Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

KG Erwin -> Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 8:49:55 AM)

The question I'm posing is, are the minimum PC requirements of new titles pushing you away? Is the PC wargame genre advancing itself into extinction? This is an important question, as the best new games require top-notch PCs. Do you really want to buy a new PC just to play a game? SPWaW can be played on most older PCs. Combat Leader and Close Assault will require higher-end machines. Is this the problem? Should new wargames retro-fit to our obsolete PCs, or should the gamers cough up the cash to upgrade?



Makoto -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 9:26:25 AM)

hmm I paid two large for a new computer last September, I don't think wargames will come up to my system's specs for at least a few years



Fred98 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 11:28:09 AM)

Only the shoot-em ups require massive new computing power. The wargame does not.

The 2 games you mention will not be released for a long long time, by that time you will probably upgrade anyhow.



Lars Remmen -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 12:28:40 PM)

I can easily understand how a game such as CA can require huge ressources. Take 100 units on each side. The computer must continually calculate position, LOS, which units in LOS are spotted, how artillery and small arms fire affects morale, casualties, render graphics, allow for scrolling around the game, sound and much, much more.

CL on the other hand... I can't really figure out why it has so massive hardware requirements as it is much more liniar in the wa many things are handled. Perhaps it is a case of 'covering ones behind' so they'll avoid screaming and shouting about 'promises' that the game could run on a 286 with 2mb of RAM.

Regads,

Lars



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 5:53:23 PM)

I have almost the same amount of wargames today, as I had 10 years ago.

The list is a very long one, and I am not interested in posting a long list of titles you already know.

But, in the end, the final result is, let them produce games I can't run on my current PC. I don't care squat.

It won't prevent my enjoy the current inventory one iota, only prevent me supporting their new creations which I don't really require.

The Wargame genre will be here tomorrow, and the next year and the next year, but the wargame making "business" might not be.

And all of my games will still run fine in the absence of the current wargaming businesses.

So let them decide.



Hertston -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 7:08:39 PM)

It's much less of a problem than with virtually every other genre (where folks have just learned to live with it). The only wargame I have that remotely challenges the specs of my two year old PC is PoA 2, which is something of a special case.

I havn't been following either of those games very closely, but why the heck does Combat Leader need a high spec rig ?! I'm probably being very unfair, but it just looked like an improved Steel Panthers to me.



riverbravo -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 8:57:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I have almost the same amount of wargames today, as I had 10 years ago.

The list is a very long one, and I am not interested in posting a long list of titles you already know.

But, in the end, the final result is, let them produce games I can't run on my current PC. I don't care squat.

It won't prevent my enjoy the current inventory one iota, only prevent me supporting their new creations which I don't really require.

The Wargame genre will be here tomorrow, and the next year and the next year, but the wargame making "business" might not be.

And all of my games will still run fine in the absence of the current wargaming businesses.

So let them decide.


The above quote is why wargames are dieing.

It seems a lot of people dont want to upgrade there pc....tough cookies.

Why should wargames design not use the latest and greatest stuff to make a better game.


Why is there an unwritten rule that wargames must have crappy graphics and only use minimal requirements?

You can make good wargames without the bells and whistles but.....why?Just to please "old timers" who cant see the advantages of a graphicaly superior game.Who wants to read charts or strain there eyes to see if a unit is destroyed?If its possible to represent this on the screen then do it.

Wargame designers shoulnt care if people dont want to upgrade...its there loss,not the designers.

For designers not to use the "best available" is insane.We are supposed to progress right.Why go backwards?

Everything is based on advancement.....life,education,technology ...etc ...etc..why not wargames.

Some styles of games are tried and true and thats all good but you must continue the push the envelope.

Once again the above quote proves that people who dont/cant upgrade are hostile towards any good wargame that mite come out that they cant run.

They use phrases like ..."dont give a squat"...."it wont hurt me"...well obviously it does bug people.

fact is,players like this dont hurt the wargaming industry one bit.So what if 5% dont want to upgrade and be stuck in the stone age of pc/wargame development....its their loss...not the designers.

