RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 10:01:13 AM)

I think RavinHood makes an excellent point and really highlights the one I was trying to make earlier.

There are two types of player out there.

Those who used to be called boardgamers, who have been well catered for over the years by the computer industry and like RavinHood have little if any interest in fancy graphic's and 3D environments. Most of their game subjects have been done to death in the last 30 years of PC gaming and we are into remakes many of which include fancy front ends that are irrelevant or even damaging to the game play. There really is no need to force these people to buy high spec PC's to run games that they have already played on their existing equipment a hundred times.

However, there is still a huge untapped market of potential PC game customers whose interest would have been in tabletop wargaming and are looking for PC wargames with precisely these fancy graphic's and 3D envirinoments. These players have never been properly catered for by the gaming industry and so there is still a lot to play for in this genre. Not only that but these players are prepared to shell out the money for the upgrades and software if it provides them with the perfect wargame experience. I personally would gladly shell out several hundred pounds to be able to play a really well design Napoleonic Wargame.(as opposed to boardgame)

The problem as I see it is that companies like Matrix are trying to combine the two genres and in doing so are falling through the crack in the floor boards. Some of the games on the market at present are little more than enhanced versions of those published a decade or so ago. For boardgamers like RavinHood these new features simply don't pass the 'So What' test. Why buy the same game you already own just becuase it now includes video clips or something.

At the same time for tabletop players these games are still boardgames, except they now have video clips, but boardgames are still boring. So they go back to Medal of Honour, Warcraft3 or Totalwar.

In my opinion the future of computer wargames should now be in creating detailed Historical Roleplay systems which model the wargame environment in 3D format and allow the players to interact with each other and their troops to simulate historically accurate command and control. This was always the real holy grail for computer wargaming which somehow got lost after the initial rush to computerise Third Riech.



Fred98 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 12:02:41 PM)

I don’t understand your meaning


quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

In my opinion the future of computer wargames should now be in creating detailed Historical Roleplay systems



Roleplay as in: Churchill, Patton, Rommel ???? Captain Smith of the 3rd Battalion??

These men had maps. They read reports and typed reports. Is that what you mean? Reacting to reports???



quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

and allow the players to interact with each other and their troops to simulate historically accurate command and control.



Yes that’s consistent.

HTTR does that now. But the graphics are top down 2D



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 5:09:53 PM)

"I have to wonder how/why you anti-tech people ever purchased computers in the first place."

The answer is simple actually, my computer is a tool to me not a toy.

When I reformat the system (which I do periodically) games are basically the last thing back on it.

First things on are of course security concerns, then I update Windows, then I put on my fav chat program, but the main program on my computer is MS Office.
This machine is nothing to me if it can't run a decent word processor.

I also require it to handle a lot of video processing tasks.

I love my wargames, but they are just games.

Didz, you keep mentioning roleplaying, but I am unclear if you are using that term as a rolegamer would.
There is a connection. Gary Gygax (and some others of course) back in the early 70s (approx.) invented this genre with a game called Dungeons and Dragons. It was born out of an interest in giving personalities to miniatures on the table top gaming scene.

Thus rolegaming is a child of miniatures gaming, where as board games are basically a creation of their own moreso.
Obviously you can not miniature game out quite the scope of action you can on a board game. I can say for instance this counter is a tank, a platoon of tanks, a division of armour, an entire tank army, merely by what I write on the counter.
The terrain in a board game is whatever I draw it to be.
Computer wargaming, no matter what the method, is a child of board gaming.

Miniatures gaming and board gaming are actually separate more so than some might know if they don't really think on it long enough.

So to get back to your roleplay request. Is it that you wish to become a personality in the game, that has whatever forces under your command? Sort of a militarised version of a Dungeons and Dragons experience?

Because the moment you get much beyond running individual battles, which is about the tolerance level of the average 4x8 table if you think about it, you are stuck having to pretty much just accept that you have entered the realm of the board gamer.

We don't move groups of miniatures in our battles, we move groups of armies in our battles. We run the forces of entire nations in some cases.
That ain't going to happen on your 4x8 table, nor will it likely occur in a rolegame any time soon.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 5:21:33 PM)

Didz;

I don't think the MOHAA players are are largely "exportable" to turn-based wargames. First person shooters are indeed fun but, we all know, it is a whole new kettle of fish.

wwiionline starts to bridge the gap and can indeed be a blast if you can get past the waiting.

You do have a good point about "potential" young wargamers who might have been board-based players had they been given an opportunity.



riverbravo -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 6:50:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

In my opinion the future of computer wargames should now be in creating detailed Historical Roleplay systems which model the wargame environment in 3D format and allow the players to interact with each other and their troops to simulate historically accurate command and control. This was always the real holy grail for computer wargaming which somehow got lost after the initial rush to computerise Third Riech.



I think this quote sums it up very nicely.

While a couple of people seem to think Im ranting for a 'graphics on everything and screw the rest'...thats not the case.

With current technology I feel that they can add it all and the kitchen sink without taking away from gameplay one bit.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 7:25:28 PM)

Yes, but what exactly does he mean by...

"Historical Roleplay systems".

It sounds like he wants Dungeons and Dragons on a computer using tanks and guns, instead of dragons and swords.

3d won't make that interesting, it will just be in 3d. If it was all that great, there would be line ups to play WWII Online.



riverbravo -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 7:56:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Yes, but what exactly does he mean by...

"Historical Roleplay systems".

It sounds like he wants Dungeons and Dragons on a computer using tanks and guns, instead of dragons and swords.

