Wargame systems
Marko Peric
Why are there so many wargames which are designed on the UOGOIGO
model (I think that's what it's called)? By that I mean, like in Steel
Panthers, where you move your units one by one and fire on the enemy if
you like, and then your opponent moves his units and fires on yours if
he likes. I've always felt dissatisfied by this system. Conversely, why
aren't there many planning/execution type games (like World@War) where
you plan your actions as does your opponent and then execution of both
sides' actions are simultaneous? To me this system feels far more
realistic.
My only guess is that it's more difficult to program a
planning/execution type wargame compared to a UGOIGO wargame. But aren't
wargamers and hence wargame programmers interested in quality first,
nevermind the hard work? Unless, of course, I'm dead wrong and there are
good reasons for adopting the UGOIGO model. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Cheers,
--
Marko Peric lone...@tig.com.au
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~lonewolf
Marko Peric
> I would agree, and most if not all of SSG wargames were done
> this way. Some new ones coming out will also be done this way. Such
> as (damn CRS syndrome) that game that was going to be ASL, until AH
> got taken over by Hasbro. Any way that will also be WeGo.
Combat Mission. I'm really looking forward to that one. You
mentioned SSG: is Ardennes Offensive a WEGO game?
Ken Rutsky
> Why are there so many wargames which are designed on the UOGOIGO
> model (I think that's what it's called)? By that I mean, like in Steel
> Panthers, where you move your units one by one and fire on the enemy if
> you like, and then your opponent moves his units and fires on yours if
> he likes. I've always felt dissatisfied by this system. Conversely, why
> aren't there many planning/execution type games (like World@War) where
> you plan your actions as does your opponent and then execution of both
> sides' actions are simultaneous? To me this system feels far more
> realistic.
This used to be the standard. All of Grigsby's old games (including Panzer
Strike!/Typhoon of Steel/Kampfgruppe/Battle Group, on which the Steel
Panthers series is based) used the "WeGo" type of resolution.
As a matter of fact, I think it goes all the way back to that East Front
game designed by Chris Crawford(?) for the Apple ][ in 1983, which was the
first really successful computer wargame, thinking in terms of games which
really used the power of the computer to do things boardgames can't (or
boardgame players won't) do.
Seems we've regressed in recent years, don't it?
I think this has happened for marketing reasons. WeGo games, with their
planning phases, followed by an action phase, just don't have that feeling
of immediacy and control that players (esp. newer players) crave. Steel
Panthers is a case in point: click on a unit, put the cursor over an enemy
unit, click--and BOOM! Instant gratification.
Actually, I think Igo-Ugo games are fine, if the play sequence is
interactive. Of late, there is a tendency to lump all of a player's actions
into one single action phase (Steel Panthers, the CS series from Talonsoft,
etc.), which leads to headached regarding opportunity fire, moving across
lines of sight and fire lanes without a scratch, etc.
If a turn-based game used phases like Squad Leader or Talon's Battleground
games, this problem is mitigated somewhat (player 1 moves, then player 2
gets to defensive fire, player 1 does advancing fire, etc....do something
like in SL where a player can defensive fire on an enemy unit anywhere along
its movement path, and the problem is gone). The problem is that this
becomes a headache for PBEM.
My personal preference is for the WeGo system. I'm glad to see it's back in
Grigsby's Battle of Britain game, Combat Mission, and the hopefully not
vapor Road to Moscow. I've actually been playing lots of old SSI games
because they use the WeGo method (anyone know how to get a sizable airstrike
off against Japanese carriers in Carrier Strike in the Coral Sea
scenario?). I think it can be used to show command-control, fog of war and
traffic-control problems with a minimum of system "dirt" or special rules
which the player must keep in mind, not to mention the fact that it's more
realistic. For example, in Kampfgruppe, you never directly ordered your
units to fire, just gave your formations objectives and defined movement
waypoints; the tactical minutia was handled by the computer. Your job, as
battalion commander, was to maneuver your forces into position. This is as
it should be.
WeGo is just plain better and more efficient. Let's hope the aforementioned
games capture enough of an audience to make this a viable option for
computer wargame designers again.
Ken Rutsky
--
Though it be broken--
Broken again--still it's there,
The moon on the water
--Chosu
anthony
>
> Hello,
>
> Why are there so many wargames which are designed on the UOGOIGO
> model (I think that's what it's called)? By that I mean, like in Steel
> Panthers, where you move your units one by one and fire on the enemy if
> you like, and then your opponent moves his units and fires on yours if
> he likes. I've always felt dissatisfied by this system. Conversely, why
> aren't there many planning/execution type games (like World@War) where
> you plan your actions as does your opponent and then execution of both
> sides' actions are simultaneous? To me this system feels far more
> realistic.
>
> planning/execution type wargame compared to a UGOIGO wargame. But aren't
> wargamers and hence wargame programmers interested in quality first,
> nevermind the hard work? Unless, of course, I'm dead wrong and there are
> good reasons for adopting the UGOIGO model. Anyone care to enlighten me?
>
One reason for the longevity of UGOIGO could be that wargamers are
historically pretty far behind the tech curve. FPS and sports games are
targeted toward an audience that will promptly upgrade to play the next,
biggest game (look at the bleeding edge requirements to play Half-Life
or Q3 at the highest settings, and look at how many people are playing
at those highest settings). Wargamers tend to lag behind with the
mentality of "it has to be really damn good before I upgrade to play
it." Since wargame programmers can't look into the future and see their
product selling a bazillion copies (and driving all those wargamers to
upgrade as necessary so they can play it), they don't want alienate
wargamers by giving them a game that a) isn't KNOWN to be super-good and
b) requires a big cash expenditure to upgrade to play.
However, as computer tech increases in power and decreases in cost,
these restrictions should lessen. Games like the TankPlatoons,
PanzerCommander and others started it off. Coming up soon we'll have
PanzerElite and CombatMission to choose from.
After that, who knows?
DjB
Dale Hight
wrote:
<snip>
>
> My only guess is that it's more difficult to program a
>planning/execution type wargame compared to a UGOIGO wargame. But aren't
>wargamers and hence wargame programmers interested in quality first,
>nevermind the hard work? Unless, of course, I'm dead wrong and there are
>good reasons for adopting the UGOIGO model. Anyone care to enlighten me?
>
I remember being told that the reason that SP, in particular, went
from simultaneous execution (Kampfgruppe/TOS/etc) to the I go you go
method was to accommodate PBEM (which was becoming a big issue with
buyers at the time).
As it turned out, a lot of players seemed to like the instant
gratification received when moving a single unit and receiving a
response such as OP fire or sighting an enemy unit. Sales were good.
