RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

RangerJoe -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/4/2021 8:08:42 PM)

Just to let people know if they do not already know this, the CEO of Hasbro passed away on October 12th of Cancer. If they have a new permanent one now, I do not know. But if there is one, then people can try to contact the new CEO about getting something done on their wargame catalog. If not yet, then either contact the interim one or wait until there is a new one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Goldner



Michael T -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/4/2021 9:28:11 PM)

There is a ASL clone being developed for PC now. By Microprose. I have no idea though how they intend to avoid a legal challenge from Hasbro/MMP.



RFalvo69 -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/4/2021 10:06:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

There is a ASL clone being developed for PC now. By Microprose. I have no idea though how they intend to avoid a legal challenge from Hasbro/MMP.


You can't copyright a game system, only the specific wording of the rulebook.



Michael T -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 12:08:17 AM)

Well I am no legal expert, but the programmer of the ASL clone has quite obviously got his hands on an ASL rule book and began coding it. Seems like blatant plagiarism to me. They could at least give some credit, but they deny any link to ASL. Quite bizarre really.



RFalvo69 -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 12:53:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Well I am no legal expert, but the programmer of the ASL clone has quite obviously got his hands on an ASL rule book and began coding it. Seems like blatant plagiarism to me. They could at least give some credit, but they deny any link to ASL. Quite bizarre really.

Not at all. As I wrote, you can't copyright the game system, only the specific wording that explains how it is played in the rule-book (or all the RTS games out there after Dune II couldn't exist). Should the programmer of Second Front admit any connection between his game and ASL he could unneededly open the doors to hot water.



Rosseau -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 5:00:01 AM)

That is *great* news about the progress of Flashpoint: Campaigns, as well as the success of the developer on the military side. Much of this information is probably already available on another thread, but posting out of ignorance is one of my strong points. [;)]

RFalvo69's feature request on manually setting engagement ranges for the Flashpoint series seems reasonable, but I am not one to judge. Certainly, the military users and beta testers can add input on that one.

As far as Erik's detailed response on the inner workings of the developer/publisher roles at Matrix, I think Joel Billing's sig says it all:

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard



sPzAbt653 -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 9:58:11 AM)

quote:

The mention of the old V4V series from Atomic Games still gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling:


quote:

Utah Beach was released by Atomic 30 years ago! And, in general, I am amazed at how little digital wargames have progressed in the last three decades compared to other technologies.


For those of us that played the early Board Games, the Computer Game Era was a god send. No longer did we have to keep charts and graphs and calculations. No longer were we restricted by the size of our table tops.

That was is the 80's, and in the 90's we did see 'great' advances. I can't place it now but I'll look for a link to an article written by one of the Avalon Hill dudes that explains why everything went in the **** can in the 2000's and why things remain 'stagnant' even with the efforts of Matrix Games.



CapnDarwin -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 12:26:18 PM)

Let's flip this script a bit. What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, not computer tech (mouse with a keyboard was awesome, better resolution of screens and size which is still ongoing today, CPU/GPU throughput increases) and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things. NOw I will say that having those hardware advances have led to adding new capabilities to wargames on computers. A mouse was revolutionary back in the day as I could now easily click on a unit and destination and order a move versus using keyboard inputs only. The thing is we still have that same basic mouse today. Other than VR/AR setups, which would be kind of Ironman cool, the basic keyboard/mouse is the majority setup of wargames. You might be able to use a controller with a simple beer and pretzels game, but games like Flashpoint Campaigns and CMO with lots of functions and overlays and orders and such, kind of rule those out. So again I am left with the question of what the software can do for a hex and counter wargame when the hardware side has only gotten bigger and faster, but not new. Now I am leaving the AI discussions out as that is a whole other can of worms.

This is a rather cool and important topic, so fire away. [8D]



pzgndr -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 2:52:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin
Let's flip this script a bit... what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer?