3d won't make that interesting, it will just be in 3d. If it was all that great, there would be line ups to play WWII Online.


Hmmmm,Im not sure about that one.

When we used miniatures to play we would sometimes implement a very small amount of role play.

If a soldier got a certain amount of kills or survived a few battles then they would get small upgrades like the better use of cover,better shot,maybe an extra bit of movement due to him gaining veteran status.We had a few more upgrades than what I listed but you get the idea.

We never went all out in the role play deal.

If people chose to role play a WW2 scenario hey,more power to them.As long as people are having fun with it...go for it.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 8:42:10 PM)

quote:

If a soldier got a certain amount of kills or survived a few battles then they would get small upgrades like the better use of cover,better shot,maybe an extra bit of movement due to him gaining veteran status.We had a few more upgrades than what I listed but you get the idea.


Yep, that is actually exactly where rolegames ie Dungeons and Dragons etc etc etc got its start from actually. Giving a little bit of detail to the soldiers.

Now I would not mind a full out rolegame design be made that starts out as serious military simulation roleplay, and doesn't wander off into fantasy land myself.

I would find it cool running the role of a military commander like what Rommel had at the beginning of his mission in North Africa for instance.
Doesn't have to be WW2 though. Military command would be interesting whatever the time period as long as they didn't turn it into some stupid farce.

I have never played Command and Conquer, and don't ever expect to. I have never played Starcraft and never expect to. There is only so much room in my level of interest for anything that removes to much of the historical from my wargaming.

Conducting the business of the Afrika Korps as Erwin "Les the Sarge" Rommel would be fun. But it would have to be a credible recreation of the conditions I was roleplaying within.
Achieving higher rank based on successful actions would be fun. Gaining occolades would be nice.

If there is no real history in the game, then why waste tme pretending it is even worth calling it a historical simulation.
Trouble is though, who wants to roleplay in a setting where nothing I do will actually have any real impact on the end result.
The player has to be capable of altering the war. But that tends to lead to problems typical of open ended gaming.

The only places I have seen this done well, are the online multi user persistent world based games.
To date, I think WWII Online is all there is.

Would be nice to fight in an Online Multi user world back in the time of Rome, or with Napoleon too I guess.



Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 9:19:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Yes that’s consistent.

HTTR does that now. But the graphics are top down 2D


Yep! I read about HTTR earlier in the thread and went and read through the AAR on the HRRT board.

It looks like a good game but as you rightly say its still essentially a boardgame. Using 2D graphics.

Imagine the same game when after checking the maps and radioing your orders through you can step out of the tent jump in your jeep and speed off to check out the situation at the front. Or where repports are delivered by frantic messengers fresh from the face of battle and desperate for orders.



bradfordkay -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 9:21:23 PM)

TalonSoft's Campaign series did this in a manner of speaking. If you played a campaign, you started out as a battalion commander and won medals and promotions based upon the results of your battles.

Even ASL had a taste of this in their "Hero" rules: if a (unit? commander?) performed especially well (got a couple of exceptional die rolls) then a hero unit was created. There are many ways to help the player become more involved with the game.

I feel that both styles of gaming (graphics intensive like CM and board game look alikes such as TOAW and UV) have a lot to offer. Small unit games tend to lend themselves to 3d graphics while operational and strategic games still require the 2d view - at this time. While I will continue to dream of a strategic/operational game of the Napoleonic wars that represents teh whole world in an isometric 3d view (allowing you to zoom in to see individual ships tacking against the wind and tides to maintain a blockade or deliver their troops - or see individual regiments marching in column up that dusty road) I realize that my present computer will never handle such a monster. It doesn't keep me from dreaming, though...



Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 9:27:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Yes, but what exactly does he mean by...

"Historical Roleplay systems".


Hmm! I've suddenly noticed everyone talking about me in the third person. Perhaps I've gone invisible. [&:]


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

TalonSoft's Campaign series did this in a manner of speaking. If you played a campaign, you started out as a battalion commander and won medals and promotions based upon the results of your battles.



No! No! No![X(]

God help us thats not what I mean't at all. The last thing we need is silly gimmicks like that. We'll be awarding XP's and issuing magically enhanced muskets next.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

It sounds like he wants Dungeons and Dragons on a computer using tanks and guns, instead of dragons and swords.

3d won't make that interesting, it will just be in 3d. If it was all that great, there would be line ups to play WWII Online.


AAARGHH! NOOOO!. I think certain people are getting hung up on stereotypes.[X(]

For your information Roleplay is a method used in all sorts of contexts from management training to military exercises.

All it means is that as a person you are placed in exactly the same environment and face exactly the same situation as another person whose role you are expected to assume.

Thus what I mean by Historical Roleplay is that you the player are placed by the computer in exactly the same environment as the character whose role you have chosen to play and given exactly the same resources through which to perform that role as your historical counterpart.

It doesn't mean you have to stick your hand in your vest and speak with a phoney French accent.



Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 9:31:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

TalonSoft's Campaign series did this in a manner of speaking. If you played a campaign, you started out as a battalion commander and won medals and promotions based upon the results of your battles.



No! No! No!

God help us thats not what I mean't at all. The last thing we need is silly gimmicks like that. We'll be awarding XP's and issuing magically enhanced muskets next.

Damn. How do you delete posts on this board. I was hoping to tidy up by elminating my duplicate posting and now can't see how to do it.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 9:55:22 PM)

quote:

Thus what I mean by Historical Roleplay is that you the player are placed by the computer in exactly the same environment as the character whose role you have chosen to play and given exactly the same resources through which to perform that role as your historical counterpart.


