The End of IGYG is Nigh?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

The End of IGYG is Nigh?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> The End of IGYG is Nigh?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

The End of IGYG is Nigh? - 8/23/2000 12:10:00 PM

Graf Speer

Posts: 99
Joined: 7/23/2000
Status: offline

IGYG vs Simultaneous Plot vs Realtime.

quote:

Real Time - they won't be getting my hard earned. --Nik Although if it really is 3D and real-time, then I'm not interested anyway. --Ed Cogburn From: Steel Panthers 4?

So, I really burned out on Tiller's Battleground (BG) series way back in 1997 - that rather dumbed down step/hex based boardgame engine treatment of 'theoretical' acw tactical 'warfare', with some of the most beautiful maps I have ever played on. And then there was Sid Meier's humble classic little entry into 'continuous time' with his Gettysburg tactical modelling - an often credibly atmospheric 'realtime' experience in spite of sundry "step-based" fan critics (but clearly Sid's engine design proved wholly inadequate for simulating full scale engagements). Finally, I still recall fondly my Atomic games - like Operation Crusader and Stalingrad - which employed the simply outstanding Simultaneous Plot routine. My Question: Why is there such a 'continuous' step-based aversion to the exploration into something more believable like Atomic's Simultaneous Plot . . . or how about a "Hybrid - continuous/real time" engine which could conceivably integrate a 'step-based' orders phase followed by the realtime execution of orders for any given incremental (step-based) turn? I therefore am want to conclude that the IGYG 'board game' engine should well be given a reverent but speedier new millenium burial right next to the guy who invented the six-sided hex . . . because, let's face it: while more than good enough for boardgaming, the hex-step-based I Go, then U Go system simply doesn't capture the 'aesthetic' of war let alone critically reflect the volatility of any war fought over the ages. I love SPWAW's excellent Opportunity Fire routine - it clearly remains a viable and essential part of any projected SPWAW version 4.0 routine ! But sooner than later, we will want and need to explore a routine that nixes that venerable but dated "IGYG" routine for something more telling. Albert [This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited August 23, 2000).]

_____________________________

The Good Nazi

Post #: 1

- 8/23/2000 1:20:00 PM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Being able to control your op fire in version 3.0 does allow you a minimal input into the computer turn. A long way from real time, but at least you don't just sit and watch

..WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 2

- 8/23/2000 1:32:00 PM

Graf Speer

Posts: 99
Joined: 7/23/2000
Status: offline

. . . taunt speer once too often . . . speer now demand version 3.0 by 0300 hours or else . . . or else there be serious opportunity fires afoot!

peerless speer is me, Albert

_____________________________

The Good Nazi

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 3

- 8/23/2000 8:43:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Why the aversion to Real Time? I'll try to summerize without writing a book ;-) Because SP is'nt just about simulating Tactical armored confict with a high level of realism (not that that is'nt important!) Its about having a front row seat to the action, seeing every nuance on the interaction not only of tactics, but on the preformance of man and machine. I find it to no surprise that most (if not all) 'Real Time' wargames have to have some form of 'pause' function that allows the player to acess and 'see' whats going on. The most recent example i personally was involved in was 'Fighting Steel' which simulated tactical naval combat in "real Time". Needless to say the pause key was often invoked so that i could get status reports on what was happening. I found the experience somewhat clumsy as well as fatiguing. Pace can be as important a facet to a good wargame as historical accuracy and a sense of "you are there".