I would think "dumbing down" games for 5% of the wargaming crowd who is more than likely cry about it anyway is damaging to designers and all involved.

Keep on pushing it as far as you go and dont sweat the "bored game" crowd.

Whats next?....Lets make models with less pieces and parts so we dont have to pay an extra 2 bucks.



Pippin -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 9:05:07 PM)

Well some interesting points i'll chuck in here. Many years ago when Hasbro released their computer adaptation of Axis&Allies, me and some friends were somewhat dumbfounded as to why on earth it was requiring such high end specs when it is just a simple 2D based sprite game. Well, the answere could be seen, in the repetitive and large movies which play during startup and during in-game. Unfortunately, these really did server almots no purpose and got boring very FAST. Not to mention they helped contribute to bugs (timing issues) for online play so were always set to OFF. To sume things up, the specs were so overblown for something so useless. But, alas, that is the way hasbro did business when they owned the electronics dept. Spice the game up with lots of over-rated candy, and display it on a box.

On the other hand, I miss that TOAW. Bought it damn cheap! 12$ CAN because the 3D shooter kids runing the EB store thought it was an OLD game due to the 2D form and took 50$ off the box by accident one day! I wonder if the owner ever did catch that mistake?

Anyhow, even on my old clunky & slow computer I could get that TOAW to run. Was not too bad, it had a somewhat fake 3D icon view and other little elements to spice things up. Unfortuntaly, as fate would have it, newer versions of DirectX started to give it serious problems (install blocking). Then later with newer versions of windows above 95, you run into problem of the OS claiming it is a non windows compatible CD! Non win compatible CD, great! Bill Gates must feel proud.


In any case, I somewhat used to look down on those 3D shooters, but I admit I do play em time to time. Though I somewhat have no choice in the matter as it IS my job at this time. But I will tell you one thing, I will continue to be on the lookout for some good turn based style games. I feel somewhat saddened that when I walk into the EB stores now, all the racks of SSI and Talonsoft wargames are long gone, replaced by ugly looking 3D shooters....

But, what can you do. Perhaps it's a sign of me getting old, not sure.



Rainbow7 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 10:40:48 PM)

I own a laptop without a dedicated video card. I use my computer for my work. It can't handle, I would guess, 85% of the games I see on shelves these days. Do I care? No. Hell, my main criterion is that the game can be minimized while I work on other things (hardly a description of the common gamer). It's the companies that make turn-based strategy games that have to cater to their crowd (not the other way around!). My guess is that we tend to be older, stay with the games longer, and definitely don't have "nVidia Super-cooled Stealth Millenium 9900+ whatever" video cards. I won't follow a game company that tries to force me into upgrading my system. Can't afford it. Don't want to. But I do support Matrix Games and its developers.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 11:53:01 PM)

"Why is there an unwritten rule that wargames must have crappy graphics and only use minimal requirements?"

There is no "unwritten" rule about anything.

This myth that the graphics are "crappy" is actually funny.
Don't like the graphics? fine, go play something else.

Do you know what I hate about fancy graphics? It's that stupid idea that fancy graphics automatically makes the game better.

I have had buddies hand me free copies of several fancy schmancy graphically cute spiffy nifty 3d real time games in recent years. And you know something, even though they absolutely had to have those games, enough that they absolutely had to go online and download them, they are never found playing those games a month after they got them.

What does that tell you about fancy schmancy spiffy nifty graphics?

It tells me they don't do squat to make the game sufficiently good to be worth playing long enough to be worth having even if free.

Meanwhile, I am happy to announce, I am still enjoying playing Strategic Command, in spite of the incredibly dull boring graphics, because it is actually a good wargame.

The design is sound, the game is solid. Nothing stopping anyone from shamelessly copying Hubert Cater's sterlingly good design and making it into a new setting of course.

"Wargame designers shoulnt care if people dont want to upgrade...its there loss,not the designers."

Well actually no that is not to brilliant a stance. Because if your audience is to many people like me, and coming from a market whic is already small, then it is also likely if you want to make graphically intense games, you might just have to forget wargames.
Actual wargames that is.