I, frankly, doubt that we will see a lot of wargames going back to the
plotting all units then simultaneous movement model.
BTW, I also liked the model and would like to see it refined and
brought up to modern standards. Lets hope some game company gives it
a try.
Dale
Steve Chase
It would be nice to have a choice between Wego and Igougo when you start
the game. That way you could choose to play the way you want. Oh well
one can only dream... ;)
Steve
Scott Udell
Ken Rutsky wrote in message <378DE442...@albany.net>...
>As a matter of fact, I think it goes all the way back to that East Front
>game designed by Chris Crawford(?) for the Apple ][ in 1983, which was the
>first really successful computer wargame,
Actually, it was the Atari 800 (ah, the old loyalties die hard! <G>). I'm
pretty sure it wasn't the the first (commercial) computer wargame, although
it may very well have been the first successful one (the first commercial
one I can remember was good ol' Computer Bismarck from then-new SSI--anyone
remember the "$2169 wargame" ads?).
>Seems we've regressed in recent years, don't it?
It really has; it seems after the last World at War title (America Invades),
we-go went on hiatus for a number of years, and I'm not sure why....
Dale Hight wrote in message <378e04b7...@news.newsguy.com>...
>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:34:05 +1000, Marko Peric <lone...@tig.com.au>
>wrote:
>I remember being told that the reason that SP, in particular, went
>from simultaneous execution (Kampfgruppe/TOS/etc) to the I go you go
>method was to accommodate PBEM (which was becoming a big issue with
>buyers at the time).
But it seems like it should be no problem to do WEGO PBEM too--Player 1
plots his turn, sends it to Player 2 who plots her (I can wish, can't I?
<G>) turn, then executes the phase and sends the replay off to player 1, who
then plots his moves for turn 2, etc.
For fun, let's muddy the waters a bit: we've mentioned IGOUGO, WEGO, and
then there's of course real time or "continuous" time... but are there any
*other* kinds that could be implemented, or perhaps mixtures of the existing
ones? To some extent automatic reaction fire/movement is mixing IGOUGO and
WEGO, but I wonder if there is some other "paradigm"
(wince--government-speak) we could use?
Scott
Rob
> But it seems like it should be no problem to do WEGO PBEM too--Player 1
> plots his turn, sends it to Player 2 who plots her (I can wish, can't I?
> <G>) turn, then executes the phase and sends the replay off to player 1, who
> then plots his moves for turn 2, etc.
In a WEGO system wherein there are only two distinct player turns with
no intermittant phases, a better turn sytem could be utilized - one that
precludes re-play cheating. It works like this:
1)Player 1 plots his first turn. Sends file to player 2.
2)Player 2 pots her first turn. 'Executes' the first turn, but *is not*
shown the results. Sends file back to player 1.
3)Player 1 watches execution of first turn. Plots second turn. Sends
file to player 2.
4)Player 2 watches execution of first turn. Plots second turn.
"Executes' the second turn, but *is not* shown the results...etc.,
etc.
With such a system, PBEM re-play cheating is not possible because
*neither* player can see the results of the plots until the following
turn. Note that this system would demand that absolutely no movement,
combat or any other action take place during the plotting phases, lest
the cheat-proofing be compromised.
A system such as this would work well with a game such as Gary
Grigsby's older 'War in Russia', if it weren't for the fact that, in
that game, air attacks are resolved during the plotting phase.
Rob
Falkon1313
a. Familiarity from boardgames, cardgames, and most all other games. Also,
turn sequence and initiative can be an interesting mechanic in and of itself,
as in the case of the Advanced Third Reich boardgame's famous double-turn's
effects on strategy.
b. Easier contingency planning. (Ex: attack point X with units A&B, if it
succeeds then attack point Y with units C&D, else move units C&D to reinforce
A&B) In large-scale games there would be time to decide stuff like that within
the scale of a turn, but with a wego system you'd have to choose a course of
action for C&D before knowing the outcome of A&B's battle. Wego games could
allow you to script contingency orders for each unit, but that'd be more
complicated.
c. Easier PBeM. (Sometimes, depending on whether the game calls for stuff like
reaction fire, multiple phases, etc.)
d. Instant gratification of seeing things act when you order them.
Interactivity can often hold people's interest better than just laying plans
and then watching passively.
e. Time to figure out why things happened the way they did before doing
something else. With wego systems, sometimes you're just left wondering as it
skips on to the show you what the next unit's doing. And of course, the player
gets to pick which area to concentrate on at any given time, instead of the
computer randomly switching between fronts and such.
wego
a. No accidental 'oops, I forgot that that unit needed to be over here by the
time I made this attack'. Because none of your units are committed until you
hit 'end turn'.
b. Could allow more depth of planning (at the cost of complexity) with
scripted standing orders and contingency plans.
c. Seems more realistic to many people.
Both are good systems. Just depends on what you want and which fits the
individual game design better. I haven't played many wego games on PCs,
because I didn't have much luck with the ones I played (admittedly older ones).
My impression was that it would be a good system once the designers added more
capability to the planning phase (other than just assigning objectives or
setting reserve status) and gave you control of the execution phase (instead of
just flashing it by almost quicker than you could see it and leaving you
wondering what happened.) I've heard of some newer ones I want to try (like
TacOps) but haven't got the chance yet.
I look forward to wego systems being implemented on computers like the ones
there used to be for miniatures wargames and small board wargames. Almost as
much control and more realism. Too much paperwork, but the computer could
solve that without taking away command options and the details of the
execution.
-----_____-----
Fight fire with napalm!
Dale Hight
<udells@-nospam-together.net> wrote:
>
>Actually, it was the Atari 800 (ah, the old loyalties die hard! <G>). I'm
>pretty sure it wasn't the the first (commercial) computer wargame, although
>it may very well have been the first successful one (the first commercial
>one I can remember was good ol' Computer Bismarck from then-new SSI--anyone
>remember the "$2169 wargame" ads?).
>
I remember Computer Bismarck as the first computer wargame that I ever
saw. This was in the days when computer software was being sold in
8x10 plastic baggies. Packaged in its "box" glowing with flashy
color artwork, Computer Bismark was very unique at the time.
The price was $59.95! The game was not that great, but I always
think of that product as the beginning of computer wargaming.
>But it seems like it should be no problem to do WEGO PBEM too--Player 1
>plots his turn, sends it to Player 2 who plots her (I can wish, can't I?
><G>) turn, then executes the phase and sends the replay off to player 1, who
>then plots his moves for turn 2, etc.
>
Well yes, it would seem so and I can't remember the rational behind it
or who said it. I think it had more to do with the fun factor by
allowing the user the option to intervene as the turn progressed.
So perhaps it was not so much PBEM, but the game system itself.
