Wargame or Strategy Game?

Wargame or Strategy Game? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

jomni -> Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 8:01:37 AM)
Inspired by the business model thread. Lets play a game, I name some games and you tell me if it's a wargame or a strategy game. Please justify our answer. From here maybe I can figure out a conensus on what defines a wargame. Feel free to also name a game for us to classify. Tactical games... 1) Company of Heroes 2) Combat Mission Shock Force 3) Close Combat 4) Theater of War 5) Achtung Panzer Strategic Games... 5) Axis and Allies 6) War in the Pacific 7) Time or Wrath / Storm over the Pacific 8) Commander: Europe at War 9) Strategic Command 10) Hearts of Iron

Yogi the Great -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 10:38:37 AM)
The problem may be what each of us uses as a definition itself. Not all seperate or see it the same way. I have not played most of the games you list, but would probably say they are ALL wargames. Simple definition of wargame; a game about war Most wargames require strategy and therefore are also "strategy games", but I suppose there may be some that might say not all require real strategy (simple shoot out games based on war perhaps) A strategy game does not have to be about war, it does have to require strategy that effects how the game turns out. I don't see defining a game as only one or the other as valid. I guess what I'm trying to say (although badly) is that a game does not have to be either a wargame or a strategy game. It can be both and in the case of "wargames" probably will be. So have fun determining if Strategic Command is a wargame or a strategy game [&:] For me it is simple, it is a strategy game about war - which means it is both and no matter which term you use, you are correct.

jomni -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 11:04:19 AM)
You are correct. Asked the same thing in Wargamer and they say Wargame is about war. Railroad tycoon, sim city, civilization are strategy games. But there are people who don't want their BFTB's mixed up with the same genre as COH as an example. Some add the realism factor to their criteria of calling something a wargame. Maybe that's just some grognard's pride getting in the way...

Yogi the Great -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 11:48:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Some add the realism factor to their criteria of calling something a wargame. Maybe that's just some grognard's pride getting in the way... For sure - I like to kid and talk about "real wargames" myself. For example Risk and Campaign Gettysburg are certainly both "wargames", but campaign Gettysburg is a real wargame. And let's not get started on Fantasy/Sci Fi games and if they qualify as real wargames. Or maybe we should?

Jim D Burns -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 3:01:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Some add the realism factor to their criteria of calling something a wargame. Maybe that's just some grognard's pride getting in the way... Pride has nothing to do with it, history does. A “wargame” in the broadest sense of the word deals with historical military situations and tries to simulate the realities of the topic being covered. They then try and present players with the same problems and dilemmas those realities imposed on the historical commanders present at the conflict. A “strategy” game doesn’t generally concern itself with the history so much, though many strategy games are loosely based on history. A strategy game is generally more concerned with the fun factor of the game system, and when they are being designed, history gets thrown out if it gets in the way of designing a fun game system. That said, both titles are still subjective terms used to differing degrees by different groups of gamers based on their personal take on the topics covered. Some people insist the Axis and Allies is a wargame, others insist that it is simply a strategy game that uses a WWII theme. Both sides are right, and that’s why confusion exists when discussing wargames within different groups of people. To me the test is simple. Is the game more concerned with getting the history right then it is in simply making the game fun to play? If so then it falls into the wargame genre. If not then it’s a strategy game set around a war theme. So for me Axis and Allies is a strategy game. Jim

Scott_WAR -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 4:38:57 PM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming A wargame is a game that deals primarily with the activity known as war. Whether its historical, fictional, thoeretical etc.....does not matter. Now you can say 'historical wargame'........................... Wargames are a type of strategy game. Just as baseball is a type of sport. Just as a ford is a type of car.

Jevhaddah -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 5:27:22 PM)
Wargaming was and still is used by the worlds various militarys to test various strategies to see which if any will produce the best results. The most infamous one (that I know of) being that played by Yamamoto et-al for the attack on Midway, where the umpires just ignored, pronounced illegal or just plain impossible the more devastaing results that could be inflicated on the japanese fleet. I think its listed in Shattered Sword for those who want to look it up. The Prussians among others were great wargamers too, testing various senarios and strategies sometimes years before an actual war in 'what if' scenarios. Sooo wargames are not just for historical study of previous wars, but also as a tool to predict strategy and tactics in future wars. Cheers Jev

Scott_WAR -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 5:40:09 PM)
wargames are games that are played war games are military excercises dont ask me how a space between the words makes a difference,....but it does.