"I would think "dumbing down" games for 5% of the wargaming crowd who is more than likely cry about it anyway is damaging to designers and all involved."

Actually you have that backwards. Making pretty graphics is dumbing the game down. We grognards are the smart ones remember. We're the ones used to reading extremely complex manuals eh. I'm not the one with the attention span difficulties.



Sarge -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/6/2004 11:57:35 PM)

My game PC cost 2500+ I have had countless hours of gaming bliss in the last year. Say I play 30 min. a day (give or take a half hour) that = around $ 6.90 a day for the first year. And I can play any game that will come out for the next year or two (do the math). You just can get that kind of entertinment for the buck ANYWHERE.



gts2096 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 12:12:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

My game PC cost 2500+ I have had countless hours of gaming bliss in the last year. Say I play 30 min. a day (give or take a half hour) that = around $ 6.90 a day for the first year. And I can play any game that will come out for the next year or two (do the math). You just can get that kind of entertinment for the buck ANYWHERE.



I second that Sarge. Lets take it a step futher. 6.90 x 5 days a week= 34.5. And the wife can't understand why I'm not on a bowling league or softball team. It's cheaper and the beer's are whithin arms reach.......[:D]



mjk428 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 12:13:45 AM)

I don't recall ever upgrading/replacing a computer because of a wargame. I do recall being pleased that the computer was able to process turns on a few wargames much faster after upgrading. Of course, that occasionally meant that the old wargame needed tweaking to run on a new OS.

Generally, though I think Riverbravo has a good point. Is it a coincidence that the best selling games tend to be games that utilize the latest computing power, especially graphically? I think if wargame makers continually produce games that can be run on 5+ year old technology, they're not going to be getting many new customers. Unfortunately the older customers tend to stop playing altogether or in our cases will eventually die. :)

I just don't see why anyone should be concerned about wargames pushing the technology envelope. I bought an off the shelf Compaq a few months ago for $500 to use strictly as an internet computer. It will easily play any wargame I currently have. (Athlon 3000XP, 512 MB, 160 GB HD, Windows XP - plus I installed an old Geforce2 GTS 32MB I had left over from another computer) I don't know what the specs are on the games mentioned that haven't been released yet. Should they run on this machine reasonably well?



Drex -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 12:18:03 AM)

I think wargames should attempt to "be the best they can be" if that requires new machines every so often then so be it. The genre has to keep growing or die.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 12:20:14 AM)

I have never had a wargame to push the limits of any computer I have owned.
Even the CM series on the largest maps have not come close to pushing my computer.

I havnt seen the specs for either CL or CA.

If you enjoy wargaming, there really is no excuse not to keep your machine upgraded. Any hobby takes infusions of cash to keep up with. And upgrading your computer isnt nearly as expensive as it is made out to be. Especialy for wargames who I have found to always have the lowest system requirments of any game that I buy.
Wargames have to keep moving forward in order to be fun and sell copies. I think they move forward at a pace that 95% of people can keep up with.
Those who cant are either special circumstances who are strapped for money or those who think wargames should be just like the apple 2 days.
The first group I have sympathy for, the second group needs to find a new hobby.

In short I have yet to see a wargame that has unreasonable system requirments.



junk2drive -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 12:20:26 AM)

chess isn't checkers with fancy graphics. and chess plays the same whether the pieces are plastic or ebony and ivory.



mjk428 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 12:46:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

chess isn't checkers with fancy graphics. and chess plays the same whether the pieces are plastic or ebony and ivory.


Yes, but who would you rather play chess with:

A stupid smelly person that looks like a cast member from Deliverance or a highly intelligent supermodel?



Hertston -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 12:54:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

The above quote is why wargames are dieing.

It seems a lot of people dont want to upgrade there pc....tough cookies.

Why should wargames design not use the latest and greatest stuff to make a better game.

Why is there an unwritten rule that wargames must have crappy graphics and only use minimal requirements?

You can make good wargames without the bells and whistles but.....why?Just to please "old timers" who cant see the advantages of a graphicaly superior game.