Errr hmmm Didz when I sit here looking at the computer screen or when looking at a board game, that IS actually what I am doing eh.

I mean you should have heard some of the epic games played between myself anbd a buddy. We had the period flags flying in the room, I was talking in character, my buddy was as well. We had on music that was relevant. Might have had some documentary footage going in the background, and I really was Stalin fighting off his facist swine forces :)

Now if you really want the flair of command, and want it more real than that, hmm a few years at the Royal Military College here (or whatever passes for same there), and then with luck, and they might just give you the experience you are looking for :)

Now I suppose I could sit here with charts tables pen and paper and be interacting with several other personages all acting out their own respective roles.
And we could fight out virtually any battle that is adequately documented.

And in the end, you will still have to settle for it looking like either a board game looking interface, or something like an online multi user gaming world experience.

After all, there is only so much you can do with an image displayed on a screen or board hehe.
Let me know when you figure out the software to run something like a holographic experience ala Star Trek though.



bradfordkay -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 10:09:34 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

TalonSoft's Campaign series did this in a manner of speaking. If you played a campaign, you started out as a battalion commander and won medals and promotions based upon the results of your battles.




No! No! No!

God help us thats not what I mean't at all. The last thing we need is silly gimmicks like that. We'll be awarding XP's and issuing magically enhanced muskets next.


Actually, all you received was a listing of what medals you had earned. If you got promoted, then, IIRC, you did get a larger force to command, but I could be wrong about that.

I personally hate "wargames" that allow silliness like a super upgraded musket that can hit any target at 500 meters, or that allow people to parachute onto the deck of an aircraft carrier in order to lay landmines that will destroy landing aircraft (I read about this happening in either Battlefield 1942 or WW2 online, I forget which). I don't mind a D&D game getting those silly upgrades, but a wargame had better allow me to use the historical units in an historical manner (though hopefully better than did their original commanders).



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 10:28:08 PM)

Once played a rolegame (paper and pencil type) called Behind Enemy Lines.

Really nice design, you were part of a squad, and of course you operated behind enemy lines. The missions were humble and logical sounding.

First game I had set the guys up to go monitor road traffic. The plan being scout and count vehicles. The 2nd SS was due to drive by.

Well the dumb fools I had at the table (that all thought they knew something obviously), up and decided to attack the column as it went past.

Well after making very clear they were actually serious, I informed them they were all dead.

Or would be, but I didn't have the time or interest in gaming out 10 men vs the 2nd SS panzer division.

And it was clear, I was the only one in the room that could find his butt in the dark with both hands as far as skill with warfare was concerned.

It also explains why you won't find it hard to find guys "explaining" to you how they know "strategy" because they are good at playing the atypical RTS silliness.

I rarely carry on conversations with those particular sorts of individuals long. It's just to painful on the ears.

That sort of is part and parcel of the problem in designing a "good" game of command and control.
You will find your market gets smaller, as you get more and more "accurate" and true to "real" command.

Because a lot of the market, likely most of the market, think that games like the average shooters, actually teach you anything about real combat.

They don't.

Must of us in here know that, but most of in here, also make up a very small slice of military gaming.

I could tomorrow start writing a great book on a great WW2 rolegaming RPG design. But I would still have trouble eliminating that problem of what to do with the guys that either can't think, or never had any potential to realise, how dumb some notions truely are.

I never played Behind Enemy Lines again. It was unfortunate, but the lesson was very effective.

I also had an identical experience with the game Top Secret.

Most gamers (read guys) can't seem to step out of their penis envy, limited viewpoint, mine is bigger than yours style of gaming sadly.
Which is why I often find board games more satisfying.

When my panzers overrun Russia, and I claim victory in the game, I can jump up and down and hoot and holler and yell "you suck". And there is no ambiguity.
I also don't have to fret over guys claiming things they can't support.

Eventually, you have to accept, that in a game, it is sometimes better for it to be a rigid simulation. There are limits on how much value you can achieve in role play.



riverbravo -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 11:08:09 PM)

I wear a helmet when I play wargames,does this count as roleplaying?[;)]

I can see were a certain amount of roleplay would be good in a wargame.The right setting,scale,time etc mite work well.

But a complete full on role playing wargame....I dont know.

I hear were didz is comin from but the total imersion is hard to achieve.When my eyes leave the monitor or table top its hard to blank out what you are seeing thats not realated to wargames.

The only thing in my office were I type this stuff up that remotlely looks like anything from WW2 is maybe a globe and the wooden chair Im sitting in.

Ive had some miniature games were one of us or both of us put on helmets and started screaming at each other in accents of the country we are playing.These things usualy happen about mid-game when the beer really starts kicking in[:)]

How ever people chose to play a game is really up to them.I dont think there is any full on "right way" to play a game as long as you play by the rules.

That is one thing were pc games are kind of stubborn.You either play by the rules that the AI enforces or tough cookies.

I always kind of role play everytime I play a wargame.At times I would say I have decided my role before the game begins.Ok,I will be a ruthless commander and try to achieve victory at all costs or Im gonna play it safe...not the most intense RP method but it can be fun.

A strong role play element mite work in wargames.I would give it a try or at least look into it.The worst that can happen is I wont like it.



mjk428 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 11:30:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

"I have to wonder how/why you anti-tech people ever purchased computers in the first place."

The answer is simple actually, my computer is a tool to me not a toy.

When I reformat the system (which I do periodically) games are basically the last thing back on it.

