you just did, and the remaining damage that you decide how to apply against your own forces at 1:1. Against a human player, there will be a (literally) 5-20 second pause. Somewhere in this wink of an eye, we figure out a place to squeeze in some unit destruction animations. The attacker has the option of staying for another round if the defender still has units. An attacker generally remains as long as they still have the combined arms bonus, combat almost never makes it to a 3rd round, 2 rounds is normal. When combat is over the player(s) is returned to the strategic map.

I should also mention that a 6th Relationship Level might be, and probably is, needed. In that case the Fighter would become the level 6 military unit and the new level 6 unit would be an Attack Helicopter (2*/3). The AA Vehicle does not get to shoot at it as an aircraft. It is destroyed by the normal land combat system which represents its exposure to point-blank air defense in close support of land forces. It's damage is always doubled for purposes of Directed Damage only when applied against the Tank. If the Attack Helicopter rolls doubles it's base damage is doubled only if applied against the Tank, so it will single-handedly destroy the Tank if it rolls doubles. Also notice that the AA Vehicle also fires during ground combat, and the way the game works is almost certain to be present in any close fight where a helicopter is. So, it can always be assumed that one of the points of damage applied against the helicopter is coming from the AA Vehicle. Ok, now maybe 3% of the land combat system is mine... I'm just the magician, I didn't invent these tricks.

There is a LOT to consider in just allocating your damage (making those two simple decisions) because of how the individual units each work within the system, like the free replacing foot infantry on one end of the spectrum, combined with the fact that the superpower can "add an extra rebuild" only if the best and most expensive unit has been destroyed... Which will it be in round 1? This damage allocation system is not mine. Only the "superpower can buy an extra unit", Attack Helicopter, and "spin the wheel on relations and spit out money" are mine. That's it, literally. This is most likely your first true introduction to the "father of modern game design" at work. Federation & Empire's system including the "free fighter" Infantry, the "formation bonus" making Artillery immune to directed damage, and "Mauler Cannon" Directed Damage Artillery effect are 100% classic Stephen V Cole at his best. You want more? Here's the last piece of this puzzle I had left out so far for the sake of brevity that completes the system. And now that I've made the point of how quickly it resolves, well, another magic trick for you here... I don't need my rabbit for this one, I'll just channel Steve Cole. [...takes out his wand.] This is a simple one. Lets give ourselves another 30 seconds of resolution time for those combat animations. Now when you enter a battle AA hasn't been resolved yet. Instead you have a 3rd choice to make per round now. Before a battle begins you select "Battle Intensity", either High or Low (1 or 4, just for the "tip of the hat" too the original system). [...and to throw in the tiny bit of me calling out here, a roll of 1 - 2 affects Relationship at Low BI and you cannot get the bonus at High intensity. Then, at High intensity... assume the first two six's have been rolled and start from there, can't exceed five 6's. The first two 6's are ignored at Low Intensity.] The enemy also does this before battle begins. "BI" will always either be 2, 5, or 8. If BI is 2, -1 to die roll. If BI is 8, +1 to die roll. If BI is 5 then no change. "Special effect" die results, like changing Relations, are based on "pure" rolls and ignore modifiers. This must be selected at the beginning of each round. [poof... A tiny little puff of smoke...] Now there is actually time for the animations, it still takes less than 2 minutes... and SVC's entire F&E Damage Allocation System is now in the game. And, obviously, if as a design/production decision you decided to give yourselves the "unlimited time" of a whopping 5 minutes... who knows where SVC's system might go from here with that much time and an entire development cycle to go.

