What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

RFalvo69 -> What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/14/2021 2:18:34 PM)

A video from almost five years ago by the "Military History Visualized" YT channel. Do you think that the assessment was fair for the time? Has the situation been improved?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peNU5EffPYU



Joel Billings -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/14/2021 3:55:58 PM)

That's a good video, thanks for sharing it. It makes very valid points about how computer wargames are games and not simulations of war. I think WitE2 does a good job of dealing with the All or Nothing and Only Warriors Allowed issues is speaks to. The fact that we have so many construction and support units, and that it's the percentage of ready combat elements in a unit that determine the holding ground/fighting capability is a good example of this. Also the fact that most of the losses in a unit are in these combat elements. Of course we intentionally fail on Total Information and Total Control (ok, maybe we get a D). Even with FOW on, we give you lots of info on the enemy and your own units intentionally, because it's a game and we think players enjoy the game more when they can track things. Also, although not total control over everything, we give you a lot of control, again as a design decision. Now if we were making a simulation for the military it would likely be different as you'd want to focus more on life as it is for the officers involved. But that's not our goal. Anyway, all in all a very interesting video.



*Lava* -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/14/2021 4:05:58 PM)

I like the channel and view it often.

To answer your question, yes of course he is correct. Sure there have been improvements in many ways, but overall he is spot on. Wargames, in many ways, are just a different form of chess, where all the pieces are displayed before you and you have complete knowledge and control.

I love this quote:

quote:

Fog of War is a joke in games.


Most games portray Fog of War like a curtain which you need to push into to reveal what is there. [:-]

Indeed, Clausewitz definition of Fog of War is that it is a situation on the battlefield in which all things are clouded in uncertainty, including your own forces. And this leads him into a discussion of uncertainty. Many times the Commander is bombarded with false reporting. In the Navy we used to say the first report is always wrong. And uncertainty brings with it what Clausewitz referred to as friction. In essence what is very easy to perform on the parade ground, becomes a huge task when faced with the Fog of War and uncertainty.

But to be clear, the guy is totally correct in that to include such concepts into wargames would have a huge impact on the fun factor. I do remember a very buggy game called Napoleon 1813 (I believe) which did a pretty good job of using Fog of War. Enemy troop reports were often wrong, Corps would sometimes go off in a different direction then ordered, etc.

Overall, though, wargames have become better at simulating real world combat but still are far removed from the real world, IMO.



RangerJoe -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/15/2021 12:32:38 AM)

Thank you for posting this.



Alan Sharif -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/15/2021 7:22:41 AM)

I am familiar with the channel, but had not seen this before. Thanks for posting. I generally agree with the points raised. I suspect a genuine simulation of war might not be popular/fun with/for players.



zakblood -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/15/2021 11:09:24 AM)

Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword does command and control and FOW well,

sometimes you order a unit to do something and the message goes and either gets lost, or commander thinks it means something else and goes off in the wrong direction etc



Karri -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/15/2021 3:00:57 PM)

I understand things like FOW and control, there needs to be a balance to make the game actually playable. But what does bug me is the "total destruction", all fights being to the last man. Linear combat models where more men = always more damage are a bit frustrating too.



Kuokkanen -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/15/2021 6:21:02 PM)

I love Advanced Tactics Gold because it goes against some of the things presented in the video. Warriors only is false, because ATG has (construction) engineers, staff (double as supply/support personnel), cargo ships/planes, and trains, none of which are meant for participating in the fighting. Fog of war ensues when unit can get ambushed by unseen enemy while also taking heavy casualties. Number of men & weapons don't matter when they don't get supplies and are hammered by artillery and air attacks just before ground attack.

In Combat Mission games player gets wrong information about located enemy forces ("The first report is always wrong").

In Sengoku Jidai: Shadow of Shogun scenario ends when one side takes enough casualties which can be less than 50%. Are Field of Glory 2 and Pike and Shot the same?

