Can operational games be 'realistic'? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

flibby -> Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/2/2014 10:49:13 PM)

Some of you may have seen some of my half-rants previously.

To summarise, I have been playing around with Command Ops, AP:OS and more recently, the most recent Combat Mission games, in order to try and find the most realistic simulation of warfare for implementing real-life tactics and strategies. (I'm also a big ARMA player, but that's by the by - great for lower lever tactics stuff however...)

I have come to a number of different conclusions thus far, but wanted your input on my dilemma.

Command Ops - I love the game, however it feels to me that it's a little hard to abstract quite as much as the game does, and retain realism. For instance, we're supposed to put it to the back of our minds that a company size unit can across a wooded area, and yet when you look at the TOE it contains trucks which could by no means pass through this terrain.

A further example would be that a unit the size of a company would employ flanking tactics within itself, suppressing with perhaps a number of platoons and flanking with the others. It's clearly impossible to represent this on the scale of Command Ops, and therefore you have a situation whereby an entire company suppresses an enemy company and then another company or larger force flanks from the side. Perhaps i am playing the game incorrectly here, and i'm happy for constructive criticism to be dished out!

AP:OS - Initially i felt very strongly about the game, however the AI is vastly inferior to Command Ops.

And finally Combat Mission. I get the feeling that the game is the right scope and scale for a true representation of tactics, and the AI is a decent opponent, however i am stuck between the Real-time and 'WEGO' solutions as to which would be more accurate, and i feel that a Command Ops style pausable real-time would be more fitting.

Has anyone ever found this question, or is my hunt for the accurate game always going to come with a certain amount of compromise? I guess playing ARMA 3 you are playing the ultimate soldier level tactics game, with no assumptions, but it's difficult to find this in a tactical/operational game.

Nick



Joe D. -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 12:11:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby

And finally Combat Mission. I get the feeling that the game is the right scope and scale for a true representation of tactics, and the AI is a decent opponent, however i am stuck between the Real-time and 'WEGO' solutions as to which would be more accurate, and i feel that a Command Ops style pausable real-time would be more fitting ...


I doubt it's a coincidence that the two best AI engines IMO are Combat Missions' Pausable Real Time and AGEOD, which is WEGO.



gradenko2k -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 4:29:43 AM)

Combat Mission already is pausable real time when playing solitaire.

With regards to the larger question, I think a player should be willing to accept a certain level of abstraction in any operational game. The scale of the subgenre practically demands it. If you're thinking about what your platoons are doing and wishing you had more control over them, that's a tactical problem. That might mean you'll be more satisfied with a tactical level game (hence Combat Mission), but that's not the operational scale's problem



Agathosdaimon -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 10:01:53 AM)

I rate FRANK Hunters games highly for operational level campaigning - very realistic Fog of War in the Campaigns on the Danube game, you have to work things out from the reports which come in and can be delayed, inacurate, or duplicating other reports



Qwixt -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 5:36:26 PM)

What I find unrealistic is that the commander knows everything that is happening to his soldiers, and can instantly issue orders to the situation and those orders are always understood. In order for something to be truly realistic, the commander can't know everything about the situation instantly, and can't have orders understood and followed 100%. Of course this depends on the size of the unit.



MrsWargamer -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 6:21:44 PM)

Can any games be realistic?

As was mentioned, god mode, no mystery as to the conditions, instant reaction time and of course, the people ostensibly in charge never making what are clearly biased prejudiced decisions like they do in real life.

Then there is how no one is actually dying in the game. It tends to make choices really not all that serious. No dire repercussions. Nothing actually happens when you lose.

Eventually some of the arguments regarding realism sound just a bit dumb. I personally think abstractions often recreate the realism better when the abstractions are very well thought out.

But operational does tend to avoid the troubles that often beset squad tactical such as annoying pathing issues that can make you mental. And grand strategy seems to have to deal with totally impossible human political simulations that you can usually avoid with operational.

I don't think I would say operational is more realistic, it just gets a bit less grief from that which besets tactical and strategic.



Perturabo -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 7:00:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Can any games be realistic?

As was mentioned, god mode, no mystery as to the conditions, instant reaction time and of course, the people ostensibly in charge never making what are clearly biased prejudiced decisions like they do in real life.

Armored Brigade and Command Ops don't have instant reaction time.

Lack of friendly fog of war and context of chain of command is pretty damning for computer wargames, though. I heard Points of Attack 2 has friendly fog of war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Then there is how no one is actually dying in the game. It tends to make choices really not all that serious. No dire repercussions. Nothing actually happens when you lose.

Well, there's always a possibility of losing the game...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Eventually some of the arguments regarding realism sound just a bit dumb.

Which ones?