I'll take a retro approach and ask why we can't get our beloved wargames of yesteryear adapted to the PC, with FOW and challenging AI? For example, adaptations of classic Avalon Hill boardgames with standard Terrain Effects Charts (TEC) and Combat Results Tables (CRT), should be relatively easy to develop. Plus make them editable (an editor for most everything (TEC, CRT, graphics, etc.) is a must) so players can make modifications or even re-create other games or make their own. A true hex-and-counter Wargame Design Kit (WDK) for the modern age. Keep It Simple, Stupid. However, given the different rulesets of the different games, such a WDK should provide a basic generic ruleset plus selectable optional rules for more advanced gameplay (perhaps to be expanded over time as DLC updates).

Frankly, I'm at a point where games like WITE2 with all of its bells and whistles and 500-page manual don't impress me and just make my eyes glaze over. Let me play The Russian Campaign, or Afrika Korps, etc. With FOW and challenging AI. And decent PBEM and NetPlay capability. We used to have FUN playing and replaying games like this over and over. Now, there's too much work involved and it sucks the fun out of gaming. For fun. It's a concept. Just a thought. $0.02.



jmlima -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 3:01:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Let's flip this script a bit. What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, not computer tech (mouse with a keyboard was awesome, better resolution of screens and size which is still ongoing today, CPU/GPU throughput increases) and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things. NOw I will say that having those hardware advances have led to adding new capabilities to wargames on computers. A mouse was revolutionary back in the day as I could now easily click on a unit and destination and order a move versus using keyboard inputs only. The thing is we still have that same basic mouse today. Other than VR/AR setups, which would be kind of Ironman cool, the basic keyboard/mouse is the majority setup of wargames. You might be able to use a controller with a simple beer and pretzels game, but games like Flashpoint Campaigns and CMO with lots of functions and overlays and orders and such, kind of rule those out. So again I am left with the question of what the software can do for a hex and counter wargame when the hardware side has only gotten bigger and faster, but not new. Now I am leaving the AI discussions out as that is a whole other can of worms.

This is a rather cool and important topic, so fire away. [8D]


I also think there's a huge risk of confusing technological innovation with design innovation. I'm not certain design innovation (in PC hex and conter wargames) has gone that far from the 90s. WEGO, it's ancient, weapon based resolution, same, etc. Design wise, look at Command, it's essentially Harpoon. With improved technology and technological functionality, but not design innovation. I think the big question here is, what is design innovation in this context? As an example, Campaign was an advance design wise (and even tech wise). V4V (which I love dearly) were not an advance design wise, but they were the sleekest looking and playing PC wargames done up until then. ToP / PitS were an advance design and technology wise, PoA 2 just builds on that theme, it's technologically as advanced as you can get, but the design it's ToP / PitS redone. Another random example of were design can evolve, there's no good COIN PC game. Some rather blunt attempts, but nothing to write home about. Look at the COIN series though. In there you have a metric-ton of design ideas for a game that would be revolutionary (design wise) and unique for the PC market, and I don;t mean just re-creating the COIN series but looking at them and thinking why they are so good at certain aspects whilst remaining a great game (hint, it's all in the power of decision making, differences in play and multiple paths to victory).



berto -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 3:48:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

Let me play The Russian Campaign, or Afrika Korps, etc. With FOW and challenging AI. And decent PBEM and NetPlay capability. We used to have FUN playing and replaying games like this over and over. Now, there's too much work involved and it sucks the fun out of gaming.

Yes, it was fun back in the day. When I was a wee boy and didn't know any better. But now?

In (1960s era) AH Afrika Korps, if due to impatience, the German player (prematurely) attacks the Commonwealth forces at Tobruk at 2-to-1 odds, rolls a 6, and suffers AE (game over!), would that now be fun?

Or in (1960s era) classic AH Gettysburg or Waterloo or Stalingrad or ..., near the end of the game where most of the counters are destroyed and one or both sides are down to just a few counters remaining, if they are not altogether eliminated -- would that now be fun?

Etc., etc.

It's pleasant to look back on those days, and chuckle about my trusting naivete. But no, older and wiser now, I could never go back to enjoyably playing those games.



jwarrenw13 -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 5:46:28 PM)


quote:

But we are all waiting for the next hex'n'counter Bulge game [8|]



I'm definitely waiting on it. And have a coupon that will be valid Nov. 18. I love hex and counter turnbased and wego games. Much more than versions of real time, though wego is essentially real time with programmed pause. You mentioned Command Ops. I think that is a brilliant game and have played it a lot, but I still don't enjoy it as much as hex and counter games that look like board games without little 3D tanks and explosions on map.