Looking back at some old correspondence, it seems that the main reason
was that, they felt plot & simultaneous execution games were not as
popular as either turn based (where you get to move, shoot and kill
and repeat) or real-time games.
Dale
Marko Peric
> But it seems like it should be no problem to do WEGO PBEM too--Player 1
> plots his turn, sends it to Player 2 who plots her (I can wish, can't I?
> <G>) turn, then executes the phase and sends the replay off to player 1, who
> then plots his moves for turn 2, etc.
Why not try this sequence?
1. Player 1 plots his turn, sends it to Player 2.
2. Player 2 plots her turn, executes, plots another turn, sends to
Player 1.
3. Player 1 watches execution, plots his turn, executes, plots another
turn, sends to Player 2.
4. Player 2 watches execution, plots her turn, executes, plots another
turn, sends to Player 1.
Steps 3 and 4 are then repeated alternately (3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 4) until
the end where you see something like:
n. Player 2 watches execution, plots her turn, executes sends to Player
1.
n+1. Player 1 watches execution.
(or vice versa depending whether the turn is odd or even).
So, ignoring the start and the end, each player executes twice and plots
(or plans) twice. It means less e-mail exchange (important) and each
player gets to alternate in who sees the execution first (not so
important, but democratic :-)
> For fun, let's muddy the waters a bit: we've mentioned IGOUGO, WEGO, and
> then there's of course real time or "continuous" time... but are there any
> *other* kinds that could be implemented, or perhaps mixtures of the existing
> ones? To some extent automatic reaction fire/movement is mixing IGOUGO and
> WEGO, but I wonder if there is some other "paradigm"
I've often thought about this but am totally stumped every time. One
thing though: continuous or real time (RT) games are essentially
equivalent to WEGO games. The "minor" difference is that WEGO games only
allow you to plan the action every x units of time, while RT games allow
you to plan the action whenever you wish. An additional detail is that
some RT games allow you to pause the game while you plan your actions,
while others don't.
So, anyway, we are left with just two systems.
> (wince--government-speak) we could use?
Actually, "paradigm" is a word used by all big organisations like
governments, corporations, universities etc etc. when they need to
convince people (perhaps themselves) that they're being innovative. Like
the "Living Battlefield" paradigm of Panzer General II. :-)
Marko Peric
>
> yugo-igo
> a. Familiarity from boardgames, cardgames, and most all other games. Also,
> turn sequence and initiative can be an interesting mechanic in and of itself,
I don't know if this is attractive to historical wargamers.
> b. Easier contingency planning.
Yes, true, and a script system would help WEGO games in this respect,
but maybe a delayed response (i.e. wait until the next turn) is more
realistic. Another thing that a WEGO game needs is excellent tactical AI
which might lessen the need for a contingency script system. Your units
should be smart enough to avoid doing stupid things. And maybe sometimes
your unit shouldn't listen to you.
> c. Easier PBeM.
Nah, not really for the player. For the programmer, yes.
> d. Instant gratification of seeing things act when you order them.
If you want that sort of gratification then you should play Panzer
Elite! ;-)
> e. Time to figure out why things happened the way they did before doing
> something else.
Which is why WEGO systems should allow the option to replay the
action as often as you like and allow you the power to scroll around the
map during execution time.
> wego
> a. No accidental 'oops, I forgot that that unit needed to be over here by the
> time I made this attack'.
Could you please explain this? I'm a bit confused.
> b. Could allow more depth of planning (at the cost of complexity) with
> scripted standing orders and contingency plans.
Yeah.
> c. Seems more realistic to many people.
Yeah!
> Both are good systems.
Maybe I'm one-eyed or getting old or something, but I just can't
bring myself to play IGOUGO games anymore.
> My impression was that it [WEGO] would be a good system once the designers
> added more capability to the planning phase
Yes.
> and gave you control of the execution phase
Yes, exactly!
> I look forward to wego systems being implemented on computers like the ones
> there used to be for miniatures wargames and small board wargames. Almost as
> much control and more realism. Too much paperwork, but the computer could
> solve that without taking away command options and the details of the
> execution.
Good point. The computer's CPU is there to be used!
Henri H. Arsenault
IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net (Alex Pavloff) wrote:
> I remember playing Operation Crusader. Half the time, I forgot what I
> was doing as I was doing the plot-plot-plot-plot-plot of my 1st South
> Africans racing down toward that one little road hex in the lower
> right of the map. I do think that the system is inherently more
> realistic, but for the average person, its fair from a "game."
>
You may have a point here: because of the need to remember all that you
have planned, WEGO systems can boggle the mind and cause mistakes when the
player gets confused about what he has plotted for his 500 other units. So
it may be that WEGO systems like that in TacOps is only appropriate for
games that are not too big (not too many units).
One solution would be for larger systems to have a more realistic approach
where the comander of a division cannot give specific orders to a single
platoon, which is highly unrealistic anyway. Best would be a system where,
say, a Division commander could give orders only to brigadeswho would then
have to figure out how best to carry them out. To increase the fun factor,
maybe the Division commander could be allowed to also command a SINGLE
company...
Of course, it is not only a question of finding the best system: it is
programming the AI so it can carry out its orders in a reasonably
intelligent manner. It is not for nothing that most wargames like SP
series, the WF/EF series and so on are all objective-based, which makes it
difficult or impossible to simulate most kids of engagements, and to
practice maneuver warfare. Consider a low-density board game like Squad
Leader. No one has yet succeeded in creating a game that even remotely
approaches the kinds of victory conditions found in this game (control at
least five buildings in the town, or leave no enemy units on board 2 while
exiting at least 50% of your force, and so on.
When I se a game that will even have different victory conditions for both
sides (unknown to the opponent), I will consider it a major breakthough in
computer wargaming. And just try to simulate with a computer some of the
CPX or MBX games (umpired games with human players) played with TacOps to
realize how far we are from the holy grail of computer wargaming.
Henri
Dexter
Have you look at Panzer Battles by SSG ? It is a wego and you can only give
objective orders to Brigade and Division and the computer moves the
subordinate units. It is an old game that can be found in the Twenty
Wargame Classics. I have not had a chance to play it in depth but I may
just dig it out to see what I have been missing.
Dexter
Marko Peric wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Why are there so many wargames which are designed on the UOGOIGO
> model (I think that's what it's called)? By that I mean, like in Steel
> Panthers, where you move your units one by one and fire on the enemy if
> you like, and then your opponent moves his units and fires on yours if
> he likes. I've always felt dissatisfied by this system. Conversely, why
> aren't there many planning/execution type games (like World@War) where
> you plan your actions as does your opponent and then execution of both
> sides' actions are simultaneous? To me this system feels far more
> realistic.
