Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 9:38:57 AM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 869
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
I was only thinking of this thread last night as I fired up an old laptop to find a file and lo and behold there was Civilization 2 on the desktop - so I fired it up and three hours later I was still playing one more turn..

It also has Sid Meier's Gettysburg; Imperialism; and a few others.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 91
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 12:03:21 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 2038
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
Time and space are paramount and war and pivot to any game/simulation.
I feel that the computing power has been used to great extent for more detail, better combat simulation and better graphics, but the core mechanics are still boardgamish. I believe that WEGO and incomplete information offer potential for innovative games. A real-time combat engine that stops in intervals so you can do admin/organization/thinking could work too as a fusion of turn-based and real time.

WitE2 is an amazing game and I enjoyed testing it, no doubt. But I would love to see a game in the same setting where the resources are not spent on minutiae details (like aircraft attacking height settings and a plethora of support units), but on WEGO ground mechanics, dynamic ZOC costs and possibly more realistic decision cycles (3 1/2 days instead of a week).

The MilOps game had an innovative approach in terms of gameplay and technology (large-scale use of GPU computing). It is dead but showcases what could be done with modern technology and a grand vision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjl1Y1cHrLo&ab_channel=MilitaryOperations
https://steamcommunity.com/app/821680

< Message edited by EwaldvonKleist -- 11/10/2021 12:17:09 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 92
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 1:10:36 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline
I doubt this is a new idea, but has anybody suggested that, considering many modern games vacuum up data from games as they are played, games use that data to dynamically input winning strategies back to games (also as they are played).

I'm thinking of all the data collected by Vic in his Decisive Campaigns games. There was a vigorous discussion of strategies for both sides. What if the best, say Soviet strategies in Barbarossa, were input back into the game each time it was started. Naturally, these strategies would improve and change as more games are played. The developer's AI, for example, could learn to watch for certain vulnerable situations and respond with moves that take advantage.

Just asking...



_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 93
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 4:48:52 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
@willgamer, while that sounds so easy to do, it is really a difficult situation to really do for a game. The first question is what really constitutes a "winning" strategy? Next at what intervals of time in a game does the AI need to evaluate the known picture on the map (or cheat and know where all the enemy units are at)? How do I collect data to refer to these points in space-time? What if the player is a delta time step faster or slower than the collected data? And trust me many, many other questions exist in this puzzle. I will say that PC hardware is getting to a point where having a separate AI agent running in its own program may be able to look at a current game state and run some courses of action and see what is the better outcome of a near-future action and then issuing orders to forces to act on that new session of looks. I will say that we have tested some simple machine learning (ML) with our Pro Game Engine for doing courses of action by running scenarios repeatedly and looking for where both good and bad outcomes occur and using that to change to course of action of the next runs to optimize a better outcome for the AI. Still not a technology that sits in a game at the moment, but it does start to paint a future picture of the possibility of integrating a more functional AI that utilizes some ML functions to make the in-game AI smarter and better able to "react" to dynamic changes in the game space and be more like a human opponent. Time will tell.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to willgamer)
Post #: 94
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 6:32:12 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline
Retired software developer here, so I never thought it would be easy!

Re: winning strategy, I was thinking about machine learning from players with the best records against the AI at difficult levels. Here I'm thinking in terms of tbs games like DC:Barbarossa.

A good start for these games might be capturing the best players' starting moves. Specifically, for DC:B the best strategies for using cards or, for the Soviets, how to use generals.

Another approach might be (each x turns?, while the player is moving?) to send a current game state to a server AI for evaluation, and the server AI send back adjustments to the local AI.

Totally agree with time will tell!

_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 95
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 9:46:20 PM   
*Lava*


Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosseau
I find that "warm, fuzzy feeling" largely absent when considering the State of Digital Wargames 2021.


I think when we look around us that most things increase by increments, so it would not be unusual to say that wargames have done so as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rosseau
What matters here is not my opinion, but the observations of some of the most experienced (and brilliant) posters and devs in the wargaming industry right here on Matrix Games.


I am neither of the above.

But I do have an opinion, FWIW.