First things on are of course security concerns, then I update Windows, then I put on my fav chat program, but the main program on my computer is MS Office.
This machine is nothing to me if it can't run a decent word processor.

I also require it to handle a lot of video processing tasks.

I love my wargames, but they are just games.


If you use your computer to handle video processing then it seems you would benefit from a high powered machine.

My computers are tools also; even the IRS admits it.

I don't have any toys but I have many games.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/14/2004 11:43:35 PM)

High powered is subjective I guess.

I doubt I can run autocad. And I know I am not up to running games like EYSA decently.

But it plays movies just fine. And I am having no trouble processing all my vhs into vcd at the moment.

Some software is demanding to run, and some software is just needlessly demanding too.

There are no doubt plenty of fans of 3d in real time, but I just don't see why 3d is so vital.

All the wargames pre 3d craze were all perfectly fine wargames. They didn't require 3d then, so why do they require it now.

Oh I forgot, because if you don't make a game in 3d, how else will you be able to force people to upgrade machines that previously did not require it.

I would rather software designers become masters of using what they already have, before striving ahead needlessly to employ the latest new perk in hardware.



riverbravo -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 12:51:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1


Oh I forgot, because if you don't make a game in 3d, how else will you be able to force people to upgrade machines that previously did not require it.

I would rather software designers become masters of using what they already have, before striving ahead needlessly to employ the latest new perk in hardware.


Force an upgrade?

More than likely the worst pc on the shelf at circuit city has more power than what you are running...or so it sounds.

Why would a designer hold back when even a crappy pc thats on the shelves NOW will run his game that will be done in 6 months?

The games arent being designed on a old pc I could almost promise that.

Why design for pc technology that is really old?

Why would a dev say "we cant do that,the pc's from 1999 dont have that much juice"?



Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 2:44:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Didz, you keep mentioning roleplaying, but I am unclear if you are using that term as a rolegamer would.


Not sure what you mean by a rolegamer?

I am using the term in its generic sense, as in, playing a role. In the case of historical roleplay the gamer would be playing the role of say the Commander-in-chief of the blue army, or as in the example I gave earlier as the General Commanding the 7th Division of the Imperial Russian Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
There is a connection. Gary Gygax (and some others of course) back in the early 70s (approx.) invented this genre with a game called Dungeons and Dragons. It was born out of an interest in giving personalities to miniatures on the table top gaming scene.


Is that really what they believe?[:D]

I was wargaming long before Dungeon's and Dragons hit the streets and roleplaying games existed long before that game was launched. Nor did it have anything at all to do with the tabletop gaming scene at the time in fact its biggest selling point was that it was that all you needed to play it was the rule book, a pen and some paper. If I remember rightly that was actually printed on the front cover.

It was long after that before it was realised that more money could be made from D&D if players could be persuaded to buy figures to represent their characters and later still before the first Fantasy Boardgames were printed and Fantasy Wargames appeared. Even then the three hobbies were very much separate. Fantasy Boardgames were normally based upon recreating events from books, whilst Fantasy Wargames concentrated on massed battles with fantasy figures and D&D focused on underground dungeon crawls.

Players joined separate groups to play whichever caught their fancy and frequently despised each others chosen method of play. It was many years before players began to freely enjoy playing in multiple styles and by then Historical Wargaming was very much in the decline anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Thus rolegaming is a child of miniatures gaming, where as board games are basically a creation of their own moreso.


I fail to see any connection between miniatures gaming and Fantasy Roleplay.

There was certainly never any Fantasy Roleplay element to any of the Historical Miniatures games I designed or played.

The nearest the historical hobby got to that was the so called committee games where actions were decided by verbal debate which considered likely events and then went with the consensus upon the final outcome but they were intellectual exercises normally conducted by Military History Societies and frequently linked to studies by the armed forces.

Fantasy games whether roleplay or miniature based were universally shunned by wargamers in the early years as bringing the hobby into disrepute. At the time people like Brigadier Peter Young and J.P. Lawford were desperately trying to get the hobby accepted as a serious academic past time and secure regular TV coverage of games so anything that looked remotely like playing silly games was shoved as far away from the mainstream hobby as possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Obviously you cannot miniature game out quite the scope of action you can on a board game. I can say for instance this counter is a tank, a platoon of tanks, a division of armour, an entire tank army, merely by what I write on the counter. The terrain in a board game is whatever I draw it to be.


Of course you can. At the height of the hobby wargamers were refighting whole campaigns and even wars using miniatures and just as a boardgame counter can be anything from a single tank to a whole tank army, so can a miniature tank model. It’s a simple matter of figure scale. Also I think you are confusing Wargaming with Miniature Gaming. wargamers used miniatures to represent units when recreating tactical actions on the tabletop but the hobby extended way beyond the the staging of one off battles. Those battles were normally part of a major campaign or even an entire war.

Likewise with the terrain, there is no limit to the what can be depicted on a wargame table and when the ground scale becomes too high to model in 3D the tabletop would double as a map table spread with a copy of the campaign map.

The only real difference was that whereas the detail and accuracy of boardgames was always restricted by the constraints of the hexgrid, wargame maps were normally accurate depictions of the historical terrain and frequently copies of historical maps of the period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Computer wargaming, no matter what the method, is a child of board gaming.


Yes. I remember getting very excited when the first computer wargames came out. The first one I ever bought was Third Reich. Which was brilliant.

At last you could avoid the monotony of spending hours laying out all the counters before you started playing and joy of joys of you hadn't finished by the time people needed to go home you could save it and carry on next session without the risk of the cat or the wife knocking all the counters out of their hexes.