>
> My only guess is that it's more difficult to program a
> planning/execution type wargame compared to a UGOIGO wargame. But aren't
> wargamers and hence wargame programmers interested in quality first,
> nevermind the hard work? Unless, of course, I'm dead wrong and there are
> good reasons for adopting the UGOIGO model. Anyone care to enlighten me?
>
MajorH1
There are probably many reasons. I suggest that the following two are towards
the top of the list.
A. Heritage. IGO-UGO is the game system that the designers grew up on -
probably starting with board games. After using it for 10 to 30 years they have
accumulated a huge mental library of interlocked game control concepts that
tend to only be useful in an IGO-UGO system.
B. Amount of time required to get a new title on the market. Successful
computer wargame designers have accumulated game source code libraries and
archives based on the IGO-UGO approach that represents years (in some cases
decades) of hard, tedious coding. It would take them much time to produce a
similiar library of routines that work with a different model from IGO-UGO.
Thus there is an economic pressure on them to continue reusing as much of their
IGO-UGO library as possible.
Just my opinion ...
Best regards, Major H
maj...@aol.com
MajorH1
confused about what he has plotted for his 500 other units. So it may be that
WEGO systems like that in TacOps is only appropriate for games that are not too
big (not too many units).>>
I think WEGO is appropriate for all levels. It is the task of the designer to
make the user interface to the system as convenient for the user as possible.
I think a user becoming confused and making mistakes in a wargame is just fine
as long as his problems are not produced by the game's interface :). Good
planning, focused implementation, and avoiding mistakes is what determines who
wins and who loses.
lfa...@club-internet.fr
wrote:
>Dale Hight wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:34:05 +1000, Marko Peric <lone...@tig.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>It would be nice to have a choice between Wego and Igougo when you start
>the game. That way you could choose to play the way you want. Oh well
>one can only dream... ;)
>
>Steve
I think scale is an important factor: in the world at war games, one
turn equalled four or six hours. In WEGO system players can react to
opponent's move the next turn : fairly realistic with small scale.
but with one turn equalling several days or weeks, WEGO becomes IMHO
much more criticizable: why one should have to wait as many time to
react?
My preference goes to systems based on alternate activation: players
rolls dice on an activation table, may move x units then rerolls
until he loses initiative. So game turn isn't IGOYOUGO, but players
retains ability to react immediatly; and it's easy to show the
difference of quality between two sides by penalizing or favouring
initiative rolls of one side.
Laurent
Ken Rutsky
> I think scale is an important factor: in the world at war games, one
> turn equalled four or six hours. In WEGO system players can react to
> opponent's move the next turn : fairly realistic with small scale.
>
> but with one turn equalling several days or weeks, WEGO becomes IMHO
> much more criticizable: why one should have to wait as many time to
> react?
This effect could be reduced somewhat with some sort of provisional orders
scheme: "Retreat if attacked," "Retreat if losses in combat are >40%," the
use of Probe/Limited/Normal/All-out attack orders, etc.
Maybe a system of provisional orders could be implemented to deal with
changing situations, i.e. the unit may go on the defensive if its attack
fails, or if it is threatened from the flank it could change facing to react,
etc. Make the implementation of these alternate orders dependent on some
kind of quality check....
MajorH1
in creating a game that even remotely approaches the kinds of victory
conditions found in this game (control at least five buildings in the town, or
leave no enemy units on board 2 while exiting at least 50% of your force, and
so on.>>
Ahem ... I would like to claim having done at least a 'remote approach' :).
Victory conditions for TacOps Task Force Fenwick: US - Enter and clear
Objectives A through E (buildings), occupy Objective E for 20 minutes, then
exit at least 50 percent of original force. OPFOR - Defend Objectives A
through E, attrit the US force, and prevent its extraction.
In all modesty :), I would also point out the complexity of TacOps Task Force
Mizokami. This is a 4 hour scenario that requires the US player to cycle
through a gamut of offensive and defensive tactical problems. The scenario
begins at 0700 with two US air assault battalions having to more or less
simutaneously attack and clear five widely separated terrain area objectives
(spread over a 6.5 x 15.5 kilometer area) defended by small pockets of garrison
and irregular troops. Each time the scenario is run, about 20% of the OPFOR
garrison force will be randomly scattered in unknown positions near each
objective to simulate their having been 'on patrol' when the air assualt
begain.
The air assault force not only has to clear and occupy each objective but it
also needs to mop up their surrounding areas looking for the patrols if it
doesn't its rear area to be under OPFOR observation and accurate arty fire for
the rest of the game. The air assault must be conducted under a significant
time pressure because the air assulat force knows that it can be
counterattacked at an unknown point within 30 minutes of landing by an OPFOR
Motorized Rifle Company mounted in BTRs. About an hour after landing (some
time after 0800) the air assulat force can expect a counterattack across the
Eastern edge of the map by an OPFOR Motorized Rifle Battalion mounted in BMPs.
By that time, the air assault force (which has plenty of man portable ATGMs but
no vehicles thicker than a HMMWV) had better have most of the objectives
cleared, the patrols rounded up, and be in a good defensive posture.
At the two hour point in the scenario (around 0900) , the pendulum swings
again. Two OPFOR Motorized Rifle Regiments (+) enter the game at unknown
points along the East edge of the map. Their primary mission is to cross the
map and exit its Western edge but they will usually deploy against anything
that gets in their way. At about the same time, a US Air Cavalry Troop (0900),
and two US Armored Cavalry Squadrons (one at 0900 and one at 0915) enter the
game via US player chosen points along the South edge of the map.
So in one scenario (from the US perspective) you have a two battalion airborne
assault against a number of point positions occupied by an inferior dismounted
enemy, leading to a helo and HMMWV mobile area mop up operation against an
inferior foot mobile enemy, leading to a local defense against a mechanized but
still inferior enemy, leading to a local defense against a significant
mechanized threat, leading to a brigade sized spoiling attack and or wide area
mobile defense against a superior mechanized enemy.
Harumph ... how much more complicated do you want things to be :)?
<Bleary eyed 'Major H' staggers off the podium and goes back to TacOpsCF
testing ... >
MajorH1
> 2)Player 2 pots her first turn. 'Executes' the first turn,
> but *is not*
> shown the results. Sends file back to player 1.
> 3)Player 1 watches execution of first turn. Plots second
> turn. Sends
> file to player 2.
> 4)Player 2 watches execution of first turn. Plots second
> turn.
> "Executes' the second turn, but *is not* shown the
> results...etc.,
> etc.
I would prefer to not see such an approach used in a game. It sounds to me
like a seemingly good idea that would have an unfortunate side effect of
killing the product.