I was hoping by now that we would have wargames that would incorporate all levels of war: the strategic, the operational and the tactical. The vast majority of games still only comprise two of those levels at best.

The Operational level always gets left out. At present there is a game out there which I believe is called Grand Tactician: The American Civil War, which tries to simulate all 3 levels of war. Unfortunately, I believe it is far too complicated to achieve a really nice flowing game, but at least it gives it a shot.

If by wargames we mean electronic board games, I don't believe there is really much more that can be done, with the exception of increasing the capability of the AI.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 96
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 9:54:36 PM   
RFalvo69


Posts: 1380
Joined: 7/11/2013
From: Lamezia Terme (Italy)
Status: offline
I think that any new wargame designer should first of all consider two things:

- What do we already did?

and

- What do we already did that we are leaving behind?

For the first case, let's take the Bulge - something that borders on the obsessive side re: wargaming topics. In my case:

I played AH'S "Battle of the Bulge" in high-school; then "The Ardennes Offensive" by SSI; I played the Bulge game in the Panzer Campaigns series; I played Bulge in TOAW; I said "wow!" and played "Battles of the Bulge" when it came out and redefined the continuous movement/chain of command concept. I played "Bitter Woods" when a friend of mine bought it but we never finished that game. Tactically, I played Bulge-set scenarios in Steel Panthers, The Campaign Series, Panthers in the Shadows - and I'm sure that I'm forgetting something.

Notice how "Battles of the Bulge" redefined the whole idea of fighting in the narrow roads and icy snow of the Ardennes. That's what made it worth playing even if the topic was direly in need of some decades-long vacation. What are looking for now, so? The next hex based Bulge game. Yay...

Regarding "what we are leaving behind", I already mentioned engagement ranges from PitS/TotP II. But then we have "Command", a game who does a lot of things better than "Harpoon" but, after two iterations, still lacks independent tactical windows, a dynamic weather model, an advanced formation manager (Harpoon 2 had all of these things in 1994!) and true P2P multiplayer (Harpoon ANW had it in 2006).

We are still fixated with hexes. Games ranging from the "Airborne Assault" series to "TacOps" had point to point movement in the early 2000s. Talking about "Airborne Assault", it launched an innovative line of grand tactical games; when can we expect to see the same principles applied to operational/strategic games?

And then there are the contents. In 1995 "Steel Panthers" gave you the whole WWII at tactical level - no questions asked; Steel Panthers II did the same for modern conflicts; while welcome, the effort was maybe a bit much too much: both the PitS series and the "Campaign Series" gave us the Eastern Front, the Western Front and the PTO in three different packages, and people were perfectly happy. Combat Mission gave us "Barbarossa to Berlin" - again, no question asked. "Toaw I & II" did for the operational level what "Steel Panthers did for the tactical.

Today? "Mission of Honor - Band of In-Laws: the Western Sector of Omaha Beach from 9 O'Clock to Midday". Yes I'm joking. A bit. One could argue that WitE 2 gives you the whole OOB for the Eastern Front 1941-45 - but, I would counter-argue, as the evolution of a game by Gary Grigsby that started with "War in Russia" in 1984 (!). And WitE 2 has no scenario editor: if you disagree about the exact day, month and year that the Pkw IV H got its wire-mesh side-skirts (and here I'm joking only a bit less) you can only resort to vibrant protests on the forum. And don't get me started about when "progress" = "more information on the XII Panzer Division that even its commander bothered to know" in a game where you are the OKH (this is how "the capabilities of modern PCs" are used - but if hexes and turns are ditched the Very Wrath of God will come down on the developers worse than when they dared to open the Ark - or so people do seem to fear).

(Operation: Flashpoint, in all fairness, presents a very detailed OOB for the Cold War in Europe in the '80s - but, once again, no scenario editor and no possibility to play in Korea or the Middle East. Steel Panthers III covered from 1939 to 1999).