But we naively assumed that once the computer became powerful enough the computer wargame industry would shift their focus to providing proper wargame programs. I remember early experiments with computer assisted games where the games were played with miniatures and the computer worked out the casualties etc. But it never caught on because the data input slowed the game down, it was quicker to use the factor tables and roll dice.

We looked forward to the day when the computer would handle all the aspects of historical warfare the tabletop gaming couldn’t model effectively. We reasoned that Computers could keep track of the location and movement of hidden units only reporting them to the players when they would truly be visible on the tabletop thus allowing the fog of war to be recreated.

The computer could track the dispatch and delivery of orders and messages only listing them when and if they arrived and it could monitor the progress of reinforcements secretly so that even the friendly general didn't know exactly when they would arrive.

We even imagined that at some magical moment in the future computers would be powerful enough to allow the entire campaign to be fought on the computer screen. Though at the time this was fantasy as most computers were still limited to green on black screens and very chunky coloured graphic's.

The sad thing is that now that its possible nobody seems to remember how to do it. The nearest anyone has got in my experience was 1813, but even ignoring the appalingly bad programming it was clear at a glance that the designers had no expereince of the correct technique for designing a large scale campaign as there were quite blatant design errors in the relationship between the scales used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
So to get back to your roleplay request. Is it that you wish to become a personality in the game, that has whatever forces under your command? Sort of a militarised version of a Dungeons and Dragons experience?


No. Absolutely nothing like that, at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Because the moment you get much beyond running individual battles, which is about the tolerance level of the average 4x8 table if you think about it, you are stuck having to pretty much just accept that you have entered the realm of the board gamer.

We don't move groups of miniatures in our battles, we move groups of armies in our battles. We run the forces of entire nations in some cases.

That ain't going to happen on your 4x8 table, nor will it likely occur in a rolegame any time soon.


No. Actually thats not true. It is perfectly feasible to refight an entire war without touching a hexgrid and before the world became dominated by computer boardgames we regularly did.

Perhaps, you aren't old enough to have been involved in mainstream wargaming before computer wargames started dominating the scene. But, both the military and private wargame clubs regularly staged major wargames recreating whole campiagns and wars. I myself ran one which covered the theoretical invasion of England by French Forces in 1812 and included not only the entire French and Allied armies but also the full naval campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
If there is no real history in the game, then why waste tme pretending it is even worth calling it a historical simulation.
Trouble is though, who wants to roleplay in a setting where nothing I do will actually have any real impact on the end result.
The player has to be capable of altering the war. But that tends to lead to problems typical of open ended gaming.


Yes. I think there are three levels at which wargaming works today.

1. Historical Re-Enactment

This is where you take a real historical campaign, research the background, terrain, troops and weapons etc and then re-enact the campaign to see if minor changes in strategy and tactic's can change the result.

2. Historical 'What-ifs'

This is similar to the above except have research the troops and weapons etc available you pose a historical 'what if' and then play through the scenario to see what might have happened. For instance the 1812 invasion of England campaign used historically accurate OOB's and fleets but assumed that Nelson had lost Trafalgar and Napoleon had not invaded Russia.

3. Recreating war

This is rapidly becoming the new definition of wargaming and basically reasons that any game which depicts war is by definition a wargame. Thus we find that Warhammer is now a Wargame as is Command & Conquer, Starcraft, MOH. Personally, I find this confusing but I suspect it makes good marketing sense.



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 2:58:02 AM)

It sounds a bit like you're all talking past each other at the mo'. [:)]

Didz, correct me if I'm wrong here. What you would like is a 'first-person real-time strategy role-playing game' whereby the player would be Rommel (or whoever but Rommel's as good an example as any!). As such you could choose where you would be either on the battlefield with the troops, in a forward hq or maybe back at some more permanent installation. You would receive action reports, requests for reinforcements or supplies, intel on enemy positions, troops movements or whatever, all the info that a battlefield general would receive and then issue the appropriate orders. This could be played solo or with a number of other players who would be functioning in subordinate roles in a similar manner.



Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 3:44:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
Didz, correct me if I'm wrong here. What you would like is a 'first-person real-time strategy role-playing game' whereby the player would be Rommel (or whoever but Rommel's as good an example as any!). As such you could choose where you would be either on the battlefield with the troops, in a forward hq or maybe back at some more permanent installation.


Not quite.

The design concept I produced was for a 'first person', 'command-constrained', 3D battle environment, whereby the player or players assumed the role of various commanders whose knowledge would be limited to what was visible to them at their present location but who would have access through their staff to all the resources their historical counterparts had at the time.

Recognising that this might prove frustrating to non-purists the design also allowed the player to change personality if they wished and view events from another characters location but clearly if the player was Napoleon and chose to switch temporarily to say D'Erlon to see how the attack was going. He would only have the command resources of a Corps Commander whilst in that role.

By 'command-constrained' what I mean is that each role would be limited in how much influence it could exercise by the historical constrains which existed at the time. For example a General of Brigade typically only had two ADC's therefore if he sent two orders, one with each ADC, he could not send anymore until one of his ADC's returned (if they did). He must therefore either deliver the next message himself or wait.

The speed and reliabilty of the command process would also be optionaly modified according to the historical rating of the actual commander. Thus hampering players in playing historically less successful generals.

The game itself would be playing in bounds allowing players to issue orders (subject to command constraints) before proceding to roll forward the 3D environment to play out the result of the next period of play. (Similar to the Combat Mission system). This is mainly to allow for PBEM as an option for multi-plyer gaming as I would envisage this game being played with most of the senior commanders played by human players.