It is a sound approach to solving the 'perceived' problem of cheating but in my
opinion it requires way too much extra emailing and it interupts the flow of
the most enjoyable aspects of game play. Personally I don't want to be
punished for the crass behavior of a few PBEM miscreants.
I think it better to optimize for player convenience and enjoyment even if
doing so produces a few potential cheating loopholes. A better solution is
simply to not play PBEM games with a person who consistently enjoys to much
'fishy' good fortune.
MajorH1
Yes but not as often as they have heard the saying: "get a game done by
Christmas or pack your bags" :).
BrettT2466
players to view a replay. This means that the program has to keep records,
fairly detailed records in a large complex wargame, of what happened during the
execution phase.
Technical question: Is this a difficult programming task? Is fear of writing
replay code a factor in the continuing popularity of sequential movement?
Dale Hight
>
>My preference goes to systems based on alternate activation: players
>rolls dice on an activation table, may move x units then rerolls
>until he loses initiative. So game turn isn't IGOYOUGO, but players
>retains ability to react immediatly; and it's easy to show the
>difference of quality between two sides by penalizing or favouring
>initiative rolls of one side.
>
I would like to see this idea followed through with just see how it
plays. I sounds like a good method to me.
Some time ago, SSI announced that some variation on this theme would
be the basis of the movement system for Steel Panthers 4. I am not
sure if they are still planing this "initiative" system, but I hope
that they are.
Dale
Falkon1313
>>I wrote:
>>Also, turn sequence and initiative can be
>>an interesting mechanic in and of itself,
> I don't know if this is attractive to historical wargamers.
Okay, I can think of two prime examples off the top of my head. First, all
the 'Early Double-turn vs. Late Double-turn vs. Midgame Double-turn', 'Forcing
the Double-turn', and 'Returning the Double-turn' strategies from Advanced 3rd
Reich. Taking and retaking, (or preparing for your opponent to take) the
initiative was a major part of the strategy. Yet the game didn't entirely
hinge on it.
The second is in Clash of Steel. If you have the initiative and you
declare war on a neutral or make an amphibious landing (or any naval moves or
new builds), then the opponent will have a chance to call in reserves and build
new units in the threatened area immediately in impulse 2. You only have one
impulse to make it count. If you don't have the initiative though, you do it
in impulse 2 so he won't have a chance to call in reserves until the next
turn...you may have several impulses before he can build up an effective
defense. So opening up another front as a surprise move is much more effective
if you are 'taking the initiative' than if you have it. (but the actual
initiative determination is based on the year rather than your actions)
>> e. Time to figure out why things happened the way they did before doing
>> something else.
> Which is why WEGO systems should allow the option to replay the
>action as often as you like and allow you the power to scroll around the
>map during execution time.
Precisely. :)
>> wego
>> a. No accidental 'oops, I forgot that that unit needed to be over here by
>>the time I made this attack'.
> Could you please explain this? I'm a bit confused.
Okay, in turn-based games, because of the instant effects of your actions,
you often can't undo things once you've attacked or deselected a unit. (else
you could just undo/redo attacks until they succeeded.) So if you make a plan
in your head, and then start carrying it out without writing it down, then when
you make a mistake in synchronization you can't go back and correct it without
restarting the whole turn.
With a wego system where the orders are planned before execution, because
nothing's final until you end your turn, you can see that all your plans mesh.
(if the interface is good) When you order B & C to attack, you can then go
back and order A to move down and join in the attack, even though you gave the
order later, they're all executed at the same time. If in a turn-based game
you ordered B&C to attack before giving A its orders, the attack would be over
and it couldn't help.
So wego systems would seem to have the advantage for carefully-planned
coordinated attacks, and other things involving tricky timing. As long as
there are ways to tell units to wait for each other or events.
Douglas Henderson
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 12:14:26 GMT, ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H.
> Arsenault) decided to post words that all would read on, "Re: Wargame
> systems", lets see if they are worth reading.
>
> >One solution would be for larger systems to have a more realistic approach
> >where the comander of a division cannot give specific orders to a single
> >platoon, which is highly unrealistic anyway. Best would be a system where,
> >say, a Division commander could give orders only to brigadeswho would then
> >have to figure out how best to carry them out.
>
> each Div/Brig, and they took it from there. If you told them to
> defend a cross-road, the HQ decided how to use the teranin around the
> cross-road and which of his units to do it. As would be done in real
> life. Yep its been done before and work great. SSG was ahead of there
> time, as was others going back to the C=64 days of wargaming.
>
>
Whatever happened to SSG? The unrealistic aspects of their games don't
seem so bad considering what the contemporary companies are doing some
5-10 years on. As I've said before, wego movement and a clean simple
editor (though limited in its slots) Even I could design scenarios for
it.
Plus, although it was completely ahistorical, I must have played the
Gafsa scenario 50 times. A scenario where you could try different
strategies and still have time to recover and try something else if it
didn't work.
Douglas Henderson
Initiative was based on the movement points available for each formation
Rob
> It is a sound approach to solving the 'perceived' problem of cheating but in my
> opinion it requires way too much extra emailing and it interupts the flow of
> the most enjoyable aspects of game play. Personally I don't want to be
> punished for the crass behavior of a few PBEM miscreants.
Hmm, don't quite follow you there. Except for the first turn, both
players get to watch an 'execution' on every turn. It's basically the
same as most WEGO games I've played in the past, with the exception of
the turn replay being delayed for one turn. I don't see how this would
interrupt game play and it certainly doesn't require *any* more emailing
than in a regular WEGO or IGO/UGO game, just one file per turn.
IMO, the biggest drawback is the requirement that absolutely no actions
take place during plotting.
(Self-correction - In my previous post I wrote that 'War in Russia' is
WEGO. It isn't, it's 'plot all moves, then execute, then send file to
opponent'.)
Rob
Rob
> It is a sound approach to solving the 'perceived' problem of cheating but in my
> opinion it requires way too much extra emailing and it interupts the flow of
> the most enjoyable aspects of game play. Personally I don't want to be
> punished for the crass behavior of a few PBEM miscreants.
To further clarify, the system I outlined is different from previous
WEGO systems only in respect to the fact that the initial player that
'executes' a turn (player #2) is not shown the results at that time. He
gets to see the results next time he gets the file.
Note that both players are still shown the replay *before* they plot
their next turn (so there is no interruption of the flow of the game).
And as I wrote earlier, there is still only one file being sent per
turn, so there isn't any more emailing per turn than in any other PBEM
game.
Re-read the sequence in my intitial post, I think you may have
misunderstood it.