I'm sure that for every example I made there are exceptions and counter-examples. That's not the point. The point is that these exceptions are not the trend. There is no reason for "Command" not to have multiplayer eight years after it was published when Harpoon ANW is relegated in the "also ran" section of the forum (why? BTW; the things lacking in "Command" make ANW still a viable alternative - the way WitE 2 didn't bench an alternative approach to the Eastern Front like "Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa"). There is no reason why continuous time operational and strategic wargames are absent from the scene. I like "Armored Brigade" a lot, but in the '90s we had tactical modern-era games that covered from 1950 to 1999. And the list could go on.

So, to sum it up, what I would like to see now is either a classic topic tackled in some fresh was that, ironically, aren't even fresh since we saw them working decades ago (continuous time - Paradox uses it since 2001), or some modern game that, at the very least considers as a given what earlier games gave us... er... decades ago (Harpoon II/III/ANW).

My dream game right now? "Operation Flashpoint: the Eastern Front 1941-45". With continuous time; no hexes; a scenario editor. And engagement ranges.

< Message edited by RFalvo69 -- 11/10/2021 9:59:49 PM >


_____________________________

"Yes darling, I served in the Navy for eight years. I was a cook..."
"Oh dad... so you were a God-damned cook?"

(My 10 years old daughter after watching "The Hunt for Red October")

(in reply to *Lava*)
Post #: 97
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 10:41:10 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
Operation: Flashpoint is a tactical FPS game set in the cold war (and other timeframes) and I would not say that is a wargame to compare to Steel Panthers. Now Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm, is our game, and it does have scenario editing and detailed OOBs and Equipment lists. The hope is to cover more places and times over the next few years including new game engines for both Modern day and World War settings. The games will always have hexes and be asynchronous WEGO but everything else will be there for players to add scenarios/campaigns (on existing maps).

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 98
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 10:46:14 PM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.



_____________________________

Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
    Advanced Tactics Gold
    DC: Warsaw to Paris
    DC: Community Project.

Try this Global WW2 Scenario: GD1938v3

(in reply to RFalvo69)
Post #: 99
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 11:45:26 PM   
DingBat

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

My observation of the computer war games market:

1. It's small
2. It's fragmented
3. It's demanding

None of those characteristics is really friendly to massive innovation in delivery. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but it's a handicap.




(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 100
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/10/2021 11:46:26 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.


It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 101
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 2:57:25 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.


It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .


Horse cavalry and elephants remind me of what a great job the Field of Glory II series does in that area. This one is an awesome board-to-computer wargame conversion of sorts from a brilliant developer who loves his topic, with an AI that rarely allows (me) to win.

So, with all my griping, I must say FoG II defines the concept of "progress," and is light-years ahead of the original FoG digital, although that was fun, too.


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 102
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 7:20:42 AM   
Pvt_Grunt

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/13/2007
From: Frankston Victoria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big Ivan

I was not thinking that but it makes sense!

Its funny, I started playing board games in the early 70's and in the late 90's I moved on to Computer (Digital) wargames. One of the biggest reasons for me was convenience and I didn't need to have huge tables to enjoy my games!

I remember we had 2-3 ping-pong tables to setup GDW's Fire In The East. Today with Grigsby's game on the eastern from I have it on my computer screen and life is good!!

I used to play AH Blitzkrieg with my brother on the floor! One time the dog wiped out our game - counters everywhere! The 1979 equivalent of a HD crash

< Message edited by Pvt_Grunt -- 11/11/2021 7:26:58 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Big Ivan)
Post #: 103
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 7:26:38 AM   
Pvt_Grunt

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 2/13/2007
From: Frankston Victoria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: altipueri

It also has Sid Meier's Gettysburg

That was a great game! Innovative, fun and difficult.

_____________________________


(in reply to altipueri)
Post #: 104
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 8:38:14 AM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.


It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .



Would seem you do not have the power of persuasion. Ridicule probably is not the way to go, to change my mind. :) That and you ignored the bit about (and with guns), by which I meant that this is during any age where gunpowder was used in greater amounts. But please tell me about how elephants and concentrated horse cavalry did against well entrenched machine guns again :) Also, I noticed you sort of (once again) missed the point of the my answer and the thread. You are building up some track record there :)

_____________________________

Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
    Advanced Tactics Gold
    DC: Warsaw to Paris
    DC: Community Project.