I'd agree with much of that, but there are other issues. It's the "bells and whistles" that cost, and wargames are very much a niche market. The standard of graphics you may see in other games may not be possible, not so much to pander to those who won't upgrade, but because the development time and costs are enormous - hardcore wargames (possibly the CM franchise excepted) just don't generate the kind of sales that can get that money back.

We may well as consumers have to make a concious decision on what we want development money spent, good gameplay, features and AI or graphics. I'm not denying that in many cases good graphics can really improve gameplay and are NOT just eye candy, but maybe hardcore wargamers will just have to live without them.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 1:05:57 AM)

"highly intelligent supermodel"

And now for other famous stupid oxymorons.

Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp

I bought my computer to do work on, that it can play games is handy, not required.
I only "upgrade" when the part breaks down.

Designed obselence, what a wonderful phrase. Sort of says "sucker" but without sounding rude.

Hey let's design a game, but we'll design in new features just so the customer has to buy entirely new hardware if they want to play it. Then we'll explain to them, these new features are actually enhancements which will ensure their game is better than it might otherwise have been.

Come on, we all know they don't want a game that doesn't require an upgrade. That would be to easy. Besides, think of the repercussions. If we prove we can make a decent game without bells and whistles, they will expect us to finally get around to actually making AIs smart.



Jane Doe -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 1:26:14 AM)

You can find a 2 ghz pc for under 400 US, i think there is no problem with wargames' sys specs getting higher.



mjk428 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 1:27:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

"highly intelligent supermodel"

And now for other famous stupid oxymorons.

Military Intelligence
Jumbo Shrimp


While it's true that intelligence is not a trait that's required of supermodels and is frequently absent, there have been a few intelligent supermodels. Even though what I was proposing was pure fantasy and so anything is possible I'll give an example.

Exhibit A: Cindy Crawford

Helped by an academic scholarship (she'd been a straight-A student in high school), Crawford studied chemical engineering at Northwestern University, but shrewdly decided that she'd make more money as a model. For a while, Crawford worked in Chicago, but didn't hit the big time until she moved to New York City in 1986.

http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/celeb.aspx?c=118435&mp=b

So "how about a nice game of chess" with Cindy when she was a freshman at Northwestern U?



Raindog101 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 1:44:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I have almost the same amount of wargames today, as I had 10 years ago.

The list is a very long one, and I am not interested in posting a long list of titles you already know.

But, in the end, the final result is, let them produce games I can't run on my current PC. I don't care squat.

It won't prevent my enjoy the current inventory one iota, only prevent me supporting their new creations which I don't really require.

The Wargame genre will be here tomorrow, and the next year and the next year, but the wargame making "business" might not be.

And all of my games will still run fine in the absence of the current wargaming businesses.

So let them decide.


The above quote is why wargames are dieing.

It seems a lot of people dont want to upgrade there pc....tough cookies.

Why should wargames design not use the latest and greatest stuff to make a better game.


Why is there an unwritten rule that wargames must have crappy graphics and only use minimal requirements?

You can make good wargames without the bells and whistles but.....why?Just to please "old timers" who cant see the advantages of a graphicaly superior game.Who wants to read charts or strain there eyes to see if a unit is destroyed?If its possible to represent this on the screen then do it.

Wargame designers shoulnt care if people dont want to upgrade...its there loss,not the designers.

For designers not to use the "best available" is insane.We are supposed to progress right.Why go backwards?

Everything is based on advancement.....life,education,technology ...etc ...etc..why not wargames.

Some styles of games are tried and true and thats all good but you must continue the push the envelope.

Once again the above quote proves that people who dont/cant upgrade are hostile towards any good wargame that mite come out that they cant run.

They use phrases like ..."dont give a squat"...."it wont hurt me"...well obviously it does bug people.

fact is,players like this dont hurt the wargaming industry one bit.So what if 5% dont want to upgrade and be stuck in the stone age of pc/wargame development....its their loss...not the designers.

I would think "dumbing down" games for 5% of the wargaming crowd who is more than likely cry about it anyway is damaging to designers and all involved.

