Thread: 3. How much emphasis would you like to see on historical setting / accuracy?

3. How much emphasis would you like to see on historical setting / accuracy?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    2,400

    3. How much emphasis would you like to see on historical setting / accuracy?

    Morning all, hope you're well, here's today's quandary. Feel free to continue with the older threads at the same time

  2. #2
    While I do believe that historical accuracy is important. I believe it's only important in regards to units themselves. For instance a Battle Ship should have the correct name, weapons, size, look, speed etc

    As far multi-player I do not think it is as important to have historic battles emulated exactly as history recorded. To me I felt the developers put to much emphasis on historical accuracy and it limited aspects of the game. For instance it's probably why maps were locked down with certain units, starting locations etc.

    They wanted to capture the historical value from famous battles, but in doing so they limited the game. You have to remember the audience your dealing with. While you do have some historical buffs playing the game, no one playing this game was probably alive during WWII. I'm willing to wager outside of a few hundred fans (probably less) no one really knows the exact details of every battle, every ship that was a part of the battle, or how the island/area actually looked.

    I think the dev's have the opportunity to cater to both audiences. You can give historical Buffs what they like and at the same time improve re-playability.

    I go back to what I stated earlier. Maybe having 3-5 different scenarios for each Map.

    Coral Sea

    Scenario 1 (Historically correct battle)
    Scenario 2 (Different units/Objectives)
    Scenario 3 (Different units/Objectives)
    etc, etc...
    Then have the host choose which scenario to play from the Lobby. Example would be Coral Sea Map, Scenario 3.

    There are some maps that are just huge and beautiful looking, but I didn't even play them because I hated the units/objectives. Should a entire map be ruined because the units/objectives are not liked by someone?

  3. #3
    I agree with Shamrock. "The Best Of Both Worlds" can be achieved here by unlocking game content to be global across SP and MP. By this I mean, All single player physical maps should be available to skirmish and multiplayer games: Shamrock's scenario system is ideal. I would like to see this implemented as a "Load/Save" function, with the game always allowing customization of those scenarios in terms of units, positions - and maybe scaled health values, scaled damage values - stuff which can really make a novelty game too. Obviously vanilla scenarios should be flagged so they can't be overwritten.

    Also, as a very important point, this is a good idea, but it must be correctly done over multiplayer - the server list should show server name, map and maybe an icon representation of the customized configuration. An especially easy way to distinguish vanilla from customized server would also be a good thing.

    Cheers,

    -Lexxy.

  4. #4
    Well, like shamrock said, there are history buffs out there who would have liked to see more historical acrruacy, and I'm one of them. Like for instance, I would have liked Samar to have six CE, four DD, including the Johnston, and a few DE, against the Japanese Centre force.

    However, I do realize that not everybody would like this. I think that Shamrock hit the nail on the head with the different scenarios. I think that most people would agree with him.

    But in terms of the next game, if it takes place in the Atlantic, I think it would be extremely one-sided if say, the Prince of Whales and the other ship (Forget the name) pounded on a crippled Bismark controlled by only one player. You guys did a good job with the last game in terms of keeping it fair, yet somewhat true to history, so I'm sure you could get around this. Maybe make a two on two room that has the Hood and Prince of Whales against the Bismark and her Heavy Cruiser escort?

    As in terms of ships, weapons, ect., I am almost certain that KG5s like the Prince of Whales, the Warspite, all KG5s, had torpedeos. Also, I think that a fight against the Yamato and the Iowa should be in the US favor because of the fact that the US had armor piercing rounds, and better accuracy. But enough of me rambling on!

    Hope you find that helpful.

  5. #5
    I think BSM is close to realistic enough for me in gameplay.

    Maybe a bit less powerful damage control in game would be my preference, maybe slow down repairs and plugging leaks by 25-33%. Definately if your magazine goes up it should be one huge explosion an no mre ship imho, like in veteran mode singleplayer.

    Perhaps Realistic Damage could be a toggle option the host can select a bit like the Realistic or Veteran level of single player. This option could also be used to toggle On/OFF other option like realistic sonar and torpedoe duds etc

    Ai fire could also be a bit more accurate as well, so the emphasis isnt just on player controlled ships being so much more effective than ai controlled ships. (in multiplayer im thinkin here)

    A Historical campaign could also be a bit longer an non linear, perhaps players build up there ships, fleet and crew over the missions. So replaying would alow you to choose different force options.