Now where the industry is going, I'm not sure. But I think there is more than one successful track that can be followed, including the improvement and refinement of traditional hex and counter games.



gamer78 -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 9:40:13 PM)

Vietnam seems interesting for me as I've watched Ken Burns documentary in Netflix. Campaign Series Middle East was also good.
I don't know how Bulge game will change anything. I think mostly diversity about past conflicts lacking in wargames than design and technology. [;)]



OldSarge -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 10:11:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

..and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things.


I'm an old school hex and counter player and don't really see an issue with that style, for the most part. I also have other wargames that use other styles of maps, mostly variants of tiled maps but also some maps based upon regions. I don't have a problem with any of those different approaches, they each work well enough. Most of the arguments pro/con for one over the other is more based upon preference than enhancing the player's game experience, better known in software engineering circles as user experience (UX).

For me, the thing the makes or breaks a wargame is both the UI and the UX. Unfortunately, while the two are related, too many software developers mistakenly think they're the same thing. UI is the portion of the game that the player directly employs to interact with the game. UX is the feature or rule set of the game that produces the rewarding sense of great game play.

A game with a fantastic looking UI is easily killed by a failure in how the game plays, if it lacks important features, has incongruous rules or has limited detail. Similarly, a game with a rich feature set and is deeply detailed will be ruined by a UI that is impossible or difficult to use.

I'm intentionally not mentioning any titles because that would detract from the larger academic discussion. I think we've all run into a game that has wonderful game play, once you get past the wretched UI. And also games with slick, intuitive UIs that had game play that was an utter disappointment.

My 2/100 of $1 (USD). [8D]



gamer78 -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 11:11:39 PM)

I've a hard time understanding your point. [:)] Do you mean HOI'4 has success in WW'2 by illuminati or by random chance.



76mm -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/5/2021 11:33:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Well I am no legal expert, but the programmer of the ASL clone has quite obviously got his hands on an ASL rule book and began coding it. Seems like blatant plagiarism to me. They could at least give some credit, but they deny any link to ASL. Quite bizarre really.


Second Front hasn't even come out yet, so I'm not sure it is fair to call it an illegal ASL clone. People said the same about CMBO when if first came out, but in fact it was a very
different game.



BBfanboy -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 2:10:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Well I am no legal expert, but the programmer of the ASL clone has quite obviously got his hands on an ASL rule book and began coding it. Seems like blatant plagiarism to me. They could at least give some credit, but they deny any link to ASL. Quite bizarre really.


Second Front hasn't even come out yet, so I'm not sure it is fair to call it an illegal ASL clone. People said the same about CMBO when if first came out, but in fact it was a very
different game.

ASL .... American as a Second Language? [&:]
[;)]



Rosseau -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 3:16:43 AM)

The "American as a Second Language" (ASL) fits where I live now in Louisville, KY, if one can believe it. Embrace diversity. [;)]

Back on topic, I think the upcoming Matrix title Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive will be a close-to-perfect hex and counter experience. Things might look brighter overall come March 2022.



jmlima -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 10:21:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T
Well I am no legal expert, but the programmer of the ASL clone has quite obviously got his hands on an ASL rule book and began coding it. Seems like blatant plagiarism to me. They could at least give some credit, but they deny any link to ASL. Quite bizarre really.


Second Front hasn't even come out yet, so I'm not sure it is fair to call it an illegal ASL clone. People said the same about CMBO when if first came out, but in fact it was a very
different game.


There's actually quite a bit of history behind the 'let's make a computer ASL' meme, this is the one I've always heard:

quote:

Charles Moylan worked on several of Avalon Hill's computer projects, including Flight Commander 2, Achtung Spitfire, and Over the Reich. In 1997 he was unofficially working on a computer adaptation of the famous Advanced Squad Leader board game. Moylan came to realize, however, that the game would be difficult or impossible to adapt successfully to a computerized version. Atomic Games had also attempted to produce a "Computer Squad Leader" game, but abandoned the tie-in to ASL and eventually marketed the game (successfully) as Close Combat.