I see no reason why this system could/should not be used in any WEGO
game. Even in those WEGO games where there is some type of unit
action/interaction during the plotting phase - which would allow a
player to re-load and re-play the phase - this type of system would
still prevent or make it difficult and time consuming to cheat on a
grand scale.
While I agree that finding honest opponents is important (I'm currently
playing 5 Empire Deluxe multi-player PBEM games, which are easily
cheatable), I also feel that cheating should at least be discouraged,
made difficult and/or time consuming by the game design, if at all
possible. (For example, IMO, the lack of PBEM passwords in SSG's/SSI's
'The Ardennes Offensive' borders on the criminal. :-) )
Rob
Rob
> It is a sound approach to solving the 'perceived' problem of cheating but in my
> opinion it requires way too much extra emailing and it interupts the flow of
> the most enjoyable aspects of game play. Personally I don't want to be
> punished for the crass behavior of a few PBEM miscreants.
OK, I'm gonna beat this horse some more 'cause it ani't dead yet...
Amazingly, this just occurred to me: In past WEGO games where player
#2 gets to execute the turn, does this not give him the unique
opportunity to replay the turn if he's not satisfied with the results?
It seems to me that player #1 does not have this opportnity to cheat.
(Hmm, something to keep in mind when choosing which side to play. I'll
have to play player #2 from now on to prevent my opponent from cheating
:-) ).
It's not that I'm fixated with cheating, but like some guy wrote
several years ago on GEnie, "If I'm going to PBEM a game for a number of
weeks/months/years only to eventually be defeated, I would always wonder
whether I really did loose that crucial battle for that town".
Rob
Rob
> Any initiative or other system that has the AI moving the "players"
> unit will end up having the AI scrutinized under a microscope because
> users tend to say that had they had the control they would not have
> moved there.
Exactly, and this is why games in which the AI makes major decisions
will never be satisfactory. And the problem gets worse as the scale of
the game - especially the time scale - gets bigger.
As the time scale used to simulate a battle gets larger (along with the
unit scale), it stands to reason that decisions are made only after
careful planning and this can only be accomplished with player
interaction - not by any AI.
And this is the bane of any WEGO system. Both the players and the game
interface can only accomodate a certain level of planning - and
contingency planning. At some point, the 'execute' button must be
pressed, after which weird things can and will happen. Things that
normally would not happen in the real world because at some inbetween
point, intelligent decisions would be made by thinking people. (Well,
military people anyway...:-))
Rob
lfa...@club-internet.fr
Hight) wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:59:11 GMT, lfa...@club-internet.fr wrote:
>>
>>My preference goes to systems based on alternate activation: players
>>rolls dice on an activation table, may move x units then rerolls
>>until he loses initiative. So game turn isn't IGOYOUGO, but players
>>retains ability to react immediatly; and it's easy to show the
>>difference of quality between two sides by penalizing or favouring
>>initiative rolls of one side.
>>
>
>I would like to see this idea followed through with just see how it
>plays. I sounds like a good method to me.
>
>Some time ago, SSI announced that some variation on this theme would
>be the basis of the movement system for Steel Panthers 4. I am not
>sure if they are still planing this "initiative" system, but I hope
>that they are.
>
>Dale
>
>
>
The best examples I know are boardgames like Korea from VG and some R.
Berg's ones. On computer, Great Battles o Alexander, Hannibal and
Caesar are inspired by Berg 's design.
I always found these systems to be be a good compromise between
realism, fun and gameplay.
Of course, on computer, it should add more turns to send in PBEM
games. But I believe the inconvenience should be minor. Another
problem is cheating but it's another story...
Regards,
Laurent
Marko Peric
> A. Heritage. IGO-UGO is the game system that the designers grew up on -
> probably starting with board games. After using it for 10 to 30 years they have
> accumulated a huge mental library of interlocked game control concepts that
> tend to only be useful in an IGO-UGO system.
But haven't they heard of the saying: "Familiarity breeds contempt"?
;)
> B. Amount of time required to get a new title on the market.
Arr, matey, this be the truth! We just need a few good developers to
buck the trend. Or to continue with the film reference, we need a few
good developers who can't handle the truth! ;)
MLHowe
>Initiative was based on the movement points available for each formation
I never play with the advanced command rules you are describing. I find that
there are times when entire formations are unavailable for orders for several
turns and just sit there doing nothing while a fierce war rages around them. I
think initiative systems are a good idea, but I find it hard to believe that
these guys would just turn into spectators because their mobility was a little
less than that of their enemies. Also, it makes it hard to plan if you don't
know what units will be available to you next turn. That column of tanks and
infantry that you were planning to use as a combined force might suddently turn
into a naked, useless infantry company. Realistic? I don't know -- maybe --
but to me gameplay is what it's all about, and I find that Tanks plays much
betters under the simple command rules. Just my 2 cents (if it's even worth
that much)
fizzycyst
Douglas Henderson
Different strokes. Me, I just chalk it up to Fog of War (that company
spends the several turns, trying to read the map, then the street
signs, then rousts a civilian, who turns out not to speak German, so
that roust another one, etc.
As Clausewitz said, "In war, Shit happens."
Dale Hight
<snip> Also, it makes it hard to plan if you don't
>know what units will be available to you next turn. That column of tanks and
>infantry that you were planning to use as a combined force might suddently turn
>into a naked, useless infantry company. Realistic? I don't know -- maybe --
>but to me gameplay is what it's all about, and I find that Tanks plays much
>betters under the simple command rules. Just my 2 cents (if it's even worth
>that much)
>
Good point and maybe that is the reason that the "player selected unit
initiative" is often used. Whenever the program makes decisions for
players (such as selecting which unit can move), it opens up a
pandorias box for users to complain about the algorithm used.
The (Battleground) system, from SSG that people have been fondly
remembering, was raked over the coals by many for setting up Arty
units in front of Infantry or for other such AI deployment concerns.
Any initiative or other system that has the AI moving the "players"
unit will end up having the AI scrutinized under a microscope because
users tend to say that had they had the control they would not have
moved there.
I think the market for games that provide that level of realism is
less than for the God type of games (SP and the like) where you jump
into any unit and move it where ever you want.
Dale
Marko Peric
I have a friend who is programming a wargame and is grappling with
this very issue right now. It's one of the reasons that WEGO is harder
to program than IGOUGO.
Marko Peric
> It's not that I'm fixated with cheating, but like some guy wrote
> several years ago on GEnie, "If I'm going to PBEM a game for a number of
> weeks/months/years only to eventually be defeated, I would always wonder
> whether I really did loose that crucial battle for that town".