Try this Global WW2 Scenario: GD1938v3

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 105
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 8:23:34 PM   
RyanCrierie


Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Why are so many talented individuals working on their own sad projects instead of teaming up to impress us all with a relevant Tobruk or Festung Europe or Global War? It ****ing sucks I'll tell you that much.


I think what we need is a good, scaleable computer wargame engine that can handle massive amounts of hexes and massive amounts of detail.

Look at what's happening in the wider PC gaming world -- nobody's creating their own custom 3D engine anymore, because we're long past that -- just pick one of the major solutions like Unreal or Unity and go from there.

We need that at the wargaming level -- PC technology has now advanced to make it feasible -- I found this old thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1080943

They were talking in 2006 regarding 10 vs 30 mile hexes:

most pcs today are running on 256-512MBs of memory with 128-256 for most VGA cards, so it's really beginning to eat into that seriously.

We're well past those technological limitations -- in 2017 the average PC was like 8 GB of RAM and had about 1 to 2 GB of VRAM.

We also have a lot of technically minded people here -- but unlike "mainstream" computer gaming such as Call of Duty or Battlefield, a lot of the technical solutions for computer wargaming (pathfinding across hexes, checking LOS rather quickly) etc aren't widely known, outside of maybe the Civilization fanbase (since that series added hexes).

That's why a Common Wargame Engine (CWE) is needed. I believe that Matrix/Slitherine were talking about making their own -- Archon, but there's not a lot of information about it.




< Message edited by RyanCrierie -- 11/11/2021 8:25:54 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 106
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 9:55:34 PM   
RyanCrierie


Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
With the above being said; Battlefront (BFC) needs to just abandon their CMx2 engine -- it may have been OK in 2004 or 2005 when Shock Force 1 came out; but in 2021, it's long since been eclipsed by every other 3D engine; and the sales figures aren't enough to support the kind of intensive effort that's needed to stay "in touch" with bleeding edge graphics, that Creative Assembly/SEGA can afford with Total War.

_____________________________


(in reply to RyanCrierie)
Post #: 107
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 10:00:11 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.


It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .



Would seem you do not have the power of persuasion. Ridicule probably is not the way to go, to change my mind. :) That and you ignored the bit about (and with guns), by which I meant that this is during any age where gunpowder was used in greater amounts. But please tell me about how elephants and concentrated horse cavalry did against well entrenched machine guns again :) Also, I noticed you sort of (once again) missed the point of the my answer and the thread. You are building up some track record there :)



This part ". . . I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns) . . . " meant to me that even WWI was out since the tanks did not lead to many breakthroughs with maneuvering unless it was very late in the War when the German military was falling apart. That also leaves out most of WWII in Asia since there was little to none of that except at the beginning of the Japanese expansion after 6 December 1941. It also leaves out the border skirmishes between the Soviet Far East Forces and the Japanese military. So that only leaves Europe in Poland, France, and in the East plus North Afrika. It does leave out Italy.

As far as horse cavalry, the Polish did charge German infantry with Cavalry where the infantry broke and ran. They even used their ceremonial lances to great effect. The Germans, after the Polish military moved along, did move some armoured units there and then took pictures for propaganda purposes.

I suggest that you read about the Polish/Lithuanian Hussars and Uhlans, and exactly how badly they performed during the 16th to the 18th centuries. You may not like it. If you want some examples, let me know.

But here are some clips from a movie set in the Middle East during WWI where Australian Light Horse, mounted infantry aka Dragoons, played Cavalry and charged entrenched Ottoman infantry supported by water cooled machine guns, light artillery, and even a light bomber.

(Halloween Special Beersheba 100th Anniversary ) We'll Take Beersheba music video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhT6ZPVnIFE

A different video of the charge and you can hear how the German advisors to the Ottomans gave some very poor advice . . .