During the roll-forward phase the game will be enacted in full 3D and the player will view the action from his characters perspective. E.g. If he is in a tent he will hear the action but not see anything. Also during this phase the player can change the location of his character moving freely about the battlefield and meeting other commanders to exchange verbal messages. They can even if desired accompany their troops into the attack though clearly this would affect their command ability and their grasp of events.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
You would receive action reports, requests for reinforcements or supplies, intel on enemy positions, troops movements or whatever, all the info that a battlefield general would receive and then issue the appropriate orders. This could be played solo or with a number of other players who would be functioning in subordinate roles in a similar manner.


Yes. In effect, in tactical play the player would be mainly concerned with tactical command of his troops on the 3D battlefield. After the battle the player would return to their HQ where the days reports and intelligence will have been prepared for review by his chief of staff and he will be able to dispatch his orders for the next days march (again limited by command constraints) Sub-ordinate commanders would do likewise but their knowledge of events would reflect their own level of command as would their influence over the next days movements.

[Oh! I would just add that a player could decide to return his character to the HQ at any point during the battle. However, he would have to physically move his character there if he wanted to use the resources it contained (like his map table). Obviously whilst he was there is knowledge of other events would be reduced by what he could now see, hear and do. Typically, such an action would only be triggered by the arrival of a messenger from another commander informing him of critical events beyond the battlefield.]

Strategic movement would effectively be conducted in the background as having players spend hours travelling might work for 747 flight simulators but not for the invasion of Russia. Perhaps some cut scene of troops marching past or something just to give the impression of movement. The game would then pause when another encounter occurred to allow the players to react and revert to tactical mode before action ensued. Players not involved in a local tactical acction would be given the opportunity to select subordinate roles within the forces involved but would not be able to issue orders relating to the action unless their character would have been aware of the event.

Thus the player playing Napoleon might be informed that he can hear cannon fire to the south and be invited to respond but cannot issue any further orders if after responding he discovers D'Erlons Corps is heavily engaged just because he has chosen to play Gen de Div Donzelot and now knows the full extent of the threat.

D'Erlons action would then be played out in the same way whilst any troops marching to the guns will arrive as and when they can. So, if Napoleon had decided when he heard the cannon fire to ride over to see what it was he would eventually arrive and the Player would be invited to switch from Donzelot to Napoleon and assume overall command.

Anyway thats the sort of concept. Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 3:57:37 AM)

Hmm walk into ANY and I do mean ANY gaming store in Canada and the US and use the term "role", "rolegame" or "rolegamer", and I can assure Didz they will NOT be talking about what he appears to think the words mean.

And this is regardless of how old Didz might be.

I'm 42 and find it funny Didz appears unable to actually relate to my comments. That's a fairly big rock you must have been under Didz :)

You can claim to be using the term in a "generic sense", but in North America a rolegamer is a person that plays rolegames. They come as paper and pencil, they come as computer adaptions, you can even spend a weekend in a park doing it live in person 24 hours a day dressed up in actual costum if you are obsessed enough.
I have a friend that has spent 800 bucks having a suit of genuine leather armour made for him actually.

But rolegames whatever they may be, are about rolegaming.

You say fantasy board game, but can you give me an example of one?

You say roleplaying existed long before Dungeons and Dragons, well in my experience, there was nothing previous to TRS's creations.

Fail to see a connection with rolegaming and miniatures? surely you have heard of TSR.

You make the UK sound like a truely odd place Didz removed from everything I know of actually.

But then again, I recently mailed a friend some common A4 paper in a gaming trade of all things. He wanted something he could print out ASL pages on, and have it properly match the pages of his manual. England is a weird place if you have trouble finding A4 paper if you ask me :)

I am not somehow surprised that you seem to think wargming is ONLY played with miniatures. But don't worry I get the same reaction when I try to tell people board games are better than computer games hehe.

I have Third Reich PC. Hmm I don't recall anyone calling it brilliant though. I seem to recall a lot of complaints about the AI in the first release.

"Perhaps, you aren't old enough to have been involved in mainstream wargaming before computer wargames started dominating the scene."

Well I am unsure of your age (ain't listed), but as I am 42. I was around when rolegaming began, I was also around when board gaming began as well.
But infortunately, I didn't do it in the UK where apparently no one ever played anything from Avalon Hill, SPI, TSR, GDW, I could list a lot of other titles but I hope I am making the point.

It does seem though, that you have a total bias against anything involving 20th century military operations.

"It is perfectly feasible to refight an entire war without touching a hexgrid"

I sure would love to see you fight out the whole of WWII using miniatures.

I know Europa is a big game, but I would like to see you fight out Barbarossa, all of it, within a week :) (assuming you play each day all day for 7 days).

I am actually contemplating writing up a rolegame design focusing on credible military operations of the past in a realistic real world setting ie no goofy fantasy scifi elements.
I doubt it would meet your needs though.
You seem to have an odd perception of what the term "role" means.

Either it means you are in command, be it in command of miniatures, card board counters representing military formations moving on a map with some manner of hex grid overlay, or plastic pieces ala Axis and Allies on a map with regional locations, or it means you are acting out the personality of a commander in a styylised recreation of the event through a roleplaying game.

In either case, the person doing the gaming, is functioning in the role of the person in command.
But I can't seem to get over the idea, that somehow you think if there are no miniatures involved, it isn't really a wargame?

Your three levels of wargaming are just three variations on using miniatures on a diorama.