So, think about all of the effects the die rolls of this combat have beyond just the combat, how much is even riding on just the one set of die rolls alone even forgetting about the rest of all of this. This entire process might take longer than 2 minutes if it goes 3 rounds online between human players, and resolves almost instantly when playing against the AI. And yet... read this article again and also consider the effects the result may have on the strategic situation that a player is also taking into account in these three quick decisions per round of combat that they are making. There is ultimately a *LOT* too it all. The player almost certainly planned and took actions for both the turn before the attack, and during the turn leading up too it, that are *significant* parts of that final, almost instant moment. Thanks to Advanced Squad Leader, land combat is actually a process that takes 2 complete turns of setting up, phase by phase throughout those turns, until finally having "assembled the battle" so that in the end, all that is left is to roll the dice and resolve the damage. This is not me. This is Advanced Squad Leader, and "assemble the battle" is the language of their world. The original gaming world. It seems like a whole lot of planning, positioning, decision making, and execution for something that happens almost instantaneously... doesn't it? The Star Fleet Universe and Advanced Squad Leader make for an impressive pair, don't they? It almost feels like there *is* a tactical mini game for combat resolution, but there definitely isn't one. This is three heartbeats away from quick resolution... the player literally makes two simple decisions, waits a few seconds, and then makes a much easier decision. Doesn't it seem like a LOT has ultimately gone into these three decisions that are made and executed in seconds? Playing online, with both players having to make six decisions between them (now with Battle Intensity), the normal two rounds of combat probably take somewhere around 60-90 seconds. Unless one of them pauses to think, this all happens so fast that pausing to think for a moment will significantly impact the resolution time.

If the "NATO blue" dice roll (one for each unit) is a 6 the US gets $100, 2 gets $200, 3 6s is $400, 4 6s is $800 million, and all 5 sixes (from the Fighter) are $2 billion.

I'm gonna ask what I asked in my last post, and this is actually a honest question. This is just a small part of the game, but it's a good example. *How* exactly do you know those values are the ones needed in order for the players to have the most enjoyable experience possible, without playtesting? Why all 5 sixes are 2 billion? How did you arrive to that number? Just by looking at the numbers, the reward is "100 * 2 ^ (number_of_sixes-1)" for number_of_sixes <=4, and an extra bonus of 400 million(the reward for 3 6s) for number_of_sixes = 5.

But how do you know the game, *this particular game*, wouldn't suddently become much more exciting and "fun" for all involved if you kept everything the same, but the reward for all 5 sixes was 2.4 billion instead (that is, the extra bonus is 800 million, the reward you get for 4 sixes)? I'm narrowing it down to the most basic level - forget anything else, assume even the formula for number_of_sixes <= 4 does result in "maximum" fun - I'm asking how do you come up with the very last rule, the one controlling the extra bonus for all 5 sixes - that the extra bonus resulting in the most enganging game play is indeed 400 million(the amount you get for 3 6s) and not 800 million(the amount you get for 4 6s). How are you sure, how do you verify that if you increase the extra bonus to 800 million and let the players play the same game in all other respects, a signficant number of players won't suddenly go "whoa, for some reason this is way more fun now!".

I don't know man. Take basketball. At one point, the 3-pointer line was at 6.25m. Then they changed it to 6.75m because they figured that resulted in more balanced and fun games. That's for FIBA rules. For NBA, which has a slightly different ruleset, different philosophy, arguably more skilled and athletic players, it's 7.25m. All of these are tweaks that are made due to experience of thousands of games. Iterative design.

Another example. For soccer, they kept going back and forth on how to resolve a knock-out game that ended up in draw, and not have it end in penalty shootout ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football ) , which are pretty much a coin toss(OTOH, many people consider them very exciting nonetheless). First they had "sudden death/golden goal"(first team to score on overtime wins). Then they had "silver goal"(the team leading the first extra-time half wins - incidentally that's how we(Greeks) ended up in the European Final that surreal summer of 2004 :). In the end, they were considered failed experiments that " had not brought about more active and attacking play" and were eliminated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal#Silver_goal

Failed experiments. Tweaking. Iterative design. From people that have been arguably doing this for much longer time than the videogame and the tabletop/hobbyist industry have been doing it.

