A war of religions? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Slitherine/Matrix Press Event 2016 - The Home of Wargamers >> Slitherine/Matrix Press Event 2015 - The Home of Wargamers



Message

Daniele -> A war of religions? (6/9/2015 12:58:23 PM)

Sometimes personal preferences about turn resolutions are dangerously bordering with orthodoxy. Something close to the Nadal and Federer debate (Federer for me, of course), Pasta and Rice, Beatles and Rolling Stones, Keira Knightley and Scarlett Johansson (well, both, in this case).

Play style is important. It can instantly attract or discourage players to even view product information. A tough choice that goes hand in hand with many other basic design choices that an experienced wargamer would spontaneously check to gauge his/her interest in a product.

Of course some games are naturally suited to a specific type of turn resolution, while others are in a grey area where a decision on whether to use IGOUGO or WEGO is based on factors that go from personal preference of the developer, to a way of thinking, strategic approach, gameplay reasons and so it goes on.

The reality is there is no perfect solution. How do we attract WEGO system fans to try out a perfectly decent IGOUGO game and vice versa is the true challenge. Want to share your view about this subject? Join the discussion now and make your voice heard prior to #HoW15!



terry1040 -> RE: A war of religions? (6/9/2015 4:45:54 PM)

I like WEGO most. It covers the uncertainty aspect of war better and also allows for a more tense climax during combat resolution (or the review thereof). For me this approach reflects the real-military decision making process better then IGOUGO. Of course it depends how much time you then have the system to cover automatically until you hand back the control to the player.

War in the Pacific - Admirals Edition does handle this aspect with its day-turns quite well. But also makes the game harder to manage. Still both players need to plan well ahead and then watch how their plans unfold in reality.

BTW, WEGO comes in a couple of different flavors, like pause-able real-time like in "Command: Modern Air Naval Operations" or deferred timing like in "Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm". Both variations feel a bit more modern and have their own charm.

In regards to IGOUGO, a solution like in WitE/WitW also works quite nicely (time as an element for combat and movement), however I do not think it is superior to WEGO. The problem is that players can somewhat trick the system w/o an opportunity for an opponent in interfere.

And if you would allow for separated attack/defense phases per turn you would have way to many transfers in a PBEM-Scenario.

WitE/WitW kind of circumnavigate this problem by allowing players to put units in reserve mode that then can react to enemy moves. However this only works so far and again can be tricked by smart players.

TOAW3 introduced an interesting uncertainty concept. Players do not no for sure when a turn would (timing element) end and also have no full control who would move first in the next turn (initiative). That also worked in general, but has some potential for further enhancements.

No matter which system (WEGO, IGOUGO), both are superior to non-pausible realtime like in the "Close Combat"-Series.

Just my 2cents
Terry



zakblood -> RE: A war of religions? (6/9/2015 4:55:22 PM)

for me i'd like less RT, real time action games and more turn based, RT doesn't imo always give the true feel of command, where as turn based doesn't always give the feel of real combat, so it's needs to be balanced out into what scale and scope the game is question needs to be run at, some games are better suited to one, while others aren't and end up being in the wrong section / type.

i don't think this will ever be sorted, as one type of game suits one, but not the other, and some players hate it while others only buy one type, so it's a no win debate tbh imo... and a dead start as there is no perfect solution unless you program the game to work with both so the player has the option.

quote:

How do we attract WEGO system fans to try out a perfectly decent IGOUGO game and vice versa is the true challenge.


for me it's not, the challenge is to just write and code better games from the start not only just keep making games from the 80' and 90's and adding new bits to them, war games haven't progressed to the same extent as others, one could say the money just not there for the investment that's needed, which is true, but while it stays mainly for older men with counters and aged old designs and thoughts, it won't also change any time soon either i'm sorry to say, for every new member who joins for the first time, more and more go for RT type games as it's a quicker paced action which the younger aged like, not 400 page manuals, old counters and a world / battlefield map that fits on a cd with room to spare, and no i'm not saying a game has to fit on a dvd to be good, as that's just silly, but hopefully you get my point, but if not professor mumbo jumbo will be along to make sense of it better than i can...



SCAR -> RE: A war of religions? (6/9/2015 11:11:55 PM)

I like both, if done well, so it really depends upon the game.

But, I will take this opportunity to say that the beauty of PC
wargaming, is we are no longer handcuffed to what board games can do.
FoW, complex record keeping etc etc is all handled by the computer
and that's great. But why stop there?

More games, like WitE and WitW, should copy the wego systems like the Avalon Hill World at War series of games.
It makes playing and planning less certain, thus taking out the "odds determining", and the ability to plan
the perfect move(s) for a turn. In igougo, one player is completely static, and barely reactive in most instances.