Well, I wouldn't. But if you told me that he did in fact cheat then I
would be very pissed off. All of this talk about cheating and preventing
cheating reminds me of my first experience with US colleges. After
attaining my 4-year degree in Australia I went to the US to do some
further study. The first thing that struck me was the lengths to which
the lecturers and administrators would go to prevent cheating by the
students. Each exam was manned by up to a dozen people (I was frequently
recruited for this). I disliked the whole notion of rigorous policing
right from the start, because:
1) We were dealing with adult, not child, students.
2) Was the cost worth the occasional nabbing of a cheat? I didn't think
so.
3) Cheating doesn't pay in the long run, anyway.
Of course, I look at some of the leaders of our society and think
that I may be wrong on Point 3! :-)
Alex Pavloff
wrote:
> I have a friend who is programming a wargame and is grappling with
>this very issue right now. It's one of the reasons that WEGO is harder
>to program than IGOUGO.
The other thing being "what happens when a whole mess of units try to
move into a whole other mess of units."
--
"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents." -- Nathaniel Borenstein
Marko Peric
>
> > I have a friend who is programming a wargame and is grappling with
> >this very issue right now. It's one of the reasons that WEGO is harder
> >to program than IGOUGO.
>
> The other thing being "what happens when a whole mess of units try to
> move into a whole other mess of units."
Oh yes, that's another big one! But even human intelligence has some
trouble with that. Look at big city traffic to see what I mean. :)
Marko Peric
> Any initiative or other system that has the AI moving the "players"
> unit will end up having the AI scrutinized under a microscope because
> users tend to say that had they had the control they would not have
> moved there.
What's worse is that even if you could produce an AI which really did
match (or even exceed) the intelligence of a human being, people would
still say: "Oh, but I would not have moved there." Of course, their
comments would be restricted to only the *bad* moves of the AI! :)
Fionn Kelly
>1)Player 1 plots his first turn. Sends file to player 2.
>2)Player 2 pots her first turn. 'Executes' the first turn, but *is not*
>shown the results. Sends file back to player 1.
>3)Player 1 watches execution of first turn. Plots second turn. Sends
>file to player 2.
>4)Player 2 watches execution of first turn. Plots second turn.
>"Executes' the second turn, but *is not* shown the results...etc.,
>etc.
That's exactly how Combat Mission runs its PBEM games if I remember
correctly.
Fionn
Alex Pavloff
wrote:
> What's worse is that even if you could produce an AI which really did
>match (or even exceed) the intelligence of a human being, people would
>still say: "Oh, but I would not have moved there." Of course, their
>comments would be restricted to only the *bad* moves of the AI! :)
Of course! It'd be a bug! :-)
And then the company reps would ask for replays with this bug, and
yet, always be able to explain why the units did what they did, and
how they were supposed too.
Christoph Nahr
> There still around. They are doing a remake of "Reach for the
>Stars", a real time "WarLords #?", as well as they came out with
>"Decisive Battles of World War II: The Ardennes Offensive" just a few
>years ago.
Yes, but TAO sold so miserably that they cancelled the sequel. I'm
sure they want to do more wargames but right now only Warlords and
Reach for the Stars seem to have a chance to pay the bills.
A pity. Their old Battleground games had shown the way for computer
wargaming but now the trend goes to nothing but Igo/Ugo boardgames on
a computer. I sure hope Road to Moscow will see the light day.
--
Chris Nahr (christo...@uumail.xxde, remove xx to reply by e-mail)
Please reply either on Usenet or by e-mail but not both!
Christoph Nahr
Henderson) wrote:
>As Clausewitz said, "In war, Shit happens."
Hmm, I'll have to look up that quote. :-P
Robert Gurske
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:47:50 -0400, Douglas Henderson
><sons...@mindspring.com> decided to post words that all would read
>on, "Re: Wargame systems", lets see if they are worth reading.
>
>>Whatever happened to SSG?
>
> There still around. They are doing a remake of "Reach for the
>Stars", a real time "WarLords #?", as well as they came out with
>"Decisive Battles of World War II: The Ardennes Offensive" just a few
>years ago.
>
>
>> The unrealistic aspects of their games
>
> What do you mean by "unrealistic"?
>
>
>-
the fundamental flaw of the battlefront series was the objective
system. If you possessed a particular obejctive and it was cut off
behind enemy lines there was no way to launch a rescue mission (i.e.
like Stalingrad in their Russia game) because offensive missions could
only be assigned to enemy held objectives. If there was mo other
objective hex in the immediate area, as was sometimes the case, there
was no way to point your battalions in the right direction.
Bob
Douglas Henderson
>On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 21:47:50 -0400, Douglas Henderson
><sons...@mindspring.com> decided to post words that all would read
>on, "Re: Wargame systems", lets see if they are worth reading.
>
>>Whatever happened to SSG?
>
> There still around. They are doing a remake of "Reach for the
>Stars", a real time "WarLords #?", as well as they came out with
>"Decisive Battles of World War II: The Ardennes Offensive" just a few
>years ago.
>
>
>> The unrealistic aspects of their games
>
> What do you mean by "unrealistic"?
Well, I mean two things really.
One is that the scenarios sometimes were Tweaked into being
ahistorical for the sake of play balance or to make an interesting
scenario (the Gafsa one comes most to mind), Some had weird problems,
like the Sicily operation which for some reason almost always had the
US becoming brittle and wasting away. It seemed to have to do with
the brittleness and the amount of the force that was deployed at that
time.
The second thing is more problematic. It can be seen as unrealistic
or emulating Fog of War or Friction. Specifically, I can't tell you
the number of times I screamed at a HQ "move you bastard" only to have
it sit there turn after turn. It led to some interesting hotseat
gameplay when I played Arab Israeli scenarios and my chum and I both
alternated shrieking at our units.
Having said that, I still regard it as less unrealistic in game play
than TOAW.
MajorH1
permits players to view a replay. This means that the program has to keep
records, fairly detailed records in a large complex wargame, of what happened
during the execution phase.>>
Not necessarily.
TacOps keeps no records at all of the events in a PBEM combat turn. What the
user may think of as a 'replay' is actually just the game engine playing the
turn over again from its starting situation. The program has a mechanism that
insures that the same sequence of random numbers occurs when a given turn in a
PBEM game is 'replayed'. So ... since the player can not change his orders
(i.e. the starting situation for the combat turn) he will see the same thing
happen if he runs the same turn again.
Best regards, Major H
maj...@aol.com
MajorH1
into a whole other mess of units.">>
I don't see the problem. I would expect that the designer/coder would provide
game logic that would recognize and attempt to address the situation with the
same logical steps as would occur in real life. The resolution would begin
before the units ended up in an unrealistic situation.