Keep on pushing it as far as you go and dont sweat the "bored game" crowd.

Whats next?....Lets make models with less pieces and parts so we dont have to pay an extra 2 bucks.

Exactly right.

Nothing is going to stop technilogical advances, and as usual it's the companies that refuse to incorparate those advances that will fail.

Who really cares if some skinflint in Canada won't upgrade?

The vast majority of folks want better graphics, sound, realism, etc.

If game companies only cater to people who want to play 1980's boardgames on $2,000 PC's, they'll be left in the dust. Upgrading your PC is just a part of gaming.



Fred98 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 3:00:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Do you know what I hate about fancy graphics? It's that stupid idea that fancy graphics automatically makes the game better.



Your problem is that you don’t even know what a fancy graphic is.

If I run my eye across the Korsun Pocket map, I can spot one graphic and understand in an instant what it means. Before computers I would have needed to consult half a dozen charts.

This is what we use graphics for. Something very complex can be represented by a single graphic which is easy to understand

If you don’t like graphics then replace Windows with DOS




quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

I have had buddies hand me free copies of several fancy schmancy graphically cute spiffy nifty 3d real time games in recent years.



Who cares? You have now brought up a topic unrelated to wargaming, so the rest of your post can be ignored.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 3:08:55 AM)

I would like to add that graphics are not the only thing that hardware adds to.
Force sizes, map sizes, AI levels (and the AI of your own units when playing another human) complexity of supply, complexity of the battle systems etc. are all judged by processor speed and amount of ram.
I remember in the disscussion of HTTR the developers had to make adjustments to the game as far as the size of the force represented in order to meet system requirments for low end users.
I read an interview recently with one of the desingers of Rome Total War and he remarked that the the size of the units in the game would of been impossible just three years ago.
So hardware just isnt for pretty graphics. It goes alot deeper into how the level of detail we have in our wargames and also the size of them.



Frank W. -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 4:04:00 AM)

mhh.. what´s the problem ?

all games i want run on my pc..

it´s not the newest one ( 1,4 celeron, 512SDRAM, ATi8500, 2x baracuda 40gig etc..)
but the games i play run on it - even far cry does it ( on 800x600 though [:D]).

and i have 3-4 games that i even don´t play longer then some hours.

the only game i´m really waitning fo rin the moment is "war in the pacific"
and this should run also, so for me personally no problem.

if really a game comes out that need higher specs and i really want it
to play i can still decide if it´s worth the money to upgrade......



junk2drive -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 4:06:11 AM)

i am that smelly single wide guy from deliverence. it took me 20 years to see that movie uncut on cable. all my family was in there.

back to subject, tech is advancing at a rate which, if you wait 1-2 years, you can buy old tech and games fairly cheap, imho. i spent 600 usd last year to build a computer that surfs fast, and plays combat mission very well. i wont run out and buy an amd 64, or ms longhorn, or the games that go with it. but in a year or two after they are out, i might.



mjk428 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 4:24:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

i am that smelly single wide guy from deliverence. it took me 20 years to see that movie uncut on cable. all my family was in there.

back to subject, tech is advancing at a rate which, if you wait 1-2 years, you can buy old tech and games fairly cheap, imho. i spent 600 usd last year to build a computer that surfs fast, and plays combat mission very well. i wont run out and buy an amd 64, or ms longhorn, or the games that go with it. but in a year or two after they are out, i might.


No offense intended. If you had a choice between playing with me or Cindy Crawford, I'd strongly suggest choosing Cindy.

What has yet to be revealed are the recommended specs for the games in question. If you have a computer that's only a year old, I don't see how it wouldn't be able to handle 99% of the computer wargames currently and probably 75% of those released in the next two years.

