A Plea Against Simulation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

Uncle Toby -> A Plea Against Simulation (11/5/2002 3:30:59 AM)

I’ve got nothing against simulations, the many first person shooter sims on the market are a testimony to the potential of computer gaming, my problem is with simulations of a politico-military variety. I think they are a distraction and a waste of programming, I think this because they just don’t work. They don’t work in single player because AI isn’t up to it and they don’t work in multi-player because, unlike the physics of shooting and running, we don’t really understand what we’re trying to simulate. A little bit of pretend simulation as window-dressing is not a bad thing provided it doesn’t get in the way of the game, but that’s all. The game should no more try to be a simulation of the Napoleonic world than Chess is a simulation of the Medieval one.

Not that I want Chess. What I want is a game that poses some of the same problems as war and diplomacy in the age of Napoleon. Problems like a limited ability to strike at your opponents and a limit to the damage you can do, the gains you can make. Problems like relying on the capabilities of subordinates, the varying capacities and characteristics of different nations and the trade-off between gains and the exhaustion of resources. This could be a great game but it would have to dump all the ridiculous simulation pretense and add a number of things not dreamed of in EiA.



ASHBERY76 -> (11/5/2002 5:55:23 AM)

LOL, If the game turns out to be what you want there's no way in hell i'll buy it.



mars -> (11/5/2002 6:07:02 AM)

hhmmmmm....not sure what your actual complaint is???
It sounds like you don't want a game that has AI.
There are certainly a lot of things that a political sim can and can't do but I think that considering the short time span being covered by the game it should be able to make some good decisions.
The part that has most arounsed my curiosity is the battles it certainly sounds like that will be a major change to what people have seen within the boardgame.



denisonh -> (11/5/2002 6:13:22 AM)

I would certainly hope so! The combat system for EIA is one of it's weakest aspects and can be vastly improved in a computer game version (I like rock/paper/scissors but not for resolving large scale Napoleonic battles)



Uncle Toby -> Turvey-Topsy (11/5/2002 9:28:33 AM)

Let me reassure everyone that I think there is "no way in hell" Matrix will make the game I envisage. We all have opinions, which we value I’m sure, I was looking for ideas, specifically ideas about the problems with EiA’s design fundamentals..

It’s not that I don’t want AI, but I do think unless you make this a game with a coherent set of mechanisms and not attempt a simulation you won’t be able to give it decent AI.

What I’m saying is the whole approach is backwards, designers should decide what they want the game to do and how it should work then stick a veneer of history or fantasy on it, not try to model horrifically complex real-life situations, especially historical ones which we can’t even study properly. How can you hope to model something which is past and gone? It would be hard enough to model a social system you could actually see working. The more detail you add the further it recedes and the less accurate it becomes. You can ignore the problems by agreeing to play according to some unwritten code but what game are you playing then?



denisonh -> (11/5/2002 12:42:08 PM)

[QUOTE]...designers should decide what they want the game to do and how it should work then stick a veneer of history or fantasy on it,...[/QUOTE]

Not sure exactly what your idea is, Uncle Toby. So the designer should come up with some arbitrary game system without a basis in a historical combat model, slap the name Napoleonic on it and sell it. The lack of depth would make it something that would hardly sell, and stick around about a week on my hard drive.

I think a historical based model for a game is a great starting point. The best example I can give is Uncommon Valor. I am thoroughly enjoying that game. It combines a realistic based model with enjoyable game play. It involves a great deal of detail and models many aspects accurately. It has quickly developed a huge fan base, sold out a number of times, and is getting better with every update that Matrix puts out. I have been playing it heavily (and still am)since I bought it in June.