In the best games, you have a plan for the turn, and I have a plan for the turn, and the best plan that takes into account
what the other guy can do, and accounts for it will succeed.

That said, even if using the wego to its fullest, like games by AGEOD, they may have the right wego feel,
but then miss the ball when the behavior for the units seems off.

Thus, for me its not just the wego or ugoigo, but the interaction and how everything works together that counts.



Boggit -> RE: A war of religions? (6/10/2015 5:08:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SCAR

I like both, if done well, so it really depends upon the game.

But, I will take this opportunity to say that the beauty of PC
wargaming, is we are no longer handcuffed to what board games can do.
FoW, complex record keeping etc etc is all handled by the computer
and that's great. But why stop there?

More games, like WitE and WitW, should copy the wego systems like the Avalon Hill World at War series of games.
It makes playing and planning less certain, thus taking out the "odds determining", and the ability to plan
the perfect move(s) for a turn. In igougo, one player is completely static, and barely reactive in most instances.

In the best games, you have a plan for the turn, and I have a plan for the turn, and the best plan that takes into account
what the other guy can do, and accounts for it will succeed.

That said, even if using the wego to its fullest, like games by AGEOD, they may have the right wego feel,
but then miss the ball when the behavior for the units seems off.

Thus, for me its not just the wego or ugoigo, but the interaction and how everything works together that counts.


I completely agree with SCAR that it all depends on the game. However, with games like Combat Mission that use a dual turn based, or real time mode, my preference is for the turn based experience. I also like pausable realtime over just realtime, as it gives you the space you need to sometimes just stop and think, make a cuppa etc. For me, SCAR has nailed the issue.



wodin -> RE: A war of religions? (6/12/2015 5:05:50 AM)

I play IGOUGO wargames because if I didn't there would be very little for me to choose from. Personally I think IGOUGO should be chosen by a developer only if WEGO wouldn't work or maybe the scale is fine with IGOUGO. I imagine it's alot easier to create an IGOUGO wargame than a WEGO. However WEGO should be a developers\designers priority and first choice when designing a wargame. I would choose IGOUGO over real time every time. Apart from rare exceptions like Command Ops, Graviteam Tactics and I'd say the early Close Combat games real time games usually resort to click fests and require little deep thinking, a big complaint of mine is that Infantry in these games are just cannon fodder.

So WEGO is my first choice and we really need more wargame susing the mechanic, followed by IGOUGO and in last place and usually to be avoided real time.



Symple -> RE: A war of religions? (6/12/2015 11:00:21 PM)

No wargame on any topic can be a comprehensive study of the conflict simulated. Instead, each wargame is a study of a theory of the conflict. Some look at systems, human and material. Some, examine leadership, logistics, terrain, etc. Of course most wargames use the complex interactions of many of these elements, yet nevertheless they present a theory of the conflict which players then examine.

IGOUGO systems are ideal when the theory is founded upon a chess like play. While some games have set moves, as in chess, turn taking allows for more precise play with uncertainty built into such features as weather and fog of war. It is ideal for exploring 'best' play strategies and tactics. This system is really suited to solitaire play when the player plays both sides to examine possibilities and desires maximum honing of play. This maximizes re-playability based upon fine tuning from prior play. Of course pbem is perfectly fine as these systems also allow a more 'secure' file interchange. The Commander series, Commander: Europe at War and Commander: the Great War epitomize IGOUGO systems at their best.

WEGO systems are ideal for when the theory is founded upon planning, anticipating and celerity. That uncertainty exists does not eliminate set moves, but it reduces many from certain to probable. This system is really suited to mulitplayer or pbem play as the uncertainty factor is much of what drives the game's appeal. Re-playability is maximized in the freshness of new options baonly sed upon the intersection of your forces with your opponent's plans. This 'uncertainty principle' really manifests itself in AGEOD's newest games where one activation option makes the decision about which leaders are 'active' after all moves have been planned. Each of AGEOD's games epitomize WEGO as a foundation upon which the command and organizational concepts are built.

I really cannot imagine players would refuse to play games of one concept or the other. While IGOUGO has more predictability and WEGO has more uncertainty, what I look for in making a decision about buying and playing a game is how the turn taking system helps develop the concept the designers are communicating to me.



denrbeach -> RE:Friendly user and fun most important (6/15/2015 3:30:01 PM)

Most of the old Avalon hill war games were fun and friendly,maybe the exceptions were Rise and fall of the Third Reich and just a couple others. Now most of the games made and played are too difficult and unfun. Hate to bring up a competitor but TripleA if any of you guys have played is lots of fun, lots of terrific options, and far from complicated. I've got most of Matrix wargames, and in the last few years I've bought many but its just taking up space in the drive. BUT Thx for past fun games Matrix and Slitherine



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375