    Longer Guns ranges and larger maps would also add to the feeling of the expanse of the pacific.

    Like most il think of more and try an add em ....

  6. #6
    I have two thoughts here, the first relates to playability and Dogmeatz idea of making damage control a bit less powerful. I agree wholeheartedly that the damage control abilities of these units is very arcade-ish and unrealistic. But so is the ability to deliver damage. It's also very unrealistically easy to do damage to enemy ships with just about every weapon system. So I would prefer that we either...

    1) keep things the same because there is some balance currently between the two (damage control and damage deliverability); or

    2) tweak both the damage control and damage delivery capabilities to be more realistic, to keep things in balance. However, I think this second option would make things less fun for a majority of players.


    My second thought here relates to Dremora's discussion of more realistic Samar. I could see including these types of very historical scenarios for the more hardcore history wargamers, but I don't think in the long run that these would be very much fun for the majority of the players. With the current ease of sinking a DD with a BB or CA, Samar would be way too easy for the IJN.

    Same could be said if you made Surigao more historical. Give the US six old BBs instead of 2, and a whole lot more CLs and CAs, and you would make that map a landslide for the US, and a lot more boring for the IJN players.

    The fact is that the fleet admirals weren't seeking balanced encounters. They wanted the most lopsided conditions they could get, and they often got it. Makes for great history, but can make for some lousy wargaming.

    Solution here is just to make scenario editors that allow us to create our own versions of history, whether we want more accurate or more balanced.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Scipio65
    I have two thoughts here, the first relates to playability and Dogmeatz idea of making damage control a bit less powerful. I agree wholeheartedly that the damage control abilities of these units is very arcade-ish and unrealistic. But so is the ability to deliver damage. It's also very unrealistically easy to do damage to enemy ships with just about every weapon system. So I would prefer that we either...

    1) keep things the same because there is some balance currently between the two (damage control and damage deliverability); or

    2) tweak both the damage control and damage delivery capabilities to be more realistic, to keep things in balance. However, I think this second option would make things less fun for a majority of players.


    My second thought here relates to Dremora's discussion of more realistic Samar. I could see including these types of very historical scenarios for the more hardcore history wargamers, but I don't think in the long run that these would be very much fun for the majority of the players. With the current ease of sinking a DD with a BB or CA, Samar would be way too easy for the IJN.

    Same could be said if you made Surigao more historical. Give the US six old BBs instead of 2, and a whole lot more CLs and CAs, and you would make that map a landslide for the US, and a lot more boring for the IJN players.

    The fact is that the fleet admirals weren't seeking balanced encounters. They wanted the most lopsided conditions they could get, and they often got it. Makes for great history, but can make for some lousy wargaming.

    Solution here is just to make scenario editors that allow us to create our own versions of history, whether we want more accurate or more balanced.
    I agree completely.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    25
    Regarding Historical Accuracy..

    I have a very different opinion for this issue in regards to Single and Multi Player.


    Question to Kier...Was the IJN campain not developed due to the fact that if it was completed successfully then that would not have been the outcome of the war?

    I think Historical Accuracy is a must for Ship/Plane/Base models, coloring, weapons, sounds ect.

    Reproducing famous battles in game form has been going on for years. The question is what is best for gameplay and the purchaser. BS:M has established itself with the first incarnation as being grounded in History with it's campaign and I don't see a problem continuing with that precident. History lessons combined with a fun game equals win win.

    However with Multi-Player I think all bets are off. Other games based on history add both realistic and "fantasy" scenarios to multi-player settings. Example being capture the flag in any FPS WWII game. For Battlestations I would wholeheartily endorse battles that DID NOT take place using the same weapons/ships/planes from the WWII era.

    For instance, how about a battle between German and US Forces in New York Harbor?

    Bottom line:
    Single Player = Grounded in History
    Multi Player = Have both historical settings and get a bit crazy as well.