Jevhaddah -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 6:29:33 PM)
The wargames I was talking about were the pen and paper type, played out on a map usually with blocks of wood to represent the units, in the days before computers. Nowadays this can be done on computers with all the number crunching being done by the PC or mainframe with or without flashy graphics.. oh and in realtime too. As for actual full scale War Games having taken part in a few I am sure the actual plan carried out on the 1:1 full scale War game would have been wargamed first using the technology availible at the time. Cheers Jev

Knavery -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 7:49:08 PM)
Here's my opinion... All wargames are strategy games, but perhaps you meant to say RTS games. By definition, some wargames ARE real-time strategy games. But I think the definition of RTS has gotten a little muddled over the years. Technically, any wargame that works in realtime is an RTS. A wargame takes strategy, and if that wargame works in realtime, it is a real-time strategy. I think this is a semantics argument. Here's another example... One of my favorite styles of music is progressive. Now-a-days progressive music is not defined as a group expanding into new territory. Progressive music has become a specific sound--virtuoso musicianship with odd time signatures etc. I think the term RTS is similar in nature where it's now defined by games like Starcraft and C&C.

Perturabo -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 8:10:58 PM)
Term RTS was created somewhere around the times of DuneII and Command & Conquer to describe the new kind of games that featured real time base building, unit production, and combat. It was simplified and anti-realistic. It was created to describe a very specific genre. Term RTW was created somewhere around the times of Close Combat and Sid Meier's Gettysburg! to describe the real time tactical wargames.

Arctic Blast -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 9:15:09 PM)
An RTS is a strategy game played in real time. That's it. Pure and simple. So yes, Europa Universalis III, Company of Heroes, Achtung Panzer, Age of Empires and Battle from the Bulge are all RTS games. It's a broad spectrum category. It's no different with turn based strategy games. Civilization IV, Panzer General II, War in the Pacific and Master of Orion II have virtually nothing in common except the fact that they all fit in to the turn based strategy category.

diablo1 -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 11:17:55 PM)
quote: Term RTW was created somewhere around the times of Close Combat and Sid Meier's Gettysburg! to describe the real time tactical wargames. I've never heard of or seen the term RTW anywhere and especially in mainstream reviews of wargames and strategy games. Where do you get your source? I've been around since the early 90's when Dune II first came out and it was an RTS and anything realtime by mainstream standards was given the RTS tag. Only recently the developer of Panther Games calls his creations continous pausible but I'm not sure that stands up in the mainstream market where the majority of gamers thrive. I'd wager they would call it and see it as an RTS game only on a lesser scale than a normal RTS game. Kind of like Paradox Europa Engine and all the games they've made using it. It's an RTS also.

V22 Osprey -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/22/2010 11:21:04 PM)
Me: I play Wargames Person: Oh, you play Call of Duty? Me: No, I play strategy games Person: Oh, you must play Command and Conquer. Me: [8\|] This has happened to me countless of times, even with my own friends. Nowadays, people think strategy games are just C&C and Company of Heroes. Yes Battles from the Bulge is an 'RTS', but the fact of the matter is that if I tell someone I play RTS games(refering to BftB), people would automatically be thinking Command and Conquer when I mean BftB. I try to use 'Wargames' to differentiate a simulation like BftB from the unrealistic excuses of strategy games people seem to know as 'RTS'.

Perturabo -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/23/2010 2:38:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: diablo1 quote: Term RTW was created somewhere around the times of Close Combat and Sid Meier's Gettysburg! to describe the real time tactical wargames. I've never heard of or seen the term RTW anywhere and especially in mainstream reviews of wargames and strategy games. Where do you get your source? CD-Action - late 90s. Also, the term strategy games is horribly imprecise and doesn't say anything about the game, which is why I don't use it any more. It's much better to talk about grand strategy wargames, strategic wargames (WitP), operational wargames (Airborne Assault, BftB, Battles in..., WPO), tactical wargames (Close Combat, Firefight, Steel Panthers) and skirmish wargames (Laser Squad). RTS games with their grotesque gameplay belong to neither of these categories. Talking about BftB as an operational wargame (or better, a continuous time operational wargame) makes much more sense than talking about it as "RTS". Similarly, the Real Time Strategy term doesn't make sense, which perfectly fits the nonsense genre that it describes. It's obvious that it's impossible to play a realistic stategic level game in real time without dying out of boredom. Putting a strategic level gameplay into real time and making it playable results in exactly what is seen in games like Command & Conquer. Base building, unit production and weird stuff like that, all happening ridiculously fast, with very abstracted combat. Damn, it seems that people who created the first RTS actually knew what they are doing O_o .