Battle of Beersheba Part 2 10 31 1917

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6liLYcrlSBw

< Message edited by RangerJoe -- 11/11/2021 11:13:35 PM >


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 108
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/11/2021 11:53:46 PM   
DingBat

 

Posts: 106
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

With the above being said; Battlefront (BFC) needs to just abandon their CMx2 engine -- it may have been OK in 2004 or 2005 when Shock Force 1 came out; but in 2021, it's long since been eclipsed by every other 3D engine; and the sales figures aren't enough to support the kind of intensive effort that's needed to stay "in touch" with bleeding edge graphics, that Creative Assembly/SEGA can afford with Total War.


I think you just answered your own question as to why they may not have abandoned their engine.


(in reply to RyanCrierie)
Post #: 109
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/12/2021 8:51:44 PM   
RyanCrierie


Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DingBat
I think you just answered your own question as to why they may not have abandoned their engine.


I think you misread my entire question.

Let's look at EMPIRE: Total War, from 2009 by Creative Assembly.

Sega reported the game sold 810,000 units worldwide during their last fiscal year period of 2008

Also, checking MobyGames reveals 450~ people are credited in ETW credits; breaking down to:

40~ Programmers at Creative Assembly alone
30~ Artists/Animators at Creative Assembly Alone

If we assume 400~ people are being paid an average of $40K a year for 2 years of development; that works out to 400 * 2 = 800 man years * $40,000 = $32M game development costs.

If we assume that Empire sold 650K of those units at full price ($49), they'd have taken in $31.8M.

By contrast:

Battlefront's Shock Force (which gave us the basic CMx2 engine which has been evolved the last 15 years) had:

1 Programmer (Charles Moylan)
8~ artist/animators

If we assume the same two year development cycle; that's 18 man years @ $40,000 = $720,000 development costs for the Shock Force engine.

It made sense back in 1997-2006 for Battlefront to do their own custom engine (and Koiosworks with Panzer Command series), because nobody really was doing this kind of stuff back then -- first person shooters were still rather primitive, covering small areas, and flight simulator engines sacrificed a lot of detail to cover large areas.

Plus, 3D game technology was still "primitive" enough in that period that small teams could come up with innovative approaches, such as:

John Carmack = Early Wolf/Doom/Quake/ID engines
Ken Silverman = Build Engine
Tim Sweeney = Early Unreal Engine

Now?

If you're doing 3D anything, it may be simpler just to pay Epic Games 5% of gross revenues as royalties for Unreal Engine 5, rather than try to beat them; particularly now that Train Sim World (TSW) runs on Unreal 4; which is notable since Train Simulations require:

A.) a large expansive world of many km2

B.) unusually high level of detail since it's a ground level POV.

NOTE: Yes, I am aware of 1C Games (IL-2 Sturmovik Series) and Eagle Dynamics (DCS World) simulation games using their own custom engines in 2021 -- but they "get away" with it by being Russian developers, enabling low salary costs, while selling their products full price globally.

< Message edited by RyanCrierie -- 11/12/2021 8:55:48 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to DingBat)
Post #: 110
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/13/2021 9:19:27 PM   
gamer78

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.



But historically commanders&leaders can have their ideals or madness that we also choose to play these wargames shouldn't be only about technology. Like Enver Pasha march with cavalry into Bolshevik machine gun.
Corto Maltese - La Maison Dorée de Samarkand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJva5xdoWg

Technology against chivalry.


(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 111
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/13/2021 9:47:25 PM   
Tailspintommy


Posts: 43
Joined: 11/12/2021
From: Lincolnshire. UK.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.




A very interesting thread and a very interesting comment.

Wargaming is not my main hobby. My serious hobby is making flying model aircraft.. My point being that I agree 100% with the comment above that you have to want to do it. If I don't have any feeling for a particular aeroplane, then building a model of one would suck the life out of me, even if I was being paid well for it.

As for the main subject of the thread, my wargame areas of interest are specific to WWI and WWII. I prefer strategy games but don't want several covering the same campaign, so I'll pick the "daddy" from each area. WitP.AE and WitE.2 have those two covered for me. Rise of Flight is a flight sim, not a wargame as such but it covers WWI air war.. I'm tempted by WitW but haven't bought it yet.