I am not saying that this game should be the Napoleonic equivalent of UV, but an increased level of detail without losing resolution on the big picture would be nice. Especially when it comes to improving the the areas of EiA that "need work" before being translated to the computer gaming genre. And historical based modeling is not a bad way to do it.



strategy -> Re: Turvey-Topsy (11/5/2002 2:26:50 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uncle Toby
[B]What I’m saying is the whole approach is backwards, designers should decide what they want the game to do and how it should work then stick a veneer of history or fantasy on it......[/B][/QUOTE]

So in other words, if I took the Heroes of Might and Magic engine, changed the units names to be Fusiliers, Grenadiers, etc., and the graphics to be the appropriate Napoleonic ones, called it "Heroes of the Napoleonic Wars" then you'd be pleased with the result and champion it as a great historical strategy game? :cool:



Uncle Toby -> (11/5/2002 8:55:00 PM)

No, not at all. I thought I made it clear in my first post but I’ll try again. I think you should look at the problem, the challenges, if you like, of real life situations and abstract them. These challenges don’t have particular times or places. Relying heavily on the character of a subordinate is characteristic of Napoleonic and 19th century warfare generally but it could also be characteristic of a number of other situations.

When you have the problems in abstract form it doesn’t matter what sort of skin they have, it is at this level the game should be designed, not by saying "how are we going to get Austria to behave as she did in 1806". Design a framework of mechanisms to present challenges like those faced by a Napoeloic era leader but design them coherently and leave out what doesn’t fit.

Some of the mechanisms from HoMM are actually pretty close to EiA, though it is a very unsophisticated game.



Ancient One -> (11/7/2002 5:04:51 PM)

I'm not sure what you mean. What exactly would you change or leave out? :confused:



Uncle Toby -> (11/7/2002 9:14:13 PM)

Well that’s a very big question, to answer it would require me to virtually write a game outline. What I’m trying to get across is the idea that the approach to game design which takes simulation of unsimulatable events as it’s goal is wrongheaded. It may produce a briefly entertaining pastime, learning it’s peculiarities et. will keep people amused for awhile, but it will not make a game that satisfies or lasts even by the ephemeral standards of computer games.

To give a brief outline of how I would approach the problem of designing a Napoleonic political/military /economic game: First identify the key challenges of the situation. You could argue about these and in choosing you are making key decisions as to what your game is about, I’d say:

Varying characteristics and goals for the various countries

Restricted (more for some than others) power to change situation

Limited ability to inflict damage, both in range and quality

Limited ability to alter or control the economy, some vital resources susceptible to blockade or denial.

Limited resources both economic and human.

Varying degrees of accountability to popular feeling.

Heavy reliance on personality and capability of commanders at least to the corps level

Varying military doctrine effects

I’m doing this off the top of my head so there are probably things I’ve left out. The next step is to list the goals which must be fulfilled to make this a good GAME.

Should have systems which allow the AI to function with at least some semblance of intelligence

For multiplay should keep players engaged to the end, and make game outcome depend on skill and chance more than player popularity.

Should call on as wide a range of talents in the player as possible

Game should be simple to learn (unless arcane interaction is used as a mechanism, though in a Napoleonic game this wouldn’t come up)

Next choose mechanisms (abstracting the challenges) which fulfill the first criteria without conflicting with each other or the second set of criteria. This is where it gets very complicated.

Above all design it to be a working GAME and let the simulation take care of itself. And make it a computer game, not some chimera saddled with paper game relics for mechanisms.



DodgyDave -> (11/7/2002 9:45:54 PM)

pleace dont forget that this game, was to be EIA on computer, not an entirely new game, because if that is what you want, then call it something else and do another game, but if we are to get EIA, then do i want EIA and to include options, to include EIH is fine with me, just as long as i can decide what i want to play.

Also i dont mind an AI, just hope they can make one, that will be a threat and even a friend, no more Civ AIs, that always end up being your enemy nomatter what :)



msvknight -> (11/26/2002 5:03:40 PM)

Why don't you give Uncle Toby a break. I too love EIA but I can see his point. I just want to make sure that the flavour of EiA is retained. If you want a totally new game, then don't claim that the game is a copy of EIA.

I think we should trust the designers. They seem to have known what is happening so far. They appear to be trying to give us a game that copies EIA (as closely as feasible), and then including features that will hopefully satisfy those among us who want more. What is absolutely certain is that these guys will take on board any problems after the release and look at fixing them.

So chill people......



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.062012