diablo1 -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/23/2010 5:10:54 AM)
Well in fact RTS goes all the way back to the early 80's with Hille's Combat Leader and later Battallion Commander. Both of these were real time games with 8 bit graphics and Combat Leader was even more horrible in the graphics dept but still a working fun challenging RTS game. Once again though I've never heard of CD-Action either. You must live in a very niche small world. Come out to the real world of PCgamer or Computer Gamer or Gamespy, Gamespot or IGN and we can talk. PCgamer/UK is my favorite site for reviewing PC strategy wargames. If a strategy or wargame gets a good score from that dude then you know it's gotta be good to great because he hardly ever gives anything over a 60.

jomni -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/23/2010 6:58:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo It's much better to talk about grand strategy wargames, strategic wargames (WitP), operational wargames (Airborne Assault, BftB, Battles in..., WPO), tactical wargames (Close Combat, Firefight, Steel Panthers) and skirmish wargames (Laser Squad). RTS games with their grotesque gameplay belong to neither of these categories. Talking about BftB as an operational wargame (or better, a continuous time operational wargame) makes much more sense than talking about it as "RTS". Similarly, the Real Time Strategy term doesn't make sense, which perfectly fits the nonsense genre that it describes. It's obvious that it's impossible to play a realistic stategic level game in real time without dying out of boredom. Putting a strategic level gameplay into real time and making it playable results in exactly what is seen in games like Command & Conquer. Base building, unit production and weird stuff like that, all happening ridiculously fast, with very abstracted combat. Perturabo are you sick of RTS games? Why is your avatar and signature showing Command and Conquer? Just curious. Is World in Conflict an RTS for you? No base building but things do happen fast. Can you say Wargames are the ones grownups play and RTS are the ones kids play? Anyway anyone remember Microprose / Sid Meier's Command Series during the 1980's? Crusade in Europe, Decision in the Desert, Conflict in Vietnam... These are really nice and simple real-time operational wargames. An old RTS that comes into mind is The Ancient Art of War... Pace of this game is fast and twitchy. Strategic map with unit production and rock/paper/scisors tactical play.

Anguille -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/23/2010 9:57:35 AM)
I also think of Fields of Glory...real-time Napoleonic Battles...very wargamer....

htuna -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/23/2010 12:03:49 PM)
Never heard of RTW either.. to me.. all those that are not turn based are RTS... Real Time + Strategy ....