  9. #9
    i think the scenario PACIFIC war is ok, dont mix it whit ATLANTIC war. the pacific war is much more even than the atlantic war.
    in carriers,bb´s and all other ships.
    in an atlantic scenario you can add only land installations and airfields for the german side, that sucks!!
    also there are no really big battles in this war, the most important part of the atlantic war is....

    german subs vs. convois

    my grandpa dies on an german sub so i know a bit about this
    exapt the battle of bismark vs. hood & maybe destroy the scharnhorst this scenario sucks!!

    tirpitz destroyed in an norge fyord
    gneisenau destroyed by own crew
    prinz eugen destroyed by Abomb bikini atoll

    better eidos makes the pacific war more realistic and add new locations like...
    raid of truk as MP
    raid of wake island
    okinawa
    japanese inland sea
    battle of kure
    aleuten
    but involve the correct ships this time^^
    funny in last game was the zuiho in midway and the akagi in samar haha

    pls think about 1 important part of this war in late time!! add the KAMIKAZE attacks!!

    pls to all trust me the atlantic war is boring and after 3-4 maps (battles) we run out of realistic maps!!

    AKAGI

  10. #10
    I think the ships and planes themselfs should be accurate and historical. We have to remember that people lived and died on these great ships and planes. So as a respect to them i stronly feel that at least should be represented.


    Single player i agree should follow history. Have a allied route and an Axis route. They dont have to be the same story.

    so lets say its the Alantic and Med theaters.

    Aliies would be to start hunting u boats and the graff spree, moving on with sink the Bismarck and the attacks on Toronto. Ending with sinking the sharnhourst.

    The Axis missions could be to sink convoys, brake out into the alantic with the bismarck (battle of denmark strait) and sharnhourst and gneisenau constent convoy attacks and the channel dash.


    This way both sides have a goal that they must reach at the end of the campain, Allies want to sink the German and italian capital ships and the Germans and italians want to sink convoys.



    Muti player should be historic but leave it open. Like Bismarck and Prinze eugen Vs Hood and Prince of wales. It is open and either side can win.

    As long as the game is balanced!

    On that note. I dont think the game should be more history acc then balanced. some sacrifices have to be made to make an enjoyable game. A well balanced game is an enjoyable game.


    As for gameplay
    i think there could be 4 settings to a game.

    Easy Med Vet and Historic.

    Historic your damage control is limited. If your guns get destoryed then hard luck thats it. Same goes for flooding if you are hit by torps and taking on water you will have to slow down for a certain amount of time.


    pls to all trust me the atlantic war is boring and after 3-4 maps (battles) we run out of realistic maps!!

    i disagree. It leasted from 1939 to 1945 and has alot of actions in it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ic_(1939-1945)


    but as i have always said, if the atlantic is to be made i think the Mediterranean theater should be joined in aswell.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_..._Mediterranean

  11. #11
    This is a huge subject to discuss but on a high level I tend to agree with the idea that in games such as BS:M the overriding design objective should be to find the correct balance between being faithful for history/fact vs. playable and enjoyable for MOST of the people. We should not forget that ultimately the developer’s and producer’s objective is to sell as many copies as possible so it is key to please the “crowd” versus a few individuals.

    Not knowing the upcoming questions I make an assumption that “historical setting / accuracy” is not to be mixed up with "realism", so the physics of the game will be discussed later.

    I have 3 major components

    1. Accuracy / faithful to history in terms of units appearing in the game
    A) My say is that being accurate just helps making the game more playable. Taking the unit’s parameters from the “real life” is going to create the advantages/disadvantages that was present in the war and this will result in diversifying the units in a good way. Historical accuracy on this is going to cause get closer to the different war doctrines Japan and the US was representing so the opportunity is going to be there to rely on the different strengths / weaknesses in the game.
    B) I always feel bad and dislike it when a game tries to mix real life unit elements with fictional ones. Either the developer builds a fictional “universe” and unit system or just take the real one.
    C) Once we have historical units modeled in the game it is the best to take names, parameters (e.g. weapons), etc. as accurate as possible. The great example of not doing it right in the game is the Nachi. In game it has 4 front turrets and for weeks I was puzzled how come the Japanese designers were so “stupid” to leave the back of the ship undefended. Going after the facts made me realize that in real life DESPITE the fact that the ship was really built for frontal assault type duties it HAD rear turrets.
    D) Last but not least if the in-game unit HAS to be different from reality it would be good to create a different name for it – just to illustrate that it is NOT exactly that.