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 4

- 8/23/2000 9:58:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

This has always been a Gordian knot in gaming - very difficult to unravel! I will leave out "real" real time becasue I don't think that continuous movement is viable for an engagement of any size. AI implementation is about an order of magnitude from being able to support that, and I'm not sure the C3 to make such a thing "realistic" would be a lot of fun. A breakthrough in AI and interface is possible in the future...just not yet... So the choice comes down to the debate between IGO-UGO and some form of plotted si-move. Now I've argued before that this is really two diametrically opposed views of how teh battlefield works. IGO-UGO is completely Asychronous - ie every unit gets to perform its turn in a vaccuum from what other units do. Each has the the capability to do a complete turn, then the next does, etc. Obvious problems there because a game player can use the complete freedom from synchronicity to do some pretty strange things. Now plotted si-move is the other end of the extreme, completely sychronous! ie you have essentially complete control over the precise timing of your units movements and the battlefield becomes a Newtonian Machine that allows a game player to this ability for near absolute battlefield synchronization to do some pretty strange things... Now the reality of a battlefield lies in between. Synchronization of force and the minimalization of combat friction is the "Holy Grail" of the new "network centric". PLotted si-move hands this to you ona silver platter and is at its root no more "realistic" than IGO-UGO. In reality combat units are NOT synchronized very well. And the timeframes over which this lack or synchronization manifests itself is typically not seconds, but minutes to 10s of minutes. So your assertion that a "hybrid" between pure IGO-UGO and pure plotted si move is seemingly the place where the future of tactical gaming needs to go.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 5

- 8/23/2000 11:03:00 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

The debate on Real-Time vs Turn-Based games is a never ending one. Obviously, there are people who like both types of games; therefore, both types of games should continue to be made. Basically, there are chess players, and there are checker players; there are those who enjoy watching the movie "Men In Black", and there are those who enjoy watching the movies "Gettysburg" and "Das Boot". It's all a matter of taste and inclination. Personally, I have played both types of games. When it comes down to actual gameplay and sheer enjoyment - I prefer turn-based games. In a well-designed game, whether turn-based or not, the player will need strategy to win. Unfortunately, many new Real-Time games rely less on strategy, and more on reflexes (or busy activities). Anyone who has played the Sudden Strike demo will know what I mean (arrgghh). Even the makers of the up-coming Red Alert 2 game have stated that they intend to make the game move EVEN FASTER IN REAL TIME. Why? To make internet games go faster! So the game developers don't even have to develop or program a smart AI - just let the players whale at each other for 30 minutes over the internet... Fun for the kiddies, anyway... This is a sad, sad trend. Back in the day, a true strategy game demanded real thinking. But real-time - demands just faster reflexes (no thinking, please). If Real-Time games included smart AI subordinates, then these types of games might be more enjoyable. But since the player has the job of controlling every single unit under his command - then real-time in a wargame (or any game) is absolutely ludicrous. I want deep strategy - not frustration - when I play a wargame. Often, the argument is given that in a real conflict commanders don't have time to think, to react to every problem, etc, therefore real-time is the way to go. Like I said previously, if I could rely on smart sub-commanders all the way down to individual tanks, then fine - that might be workable. But the player must not only plan a grand strategy, but also command the individual tank - this simply is unworkable in real-time (unless all you're looking for is a click-fest). Imagine General Eisenhower planning the D-Day invasion, and then having to worry about how to use EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER AND TANK UNDER HIS COMMAND for the invasion. Turn-based games demands a smart AI. This means a lot of programming and testing, etc. Obviously, this takes time. Many companies seem to be by-passing this for the real-time format - ie - survive the initial rush, try to build, survive more rushes, etc - no thinking strategy involved... Also, turn-based games need less computer power, while real-time games demand constant up-grades. So I can see why computer companies, video card companies, etc would want us to move away from turn-based games. Real-time games add nothing to strategy, but continues to drain our pocket book. Finally, turn-based games allow time for the player to plan his strategy, make his moves, and actually enjoy the game. I do not play a game to become frustrated with the interface, or to get upset because I have no control over how the units face, or that I am being attacked on one part of the battlefield, while I am trying to move units on another part of the battlefield. The AI is simply too dum to be left on its own in real-time games. Hence player frustration. Many of the real-time games have great graphics (Age of Empires comes to mind). I don't see why turn-based games can't also have great graphics - in fact they can - again it all depends on the size of the company, and the money they are willing to spend to put great graphics into the game. Frankly, I thought the turn-based wargame was dead, until I found Matrix Games. This company is like a breath of fresh air. I still cannot believe the games that they are developing... They have renewed my interest and love of turn-based wargames again. And the support and level of communication is phenomenal. Other companies can only watch and weep... And just think: no computer up-grade needed