Perturabo -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/23/2010 6:58:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Perturabo are you sick of RTS games? Yeah, I got pretty sick of them after I discovered Close Combat. It shown me that more realistic means more brutal and more exciting. Thrill of combat, power of command and all that stuff. Since RTS games are basically warped strategic games - the combat tends to be slow and simplified - tactical wargames offer much more brutal and detailed combat. For example casualties - in RTS games units simply lose health points, while in tactical games they can get suppressed, hit or not, injured, wounded or killed instantly, etc. quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Why is your avatar and signature showing Command and Conquer? Just curious. Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun has great graphics and great cutscenes. A well made Tiberian Sun map is a feast for eyes. I don't play it any more, though. I made a brutal combat mod for it several years ago, but the combat wasn't as satisfying as in a tactical wargame anyway, so I have stopped playing it. When I bought C&C:TS, I basically played through the NOD and GDI campaigns and quickly got bored with it and stopped playing it until I learned about modding several years later. quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Is World in Conflict an RTS for you? No base building but things do happen fast. I haven't played it. But there's a weird genre of games that are RTS derivatives - they basically keep the simplified combat with health bars and remove the resource management/base building or do some other things like adding more complex mechanics. I don't know how to classify them - as they seem to do stuff backwards - removing some unrealistic elements from RTS genre or adding some realistic elements instead of simply making a real time simulation. Sometimes such attempts get really weird - for example Dawn of War has squads, health bars, armour, weapon damage, chance to hit, cover, morale, etc. - lots of redundant mechanics, because it ends up working as in much simpler Command & Conquer or Starcraft anyway. quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Can you say Wargames are the ones grownups play and RTS are the ones kids play? Well, not really. I actually started out with wargames. Mainly Legions of Death, Guadalcanal and Laser Squad as they were easiest to learn without manual. I think it's more like that wargames are for the ones who want realistic gameplay and RTS are for those who want absurd gameplay (I won't use the word "abstract", because practically every genre outside of those with advanced physics simulation must use abstraction anyway). Of course, they may be fun to a lot of people because of things like various strategies, game balance, and other stuff like that. quote: ORIGINAL: jomni Anyway anyone remember Microprose / Sid Meier's Command Series during the 1980's? Crusade in Europe, Decision in the Desert, Conflict in Vietnam... These are really nice and simple real-time operational wargames. I considered adding them to my "to buy" list some time ago. What are they like? quote: ORIGINAL: diablo1 Come out to the real world of PCgamer or Computer Gamer or Gamespy, Gamespot or IGN and we can talk. In real world wargaming outdated and no one makes wargames because they can't sell in millions of copies[:'(]. Also, there's going to be a WitP remake. It's going to be re-imagined as a first person shooter because it's not 1994. Anyway, the problem is that game journalists don't bother to use sensible terminology. They call a game a strategy game and that's it. Except that it doesn't mean anything. It's just a marketing buzzword, just like immersion, etc. From what I've seen, people who actually make wargames tend to avoid classifying them as strategy games unless they are actually strategic level wargames. For example: Fire Brigade manual calls the game "computer simulation" and a "command game". Microprose catalogue calls its "Command Series" "accelerated real time simulations" and "strategic simulations". Wargames section of the SSI catalogue from 1991 has "computer simulations", "operational wargames" and "tactical simulations". "Guadalcanal" (real time and accelerated time, IIR) from activision is called "strategic war game". It seems to happen on strategic level. "Legions of Death" (phase based) is called a "real-time simulation" "Close Combat" box and manual doesn't bother to name the genre. They just describe what the game is. Sean O'Connor's "Firefight" released in 1998 is called by him a "real time simulation". So, no hint of RTS anywhere. It appears that the name most commonly used by the people who actually make these games is "real time simulation" (RTSim?), which would neatly separate the games that aim for realism from RTS. Still, it's not very precise - after all, it puts a tactical wargame with explosions and gore in the same category as an operational wargame with unit icons.

jomni -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/25/2010 2:58:22 AM)
I guess RTS was coined during the days of Dune, C&C, Age or Empires and specifically targeted at the base building genre. But it's really a misnomer if taken by literally.

Perturabo -> RE: Wargame or Strategy Game? (7/25/2010 6:22:54 AM)
Wikipedia article (I'm not sure if it has a solid base) on wargaming says that: quote: Strategic — military units are typically division, corps, or army-sized, rated by raw strength. At this scale, economic production and diplomacy are significant. This sub-genre will often make use of all branches with the whole force of the engaging nations, covering entire wars or long campaigns. Now, let's take a game where these military units are replaced by single dudes and vehicles and each, let's say that time and space gets compressed - basically, make a "turn" that normally represents a few days last 30seconds or something, replace schematic large scale map graphics with a small scale tactical game-style map. Bases represent industrial centres of countries. They produce division-sized units which then are assigned with various tasks. (So, basically, sending one dude in C&C is like sending a division in strategy game, sending out a group of units is like sending out an army). Of course everything happens in compressed time and space and looks kinda silly and units are very simplified to make it a rock/paper/scissors game on a larger scale. I think that in that case, the use of "strategy" in the genre name kinda makes sense - it's basically a strategic game in clothes of a tactical game. Of course later some companies have tried to add "realism" and make it closer to tactical wargames, which shows that they don't really understand the genre. BTW. it's funny how DoW was boasting about it's "innovative" features like squads, morale, cover, etc. when it was done years ago and much better in tactical RTSims. BTW: I wonder how a tactical level RTSim set in the Wh40k setting would be received in comparison to DoW.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875