Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosseau
I find that "warm, fuzzy feeling" largely absent when considering the State of Digital Wargames 2021.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosseau
What matters here is not my opinion, but the observations of some of the most experienced (and brilliant) posters and devs in the wargaming industry right here on Matrix Games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big Ivan

I was not thinking that but it makes sense!

Its funny, I started playing board games in the early 70's and in the late 90's I moved on to Computer (Digital) wargames. One of the biggest reasons for me was convenience and I didn't need to have huge tables to enjoy my games!

I remember we had 2-3 ping-pong tables to setup GDW's Fire In The East. Today with Grigsby's game on the eastern from I have it on my computer screen and life is good!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

It also has Sid Meier's Gettysburg

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Why are so many talented individuals working on their own sad projects instead of teaming up to impress us all with a relevant Tobruk or Festung Europe or Global War? It ****ing sucks I'll tell you that much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

Would seem you do not have the power of persuasion. Ridicule probably is not the way to go, to change my mind. :) That and you ignored the bit about (and with guns), by which I meant that this is during any age where gunpowder was used in greater amounts. But please tell me about how elephants and concentrated horse cavalry did against well entrenched machine guns again :) Also, I noticed you sort of (once again) missed the point of the my answer and the thread. You are building up some track record there :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

With the above being said; Battlefront (BFC) needs to just abandon their CMx2 engine -- it may have been OK in 2004 or 2005 when Shock Force 1 came out; but in 2021, it's long since been eclipsed by every other 3D engine; and the sales figures aren't enough to support the kind of intensive effort that's needed to stay "in touch" with bleeding edge graphics, that Creative Assembly/SEGA can afford with Total War.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DingBat
I think you just answered your own question as to why they may not have abandoned their engine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gamer78

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

But historically commanders&leaders can have their ideals or madness that we also choose to play these wargames shouldn't be only about technology. Like Enver Pasha march with cavalry into Bolshevik machine gun.
Corto Maltese - La Maison Dorée de Samarkand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJva5xdoWg

Technology against chivalry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The only weakness in Vic's games are the OOB's. They tend to be inaccurate and not up to expectation. Has this aspect improved do you think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

As a thought:

One of the chief reasons for the perceived slower rate of advance in wargames is because they are fundamentally about simulating real world data and processes and then abstracting them into a game form. And they do require abstraction - even if a real world military achieved perfect awareness of where every one of it's soldiers was, at some point the guy looking at the map (digital or analog) would want to see unit icons.

Compare this to a flight sim, which is generally only deciding what it NEEDs to abstract due to resources, and what minor bits it's leaving out for playability. Making better flight sims is an incredibly hard, tool intensive, AI heavy, research driven, vastly complicate undertaking for sure. But the road map is pretty easy to see: make the models better, make the graphics better, make the flying more realistic, get the interplay of weapons centered around that plane right(er), make the MP servers more capable, make the campaigns more interactively interesting.

Now say you want to "do something new" in wargaming. You need to pick what it is you even want to do, how to represent that, what the bounds are going to be for your small slice of war, where to focus your efforts, and where to use existing conventions. And then you need to represent it the right way for this conflict, for this echelon, for this feel, for this level of playability, to stress these dynamics. You naturally probably use some starting points, and realize that even "small" changes in how you abstract things may result in huge engine changes - want to make WiTE2 WEGO? Better be prepared to either program extraordinary AI or face players demanding the control of IGOUGO back because it's not working well. Want physics-real armor penetration? Well, you need a physics engine. Don't want hexes? Great, but you better be ready to simulate everything else down to hexless granularity, which may be an impractical pain in the ass with no real changes for a game about corps and divisions.

And of course, you could get it wrong. Some people here may remember the first CMx2 series was meant to be played in real time, because it was going to show the vast advances in the engine and was "obviously" more realistic. Only the game still required you to be making decisions for every squad leader, every tank commander, and every FO...and it was a battalion level game. One of the very first things conceded was that it was going back to WEGO. How much time and effort ended up going right back to the basics?

Anyhow, long story short, I suspect the perceived slowness of advance is basically tied to this: for other games to advance they mostly just need to improve the execution of their given convention, and if they break convention they can often make the world fit the game they want. Every real advance in a wargame usually represents a new convention, and it has to use what the real world has provided.