------------------ A King Tiger can give you a definite edge... [This message has been edited by Von Rom (edited August 23, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 6

- 8/23/2000 11:33:00 PM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

This is a little off topic but... With the increasing development of desktop computing power I hope that we may see more complex games that allow both real time and turn-base. Intell has just demonstrated a 2GHz CPU with a 400 MHz bus for desktops. I can forsee that a gamer is presented with a high level turn-based map. IRL, at division and above (& maybe even brigade) the order process is based on written orders issued on daily cycles. Major Generals and above fight in a IGYG manner. So you move your units and the AI or human player does also. Then as units come into contact and fight, you can drill down to their level and fight a more real time, lower scale battle. If you don't want to fight each lower-level battle, you can use AI rules or policies to tell a subordinate AIP how to fight. There may even be an adaptive AIP that is trained by your combat style at the low level then fights as you do. Ah so many CPU cycles and so little time to game with them. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 7

- 8/24/2000 1:28:00 AM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: This is a little off topic but... With the increasing development of desktop computing power I hope that we may see more complex games that allow both real time and turn-base.

Don't hold your breath. The commercial gaming industry, with perhaps Matrix, HPS and similar excepted, is obsessed with the eye candy. They build games with average or poor gameplay, then let the eye candy sell it. Real-time allows them to avoid spending much time on the AI because they can rely on the computer being able to give 100 units mediocre orders winning out over a human player who can only handle 30-40 or so units even if the orders given are good. As long as people keep buying this crap, nothing will change. PS: I don't think we can put plotted simultaneous movement in the same category as real-time or turn-based. To me it looks like the best combination of both. Its not true real-time because the player(s) are not time restricted, but since both sides in war are executing their own plans simutaneously, the "collision" of coordinated moves is very realistic. Plotted simultaneous movement works *very* well in WiR for example.

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 8

- 8/24/2000 1:43:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

I agree, that the higher up the chain of command you go, the better "plotted simove" works. But it needs to account for "friction" in a realistic way - introducing coordination difficulties in the "coordinated moves". As to harnessing the power of desktops in the pipeline, software technolgy has always been a generation behind hardware. And in the realm of game AI, the effort is tremendous. Years of development is needed to get just to "good" and that is very difficult to justify given that "poor but passable" AI is an order of magnitude less effort, and the payoff of investing the extra time marginal. We at matrix have plans to get to some much improved AI techniques. We hope to have an AI that will repond to your play habits in Wars of Napolean. Other innovations will follow, but will take time (years) to mature fully.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 9

- 8/24/2000 2:25:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

Real-time strategy games are still pretty immature as a game genre. They'll become something good... maybe soon, maybe later. Turn based games are easier to control, and have a long history of development. There's a lot of room to improve. Eventually, I believe that we'll have some awesome games developed, only time needs to pass. I've always had this dream of a game that has a significant planning phase and more units than could possibly be controlled in a real-time environment. After which an interactive real-time phase executes the orders from before. You have control of units, but given the scope of the game you can only hope to control a small area of the battle. That way a person's quick thinking as well as planning ability is challenged. Blah blah blah... I could go on and on, gotta go to lunch. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 10

- 8/24/2000 3:15:00 AM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

Computer games are still a new thing. As time goes on and the buying public gets older and their reflexes slow down, new ways will have to be found. I also suspect that many of the real time big hits will not appeal to an older buyer. Wargamers as a whole have been lucky in the sense that most of our turn based games run on lower end machines. These days are very numbered, but with good things going to come I'm sure and worth the upgrades. ------------------ Good hunting, Pack Rat

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 11

- 8/24/2000 11:13:00 AM

Graf Speer

Posts: 99
Joined: 7/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

I find it to no surprise that most (if not all) 'Real Time' wargames have to have some form of 'pause' function --Nikademus

Bullseye!

