Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DigIn

I'm with you pzgndr. I really don't have TIME to play all the greats I played in the 60's-90's. I looked at the PC Afrika Korps but haven't finished the main campaign yet. Sometimes lots of units just isn't the answer. I'm pretty sure this is why the squad level stuff is getting so popular and has so many games out at that scale. An operational game with 100+ divisions on each side with 32 actions per turn per unit is NOT what I really want.

My favorite current "wargame" (not actually even close) is Settlers of Catan with all it's expansions on my PC. Turn based in case of a phone call, few units per turn (too few but hey), and unlimited strategies. It has that...if I win I'm smart and good. If I lose it was the dice appeal. LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

It's never been about the gamer or the love of creating a game it's always been about the $$. They will follow the stream not their convictions or what gamers want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive
RE:war games

It costs too much to pay a programmer, artist and content providers for games that only sell a few copies. Ad to that the bargain bin pricing mentallity that kills the hope of recovering the costs.

As I have said for a while now, the future will be hobbist making open source freeware games.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

It's never been about the gamer or the love of creating a game it's always been about the $$. They will follow the stream not their convictions or what gamers want.

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Posted at wargamer discussions by me

RE: consoles
My forecast is that app games will outpace PC and console games. Smartphones and tablets will have docks that attach to a TV screen or PC screen (or those 2 will become the same thing) for those wanting a larger view. Casual gamers will play browser games on google devices like the Chromebook.

PCs and consoles will become nostalgia items ...

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

If any game series needs a graphics update it's The Command OPS series. Those nato counter chits are rather boring. Now if that game had better 2D graphics or graphics like a Panzer General or Panzer Corp that would be great and I'd buy more of the series. But, after playing BftB (as great of a game as it is) the graphics just turned me right off to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Posted at wargamer discussions by me

RE: consoles
My forecast is that app games will outpace PC and console games. Smartphones and tablets will have docks that attach to a TV screen or PC screen (or those 2 will become the same thing) for those wanting a larger view. Casual gamers will play browser games on google devices like the Chromebook.

PCs and consoles will become nostalgia items ...

I can remember when PC software filled a wall of shelves, but now they occupy a small niche in most retail stores.

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rtwfreak

If any game series needs a graphics update it's The Command OPS series. Those nato counter chits are rather boring. Now if that game had better 2D graphics or graphics like a Panzer General or Panzer Corp that would be great and I'd buy more of the series. But, after playing BftB (as great of a game as it is) the graphics just turned me right off to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

It's not graphics so much that need to be improved in wargames but gameplay and mechanics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

It's not graphics so much that need to be improved in wargames but gameplay and mechanics.

I've got an idea regarding this matter. Wargame, where casual player sees only few different counters on the map (but could be many of each), and moves them around as simply as in Battle Isle series with only most important handful of data (speed, weapon ranges, general offensive values, general defensive values, general supply values, experience, morale, and that's it) at the glance. He isn't interested about what machine guns and what tanks are in that force, just that it is either infantry, tank, or artillery regiment (or division or whatever the scale) and general understanding of its capabilities. And game would be playable and winnable as such, at least on easy difficulty level. Out of that same game grognard can dig out very detailed information down to # of different rifles and pistols, models of each and every vehicle, ammo supply for every weapon, full TO&E of the force with options to change things around (veteran tank crews to newest Panther, rookies to PzKpfw IV Ausf F2, old PzKpfw III refitted to Marder III etc.) within limits of available resources. Actually there could be such games already: I played demo of The Operational Art of War as described rookie player and ogled stupidly at text mass of all the detailed information.

What do you think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
One of my dream games would be a RTS that would have the complexity of games like WITE hidden under the hood. All of it with subordinate AIs that would handle micro-management for the player.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saint Ruth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
One of my dream games would be a RTS that would have the complexity of games like WITE hidden under the hood. All of it with subordinate AIs that would handle micro-management for the player.

Like the mythical Road To Moscow game?

As someone said, I think I'd prefer a Russian Campaign game with 100 units a side rather than having to worry about
how the number of Latrines and kitchens in 1st Company of 2 Battalion, 1 Regiment, 13rd Division, 3rd Corp, 4th Army!

quote:

As someone said, I think I'd prefer a Russian Campaign game with 100 units a side rather than having to worry about
how the number of Latrines and kitchens in 1st Company of 2 Battalion, 1 Regiment, 13rd Division, 3rd Corp, 4th Army!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

HoI 3 has much more than just generals. More of a tactical nature it seems and maybe too much micromanagement, but there is a lot of depth to the game. The scale is both smaller and larger at the same time than WiF. I have to admit that while I own HoI3 and its DLC's, I haven't actually played it that often.