In the beginning of 1998 Avalon Hill was in turmoil and unstable to work for, and Moylan decided to go his own way, as Big Time Software, shortly before Avalon Hill was purchased by Hasbro. The move from Avalon Hill also meant severing ties to ASL; the unfinished project had no references to Advanced Squad Leader or Avalon Hill. Moylan briefly offered the Alpha build (tentatively called Squad Leader) to publishers before teaming up with Steve Grammont, forming what eventually became Battlefront.com and re-christening the new game Combat Mission.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Mission

Which mean there are two games that can trace direct lineage to that meme, Close Combat and Combat Mission.

As an aside, and more to point re this discussion, those two examples are quite good examples of how to adapt a boardgame to the PC whilst making full use of the technology available. You don't repeat the boardgame, you grab the fundamentals and use the technology not as a showcase of what you can do, but as a support to make sure the fundamentals are aptly represented. It also opens a very interesting question, which of those two vastly different titles works better as 'ASL on the PC'? (my guess is that there is no right / wrong answer and you will find some people prefer one over the other because it will reflect what they personally think are the most salient aspects of ASL)




TitaniumTrout -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 12:08:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Let's flip this script a bit. What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, not computer tech (mouse with a keyboard was awesome, better resolution of screens and size which is still ongoing today, CPU/GPU throughput increases) and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things. Now I will say that having those hardware advances have led to adding new capabilities to wargames on computers. A mouse was revolutionary back in the day as I could now easily click on a unit and destination and order a move versus using keyboard inputs only. The thing is we still have that same basic mouse today. Other than VR/AR setups, which would be kind of Ironman cool, the basic keyboard/mouse is the majority setup of wargames. You might be able to use a controller with a simple beer and pretzels game, but games like Flashpoint Campaigns and CMO with lots of functions and overlays and orders and such, kind of rule those out. So again I am left with the question of what the software can do for a hex and counter wargame when the hardware side has only gotten bigger and faster, but not new. Now I am leaving the AI discussions out as that is a whole other can of worms.

This is a rather cool and important topic, so fire away. [8D]


I'm curious as to average unit count in games over the years? It feels like scenarios keep getting larger while the command tools we have remain the same. Moore's Law gives us the power to control more, and more, but the method we use to give orders has remained fundamentally the same. For example in WitE2 I give orders at every level of command from corps down to regiments or brigades. Our task load as players has increased as we manage each unit. This is really pronounced in games like Combat Mission or the Tiller games. Yes, we can now totally model the entirety of the Western Front in 1914 at a company level, but it would take a unique individual to keystroke his way through every unit. Even the Large scenarios in CM can become unwieldy as you give orders to every swinging Richard.

CO2 does a good job of allowing me to select a formation, give it an order, and trust that it will be reasonably well executed. CMO as well, I can create a patrol zone, set a few parameters, and trust that the AI will hunt subs or engage hostiles. Now my unit count, and immersion has gone up, while my overall workload has gone done. The PC is handling the tedious stuff while I get to focus on the fun stuff.

I'd love to see tools in games to allow us to fight those jumbo battles without having to micromanage a thousand units.



pzgndr -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 1:49:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto
In (1960s era) AH Afrika Korps, if due to impatience, the German player (prematurely) attacks the Commonwealth forces at Tobruk at 2-to-1 odds, rolls a 6, and suffers AE (game over!), would that now be fun?


One must always know the difference between a 3:1 risk and a 2:1 gamble, whether it's with the simple old CRT or a similar premature assault in a modern game with more 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' to seduce you into thinking it's all better somehow. At the end of the day, if you blow the game you still blow the game.

My primary point about those old games being fun was that we could set them up and play a complete game in an afternoon, a day. Win or lose, you always learn something and can play again. That was fun, and it's still fun.

I did mention having an editor. Being able to edit the CRT could provide somewhat more realistic results; e.g., 1-10 die rolls or 2-12 two dice rolls, etc. And being able to update/correct OOBs from the 1960s era with more accurate information would be helpful without ruining the spirit of those original games. Again, KISS and focus on some fun. A lot of non-programmers would love to have a decent WDK to make mods and make some custom games.