. . . yes, for example, the "pause" function in Sid Meier's Gettysburg is an egregious (my dad loves this word

) contradiction in terms; perhaps even a complete refutation of what it really means to be playing in 'real-time', yes?

quote:

. . . a "hybrid" between pure IGO-UGO and pure plotted si move is seemingly the place where the future of tactical gaming needs to go. --Paul Vebber

Yes, sounds good to me, Paul. Maybe, I missed it somewhere under this thread, but a key reason I love SP / SPWAW (and its excellent opportunity fire routine) is that it still permits the convenience and satisfaction of PBEM gaming. This is why I favor some form of hybrid platform - it would solve the oxymoronic "pause" feature in realtime gaming, while at the same time allow for thoughtful (hence, usually more filling n' satisfying ) strategic planning & plotting, while possibly affording time or luxury to consult with girl friend, wife, dog, and refrigerator

Albert [This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited August 24, 2000).]

_____________________________

The Good Nazi

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 12

- 8/24/2000 11:35:00 AM

Greg McCarty

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline

I don't think one can talk about battalion level scale, (which is what we have in SPWAW) and real-time in the same paragraph. When we get to enough units, terrain, logistics, etc. to encompass a battalion level formation, real-time no longer lends itself well to control of play. Where I could see real-time used would be in something that emulates the "SQUAD LEADER" model; with a more limited unit number, and an up close and in your face environment. Personally, I have never been entirely comfortable with games that require (and encourage) a lavish amount of planning and personal involvement in a beautiful environment, but then frustrate the heck out of you by rushing events around one like a flood --leaving you more as a witness than a participant. (The otherwise beautiful "Homeworld" comes to mind) So when we talk about real-time with a game like SPWAW, we have to remind ourselves, that although it is a tactical simulation, the scale we are attempting to control is still quite large. I can't imagine enjoying the level of detail we have in our current game without some ability to pause and reflect.

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 13

- 8/24/2000 2:01:00 PM

Desert Fox

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline

Personally, I think the best real time game out there is Close Combat 2. The pace is excellent, allowing you to check a hotspot, get your situational awareness, manage your units, and then move to the next hotspot. Its perfectly timed so that you can give the orders when you need to, but there is not a large amount of hurry up and wait. Of course, the AI leaves much to be desired, and there are numerous bugs which definitely should have been fixed. Its too bad they did not realize how good the game was, because everything sped up by Close Combat 4 that any time you take to move from one end of the battlefield to the next, your AT guns could have shot off every round they had at the front hull of a panther. And there are so many other problems with the game, its really not worth buying. I also like the pace of the Command and Conquer series by Westwood. There again, its a good mix of being able to issue orders, without a lot of boring down time. And of course, those games also have a very excellent story and plot. What I do not like are the Age of Empires games. They are too fast paced, and involve a ridiculous amount of micromanagement from doing research, to constantly ordering the planting of farms, and if you are lucky, you will be able to order your troops before they wander into a deadly hail of something. To me a real time game has to be paced well so that you are not wasting time sitting around waiting for something to happen, while at the same time, you have the time to give all the necessary orders to your units. It also has to have very capable AI to allow your units to survive on their own. But few games can get this mix right, and instead focus on pretty graphics to make you buy them.

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 14

- 8/24/2000 3:32:00 PM

John T_MatrixForum

Posts: 84
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Stockholm Sweden
Status: offline

I Need IGYG, got wife and three kids and PBEM is the only way to play anything for more than an hour. BUT:

quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: I've always had this dream of a game that has a significant planning phase and more units than could possibly be controlled in a real-time environment. After which an interactive real-time phase executes the orders from before. You have control of units, but given the scope of the game you can only hope to control a small area of the battle. That way a person's quick thinking as well as planning ability is challenged. Blah blah blah... I could go on and on, gotta go to lunch. Tomo

LOVELY Idea! This is the way to model Rommel in the desert. First a broad outline for major formations, they do have commanders themself managing the details. And then jump into my personal halftrack and go to the Schwerpunkt. More ordinary staff officers whould have a boring game just giving the outlines and then spend rest of the day waiting. /John T.