I love the idea behind Command Ops.2 of leaving the hex and letting the ai follow my orders. That really grabs me.. I can certainly see the arguments about A. N. Other Battle of the Bulge release being a yawn but that's just my personal view and I know that many of you are counting the days until the next one is released. There's nothing wrong in that, we all have different tastes and views. Long may that continue.

_____________________________

"Never fire a shot before coffee"

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 112
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/14/2021 12:41:20 AM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gamer78


quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.



But historically commanders&leaders can have their ideals or madness that we also choose to play these wargames shouldn't be only about technology. Like Enver Pasha march with cavalry into Bolshevik machine gun.
Corto Maltese - La Maison Dorée de Samarkand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJva5xdoWg

Technology against chivalry.


I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I didn't say that nobody should make these games. What I said was that it just isn't going to be me :)


_____________________________

Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
    Advanced Tactics Gold
    DC: Warsaw to Paris
    DC: Community Project.

Try this Global WW2 Scenario: GD1938v3

(in reply to gamer78)
Post #: 113
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/14/2021 2:24:44 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Not to change the topic, but I am confident many of us are going to like the upcoming Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive.

It has certainly brightened my personal outlook of The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021.

I hadn't watched any of the previews for the game until now. It is certainly evolutionary (and not revolutionary), but done oh so well.






(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 114
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/14/2021 9:30:59 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
The only weakness in Vic's games are the OOB's. They tend to be inaccurate and not up to expectation. Has this aspect improved do you think?

_____________________________


(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 115
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/15/2021 12:55:21 AM   
GloriousRuse

 

Posts: 906
Joined: 10/26/2013
Status: offline
As a thought:

One of the chief reasons for the perceived slower rate of advance in wargames is because they are fundamentally about simulating real world data and processes and then abstracting them into a game form. And they do require abstraction - even if a real world military achieved perfect awareness of where every one of it's soldiers was, at some point the guy looking at the map (digital or analog) would want to see unit icons.

Compare this to a flight sim, which is generally only deciding what it NEEDs to abstract due to resources, and what minor bits it's leaving out for playability. Making better flight sims is an incredibly hard, tool intensive, AI heavy, research driven, vastly complicate undertaking for sure. But the road map is pretty easy to see: make the models better, make the graphics better, make the flying more realistic, get the interplay of weapons centered around that plane right(er), make the MP servers more capable, make the campaigns more interactively interesting.

Now say you want to "do something new" in wargaming. You need to pick what it is you even want to do, how to represent that, what the bounds are going to be for your small slice of war, where to focus your efforts, and where to use existing conventions. And then you need to represent it the right way for this conflict, for this echelon, for this feel, for this level of playability, to stress these dynamics. You naturally probably use some starting points, and realize that even "small" changes in how you abstract things may result in huge engine changes - want to make WiTE2 WEGO? Better be prepared to either program extraordinary AI or face players demanding the control of IGOUGO back because it's not working well. Want physics-real armor penetration? Well, you need a physics engine. Don't want hexes? Great, but you better be ready to simulate everything else down to hexless granularity, which may be an impractical pain in the ass with no real changes for a game about corps and divisions.

And of course, you could get it wrong. Some people here may remember the first CMx2 series was meant to be played in real time, because it was going to show the vast advances in the engine and was "obviously" more realistic. Only the game still required you to be making decisions for every squad leader, every tank commander, and every FO...and it was a battalion level game. One of the very first things conceded was that it was going back to WEGO. How much time and effort ended up going right back to the basics?

Anyhow, long story short, I suspect the perceived slowness of advance is basically tied to this: for other games to advance they mostly just need to improve the execution of their given convention, and if they break convention they can often make the world fit the game they want. Every real advance in a wargame usually represents a new convention, and it has to use what the real world has provided.


(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 116
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/15/2021 1:29:49 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The only weakness in Vic's games are the OOB's. They tend to be inaccurate and not up to expectation. Has this aspect improved do you think?


Vic made the wise decision of recruiting Davide Gambina to handle the OOBs, scenario design, etc.

I am not in a position to judge the accuracy, but hope knowledgeable players like yourself will chime in on the OOBs and scenario design once the game is released!