Maybe I should respond with if you ain't in a uniform carrying a real weapon and actually firing live ammo on a real mlitary training exercise, you really are not in a real wargame.



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 3:58:57 AM)

Cheers Didz, now I can see where you're coming from[:)]

Looking at it, imho it seems to be a system that would work best with 'Horse and Musket' or earlier period engagements where armies were relatively 'discrete' formations that operated within relatively small geographical areas. Therefore you could be Napoleon, Barclay de Tolly, Schwarzenberg, Frederick the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Henry V, Charlemagne or whoever since the scope of the conflict could just be within one persons grasp (and within the processing power of a single modern pc). I suspect anything more modern might be a bit much. I could see a battle like Jena/Auerstadt working very well under the system you describe though[:)]



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 4:05:39 AM)

quote:

The design concept I produced was for a 'first person', 'command-constrained', 3D battle environment, whereby the player or players assumed the role of various commanders whose knowledge would be limited to what was visible to them at their present location but who would have access through their staff to all the resources their historical counterparts had at the time.


So, picture yourself playing hmm Battlefield 1942, the Napoleonic mod. You have a battalion under your command. All of which is on the server at that time. And all you can see, is what you can see (which is currently the case).

You would have the ability to walk around as you can already now in that game.

And of course, if you were found by an any spy, shot dead, game ends for you, as you are now dead.

You have subordinates of course, who will have subordinates, etc etc etc.

So you tell your underlings, I wish to attack here, at this time.
Well that's your part done.
So you sit, and you sit and you sit.

And all you see is what you see, because of course, it's realistic, so you can't just scroll around the map in god mode, that's cheating.

So you sit some more. And 3 real actual hours later your attack goes in. You assume. You ain't there.

Well hell , you could always get on your horse and see the front.

But along the way you run into an ambush.

Shot dead.

Same result, game is over.

Nope, no respawn for you, everyone else is still playing, and you can't join this game in progress.

Maybe next game. Unless of course this one lasts a while. And who knows, it might eh.

Is sounding exciting yet?



EricGuitarJames -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 4:10:16 AM)

Well Les I would suspect that under the system Didz espouses you would respawn as another commander somewhat lower down the chain. So if you were a corps commander you'd respawn as a divisional commander, if they were all filled then down to brigade. Since there would be 'battlefield promotions' as there would be in real-life I don't see this as a problem.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 4:37:27 AM)

Possibly Eric.

No reason it would not be possible.

But I get the idea from his posts, he could care less for anything not stuck back in the 18th or maybe 19 century.

He appears for instance, unwilling to contemplate being anything outside of a military commander who would only have forces that were within a few square miles of him.

His notion would just not really work for anything 20th century.

He almost seems a combination of military miniatures elitist and Napoleonics era only centered.

He also doesn't appear to have any knowledge of the commercial market outside of the UK.

The only time I have ever encountered his hobby, is the few cases where I have been inside of a large enough magazine shop, to sponsor a few publications that deal with military miniatures as a hobby.

It does exist, I know it exists, but he seems unaware of anything that is run of the mill outside of the UK.

The idea he was unsure of my knowledge of pre computer wargaming was stunningly comical (cosidering most here at Matrix Games think I am a stick in the mud grognard myself :) ).



Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 4:45:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Hmm walk into ANY and I do mean ANY gaming store in Canada and the US and use the term "role", "rolegame" or "rolegamer", and I can assure Didz they will NOT be talking about what he appears to think the words mean.

And this is regardless of how old Didz might be.

I'm 42 and find it funny Didz appears unable to actually relate to my comments. That's a fairly big rock you must have been under Didz :)


Not really. I get the impression that you are deliberately interpreting the term in relation to its use as marketing label for computer games.

As I have said the term 'Roleplay' has a more generic meaning, just as gay does not necessarily mean homosexual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
You can claim to be using the term in a "generic sense", but in North America a rolegamer is a person that plays rolegames. They come as paper and pencil, they come as computer adaptions, you can even spend a weekend in a park doing it live in person 24 hours a day dressed up in actual costum if you are obsessed enough.
I have a friend that has spent 800 bucks having a suit of genuine leather armour made for him actually.


Must be a US term then, after all in the US you wear your pants outside your trousers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1You say fantasy board game, but can you give me an example of one?


Heroquest, Lord of the Rings, Horus Heresy, Mighty Empires, Doom of the Eldar, Final Liberation. Dungeon Master, Dungeoneer, The Hobbit, Willow etc. etc. etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
You say roleplaying existed long before Dungeons and Dragons, well in my experience, there was nothing previous to TRS's creations.


Thats because you are limiting your definition to Fantasy Roleplay. Prior to the launch of the TSR creations there was a whole raft of MUD games and a series based on cowboys the name of which escapes me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1Fail to see a connection with rolegaming and miniatures? surely you have heard of TSR.


Course but TSR never had any involvement in miniature wargaming. The closest they came was in producing miniatures to supplement their roleplaying and board games. I don't think they even produced a range of Fantasy Wargame figures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
You make the UK sound like a truely odd place Didz removed from everything I know of actually.


Yes. You make the US sound really confused too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
But then again, I recently mailed a friend some common A4 paper in a gaming trade of all things. He wanted something he could print out ASL pages on, and have it properly match the pages of his manual. England is a weird place if you have trouble finding A4 paper if you ask me :)


Sounds like another misunderstanding to me A4 is the standard paper size for printers over here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I am not somehow surprised that you seem to think wargming is ONLY played with miniatures. But don't worry I get the same reaction when I try to tell people board games are better than computer games hehe.