_____________________________

/John T

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 15

- 8/24/2000 5:36:00 PM

GI Seve

Posts: 101
Joined: 6/27/2000
From: Oulu, Finland
Status: offline

Well to all my own view on this matter I would like to say there are allso some great real time strategy games existing without going to such level of **** like C&C(Read Command&Conguer) Siberian Fun

or my personal hatred Earth 2150(or something like that).Well as I think of only Close Combat's for some small bits(Didn't like CC4 either) and awesome games called Myth: The Fallen Lords and its follower Myth: Soulblighter have been good real time strategy games.(Myth: SB even has it's own simple WW2 plugin added).One common thing for all those games were that amount of controlled units is not very big thus allowing some more tactical thinking and time to do all what is intended to be done for sucsessfull tactical maneuvers.(See more bout Myth on www.bungie.net) So final conclusion is Real time games will work only if amount of troops is small and you don't need to bother building some darn factories to get units. And that before there will be invented really good AI those games will be at their best only when played against other humans.(Wich I think will arise more bigger factor in future as single playing possibilities get fewer wich I think is bad thing = curses game makers!! .. Ofcourse some are nice like Matrix fellas

)

_____________________________

HallelujaaGobble!

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 16

- 8/24/2000 10:47:00 PM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

Something we all have to remember is that many real time strategy games aren't about war simulation. Games like C&C and Age of Empires really revolve around resource management. Its not fair to say that they are bad, they just aren't built to service the needs of the wargamer. In my opinion Age of Empires is one of the deepest and most balanced multi-player games ever made. The single player game kinda sucks, but the multi-player dynamic is crafted like a swiss watch, but its primarily resource management. The combat in the game is just an expression of the resource war. There's very little you can do to increase the tactical value of units in these games, and battles usually go to the army that's worth the most resources. The games like Close Combat and Myth are a different matter (has anyone played Ground Control? -Its GOOD-) they dwell only on the tactics of the units, and are all about fighting. The fact that a game is in a real-time environment doesn't make that the primary characteristic of the game. Resource management games challenge your efficiency and judgement, the real-time tactical games challenge organization and adaptation. We need to think about what the real-time environment can give to wargames, and not which real-time games aren't any good as wargames. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 17

- 8/24/2000 10:49:00 PM

Windo von Paene

Posts: 174
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

A comment and a question. Although I don't have the PC horsepower to play it, everything I have heard about the WEGO system employed by Combat Mission suggests that this is an excellent "hybrid" or the TB vs. RT debate. In addition it still allows for PBEM. Speaking of PBEM, how will the new op fire routines impact PBEM? It would seem that they will not be usable in PBEM, or PBEM will not be usable. Unless there's some other wrinkle in this that we haven't been told about.

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 18

- 8/25/2000 12:09:00 AM

Mark_Ezra

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/6/2000
From: Trabuco Canyon, Ca....USA
Status: offline

The WeGo system as used in Combat Mission is excellent. I expect it to be the bench mark for war games for a long while. I love SPWAW and respect all the efforts of the Matrix team. It'll stay on my hard drive for a whole bunch of reasons....But CM is the next step in the evolution in wargaming

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 19

- 8/25/2000 3:21:00 AM

Schrubbery

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

"The End of IGYG" is not very probable. Just think of it: there's TOAW, there's SPWAW, there's CM, there's CC2, there's JA2, there's all kinds of more or less detailed strategy games that will devour 100 % of my allocated brain cycles, YET I still often end up playing such (literally) antique board game as Chess is! The reason is simple: I don't necessarily want to play the most realistic game available. I just want some mental arm-wrestling, and chess is very good at this. I don't play any of those games I mentioned just because of the superb realism they supposedly offer. "Realism for realisms sake" is bullshit. I never wanted to be a real commander on a real battle field. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't want games to be realistic, but there has to be some sorts of concessions in realism of the game for the realities of playability, because it's not reality, it's a game, and people are supposed to be playing it. If someone made a totally new kind of game in which you are a commander of a company in a 3d-environment and you wouldn't necessarily know anything about how your troops are doing (something Major Frost experienced in Marked Garden), I would gladly add it to my list of favourite wargames. But I wouldn't end playing the others, because I'd still want to play less realistic games in which you magically give orders to units via a tactical map. I hope someone understood my point...