You gotta check out Radio Commander. Do so if you haven't already.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/871530/Radio_Commander/



gamer78 -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/15/2021 8:45:51 PM)

HistWar: Les Grognards had FOW for friendly units and sub commanders but didn't have smooth animations during battle such as in TW series. Despite all walking, marching and forming formations were all realistic.



RFalvo69 -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/16/2021 11:27:56 AM)

One thing that I always found deeply unrealistic is the approach to the US side in "War in the Pacific: AE". By the first year after the game was published you already heard talks of "openings" for the Allies and such. In the real war, the US understood the nature of the conflict and started to draw a general strategy for the PTO about after the Marshall Islands raids (for more info about the early days of the War in the Pacific I suggest "Pacific Crucible" by Ian W. Toll).

Note that the above doesn't apply, in the opening phase, to the Japanese, who already had a very specific and detailed plan with timetables and stuff. But for the US to start the "Reconquista" on day one we have to move firmly in the realm of science fiction. Same for the total control of your forces. If the hat you are wearing is Nimitz', that you should send your carriers to Coral Sea and pray for good news. A "Control Roll" that, if failed, would give control of your forces to the AI until contact is re-established would be more realistic. Total control of your forces coupled with total awareness of where they are and a deep understanding of the realities of the PTO from day one is, possibly, the weakest element of WitP: AE.



Kuokkanen -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/16/2021 3:29:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

A "Control Roll" that, if failed, would give control of your forces to the AI until contact is re-established would be more realistic.

I say at least on the surface, this sounds like the best idea in a long time! Erik, Ian! Please relay this to the game developers ASAP!



Elessar2 -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/16/2021 7:33:00 PM)

Is Simulations Canada still around? They specialized in the messy side of war, imperfect information in almost every realm.



ncc1701e -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/16/2021 7:34:32 PM)

Great video indeed, thanks for sharing.



RFalvo69 -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/16/2021 8:04:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

Is Simulations Canada still around? They specialized in the messy side of war, imperfect information in almost every realm.


Yes, even if with a different name. They did Flashpoint: Germany, where you can lose sight of your own units, and more recently (2013??) Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm (which incorporates FP:G via a DLC) under a different label.

Red Storm is a great game but it has a really stupid flaw: you can't set the engagement range of your units. You can set up the perfect trap only to have everything ruined by the stray unit firing against an unimportant target across the map - thus giving the whole game away. I never understood why they never implemented something so fundamental (and that titles like Panthers in the Shadows had in 1995).



Curtis Lemay -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/16/2021 11:26:16 PM)

Not really in agreement with this.

Wargames do have Fog-of-War such that players may not know much about their enemy.

And wargames have reorganization - either via combat or via shock. That means that they don't have "Total Control" of their forces. Reorganizing units don't follow players orders. And, while they may know which of their units are reorganizing on any given turn, they probably don't know which will be so any number of turns in advance - impacting planning. So players may not even have full knowledge of their own forces abilities for any decent interval.

Then there are some games with Aide-de-Camp rules - further impacting control and knowlege of one's own forces.

And I've played plenty of wargames that didn't result in total destruction of one side or the other.

Finally, rear-area elements can be modeled if designers want to. Certainly most games do model engineers of various sorts. However, most players don't want to be forced to perform quartermaster duty. Luckily, that task can usually be abstracted without too much loss of fidelity. But most Pacific games do hand it over to players - for the good reason that sea lanes are especially vulnerable to poaching.



RFalvo69 -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/17/2021 12:39:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Not really in agreement with this.

Wargames do have Fog-of-War such that players may not know much about their enemy.


This exists since forever. However, few wargames have fog of war on your forces (another one that comes to mind is Harpoon 3/ANW).

quote:


And wargames have reorganization - either via combat or via shock. That means that they don't have "Total Control" of their forces. Reorganizing units don't follow players orders. And, while they may know which of their units are reorganizing on any given turn, they probably don't know which will be so any number of turns in advance - impacting planning. So players may not even have full knowledge of their own forces abilities for any decent interval.