    2. Battles and scenarios / maps (missions?)
    A) For me it is key to be able to re-play the scenarios as they happened back then – as accurately as possible. However. This does not mean we should stick to this. At this component it really “haunts back” badly that the game is so inflexible in terms of freedom to create scenarios and pick & choose units for the battles. Just by creating this flexibility would resolve this “problem” 90% and after that it won’t matter which side individual players would take – everybody can be pleased.
    B) Sorry to say this but my reference to BS:M on this matter is still Company of Heroes. Obviously BS:M puts much more emphasis on the “first person action experience” but in terms of scenarios, missions, maps the two games are clearly in the same league. The only difference is HOW the player accomplishes the mission – CoH requires much more strategy and unit development, whereas BS:M needs more decisions as when and where the player would need to take the action in it’s own hands to maximize victory chances.

    3. Weapons
    A) It is borderline as it is going to belong to here or a future “realism” topic, however the way weapons act and behave (damage capabilities, possible configurations, reload times, etc) should follow suit with point 1 (unit realism). The biggest inaccuracy for me in this game is bomb types and shell types for ships (armor piercing or other variations).


    If there won’t be a specific “realism” topic later I’ll add more to this…

  12. mate ...
    Like Bismarck and Prinze eugen Vs Hood and Prince of wales
    that means BB&CA vs. BB&BB
    thats not even!
    the prinz eugen is an cruiser not an BB

  13. #13
    i wasnt saying it is balanced i was stating that in single player the game should be historical accuracy, so that battle would be won by the Germans in the German campain.

    In Mutli player you can choose your side. Ok it might be a bit off balance but because either side has a chance to win. (The game will not end if the Bismarck is sunk) then its not historical accuracy but open. Of course there would need to be some artistic design like the Germans had subs in the area or air bases but the point i was trying to get across is that in Mutli player the maps can be the same, the units can be the same but the end game wont be.



    Of course i still agree that in MP the gamer should be able to pick his or her own units.

  14. #14
    My take on these threads and questions that the objective is to provide a good flavor of opinions and viewpoints on the subjects.

    Cardinal rules to these kind of brainstorming is that "every idea is a good idea" and even if an idea LOOKs bad at the first time nobody KNOCKS it off.

    After all I prefer that if we need to correct and disagree with each other we do it behind the scenes quietly not "flooding" the thread with arguments that does not enrich the topic itself and makes harvesting the ideas more difficult.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by sblendo
    Regarding Historical Accuracy..

    I have a very different opinion for this issue in regards to Single and Multi Player.


    Question to Kier...Was the IJN campain not developed due to the fact that if it was completed successfully then that would not have been the outcome of the war?

    I think Historical Accuracy is a must for Ship/Plane/Base models, coloring, weapons, sounds ect.

    Reproducing famous battles in game form has been going on for years. The question is what is best for gameplay and the purchaser. BS:M has established itself with the first incarnation as being grounded in History with it's campaign and I don't see a problem continuing with that precident. History lessons combined with a fun game equals win win.

    However with Multi-Player I think all bets are off. Other games based on history add both realistic and "fantasy" scenarios to multi-player settings. Example being capture the flag in any FPS WWII game. For Battlestations I would wholeheartily endorse battles that DID NOT take place using the same weapons/ships/planes from the WWII era.

    For instance, how about a battle between German and US Forces in New York Harbor?

    Bottom line:
    Single Player = Grounded in History
    Multi Player = Have both historical settings and get a bit crazy as well.
    you took the words right out of my mouth, good friend
    I agree on all counts

  16. #16
    Emphasis huh? Well for me its split down the middle,

    As far as accuracy concerning individual ships I think thats what were really looking for, Iowa goin 33 knots, carriers having their deck guns, that I think we'd appreciate.

    However, as far as missions and campaigns go? No no no! Honestly, I've read them in history books, seen 'em on discovery channel and played 'em on SSI's Great Naval Battles. For gameplay content it seems very SILLY to me to LIMIT your gameplay based on historical settings when they're are so many "what if's" fans are clamoring for.