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 117
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/15/2021 2:06:41 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

As a thought:

One of the chief reasons for the perceived slower rate of advance in wargames is because they are fundamentally about simulating real world data and processes and then abstracting them into a game form. And they do require abstraction - even if a real world military achieved perfect awareness of where every one of it's soldiers was, at some point the guy looking at the map (digital or analog) would want to see unit icons.

Compare this to a flight sim, which is generally only deciding what it NEEDs to abstract due to resources, and what minor bits it's leaving out for playability. Making better flight sims is an incredibly hard, tool intensive, AI heavy, research driven, vastly complicate undertaking for sure. But the road map is pretty easy to see: make the models better, make the graphics better, make the flying more realistic, get the interplay of weapons centered around that plane right(er), make the MP servers more capable, make the campaigns more interactively interesting.

Now say you want to "do something new" in wargaming. You need to pick what it is you even want to do, how to represent that, what the bounds are going to be for your small slice of war, where to focus your efforts, and where to use existing conventions. And then you need to represent it the right way for this conflict, for this echelon, for this feel, for this level of playability, to stress these dynamics. You naturally probably use some starting points, and realize that even "small" changes in how you abstract things may result in huge engine changes - want to make WiTE2 WEGO? Better be prepared to either program extraordinary AI or face players demanding the control of IGOUGO back because it's not working well. Want physics-real armor penetration? Well, you need a physics engine. Don't want hexes? Great, but you better be ready to simulate everything else down to hexless granularity, which may be an impractical pain in the ass with no real changes for a game about corps and divisions.

And of course, you could get it wrong. Some people here may remember the first CMx2 series was meant to be played in real time, because it was going to show the vast advances in the engine and was "obviously" more realistic. Only the game still required you to be making decisions for every squad leader, every tank commander, and every FO...and it was a battalion level game. One of the very first things conceded was that it was going back to WEGO. How much time and effort ended up going right back to the basics?

Anyhow, long story short, I suspect the perceived slowness of advance is basically tied to this: for other games to advance they mostly just need to improve the execution of their given convention, and if they break convention they can often make the world fit the game they want. Every real advance in a wargame usually represents a new convention, and it has to use what the real world has provided.




This is a bit deep (for me), but I think I understand the gist of it. Thanks for your observations. Interesting also on CMx2. Making decisions for every squad leader, etc., makes the game a bit cumbersome for me, but I still have enough strength to play them once in a while.

(in reply to GloriousRuse)
Post #: 118
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/16/2021 3:51:24 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
I will not touch any wargame that uses the isometric view. Top down 2D is best.

I will not touch any wargame that uses toy tanks and toy soldiers on the map.
.



(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 119
RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 - 11/16/2021 4:11:37 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
The Command Ops series by Panther games.

In traditioanl wargaming, you might have 100 counters on the map.

The main feature of the game is that, instead of giving orders to every unit on the map, you give orders to a HQ unit and that unit issues orders to the subordinate units. Great idea!

I have every game in the series. With every game, I have said, "This game has great potential but its still not there yet".

Problems not fixed since the first game 19 years ago:

Germany used horse drawn supply. Therefore the movement types need to be:
Horse
Foot
Wheeled
Tracked
For 19 years the game series used Foot and Wheeled. (no tracked vehicles??)

Terrain: In traditional wargaming, we will place units in rough terrain looking out over clear terrain. If the enemy moves over the clear terrain we will fire on them. Try that in this series and the L.O.S is blocked by the rough terrain that we are currently occupying.

A company might have a frontage of 100 meters. Zoom out of the map and the unit does not shrink. Instead the unit now covers 10,000 meters! In the last version he corrected this so now the units shrink. Not all the units, the HQ units do not shrink. They cover 10,000 meters. Why is that?

If you wish mount multiple attacks at once, it is usually best that the attacks are coordinated to start at the same time. Another player came up with the idea of "Attack at" meaning a given time. This has never been implemented after 10 years.

After 19 years, this series has great potential but it is not there yet


(in reply to Fred98)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.656