First, not all of them. Second, "total control" doesn't exclude the fact that, every then and now, some units are in need of reorganization. This is a fact of war and it would be unrealistic not to include it. You still have total control on the reaction to such an event, in a way that real military commander seldom have.

quote:


Then there are some games with Aide-de-Camp rules - further impacting control and knowlege of one's own forces.


Yes. We talked about them.

quote:


And I've played plenty of wargames that didn't result in total destruction of one side or the other.


I agree that this is the most extreme case made in the video. The author only mentions Hearts of Iron III in the video - a game that I like a lot but that doesn't have the "wipeout" problem. It would have been nice to have other examples.

quote:


Finally, rear-area elements can be modeled if designers want to. Certainly most games do model engineers of various sorts. However, most players don't want to be forced to perform quartermaster duty. Luckily, that task can usually be abstracted without too much loss of fidelity. But most Pacific games do hand it over to players - for the good reason that sea lanes are especially vulnerable to poaching.


This applies to WitP:AE without doubt. However, you just made the video's point: seldom rear area units and many other factors are portrayed - because, at the end, the aim of any commercial wargame is to have fun while getting a reasonably good understanding of how a war was fought and why.

My personal opinion is that, if a game is successful like WitP:AE or Grigsby's WitE/W, by the third match historicity goes out of the window: players start having from turn one, the kind of knowledge that both sides, in real life, couldn't possibly have: what troops can and cannot do against a new enemy in a new environment, which strategies look promising but end up in little or nothing, and so on. The game, by then, becomes his own thing. For sure Guderian and Rommel couldn't plan the crossing of the Meuse after "playing" it ten times: they had to get it right on the first attempt.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/17/2021 3:35:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

However, few wargames have fog of war on your forces (another one that comes to mind is Harpoon 3/ANW).


In case you missed it, I'll repeat: reorganization (especially random reorganization as from shock) fogs which friendly units the player can expect to control in future turns.

quote:

First, not all of them. Second, "total control" doesn't exclude the fact that, every then and now, some units are in need of reorganization. This is a fact of war and it would be unrealistic not to include it. You still have total control on the reaction to such an event, in a way that real military commander seldom have.


Reorganization from shock, especially, models C&C issues. Clearly, this is not "Total Control".

quote:

This applies to WitP:AE without doubt. However, you just made the video's point: seldom rear area units and many other factors are portrayed - because, at the end, the aim of any commercial wargame is to have fun while getting a reasonably good understanding of how a war was fought and why.


That wasn't the point as I understood it. He wasn't saying SOME wargames fail to do such and such. He was claiming they all fail on such and such. WitP-AE is an exception that counters his claim. And there are those of us that do include plenty of rear-area elements in our designs.

quote:

My personal opinion is that, if a game is successful like WitP:AE or Grigsby's WitE/W, by the third match historicity goes out of the window: players start having from turn one, the kind of knowledge that both sides, in real life, couldn't possibly have: what troops can and cannot do against a new enemy in a new environment, which strategies look promising but end up in little or nothing, and so on. The game, by then, becomes his own thing. For sure Guderian and Rommel couldn't plan the crossing of the Meuse after "playing" it ten times: they had to get it right on the first attempt.


First of all, historical commanders did wargame their operations - giving them some idea of what should concern them. Second, a really complex, detailed wargame is very difficult to exhaustively test to absolute certainty about more than just some generalizations.



RFalvo69 -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/17/2021 11:06:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

However, few wargames have fog of war on your forces (another one that comes to mind is Harpoon 3/ANW).


In case you missed it, I'll repeat: reorganization (especially random reorganization as from shock) fogs which friendly units the player can expect to control in future turns.


You don't read the whole post before answering it, do you? 😂

quote:

First, not all of them. Second, "total control" doesn't exclude the fact that, every then and now, some units are in need of reorganization. This is a fact of war and it would be unrealistic not to include it. You still have total control on the reaction to such an event, in a way that real military commander seldom have.