RangerJoe -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 1:55:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto
In (1960s era) AH Afrika Korps, if due to impatience, the German player (prematurely) attacks the Commonwealth forces at Tobruk at 2-to-1 odds, rolls a 6, and suffers AE (game over!), would that now be fun?


One must always know the difference between a 3:1 risk and a 2:1 gamble, whether it's with the simple old CRT or a similar premature assault in a modern game with more 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' to seduce you into thinking it's all better somehow. At the end of the day, if you blow the game you still blow the game.

My primary point about those old games being fun was that we could set them up and play a complete game in an afternoon, a day. Win or lose, you always learn something and can play again. That was fun, and it's still fun.

I did mention having an editor. Being able to edit the CRT could provide somewhat more realistic results; e.g., 1-10 die rolls or 2-12 two dice rolls, etc. And being able to update/correct OOBs from the 1960s era with more accurate information would be helpful without ruining the spirit of those original games. Again, KISS and focus on some fun. A lot of non-programmers would love to have a decent WDK to make mods and make some custom games.


Think of Afrika Korps with phased losses like Anzio . . .



76mm -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 2:06:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmlima
Which mean there are two games that can trace direct lineage to that meme, Close Combat and Combat Mission.

As an aside, and more to point re this discussion, those two examples are quite good examples of how to adapt a boardgame to the PC whilst making full use of the technology available. You don't repeat the boardgame, you grab the fundamentals and use the technology not as a

Thanks for that, I probably knew that stuff at one point but had forgotten it...but let's not forget Steel Panthers either, it has been accused of being an "ASL clone" at various points as well. Anyway, "tracing direct lineage" to another game and cloning it are two rather different things. But ultimately I have to agree with Moylan that it "would be difficult or impossible to adapt [ASL] successfully to a computerized version" just because of all of the intra-turn interaction.



Michael T -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/6/2021 8:25:22 PM)

quote:

Second Front hasn't even come out yet, so I'm not sure it is fair to call it an illegal ASL clone. People said the same about CMBO when if first came out, but in fact it was a very
different game


The Devs have been pumping out dozens of video's on sample play for months. The game is obviously a coding of ASL. Even down to using the exact same armor values. How could anyone developing there own game on squad combat come up with identical armor values as ASL? To kill numbers, hit numbers, all lifted straight from the ASL game. Anyone who knows ASL can see it. I saw it from day one. I am curious to see what transpires.

I might add even the exact same phased SOP. Though I think he has at least renamed some of the phases. But they still do the same stuff.



RyanCrierie -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/7/2021 1:56:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CapnDarwin

Let's flip this script a bit. What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, not computer tech (mouse with a keyboard was awesome, better resolution of screens and size which is still ongoing today, CPU/GPU throughput increases) and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer? If you know, please tell us developers and we can evaluate things. NOw I will say that having those hardware advances have led to adding new capabilities to wargames on computers. A mouse was revolutionary back in the day as I could now easily click on a unit and destination and order a move versus using keyboard inputs only. The thing is we still have that same basic mouse today.[8D]


This is something I think many have missed.

---------------------------

1981: The Battle of the Bulge: Tigers in the Snow by SSI.

This game is pretty much as old as I am. [X(]

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/476614-the-battle-of-the-bulge-tigers-in-the-snow-apple-ii-screenshot.png[/img]

1984: War in Russia by SSI.

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/955687-war-in-russia-apple-ii-screenshot-viewing-the-battlefield.png[/img]

-----------

Many early SSI games are basically Atari 8-bit / Apple II; so they're limited by the capabilities...which isn't a lot to work with.

It's not until about 1988 that we get SSI's first decently good DOS games (the earlier DOS games are basically at Apple II level graphics) with TYPHOON OF STEEL:

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/206686-typhoon-of-steel-dos-screenshot-gameplay-options-ega.png[/img]

This is followed up by Norm Koger's RED LIGHTNING in 1989:

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/44348-red-lightning-dos-screenshot-main-screen.gif[/img]

We're finally sort of getting *somewhere*

By 1991, SSI games (CONFLICT: MIDDLE EAST) now have the option of using the mouse; but because many players still don't have a mouse; the UI has to take this into account, and is still designed around non mouse players.