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 20

- 8/25/2000 3:26:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

The new Opfire confirm is not usable in pbem. You just turn the button off in the pref menu and and Opfire occurs as before. CM is indeed spectactular! I've gotton a lot of enjoyment out of it, but the time scale and control is tome best suited for "skirmish games" of not much bigger than battalion in scope. The 3D maps are awesome to give the at first person perspective as a platoon CO, but it becomes unmanagable for scores and scores of units on a side. Like most miniatures rules that use 30 sec or 1 minute turns, the ability to do what you can theoretically do in a minute, EVERY MINUTE, scaled to Battalion or larger forces accelerates the pace of battle to the point you need to "scale time" or you have what really took several hours typically in real engagements occuring in 10s of minutes because the time spent making and coordination C2 issues is ignored. I think further hybridization of turn sequencing and integration of C2 into the turn structure is required to get at the C2 issues of battalion and regimental sized battles. I see pbem becoming supplanted more and more by head to head online play. This is a problem for our "pay by the minute" friends overseas, the increasing ubiquity of broadband technologies will likely render that mute in the next 3-5 years - possibly sooner. Ability to pbem will continue to be a requirement, but more and more as a "secondary play mode". As the size of the active online community grows, and more and more player's who wants to play can find several online opponants waiting, as in the online air combat community, "playing the AI" will become playing a human. The intensity of a fast paced timed online SP:WaW version 3 game has often left me totally drained! A completely different and more exhilerating experience than pbem... CM is a "first of a new generation" that is sure, but because of that I think future games will evolve from it - not to it :-) BUt I completely agree that pure "realism" arguments are follish - as no GAME will EVER be close to "realistic". What most gamers mean by "realistic" is DETAILED. The names and nomenclatures of weapons are typically what gamers argue over, while REALISM is steeped in C2 and Logistics issues that would bore a cat to death. FUN and DETAIL can join if a game designer is clever enough and a beliable world created where the player can 'buy into' the abstarctions made, while reveling in the details. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited August 24, 2000).]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 21

- 8/25/2000 3:57:00 AM

Windo von Paene

Posts: 174
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Agreed Paul, I wasn't suggesting that WEGO was always the right answer for every game, nor suggesting that SPWAW should be that way. As clearly there are issues of scale as you mention. AS for PBEM becoming a "secondary" play mode. I think not. There are those of us, (several posters to this thread have mentioned this), who have busy lives, and can't spend the time required in an interrupted stretch to play online, (not even considering things such as online access fees and tying up the phone line..). There is also the issue of finding opponents. Now you all have dealt with that already, (or are at least in the process of doing so), but it can be hard. I'm trying to find an online opponent for some Internet Up Front, (days, ICQ# 86119515

), and it's not an easy task unless you are looking for AOE or Quake etc....

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 22

- 8/25/2000 4:20:00 AM

Dave R

Posts: 128
Joined: 10/7/2001
From: England
Status: offline

I think there'll always be a call for turn based games. I'd like to bet that if you were to do a straw pole you'd find that players of SPWaW type games tend to be older gamers, many who have come here through the table top/board game route. I know that all the games that I enjoy the most have a stronger 'thought' element rather then 'reaction' ellement, and again I suspect that most of the people here are the same. I think what draws people to turn based games, isn't the realism factor. It's the challenge of pitting your 'mental' wits against another. The fact that Matrix have given us such a fine means by which to do so is a wonderfull bonus. But nothing can beat that wonderfull feeling when you pull off a particularly devious ploy against another human player, or even that awful feeling of woe when the bugger does the same to you! Until real time games can capture that spirit, then for me there'll always be a place for turn based games!

_____________________________

In times of war we see the worst that man has to offer. But we also see the best that man has to offer.