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 7:15:46 PM)

I would turn the question on its head and ask if Tactical Games can be realistic? I’ll admit that I’m so soured on them that I’m probably not up to date on the latest stuff, but the problem with them had been that there were only two ways to do it: Real-Time or Turn-Based.

Under Real-Time it becomes a “click-fest” with the results being determined by who can click the mouse the fastest. That turns the contest into an arcade experience, divorced from reality.

If Turn-Based, however, the player can ponder each unit’s options for an extreme length of time that its real commander may have had to make in seconds. And this allows disparate units all over the map to be minutely coordinated. The result is usually something akin to a surgical strike regardless of the caliber of the forces. This is especially a problem in non-modern games, where what should look like mass chaos looks like a parade ground.

Operational games are better in that regard. The turn intervals are typically greater than the time that players can devote to their unit decisions.

Regardless, realism, for me, is determined by how well the game recreates history (based upon a lot of metrics, of course). So, if the Allies invade, achieve a lodgment, breakout, sweep across France and run out of steam near the French eastern border after more or less historical casualties at more or less the historical pace – given historical command choices by both sides, and allowing for statistical variance – then the game is pretty realistic. And there are operational games that I can say that about.



flibby -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 7:20:19 PM)

Thanks Curtis.

What games do you typically play?

I'm getting the feeling that WEGO is probably the more realistic representation in Combat Mission, despite the fact that you can ponder your decisions, as much like Command Ops you have some element of uncertaintly.

In CO this uncertainty is caused by having your unit AI which doesn't strictly follow orders to the T, and in CM it's more about not being able to change your orders for a minute, which can lead to some interesting circumstances.



Perturabo -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/3/2014 7:33:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

I would turn the question on its head and ask if Tactical Games can be realistic? I’ll admit that I’m so soured on them that I’m probably not up to date on the latest stuff, but the problem with them had been that there were only two ways to do it: Real-Time or Turn-Based.

Under Real-Time it becomes a “click-fest” with the results being determined by who can click the mouse the fastest. That turns the contest into an arcade experience, divorced from reality.

If Turn-Based, however, the player can ponder each unit’s options for an extreme length of time that its real commander may have had to make in seconds. And this allows disparate units all over the map to be minutely coordinated. The result is usually something akin to a surgical strike regardless of the caliber of the forces. This is especially a problem in non-modern games, where what should look like mass chaos looks like a parade ground.

I think RT with command delays and subordinate AI is most realistic.



gradenko2k -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/4/2014 12:50:34 PM)

To quote a lesson from Sid Meier:

Do Your Research After The Game Is Done

Many of the most successful games of all time - SimCity, Grand Theft Auto, Civilization, Rollercoaster Tycoon, The Sims - have real-world themes, which broadens their potential audience by building the gameplay around concepts familiar to everyone.

However, creating a game about a real topic can lead to a natural but dangerous tendency to cram the product full of bits of trivia and obscure knowledge to show off the amount of research the designer has done. This tendency spoils the very reason why real-world themes are so valuable - that players come to the game with all the knowledge they already need.

Everybody knows that gunpowder is good for a strong military, that police stations reduce crime, and that carjacking is very illegal. As Sid puts it, "the player shouldn’t have to read the same books the designer has read in order to be able to play."

Games still have great potential to educate, just not in the ways that many educators expect. While designers should still be careful not to include anything factually incorrect, the value of an interactive experience is the interplay of simple concepts, not the inclusion of numerous facts and figures.

Many remember that the world’s earliest civilizations sprang up along river valleys -- the Nile, the Tigris/Euphrates, the Indus -- but nothing gets that concept across as effectively as a few simple rules in Civilization governing which tiles produce the most food during the early stages of agriculture. Furthermore, once the core work is done, research can be a very valuable way to flesh out a game’s depth, perhaps with historical scenarios, flavor text, or graphical details. Just remember that learning a new game is an intimidating experience, so don’t throw away the advantages of an approachable topic by expecting the player to already know all the details when the game starts.

=====

So to relate this to the topic, perhaps the question one should be asking oneself is, does this operational-level game involve making decisions relevant to an operational-level commander?

Are you calculating force allocation across the front? Are you worrying about having picked the right spot for force concentration? Is logistics a prime concern for you? Is maintaining proper command-and-control a challenge?

As long as the game is hitting those notes, I think it's very arguable that the game is realistic enough.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Can operational games be 'realistic'? (7/4/2014 3:52:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby

Thanks Curtis.

What games do you typically play?


TOAW. For example, here is the movie from this AAR:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1726673

[image]local://upfiles/14086/A1C99BF2C7224AD7A234B6D2791A3099.gif[/image]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.34375