|
Hertston -> RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST (7/23/2006 3:13:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
For over 50+ years the boardgame turn based style of wargaming has dominated, it still dominates today. Only in the computer portion of wargaming do designers and developers attempt the thwart that which has been established for years.
I hate to state the obvious, but its only the computer portion of wargaming where anything other than a turn-based style is even possible. In that context, talking about what is "established" is nonsense, there was just no other way to do it. But who would take a Sherman into combat in 2006 when they could have an Abrams?
quote:
They try to turn wargaming into some clickfest or movie of graphics and glitter and take out of the hands of the gamer the reason they play them in the first place (the reason I play them anyway); the TOTAL CONTROL of the combat situaltion.
I disagree on both counts. Firstly, with motivation. Having spent an awful lot of time with the Airborne Assault games and the Prosim games ("graphics and glitter"?!) it seems clear to me that their purpose is in fact to produce the most accurate simulation of warfare for the entertainment market possible, subject to the constraints of ending up with a game that is still enjoyable to play. Secondly, I don't believe "total control" is what most wargamers require, or even particularly want. War isn't like that, and anything that attempts to move the boundary from 'game' to 'simulation' can't be like that either.
quote:
I just don't understand the philosophy of hey lets let the computer play the game and we'll just let the player watch and interact sometimes or if he wants to interact a lot well he'll just have to PAUSE the game or play like a kiddie clickfester game.
I wouldn't understand it either, but I just don't recognise that in any of the games we are talking about. PAUSE is only necessary for two reasons. The first is when the game is being played at an accelerated rate (scale permitting) simply as a practicality. If I had a week to play the Arnhem campaign 'live', PAUSE would not be necessary. The second reason is to allow the player if he chooses to exercise just the sort of control you state you require... not necessarily "total", but that way beyond the capacity of a real commander in the field.
I guess turn-based games do still 'dominate', and there will always be a place for them at the operational and strategic levels. For tactical level games, though, it is my very humble opinion that they are dated, and due for replacement. Games like CotA and Armored Task Force - not to mention the computer Harpoons - are the vanguard of that. They will push aside turn based games because they are far better simulations of the consequences of decisions of real-life commanders in the field, and in my very humble opinion (again) THAT is what the majority of wargamers want. If they didn't, they might as well just play Chess.
|
|
|
|