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/25841-conflict-middle-east-dos-screenshot-battle-map-1973-scenario.gif[/img]

In 1992; the EGA graphics have improved some for CONFLICT: KOREA 50-51), but still very much keyboard driven:

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/25876-conflict-korea-the-first-year-1950-51-dos-screenshot-battle.gif[/img]

It's not until Great Naval Battles: North Atlantic 1939-43 in 1992 that SSI starts to get close to a mouse-driven interface; and you see a more "modern" UI appear in CLASH OF STEEL in 1993:

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/13573-clash-of-steel-world-war-ii-europe-1939-45-dos-screenshot-main.gif[/img]

It's still EGA, but more sensibly laid out.

Then in 1994, we have the "Revolution".

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/60856-panzer-general-dos-screenshot-soviet-tanks-crushing-couple.gif[/img]

I can't emphasize enough how world changing PANZER GENERAL was.

It was the first game to combine a fully mouse driven interface and high resolution 256 color graphics in a way that the average person could get into.

Unfortunately, not everything was the same:

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/59750-wargame-construction-set-ii-tanks-dos-screenshot-main-game.gif[/img]

WCS II: Tanks in 1994 still had many "keyboard" conventions; probably because back then, designing a game engine was hard, so engines were "recycled forward".

Then in 1995 we had the Second Revolution

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/962615-steel-panthers-dos-screenshot-fighting-against-u-s-forces.png[/img]

Steel Panthers gave us the same thing that Panzer General did; a nice easy UI, high resolution graphics etc to get into.

A year later in 1996, we got Age of Rifles.

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/1073704-wargame-construction-set-iii-age-of-rifles-1846-1905-dos.png[/img]

At this point, SSI never really made the change to Windows 95 -- I think that's what killed them -- too many of their game engines were programmed in DOS, and there wasn't enough money to convert things over to fully Win95 based.

Talonsoft, however was quite forward looking -- they made a decision early on to go pure Windows, and that apparently saved them a lot of time because one of the major things about Windows was that it helpfully abstracted away a lot of things that previously had been big things in DOS, such as hardware management or memory management.

It also helped that they'd gotten two very good programmers as contractors:

a young (at the time) up and coming programmer named John Tiller

Battleground Series (1995):
[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/22382-battleground-2-gettysburg-windows-3-x-screenshot.gif[/img]
[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/22381-battleground-2-gettysburg-windows-3-x-screenshot.gif[/img]

Tiller's game engine concepts would then go on to be used in the next major evolution by Talonsoft:

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/22439-talonsoft-s-east-front-windows-screenshot.jpg[/img]

East Front (1997), which would in turn spawn West Front (1998), East Front II (1999), Rising Sun (2000), and Divided Ground (2001).

Meanwhile, Tiller had kind of left to work with HPS Simulations for the first Panzer Campaigns in 1999, again using an evolved version of the Battleground game engine he'd designed in 1995

[img]https://web.archive.org/web/20040629193652/http://hpssims.com/Pages/products/PZC/PZC_ELAL/alam2.JPG[/img]
This is from Alamein, but good enough.

Elsewhere at Talonsoft, Norm Koger from SSI was basically working on a super evolved version of his CONFLICT DOS engine and created TOAW in 1998

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/540573-norm-koger-s-the-operational-art-of-war-vol-1-1939-1955-windows.png[/img]

Followed up by TOAW II in 1999 and COW in 2000.

I believe TOAW was really the first wargame to truly take advantage of Windows features like right click context sensitive menus, and windows menu bar UI, rather than trying to "Reinvent" the wheel; and that's why it was so successful.

Around 1999, another Ex SSI guy named Gary Grigsby was contracted by Talonsoft to design an air war game. That he did, delivering Battle of Britain (1999), which was followed by Bombing the Reich (1999).

[img]https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/805328-talonsoft-s-12-o-clock-high-bombing-the-reich-windows-screenshot.jpg[/img]

This is where it gets a bit crazy. You can see in BoB/BTR the exact same UI conventions and such that would later be used in:

Matrix' Uncommon Valor (2002)
Matrix' War in the Pacific (2004)

Before he created an "all new" game engine for Matrix' War in the East (2010).