While I understand why people don't like upgrading, I don't see any conspiracy like some have alluded to. Technology marches on and game companies are going to cater to those that are most likely to open their wallets. It's understandable to me and I'm willing to pay to be on the near cutting edge. Although, I've long since stopped trying to be on the bleeding edge of technology. IMO, The best bang for the buck is on hardware that is 6-12 months old. It may not last quite as long as a bleeding edge system but you can maintain a quality system for less dollars year to year.

edit -

You raised another good point. Except in rare instances, I don't normally buy PC games immediately upon release. War in the Pacific is likely to be the first PC game that I've purchased on release since Uncommon Valor. That means if you wait awhile before purchasing new games, a computer system has that much longer of a life. There are plenty of old games available cheap. People on a tight budget can be well entertained even if they're a couple of years behind the times.



Rainbow7 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 4:30:37 AM)

@ Old Eagle 101, Joe 98:
Such venom in your replies to Les_the_Sarge. This discussion is somewhat moot if we don't have some standard with which to compare. I play Korsun Pocket and Highway to the Reich. I don't play FPS games anymore. Something like Hitman probably benefits from the moody, ultra-realistic graphics. But I have no desire to play such games because of the genre. My computer couldn't handle it anyway, and if most of you have money to burn, so be it, but don't lay into me because I don't want to fork out $2000 every two years. I'm pretty sure the game companies, from Atari down to 2by3, know who their market is, and it seems to me that they are creating the system requirements for their respective games perfectly well at the moment.

We really should be clear if we're refering to the latest tank sim or if we're refering to the latest TBS game.

Now when I refer to wargames, I'm just refering to turn-based games, specifically operational-level wargames. Arguably, a 3d engine is irrelevant. I don't think of KP's graphics as "fancy". I do think of them as excellent and appropriate. Being able to tax the latest graphics card would do what? Allow me to zoom down to look into the eyeballs of each of the men in one of my 40 divisions. Irrelevant. But just to be clear, I'm assuming we aren't talking about upgrading the CPU for more processor power to handle more complex ai routines -- something that I wouldn't argue against.

Oh yeah. I'm from Canada too. This post must be irrelevant.



Fred98 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 4:39:06 AM)

[image]http://www.ssg.com.au/tao4aar/tao4g18-2.jpg[/image]

Les,

Its appropriate that Rainbow mentioned KP

Here is a screen shot from the TAO4 scenario, from the upcoming Battles in Normandy. It shows some of those dreaded fancy shmancy graphics you hate so much

In the bottom right corner are some artillery units. You can tell that by the GRAPHIC on the counter.

Each artillery unit has a yellow or green dot at the right corner. This fancy shmancy coloured GRAPHIC shows whether or not the unit has been used this turn.

Further, towards the bottom left corner, is a smaller artillery unit. While all arty can be used in attack, only the large ones can be used in defence. So we need fancy shmancy graphics to show us the difference between the 2.

You will see some infantry units, the square on the fancy shmancy graphic has a gold colour. This meant it is an elite unit and therefore you get an extra shift on the CRT.

Further, the German player has pressed a key on the computer key board to check the possible odds available should he choose to make an attack. An artist has used fancy shmancy graphics to show the odds.

Near the top right are some skulls. This fancy shmancy graphic represents a minefield. But it means more than that. An enemy minefield slows movement. Further, if an attacker is attacking out of such a hex, it provides a –1 shift on the CRT

To the upper left corner you will se some units with stars. This is “fog of war” – taking advantage of computers to make better games. And of course an artist has used fancy shmancy graphics to paint the stars.

And finally, the ground can be frozen or thawed. From the fancy shmancy graphics it is clearly in thaw – and muddy. Mud is good for defense but bad for movement.

These fancy shmancy graphics show us many things at a glance. And require great computing power. And yet it is not so different from the board games of the past



dinsdale -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/7/2004 5:23:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
If I run my eye across the Korsun Pocket map, I can spot one graphic and understand in an instant what it means. Before computers I would have needed to consult half a dozen charts.



What's killed PC wargames is that there are more luddites than people like Joe 98. People confuse the amount of time it takes to make a turn with depth. Unfortunately, most of the "depth" is deciphering the interface and making repetative mouseclicks. Korsun Pocket and Highway To The Reich are shining examples of how the genre can be made great and accessible.

It's just a shame that accessibility and graphics are dirty words to most wargamers.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.109375