But back to your VASSAL point. I think you may be correct. It might be the only hope for uber complexity as many old games have been made available through VASSAL.

An unnamed member contacted me by PM to discuss WiF. This person is an avid gamer and one very familiar with WiF. He stated that it might not be as good as many think it is. When I asked why, his response was this: (I hope he doesn't mind and of course he will stay anonymous)

My gripes with it are at both high and low levels. I'll start high and work down. Also, bear in mind that the last version I played was 5th Edition, and it's been in the last millenium. I'm sure they have improved a few things.

1. Physical Size of Game: It's too big to play unless you have a very large playing area. The main ET and PT maps are each 44 x 34 inches. Supplements add even more real estate.

2. Unnecessary Complexity: It seems to me as if the designers set about making their game as big as they could, and then designed the combat systems. Each type of combat (land, air, naval, sub, anti-sub, anti-air, etc.) requires a different resolution mechanic. IMO, the designers could have developed more realistic and smoother rules. Had they done so, it would be more playable.

3. It's a monster game. Takes forever to play. The expansions (ships in flames, planes in flames, jeeps in flames, etc.) only make it that much more complex and unwieldy. Now, if you can set up 2 or 3 44 x 34 inch maps for a year while you play one turn a night once a week (avg. wargame group), and you like monster games, it's probably okay.

4. For all of its complexity, it's not particularly realistic.

5. For at least five editions, the rules were just plain broken at several levels (can't remember details, only remember the frustrations of contradictory rules and in some cases, missing rules). I presume that the Internet has allowed them to address this problem to an extent.

Moving to a more tactical level:

1. Ground combat is very odd for the scale. They have an impulse system that governs all their game impulses, but it makes the entire game very unstable. If a particular turn goes long, one side can use it to trounce the other.

2. I intensely dislike the naval system. The game encourages players to just move their massive fleets out of port and park them in a blockade of enemy ports in perpetuity. This never happened, and is extremely unrealistic. (Gets back to my point about how complicated it is vs. how realistic it is.)

3. Many of the rules are out of proportion to the level of simulation. The result is something that calls to mind the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Summary of WiF Peeves:

A. More complicated than it needs to be owning to lazy system and unit design that never evolved through several editions.

B. In most practical gaming situations, it's unplayable because of its physical size.

C. It takes way too long to play it (especially since the usual Axis tactic is that if they don't win by the end of 1942, they give up and want to reset and play again, having just taken 2-3 months of game nights to get to that point—probably happens in other games as well, but it plagues this one as the Axis, if their wheels come off, cannot sustain a prolonged war of attrition because of the impulse system, which makes it impossible for the Axis to replace their losses to the level needed to compete in a long game).

For the record, when I complain about the complexity, I'm also an ASL player, so I'm not just whining—it's way more complicated than it needs to be to simulate what they're trying to simulate.

The root of the problems with the mechanics, I think, is the same as for Third Reich: Their 1st edition had a beer-and-pretzel countermix and mechanical system wrapped with a set of complicated rules the creates unrealistic situations because its the only way they could make the game work. Instead of slapping more and more expansions onto it while increasing the counter density and rules bloat, I think they would have been better served to review their individual subsystems and polish them.

Your response?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

And geez only after seven years of development .....

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

And geez only after seven years of development ..... Wonder how the programmers are taking this into account .. (See my previous post about the year 2031). Makes me wonder if matrix shouldn't hand this over to slitherine. Call me crazy but I do see slitherine outlasting matrix in the future...they seem to be open to more ideas and willing to implement them. I do not see ONE matrix game being planned for tablets or mobile gaming. Almost reminds me of a grandfather/grandson who are business partners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

HoI 3 has much more than just generals. More of a tactical nature it seems and maybe too much micromanagement, but there is a lot of depth to the game. The scale is both smaller and larger at the same time than WiF. I have to admit that while I own HoI3 and its DLC's, I haven't actually played it that often.

But back to your VASSAL point. I think you may be correct. It might be the only hope for uber complexity as many old games have been made available through VASSAL.

An unnamed member contacted me by PM to discuss WiF. This person is an avid gamer and one very familiar with WiF. He stated that it might not be as good as many think it is. When I asked why, his response was this: (I hope he doesn't mind and of course he will stay anonymous)

My gripes with it are at both high and low levels. I'll start high and work down. Also, bear in mind that the last version I played was 5th Edition, and it's been in the last millenium. I'm sure they have improved a few things.

1. Physical Size of Game: It's too big to play unless you have a very large playing area. The main ET and PT maps are each 44 x 34 inches. Supplements add even more real estate.