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 23

- 8/25/2000 4:27:00 AM

laurent Favre

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: I think further hybridization of turn sequencing and integration of C2 into the turn structure is required to get at the C2 issues of battalion and regimental sized battles. I see pbem becoming supplanted more and more by head to head online play. This is a problem for our "pay by the minute" friends overseas, the increasing ubiquity of broadband technologies will likely render that mute in the next 3-5 years - possibly sooner. Ability to pbem will continue to be a requirement, but more and more as a "secondary play mode". As the size of the active online community grows, and more and more player's who wants to play can find several online opponants waiting, as in the online air combat community, "playing the AI" will become playing a human. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited August 24, 2000).]

Paul, I partly disagree. PBEM will remain much more used than you think because online play requires large time period most players don't have( work, wife, children). Of course, online play can be cut in several sessions but the players will have to be free at the same time. . I'm convinced Wego system can't be for now used in operational and strategical games because of the weakness of AI: when players will have given orders, units would be unable to change nicely their orders to face unpredictable events. I would like to see a turn based game with turn divided in impulses whose each would represent 25% of the movement allowance of each units. The player with initiative would get the first impulse then a good chance to play immediatly the second. The second player would then get one or 2 impulses depending of his initiative level. Then the first player would get one or two impulses. But the second player would get yet belonging to initiative level 0, 1 or 2 impulses to end the turn. last the first player would complete his turn. This system isn't technologically brillant but it forces players to move units together, introduce enemy movement into your moves, alow PBEM at the expense of 2, 3, rarely 4 exchange by turns. It could be interesting too to try a wego system with turn duration different for players belong to initiative level: one player would get 2 hours turn when his oppenent would get 4 hours one.

_____________________________

When I think about TS, I'm suffocating. And you?

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 24

- 8/25/2000 7:28:00 AM

Tomanbeg

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline

3 more years guys. Do a search on 'Raymond' and 'Cathedral' and 'Bazarre' (check spelling on bazzare. Mid eastern market?) This game system could be the first Linux OSS type game. Once Matrix makes their well earned bucks with the release of SPWaw:Modern a release of the source code will produce thousands of eager hackers. I want first crack at the reload logic for ammo trucks! 8-). Release early, release often! T. ------------------ Machines don't fight wars, people do, abd they use their minds. Col J. Boyd

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
� The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 25

- 8/25/2000 7:28:00 AM

Tomanbeg

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 26

- 8/25/2000 8:19:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Unfortunately Matrix does not own the rights to the source code. Mattel will have to freeze over bofore it is likely to be released into the public domain. Open source software development for general use items like operating systems is a good thing, but for games I think it has an uphill battle. Freeman Dyson has an excellent book "Imagined Worlds" were he uses Napolean and Tolstoy for "Cathedral and Bazaar" and points out the advantages of convergence, not divergence of the two models. As to PBEM as the primary mode of play, look at the number of copies of SPWaW downloaded (with friendly distribution its likely at least 40,000 copies). Where are all the pbem'ers? The VAST majority of people who play the game (probably over 90%) solo against the computer. They typically play in one sittingor for at least a couple hours at a crack. PBEMers tend to be the most vocal, and as I said I consider it to be a requirement. But the primary play mode right now is FAR AND AWAY "vs the AI" and its attracting that chunk of players to online play against an opponent vice playing the AI that will create a viable on-line community. A viable community has growth potential and attracts new blood. That creates a market that can sustain a creative talant pool that innovation in wargame design requires!! I am also looking ahead 3-5 years when the broadband technology to make online gaming a very close surrogate for FTF boardgaming. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited August 24, 2000).]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 27

- 8/25/2000 9:19:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

I agree. We are the noisy minority. Once there's an easy way to connect to people and play them directly there'll be a lot more people playing multi-player. It's the established norm on the internet. Look at games like AOE, Half-life, and Quake.. they get thousands of people playing all day. If you think about it PBEM wargaming has a lot of familiar faces... That's because its a small household. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 28

- 8/25/2000 12:16:00 PM

Graf Speer

Posts: 99
Joined: 7/23/2000
Status: offline

Paul wrote:

quote:

BUt I completely agree that pure "realism" arguments are follish - as no GAME will EVER be close to "realistic".