How on Earth can one claim to know the "true" value of all these parameters beforehand, without having to see at least one game with the specific ruleset in action, observe and evaluate how the living, breathing, many times "irrational" components of the game - the players themselves - react to it; that's beyond me. I just don't see it happening anywhere else.

This Gamasutra article seems relevant to this thread.

Good read, thanks :)

Of course, in the art world, there is also the type of artist who really doesn't give a damn(or at least claim to not give a damn) how the audience reacts to their work or even if their work finds any audience at all - they just do what they want to do and don't care if it "works" for anyone else. Tarkovsky famously quipped “I am only interested in the views of two people: one is called Bresson and one called Bergman.” This is not related to the methodology of creating their works though - just their goals of why they're creating in the first place. I think we'd all agree that in (most) games the goal is to engange the player and offer them an enjoyable/enganging experience. Especially when it comes to mechanic-focused games, narrative games may be more personal.

The interesting thing is that Hedlund makes the opposite case of what Kavik Kang's idea of videogame industry is, or at least was in the past, like the 90's - that game companies *really* did prefer the "planners" than the "iterators", simply because of lowered costs(and I think we can all agree that Kavik falls in the complete end of the spectrum, that of "conceptual execution")

The business aspect of game development would certainly prefer that we not be Cézannes. Learning things—and reacting to the things we learn—means more work. It throws schedules into disarray. It costs money. And this is definitely how things, at least in my experience, used to work. When I worked at Koei in the early ‘90s, you could only be Picasso: rather than “game designers”, we were called “planners”, and that is what we literally did. We planned everything in advance and then executed it without diverting from that plan. Much of this was necessitated by the long turnaround times in early game dev: I didn’t get a working version ofLiberty or Death with enough time to see if it was possible to win playing as the British

Mike, do you see how low those values are? How simple the math is? I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so... I doubt that math has changed since then, at least not math this simple. I have made over 100 games, easily, similar to this one using the same tool kit. Really, this is at the same exact levels that Stratego is... if you can't see that these are the right values to use, then you are probably in the wrong line of work. These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up. They are far more certain than any computer game values. In fact, there is no chance at all that these values are wrong. This is kindergarten stuff we are talking about here. I know their a excellent mathematicians reading this, surely they can see that. I don't need the math, I've been using them for over 30 years. How long do you spend on a game, again?

And, as I said, this is at "alpha" ready to BEGIN your process of development. The process that you are describing has not begun yet, this is the starting point. You example of the money awarded is an excellent one. Those values, unlike the combat system values, "look like a good place to start based on my experience". I actually EXPECT that those values would change during production and would be surprised if they didn't. A completely different thing than the combat values, that I know to be correct. Because by our methods... that is kindergarten stuff that we wouldn't be working in our industry if we didn't know that already.

As for you article about the iterative process... what is it that you don't get about our "tool set"? I'm still up for that race... Me against an entire dev team. Who can go through the most iterations the fastest. Me, with my poker chips, dice, cards, and a map... or you, with you code, 3D models, and sound. Anyone want to race? In fact, just to make it fair... I'll make 2 games to your 1... and take a nap in between. It's the physics and time of the situation, not me bragging.

BTW, I'm guessing others will find this as funny as I always have even just based on the land combat system alone... without even knowing about the "train game" economic game that rests beneath the strategy wargame. My kind-of joke name for this game has always been... "Warmonger Tycoon"... :)

Mike, do you see how low those values are? How simple the math is? I know those values are the right ones because they've been the right ones for the last 30 years or so... I doubt that math has changed since then, at least not math this simple. I have made over 100 games, easily, similar to this one using the same tool kit. Really, this is at the same exact levels that Stratego is... if you can't see that these are the right values to use, then you are probably in the wrong line of work. These values have more than 30 years of actualy use backing them up. They are far more certain than any computer game values. In fact, there is no chance at all that these values are wrong. This is kindergarten stuff we are talking about here. I know their a excellent mathematicians reading this, surely they can see that. I don't need the math, I've been using them for over 30 years. How long do you spend on a game, again?