  17. #17
    Originally Posted by Scipio65
    I have two thoughts here, the first relates to playability and Dogmeatz idea of making damage control a bit less powerful. I agree wholeheartedly that the damage control abilities of these units is very arcade-ish and unrealistic. But so is the ability to deliver damage. It's also very unrealistically easy to do damage to enemy ships with just about every weapon system. So I would prefer that we either...

    1) keep things the same because there is some balance currently between the two (damage control and damage deliverability); or

    2) tweak both the damage control and damage delivery capabilities to be more realistic, to keep things in balance. However, I think this second option would make things less fun for a majority of players.


    My second thought here relates to Dremora's discussion of more realistic Samar. I could see including these types of very historical scenarios for the more hardcore history wargamers, but I don't think in the long run that these would be very much fun for the majority of the players. With the current ease of sinking a DD with a BB or CA, Samar would be way too easy for the IJN.

    Same could be said if you made Surigao more historical. Give the US six old BBs instead of 2, and a whole lot more CLs and CAs, and you would make that map a landslide for the US, and a lot more boring for the IJN players.

    The fact is that the fleet admirals weren't seeking balanced encounters. They wanted the most lopsided conditions they could get, and they often got it. Makes for great history, but can make for some lousy wargaming.

    Solution here is just to make scenario editors that allow us to create our own versions of history, whether we want more accurate or more balanced.
    I agree completely with this. A scenario editor would keep the war buffs and the general gaming community happy. I would love to be able to make a historical battle of my choice, say Pearl Harbor for instance. I know that is a big one alot of folks want to see.

  18. #18
    Try and keep the Ships/Planes (units) accurate to within Gameplay balances. Even though the Iowa could go 33knots in real life I'm happy with the 25knots in game cause it still makes it a "Fast BB" if on the Sibuyan Sea map it was given the extra knots over the Yammie's you could execute the "fall away" shot all day. The Yammie's would be at a distinct disadvantage. We've run this map at least 80+ times and have never lost as the USN and only twice from the IJN. The US doesn't need any more advantages on that one.

    BUT don't dumb down a unit too much, just try and set scenerios where the ship selections/numbers and positions convey strategic advantages. Also I should note that even though I'm all for Balanced Maps playing the unbalanced ones is fun as well. I do enjoy the IJN side on Vella Gulf and it's very satisfying winning vs Good players on it. Again I like Shamrocks Secenerio ideas for individual maps where you can have the historical setup, the balanced setup and the unbalanced setup (opposite of the historical setup).


    Make the Single Player part of the Campaign the More Historically Accurate one. Leave the Mutliplayer WIDE open, I love Sblendo's take on it.


    I STILL play my Great Naval Battles (I-IV) on the PC (using DosBox). Being a Sim I can play a single convoy attack for over 6 hours! However much I love that game I don't want to see that sort of Sim detail given to BSM. I think Eidos really hit on something here with the Action RTS type of game, it appeals to Simers, RTSers and the more patient FPSers. Thank God it weeds out the ADD FPSers and the online community is the most mature compared to my experiences with GOW, GRAW and Madden.

    Also continuing with GNBNA when I got the German Plan Z disk expansion it made the game SO much more fun, I was finally able to take the British Navy head on. Plus did I mention Sea Stukas!

    There's a lot of battles that could be made from the Atlantic/Med campaign. The Bismark, River Plate, Commerce Raiders, Convoy Escort, Convoy Wolfpack attack, Invasion of Norway, Sub attack at Scapa Flow, British Mini Sub attack vs Tirpitz(and air), Raid on Taranto, Channel Dash, Area around Malta, Deny Resupply at Torbruk. Add in What ifs and the scenerios are endless.

  19. #19
    Battlestations: Midway Lieutenant Commander
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,513
    For the single player you should try and keep it fairly historically accurate at least for the major campaigns. You could always have side missions that cover a what if scenario. Maybe have 7 - 10 historical battles and side missions of 7 - 10 what if missions. While the historical missions help ground the story in reality the what if missions will keep the player interested. As a beta tester for Pacific Storm and Pacific Storm: Allies I always found the what if missions to be allot of fun.

  20. #20
    Originally Posted by Shamrock
    While I do believe that historical accuracy is important. I believe it's only important in regards to units themselves. For instance a Battle Ship should have the correct name, weapons, size, look, speed etc

    As far multi-player I do not think it is as important to have historic battles emulated exactly as history recorded. To me I felt the developers put to much emphasis on historical accuracy and it limited aspects of the game. For instance it's probably why maps were locked down with certain units, starting locations etc.