Reorganization from shock, especially, models C&C issues. Clearly, this is not "Total Control".


"C&C issues" go from lack of communication/loss of relative position to a definite status of the units involved. Knowing current discipline, preparation and morale, OOB and current status, exact position relative both to the map and to other units, and the exact status of these allied units is not "C&C Issues": it is a hopefully temporary unavailability. Lack of total control means that you haven't a clue about what the units near the ones "under shock" are doing: are they engaged too? did the local commander decide to deviate from the plan and move to assist? is "shock" not a shock at all but a temporary loss of communication from an otherwise fine unit who is following the plan - compounded by panicked reports from your staff? These are the real C&C issues that prematurely age the commanders at any level.


quote:

quote:

This applies to WitP:AE without doubt. However, you just made the video's point: seldom rear area units and many other factors are portrayed - because, at the end, the aim of any commercial wargame is to have fun while getting a reasonably good understanding of how a war was fought and why.


That wasn't the point as I understood it. He wasn't saying SOME wargames fail to do such and such. He was claiming they all fail on such and such. WitP-AE is an exception that counters his claim.


WitP:AE, if anything, is the game that proves a lot of this video claims - unless you are telling me that Nimitz was micromanaging TFs' operations in the Coral Sea, down to search arcs, from Pearl Harbor, with the exact coordinates for every ship, air unit and land unit in the whole PTO.

BTW, the video never says that the mentioned issues are found in every wargame. It simply says that wargame must be fun - and too many of those elements seldom make for a fun experience (a lot of operational games, for example, allow you to move units left and right just like that, ignoring the fact that the bigger the unit, the more difficult executing a pivoting maneuver is for it).

quote:


First of all, historical commanders did wargame their operations - giving them some idea of what should concern them. Second, a really complex, detailed wargame is very difficult to exhaustively test to absolute certainty about more than just some generalizations.


Exactly. Which is what instead what computer and tabletop wargamers are allowed to do.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: What Computer Games Get "Wrong" about War (10/18/2021 3:13:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

You don't read the whole post before answering it, do you? 😂


Of course I do. Would you care to point out the place in that post where you indicated a grasp of the point I was making? To repeat, that point was that Reorganization itself is a form of fog-of-war for your own forces. You don't know which of them will be able to respond to orders in subsequent turns.

quote:

"C&C issues" go from lack of communication/loss of relative position to a definite status of the units involved. Knowing current discipline, preparation and morale, OOB and current status, exact position relative both to the map and to other units, and the exact status of these allied units is not "C&C Issues": it is a hopefully temporary unavailability. Lack of total control means that you haven't a clue about what the units near the ones "under shock" are doing: are they engaged too? did the local commander decide to deviate from the plan and move to assist? is "shock" not a shock at all but a temporary loss of communication from an otherwise fine unit who is following the plan - compounded by panicked reports from your staff? These are the real C&C issues that prematurely age the commanders at any level.


If part of your force will not respond to your orders you don't have Total Control.

quote:

WitP:AE, if anything, is the game that proves a lot of this video claims - unless you are telling me that Nimitz was micromanaging TFs' operations in the Coral Sea, down to search arcs, from Pearl Harbor, with the exact coordinates for every ship, air unit and land unit in the whole PTO.


WitP players are not merely in Nimitz's shoes. They occupy the shoes of a large swath of his subordinates as well. That's how traditional wargames work, and it's a perfectly legitimate paradigm.

WitP puts the player in the quartermaster role, modeling rear-area logistical functions (what's more logistical than a cargo ship?). That was definitely one of the video's complaints.

quote:

BTW, the video never says that the mentioned issues are found in every wargame.


It was a general complaint about wargames in general. This thread wouldn't exist if it wasn't.

quote:

Exactly. Which is what instead what computer and tabletop wargamers are allowed to do.


Huh?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.765625