Okay, first of all, I don't know how many times I can say I'm a *programmer* and not a designer, so unless you've got a problem with how I implemented vegetation rendering for the company I'm working for, keep the "wrong line of work" comments out of this please :). It's really starting to look like you don't know what programmers do in game companies, and how their work is completely different from designers. My job is to make the engine and/or code the tools that will enable the designers to enter whatever values they want, not to determine those values. We are *not* in the "same line of work", you and me. Not even close. I'm not taking your job, unless your job involves writing HLSL shaders :)

Second, you didn't actually answer the question, which was really an honest question expecting an answer, you just said "I know those values are right because they're right", and then proceeded in a mini-rant. :) The "these values are correct because we've been using them for 30 years" tells me nothing. They've been using the 6.25m value for 3-pointers and 30-second rule for decades too on FIBA too. Then they experimented with 6.75m. and 24-seconds.

I still honestly expect an answer on how those values(mainly the extra bonus for an all-sixes roll) are derived, given the goal is that they would result in an enganing and fun game play. Honestly. Stop taking everything as an offense. It's a honest to god question. Personally, I fail to see how an "excellent mathematician" would even begin to "prove" that a bonus of 400 million results in "more game fun" than 800 million. How on earth are they going to put a psychological factor into an equation?

I didn't "rant" about anything, and really usually ignore "psychological warfare" like that. I wasn't insulting you, telling you specifically that you are in the wrong line of work. I meant, as most I am sure already realize, that anyone who can't answer the question you had asked doesn't know literally the first thing about game design and really isn't qualified to be doing it. Kind of like how you wouldn't want an engineer to design your car who still hadn't figured out how to spell "Cat" with building blocks. Same thing, really. And that is not insulting any one, it is akin to saying "if you don't know that 1+1=2 then you probably aren't much of a mathematician."

I have answered your question, you just don't seem to understand the answer. Do you really think our generation is so stupid that after 30 years of using the same exact systems, and in my land combat system here... the only values are 1, 2, 3, or 4... Do you really think that after 30 years of ACTUALLY USING THESE EXACT SYSTEMS that not just any of us, but an SFB Staff member on top of that (applies equally to Avalon Hill), still doesn't understand it yet? And are you really so arrogant that, at the same time, a small group of you will do better in 2-3 years than we have in, in this case, around 30?

Are you really all that full of yourselves that you actually believe that? And I am the one with the problem?

I don't believe that, I think you are just not fully understanding what I am saying.

I didn't "rant" about anything, and really usually ignore "psychological warfare" like that. I wasn't insulting you, telling you specifically that you are in the wrong line of work. I meant, as most I am sure already realize, that anyone who can't answer the question you had asked doesn't know literally the first thing about game design and really isn't qualified to be doing it. Kind of like how you wouldn't want an engineer to design your car who still hadn't figured out how to spell "Cat" with building blocks. Same thing, really. And that is not insulting any one, it is akin to saying "if you don't know that 1+1=2 then you probably aren't much of a mathematician."

Dude, again. I'm a programmer. A *programmer*. I write code. That's what I'm going to do when I go to work tomorrow. I'm going to write C++ and HLSL to render terrain and trees and grass. *Not* a game designer. Those are in a different floor. I rarely ever interact with them, except when we go for lunch. Do you even read my posts? You don't insult me by telling me I'm in the "wrong line of work", simply because you don't seem to understand what my "line of work" is.

And again, I'm still expecting an actual answer, and not one which is basically "respect my authoritah". You must have derived those values *somehow*, and again, I'm honestly asking you to show me what the process of this was. Like, explain to me why a 400-million bonus is "better" than a 800-million bonus. There *must* be a rationale to that.

Exactly, which is why that statement never applied too you, and still doesn't.

Yeah, but as someone who is just interested in learning *some* stuff about game design, I posed an honest-to-god question. What is it that makes a 400-million extra bonus to result in better and more exciting game play than a 800-million one(or any other value really)?