Sure, Paul, assuming there really is any "pure" argument short of actually taking up real arms and targeting your foe across the small deadly space . . . so, for all intents and purposes, I think we must inevitably all agree with you that the "pure realism" argument is a purely academic if rhetorical one. So, while we should appreciate the rhetoric of the "pure realism argument" and its decided merits of reminding all of us to somehow never lose site (as if this could ever happen?

) that any game is still no better than a game - or simulation, it still seems to speer that the "pursuit" of realism is nonetheless the worthy goal for the purist and idealist at heart. And every compromise to attaining pure realism can hopefully be rationalised as a necessity to avoid the spilling of real blood! It may therefore seem like folly to pursue "pure realism" in our war sims but it's the right direction to aim for. Which suggests why the IGYG system of purely step-based computer play will likely (and hopefully) see less attention from any modern / post boardgame designers and programmers. . . . then Tombstone wrote:

quote:

Once there's an easy way to connect to people and play them directly there'll be a lot more people playing multi-player. It's the established norm on the internet

ABsolutely! The key being: easy way to connect to people. As for "norm," I can only call upon my own somewhat limited and less than stellar online wargaming experiences with Sid Meier's Gettysburg and the somewhat disheartening little 1999 follow-up, somewhat disingenuously called "sid meier's" Antietam in which we playtesters were all obliged to conclude that the Antietam online play was even slooooooooow-er - to the point of being unplayable! - than the original 1997 version of Gettysburg. So, obviously, some companies (notice how I 'spared' Talonsoft's old Battleground series for its seriously slug-like online performance

) appear to make this net play look more like the "norm" while others make it appear like some kind of eye-drooping endurance contest as to who can stay awake long enough waiting for a few yanks to find safe passage across a little creek and then through a few cornfields . . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Bottom line: I will look forward to trying SPWAW's online routine, but thus far, I have much preferred the speed, reliability, and basically hassle-free convenience of pbem with my brother and few friends over the repeated trials of connecting in 'realtime' with a group of cohorts at some previously appointed time only to find half of us mia . . . or somehow disconnected in midgame all the while waiting and waiting and waiting some more for the enemy to appear from out of the treacherous corn . . . . I hope the "norm" is a reality in the next couple years! Maybe tossing out our 56K Modems and finding some pure digital path to and from each other's computers would help net gaming more than any other single enhancement at this time? Albert [This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited August 25, 2000).]

_____________________________

The Good Nazi

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 29

- 8/25/2000 7:58:00 PM

laurent Favre

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: As to PBEM as the primary mode of play, look at the number of copies of SPWaW downloaded (with friendly distribution its likely at least 40,000 copies). Where are all the pbem'ers? The VAST majority of people who play the game (probably over 90%) solo against the computer. They typically play in one sittingor for at least a couple hours at a crack.

How many of the downloaded copies are yet played? Not a critic but all games are less and less played with time, as new games are released. I agree play against AI is the most practiced by far. But it would really be interesting to know how long play sessions are with no interruption. All online games ( excepting RPG systems, very different because of multiplayer aspect) are generally tailored for short sessions. Wargame online will certainly have a place in the future but until now wargames with only online mode don't seem to have really succeded in creating such a community. I don't think it's a bandwith issue ( or cost outside US) but a consequence of the small size of wargame market ( difficult to find an opponent at the same time) and the older age of the wargamers. That's not to say this way will led to a failure. Innovation is necessary and I feel pretty confident Matrixgames can find a solution. I simply don't think future of wargame is limited to 3D, simultaneous move and online play. Such games can be really succesful for some subjects, but not for all. And the old boardgame legacy can yet satisfy a sufficient part of the market.

_____________________________

When I think about TS, I'm suffocating. And you?

(in reply to Graf Speer)

Post #: 30