Elsewhere, Victor Reijkersz created his "People's Tactics" engine in 2004 as a freeware game, before making a commercial game with Advanced Tactics for Matrix in 2007.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here (and probably failing) is that unlike other genres of video games; wargames are an incredibly small community -- there's nobody here to tell you in books or seminars how to make the best 3D engine or how to make the best pathfinding AI for your first person shooter -- much of this is all self taught or held closely; so you see the same people show up year after year.



RyanCrierie -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/7/2021 2:04:56 AM)

The thing with computer wargames however, is too many things are hardcoded in.

WITE/WITE2 is a typical "big" Grigsby game, beautifully coded for the specific period it's in and with lots of custom rules that are locked in; making the game not very extensible to ask "what if" questions.

The TOAW Series at least gives you a full event engine/editor so you can change a scenario to simulate "what ifs"

"what if Stalin wasn't in total denial and the Soviets did some preps?"

https://www.amazon.com/What-Stalin-Knew-Enigma-Barbarossa/dp/030011981X

This book basically goes deep and the short and skinny of it is just about everyone in the Soviet apparatus was telling Stalin "Hey man, the Germans are really acting antsy..."

I recently was playing Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa as the Soviets and it wasn't really fun; because in the historical path, you keep getting slaughtered by the Germans no matter what.

While historically accurate, it's not fun for the Russian player.

And because everything in DC:B is locked behind an encrypted game file, there's no way to mod the game to add your own ahistorical event cards (loss of VP if you use them) to explore alternatives that increase the playability of the game.

There's also room in DCS:Barbarossa to use the map produced for it and the early war OOBs to produce an ahistorical "Soviet Offensive Action" scenario where the Soviets attack first in early 1941; or even attack the Germans in 1942.

But these alternate scenario(s) can't work if many things are hard coded into the game such as soviet offensive shock penalties from x to y turns.

My biggest gripe with TOAW/WITP/WITE/WITW is how unit production is basically set in stone mostly by the scenario designer, as are unit arrivals -- While it's possible to design a TOAW scenario to have certain units only arrive if a trigger fires (aka a theater option), that only really works in smaller, specific operation scenarios. For something like Fire in the East, it's unworkable.

There really needs to be some sort of intermediate production system between "You'll get what you get and you'll like it!" using pre-scheduled unit/ship/plane arrivals and what's in Hearts of Iron where you can do whatever you want -- to represent the realistic limits of wartime production and scheduling.

For example, the "Cards" that VR Designs introduced into the DCS series would work great for a Bombing the Reich II game -- because you could then play the "Glue Factory Bombed!" card.

Why's that important?

Because the first prototypes of the Ta-154 Moskito heavy fighter used a specific set of wooden glues and adhesives, and the factory that made them was bombed flat. So the Germans had to use alternatives; and those alternatives turned out to be incredibly corrosive, so to speak on wood. [X(]

If that factory had never been bombed, they'd have produced the Ta-154.

Likewise, the US cancelled about a thousand Destroyer Escorts (DE) in WWII -- these ships had been programmed and resources were allocated; but they were killed by shifting war priorities.

Another example is the B-32 program.

[image]local://upfiles/18450/E9409631C88245C4B1A327504B2AD983.gif[/image]

All these were formal B-32 programs at each point in time. The difference is the November 1944 and April 1945 programs were programmed with the assumption that the B-32 would replace many of the B-24s currently on active service to continue to prosecute the Air War over Europe.

But when Germany surrendered?

In a WITP style game, you have to at least have variable programs to represent the uncertainty of whether the European War ends:

A.) Early in late 1944.
B.) As historical in Spring 1945.
C.) Continues into mid-late 1945.

Meanwhile in the PTO; the IJA had to delay production of a medium tank by a few years because the IJN needed steel for it's warship construction.

That's one of the major frustrations I have with WITP; btw.

Gary gave us the briefest glimpse of a dynamic production engine (for the Japanese), and then said "LOL NO the allies can't use it, it would make it too easy lolshot"

In 1944, the USN had to make a MAJOR change to their programmed aircraft program.