2. Unnecessary Complexity: It seems to me as if the designers set about making their game as big as they could, and then designed the combat systems. Each type of combat (land, air, naval, sub, anti-sub, anti-air, etc.) requires a different resolution mechanic. IMO, the designers could have developed more realistic and smoother rules. Had they done so, it would be more playable.

3. It's a monster game. Takes forever to play. The expansions (ships in flames, planes in flames, jeeps in flames, etc.) only make it that much more complex and unwieldy. Now, if you can set up 2 or 3 44 x 34 inch maps for a year while you play one turn a night once a week (avg. wargame group), and you like monster games, it's probably okay.

4. For all of its complexity, it's not particularly realistic.

5. For at least five editions, the rules were just plain broken at several levels (can't remember details, only remember the frustrations of contradictory rules and in some cases, missing rules). I presume that the Internet has allowed them to address this problem to an extent.

Moving to a more tactical level:

1. Ground combat is very odd for the scale. They have an impulse system that governs all their game impulses, but it makes the entire game very unstable. If a particular turn goes long, one side can use it to trounce the other.

2. I intensely dislike the naval system. The game encourages players to just move their massive fleets out of port and park them in a blockade of enemy ports in perpetuity. This never happened, and is extremely unrealistic. (Gets back to my point about how complicated it is vs. how realistic it is.)

3. Many of the rules are out of proportion to the level of simulation. The result is something that calls to mind the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Summary of WiF Peeves:

A. More complicated than it needs to be owning to lazy system and unit design that never evolved through several editions.

B. In most practical gaming situations, it's unplayable because of its physical size.

C. It takes way too long to play it (especially since the usual Axis tactic is that if they don't win by the end of 1942, they give up and want to reset and play again, having just taken 2-3 months of game nights to get to that point—probably happens in other games as well, but it plagues this one as the Axis, if their wheels come off, cannot sustain a prolonged war of attrition because of the impulse system, which makes it impossible for the Axis to replace their losses to the level needed to compete in a long game).

For the record, when I complain about the complexity, I'm also an ASL player, so I'm not just whining—it's way more complicated than it needs to be to simulate what they're trying to simulate.

The root of the problems with the mechanics, I think, is the same as for Third Reich: Their 1st edition had a beer-and-pretzel countermix and mechanical system wrapped with a set of complicated rules the creates unrealistic situations because its the only way they could make the game work. Instead of slapping more and more expansions onto it while increasing the counter density and rules bloat, I think they would have been better served to review their individual subsystems and polish them.

Your response?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saint Ruth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
One of my dream games would be a RTS that would have the complexity of games like WITE hidden under the hood. All of it with subordinate AIs that would handle micro-management for the player.

Like the mythical Road To Moscow game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Saint Ruth
As someone said, I think I'd prefer a Russian Campaign game with 100 units a side rather than having to worry about
how the number of Latrines and kitchens in 1st Company of 2 Battalion, 1 Regiment, 13rd Division, 3rd Corp, 4th Army!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

There is no reason why complex games cant run on tablets. The processor is way more powerful than desktop PC's from a few years ago let alone the classics from the past.

Which complex wargame series that we used to produce have you seen us stop supporting that gives rise to this concern? World in Flames is almost complete and to release this year and War in the West is going well.

If you mean you see less of these releases than the lighter wargames then.... yes of course! These complex games take so much longer to make that you will by definition see less of them.

I think the change we are seeing is that there is an uptake of lighter wargames from the tablet audiences rather than a decline in complex games. It may feel like that as the news for these games covers more sites and there are more releases but I don't see any evidence to back it up. Light wargames are growing and as a result complex games are a smaller % of the total.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Iain..why aren't wargames then taking all that PC power and doing something with it. Yes tablets can do this and that but they are still no where nears as powerful as a PC.

Surely something innovative could come along and reshape how we see grog like wargames by using the power of the modern day PC. I'm not talking 3D RTS style or anything here but may really beautiful 3D maps or 3D Overlays..I'm not sure what can be done to be honest to use the power..but surely something can be..surely we haven't gone as far as we can do when it comes to the more Grog like wargames?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

There is no reason why complex games cant run on tablets. The processor is way more powerful than desktop PC's from a few years ago let alone the classics from the past.

Which complex wargame series that we used to produce have you seen us stop supporting that gives rise to this concern? World in Flames is almost complete and to release this year and War in the West is going well.

If you mean you see less of these releases than the lighter wargames then.... yes of course! These complex games take so much longer to make that you will by definition see less of them.

I think the change we are seeing is that there is an uptake of lighter wargames from the tablet audiences rather than a decline in complex games. It may feel like that as the news for these games covers more sites and there are more releases but I don't see any evidence to back it up. Light wargames are growing and as a result complex games are a smaller % of the total.