    They wanted to capture the historical value from famous battles, but in doing so they limited the game. You have to remember the audience your dealing with. While you do have some historical buffs playing the game, no one playing this game was probably alive during WWII. I'm willing to wager outside of a few hundred fans (probably less) no one really knows the exact details of every battle, every ship that was a part of the battle, or how the island/area actually looked.

    I think the dev's have the opportunity to cater to both audiences. You can give historical Buffs what they like and at the same time improve re-playability.

    I go back to what I stated earlier. Maybe having 3-5 different scenarios for each Map.

    Coral Sea

    Scenario 1 (Historically correct battle)
    Scenario 2 (Different units/Objectives)
    Scenario 3 (Different units/Objectives)
    etc, etc...
    Then have the host choose which scenario to play from the Lobby. Example would be Coral Sea Map, Scenario 3.

    There are some maps that are just huge and beautiful looking, but I didn't even play them because I hated the units/objectives. Should a entire map be ruined because the units/objectives are not liked by someone?
    couldnt have sed it better myself

  21. #21
    I agree with many posts in this thread, gaming needs to be enjoyable, naval simulations at the War College or at the Admiralty were and are totally detailed and take days and weeks sometimes, and this is not what this game is about. BUT i do agree that historic accuracty is a MUST repeat MUST for the units and their capacities.

    The entire reality of naval war is what your ship can do and what your opponent be it weather, reefs, running out of chow or fuel, or what your enemy fleet, squadron, unit or distant admiral will do and can do to you......

    so that should be solidly be based on what was actually possible at the time, or this game becomes science ficiton.

    BUT I also agree that single player, where the realm of chance and possiblity AND multi player can have great possiblities with a wide open field of new potential. Give the player or players the units, and the resources and the info on the map, or the charts, the realities of the situation, i.e. convoy, landing, fleet action for local or regional dominance, raid, whatever.....and let the opponents, multi player, AI vs player, go at it.

    The greatest interest I have always felt about naval war is how much things can depend on not just the reality but the PERCIEVED reality for the opposing local commanders who have to give the orders, be they the squadron commander, the fleet admiral on his flag bridge, the captain of an individual ship or the swabbie about the push the igniter on a depth charge or pull the switch for Tube # 1. So Im saying let the experinece have both the potential and the full range of possiblities for each commander, let them sink or swim with their decisions. True, in some ways this can be complex, and may require a player to retart in an ongoing campaign, by "transfering" their flag to another ship or another avator in game, if thiey go down with their ship as so many great skippers and commanders did in WWII (Bismark, Yamamoto, Hood, Sharnhorst, Glorious, Courageous, Barham, Arizona, Gloworm, The Lancastria at Dunkirk, Graf Spee,(after the battle), Wahoo, and countless more.....they can 'live' on in the game with a transfer to another unit or base.

    I would also like to see units and fleets depart and return to bases, in a realitic way, and be provisioned at sea or NOT as the case may be, that was an essential part of operational doctrine and reality at the time and stil is today. Fuel limitations affected every action I can think of, and caused some of the greatest defeats and victories or affected them greatly.

    So Logistics would be very cool to see added in, both in terms of fuel and operations but ammunition as well. Large ships could not fire indefinitley the big guns had to be replaced after a suprisingly small number of rounds fired, ditto smaller guns as well and they just could not pour out shells wiithout thorght for wear and tear,....and often mechanical or other difficulties interupted fire and operations in other ways.

    Damage hit and impact is another very large area for accuracy and one that might be enhanced as could be damage control and doctrine.

    So to sum up, i think historical accuracy can bring a lot to the game and any naval gaming, and I think that it is important to not forget the sacrifices and real huge commitment made by the officers and seamen of all fleets in WWII who served under incredibly harsh and tough conditions, gave their lives countlessly, and heroically with with such devlotion to duty, words and thoughts cannot express it fully...i feel to honor them we need to honor the reality of that time in the accuracy of the units and their capacities and also the realities of the maps and campaigns, but allow as much openness and creativity in the outcome of the battles as possible. It will take some sophisticated coding and game design but if anyone can do it, Edios can.