You must have missed my earlier post when I explained this. The fact is that now days just about anything which involves simulating combat gets labelled a wargame. The point is that todays computer designers have concentrated nearly all their efforts on producing computerised boardgames and little on the other forms of historical simulation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I have Third Reich PC. Hmm I don't recall anyone calling it brilliant though. I seem to recall a lot of complaints about the AI in the first release.


Oh! I really like it. I always played Italian and took great pleasure in clobbering the British Fleet and 8th Army.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
But infortunately, I didn't do it in the UK where apparently no one ever played anything from Avalon Hill, SPI, TSR, GDW, I could list a lot of other titles but I hope I am making the point.


Yep! of course we did. Our club also had its own subscrition to Strategy & Tactic's magazine. I'm 48. Never heard that called RoleGaming before though. We just called it boardgaming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
It does seem though, that you have a total bias against anything involving 20th century military operations.



[&:] Where'd that come from?

My main interest is in Napoleonic History and the 1815 Campaign in particular but I've dabbled in most periods.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I sure would love to see you fight out the whole of WWII using miniatures.


It would certainly be possible but it would take a long time. I assume your not imagining that this would somehow require all the figures for all the worlds armies to be arrayed on a single table at once are you?[:)]

That would be difficult.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I know Europa is a big game, but I would like to see you fight out Barbarossa, all of it, within a week :) (assuming you play each day all day for 7 days).


Europa[&:]

Why would I have to complete Barbarossa within a week?

Most wargame campaigns take months to complete.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
In either case, the person doing the gaming, is functioning in the role of the person in command. But I can't seem to get over the idea, that somehow you think if there are no miniatures involved, it isn't really a wargame?


I never said that. What I said was, that before the advent of computer wargames, there was a clear distinction between boardgaming and wargaming. That is a statement of fact at least as far as the UK is concerned.

The importance of making that distinction was to highlight that whilst the boardgaming hobby has been well serviced by the computer industry since the 70's the wargaming hobby ( or what was the wargaming hobby in those days) has hardly been catered for at all.

And the reason I was making that point was not (as you seem to be assuming, to deride boardgaming as not proper wargaming) but to make the distinction between the needs of boardgamers for high quality graphic's and high spec PC's and the needs of wargamers. Which is directly relevant to the topic of this thread.

I think it is importnat that the computer industry recognises that there are two distinct wargaming hobbies in existence with different expectations and needs and that they are currently only tapping into one of those markets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Your three levels of wargaming are just three variations on using miniatures on a diorama.

Maybe I should respond with if you ain't in a uniform carrying a real weapon and actually firing live ammo on a real mlitary training exercise, you really are not in a real wargame.


Thats a rather odd comment.

Are you suggesting that boardgames don't attempt to recreate actual historical events and simulate the capabilities of the troops and weapons involved?

And can't be used to consider 'what if' scenario's, or used to simulate fictious combat situations.

Or are you just determined to place negative interpretations on everything I write.



Didz -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 5:04:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Cheers Didz, now I can see where you're coming from[:)]

Looking at it, imho it seems to be a system that would work best with 'Horse and Musket' or earlier period engagements where armies were relatively 'discrete' formations that operated within relatively small geographical areas. Therefore you could be Napoleon, Barclay de Tolly, Schwarzenberg, Frederick the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Henry V, Charlemagne or whoever since the scope of the conflict could just be within one persons grasp (and within the processing power of a single modern pc). I suspect anything more modern might be a bit much. I could see a battle like Jena/Auerstadt working very well under the system you describe though[:)]


Well I have to admit I'm more interested in Napoleonic but I think the same system would work for any earlier period, say Ancients or Rennaisance.

But at the same time I wouldn't dismiss the modern era. If a players really wanted to play the role of Rommel, for example, the same principles could be applied its just that obvoiusly there would be much less reliances on visual references from the 3D environment and much more on simulated radio traffic. But the map boards, command constraints and commander quality ratings could all be applied along the same lines.

In a way Combat Mission has broken the ground already in the modern era and has stolen a march in the other periods but to get the full effect it would have to be expanded considerably in terms of area and numbers included and graphic's quality so that the visual expereince was much closed to MOH



Fred98 -> RE: Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself? (6/15/2004 5:29:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Didz

Imagine the same game when after checking the maps and radioing your orders through you can step out of the tent jump in your jeep and speed off to check out the situation at the front. Or where repports are delivered by frantic messengers fresh from the face of battle and desperate for orders.


Actually I have already pushed this point.

I was a keen Close Combat player. The follow up game was Squad Assault is meant to be Close Combat in 3D.

Unfortunately it does not work because you have a god like camera giving information all over the place that you actually would not know.

You mentioned “issuing orders then jumping in a jeep and speeding of the parts of the battlefield”. I have mentioned that elsewhere it would work somthing like this:

A platoon commander receives messages from his squads and from time to time rushes, on foot, from one squad commander to another issuing amendments to his original orders

A company commander would rush on foot from one platoon HQ to another giving amendment orders.

A battalion commander would rush on foot ( or in a jeep) from one company HQ to another giving amendment orders.

A divisional commander would, from time to time, slowly and in a professional manner, go from one battalion HQ to another issuing amendment orders.

Each commander, would receive reports from subordinates and send reports to superiors. He would also have a map and see the situation with his own eyes. Of course your eyes could be deceiving if you are winning the battle but you see one of your squads wiped out.

And so it is such a commander needs to make a decision based on reports and on what he can see. He does not have god like vision.
-



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.171875