All three of the USN's primary aircraft were to be upgraded with the new R-2800 "C" Series engine with two stage supercharger for improved high altitude performance. -- F6F-6, F4U-4, and SB2C-6 -- likewise the AAF wanted to put the C series onto the A-26 Invader, creating the A-26D and A-26E.

What happened was that Pratt & Whitney said they couldn't supply enough engines to support the entire C Series Program.

So the USN cancelled the F6F-6 and SB2C-6 and put all the props and engines allocated for them towards the F4U-4; while the Army's A-26D/E program was delayed a bit; and then ultimately canceled because of the end of WW2.



DingBat -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/7/2021 2:21:47 AM)

quote:

The thing with computer wargames however, is too many things are hardcoded in.


I would respectfully submit that this is not an oversight, or error, on the part of war game developers. It's intentional.

I mean, I don't want to speak for the developer of DC Barbarossa but I suspect they may have considered the idea of people playing the Soviet side and ultimately said: "Don't care". They didn't do that to be mean, or through sloth, or whatever. They did it to manage scope and actually ship something in a reasonable timeframe. They probably thought (correctly, in my opinion) that the vast majority of players of Barbarossa would play as the Germans, and the Germans only, weighed the effort required to do what you're describing, and the explosion of testing concerns that go along with it, and ultimately came to the conclusion that it just. wasn't. worth. it.

You yourself touched on it in your previous post: This market is small.

As an aside: it would be interesting to see how many games published by Matrix are produced by small teams (like, < 5 people), and how many of those work on their games on a part time basis. I suspect it's a significant portion. Teams like that need to be careful about investing in speculative "features" such as the one you proposed. Certainly, were I the developer of Barbarossa, it would be an easy decision to chop that feature.

In summary:
- Small teams = not a lot of bandwidth = tough choices on features if you don't want to spend 5+ years working on a first release.





sPzAbt653 -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/7/2021 11:32:11 AM)

quote:

What, specifically in the 90s was a great advance in wargaming, ... and what do you believe needs done today to innovate a wargame on a computer?


The great advances were seen in the progression from the Commodore 64 to the PC, from Kamfgruppe to Third Reich, from V4V to D-Day: America Invades. From OPART I to OPART III.

We're not talking about the advent of the Mouse, nor of any impressive computer innovation. We want what we had in 1995, but better. Why can't we have Volume Based Supply with the Zoom Levels achieved by Hearts of Iron? Why does Schwerpunkt Games have a garbage UI after 15 years? Why does TOAW have no proper design and development team? Why do we have dozens of mediocre half finished games instead of a few choices each of a proper Tactical, Operational and Strategic game?

Why are so many talented individuals working on their own sad projects instead of teaming up to impress us all with a relevant Tobruk or Festung Europe or Global War? It ****ing sucks I'll tell you that much.



jmlima -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/7/2021 3:51:00 PM)


quote:

...

Why are so many talented individuals working on their own sad projects instead of teaming up to impress us all with a relevant Tobruk or Festung Europe or Global War? It ****ing sucks I'll tell you that much.


Think you need to understand here a couple of things. Some people think their own projects are the holy grail. Irrespective of their quality. Essentially, some people have a large bias towards their own work, a difficulty accepting that what they spent thousand of hours is actually not that great. It's a pretty hard truth to get, it's horrendous to be told that, and some people just don't what to face it or are unable to face it.

That aside, another issue is that most of the wargame programmers have no design background whatsoever. They are programmers, sometimes mathematicians, sometimes scientists. In short, they tend to reproduce the design aspects (because that's not where their background and interest is) and tend to focus on the technical solution because that's where their focus and competency is. Some wargames are extraordinary technological pieces, but design wise, have zero innovation, in fact, sometimes they even go the opposite way in terms of design. As I said before, in this field we often see a mistaken belief that technological innovation = design innovation, it doesn't. Kandinsky did not change art forever because he had better brushes than Rembrandt or a secret oil paint mixing technique.



boudi -> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 (11/7/2021 6:50:34 PM)

God, there are still players who dare to choose SS avatars on this forum.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.1875