Marko Peric
> TacOps keeps no records at all of the events in a PBEM combat turn. What the
> user may think of as a 'replay' is actually just the game engine playing the
> turn over again from its starting situation. The program has a mechanism that
> insures that the same sequence of random numbers occurs when a given turn in a
> PBEM game is 'replayed'. So ... since the player can not change his orders
> (i.e. the starting situation for the combat turn) he will see the same thing
> happen if he runs the same turn again.
I suppose one way of doing this is to record the random numbers as
they are generated the first time, and then during the "replay" use
these recorded random numbers instead of generating new ones. This
shouldn't be too hard at all, and would not add much to the size of the
e-mailed file.
This idea in a more general sense stems from Laplace (ca. 1700's I
think) who postulated the following. Take 100 copies of the universe and
"play" them forward in time for a billion years. During this time, each
universe would evolve independently. At the end of this billion years,
Laplace claims that you could not distinguish one universe from another.
They would all be exactly the same, have exactly the same pasts, and in
fact, have exactly the same futures.
Later, quantum physics and chaos theory turned Laplace's postulate
on its head, introducing concepts (e.g. Heisenberg's Uncertainty
Principle) akin to randomness which could not be predicted ahead of
time. TacOps is a bit like this quantum universe, in that it uses random
numbers, but it also includes a mechanism for making sure that replays
of its "universe" always generate the same random numbers as occurred
the first time.
So does this mean that TacOps, metaphorically speaking, is a quantum
universe that obeys Laplace's postulate? Well, not necessarily.
Laplace's postulate also implies that if you knew the initial state
(position and momentum) of all matter in the universe, then you could
predict the entire future of the universe. TacOps, presumably, generates
random numbers the first time a turn is executed, and therefore the
first execution is not predictable. Only subsequent "replays" of the
turn are predictable, in the Laplacian sense.
Now shoot me. :)
Robert Gurske
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 23:07:46 GMT, emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske)
>decided to post words that all would read on, "Re: Wargame systems",
>lets see if they are worth reading.
>
>> the fundamental flaw of the battlefront series was the objective
>>system. If you possessed a particular obejctive and it was cut off
>>behind enemy lines there was no way to launch a rescue mission (i.e.
>>like Stalingrad in their Russia game) because offensive missions could
>>only be assigned to enemy held objectives. If there was mo other
>>objective hex in the immediate area, as was sometimes the case, there
>>was no way to point your battalions in the right direction.
>>
>
> Yes there was, attack an enemy unit.
>
>
Not if there was no enemy unit close by or in the line of an
advance you wanted to make. That was the whole problem, if there was
no target to lock onto you couldn't move in that direction and entire
game system was abstract. A "front" consisted of clusters of units
with huge gaps of nothingness between them, so if there was no city or
ground unit in the direction you wished to advance you were plum out
of luck, which is why my relief effort to Stalingrad never happened.
This might make more sense in an operational or tactical setting, but
with the game "Russia" you would have instances of 150 miles of front
that had no troops at all. I brought all this up at the Baltimore
Origins convention and I distinctly remember Mr. Keating looking down
at the floor with a "you got me" look.
lastly, but not least, the game made some pretty bizzarre
decisions at times. For instance while I was setting up forces for the
'42 summer campaign in the south the computer decided I had my forces
distributed unevenly so it did a star treck transporter job and
instantly relocated one of my panzer armies to the Leningrad area.
Bob
Scott Udell
Old Salt wrote in message <=E+RN1MSWUcfTO...@4ax.com>...
>On 17 Jul 1999 16:29:12 -0500, s...@sig.invalid (Christoph Nahr)
>>A pity. Their old Battleground games had shown the way for computer
>>wargaming
>
Wasn't their series called "Battlefront"? All those games came out before I
got off the Atari bandwagon, so I've never played any of them, but I can't
imagine TalonSoft wouldn't have been able to use the same name for their
first series. I learned this weekend that SSG apparently "absorbed" the old
Panther Games, and have been told that many of their games (later games?)
used elements from Panther's Fire Brigade (a game I did play on my ST and
Amiga--some nice elements there for a command-oriented gamer).
Scott
Scott Udell
BrettT2466 wrote in message
<19990716164541...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>The key to simutaneous execution in a PBEM game is to write code which
permits
>players to view a replay. This means that the program has to keep records,
>fairly detailed records in a large complex wargame, of what happened during
the
>execution phase.
The thing is, is a replay of a WEGO game that much different from a replay
of a IGOUGO game? If one system can record events, seems to me the other
should be able to too. Perhaps throwing in the timing of events adds another
layer of data, but i can't imagine it's that much more.
Scott
Jeff Riddolls
<udells@-nospam-together.net> wrote:
>
>Old Salt wrote in message <=E+RN1MSWUcfTO...@4ax.com>...
>
>Wasn't their series called "Battlefront"?
Yes, it was "Battlefront." The original version was the first
computer wargame I ever played (around 1985, I think) and in
retrospect seems advanced for its time.
The Battlefront series also had an excellent, user-friendly scenario
editor. Odd that SSG, who offered the most flexible scenario creation
tools (and not just in the Battlefront series), would later decide to
publish a game (TAO) that had a well-received system but was limited
to a single topic. Especially in light of that Chris Crawford Bulge
game that flopped badly a few years earlier.
-Jeff
Falkon1313
> I suppose one way of doing this is to record the random numbers as
>they are generated the first time, and then during the "replay" use
>these recorded random numbers instead of generating new ones. This
>shouldn't be too hard at all, and would not add much to the size of the
>e-mailed file.
Easier still, just record the number used to seed the random number generator.
Would take 4 bytes per turn at most...
-----_____-----
Fight fire with napalm!
Alex Pavloff
>On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:07:07 GMT, sons...@mindspring.com (Douglas
>Henderson) wrote:
>
>>As Clausewitz said, "In war, Shit happens."
>
>Hmm, I'll have to look up that quote. :-P
Must be one of those translations.........
Marko Peric
>
> > I suppose one way of doing this is to record the random numbers as
> >they are generated the first time, and then during the "replay" use
> >these recorded random numbers instead of generating new ones. This
> >shouldn't be too hard at all, and would not add much to the size of the
> >e-mailed file.
>
> Easier still, just record the number used to seed the random number generator.
> Would take 4 bytes per turn at most...
I thought of this, but what if different CPU types generated
different random numbers from the same initial seed number? I think this
is a possibility, given that some random number generators typically use
the overflow of a mathematical operation based on some maximum number.
This maximum number may be different on different machines. I guess,
then, the solution would be to create your own random number generator
which is independent of CPU type.
Stan Shebs
> I thought of this, but what if different CPU types generated
> different random numbers from the same initial seed number? I think this
> is a possibility, given that some random number generators typically use
> the overflow of a mathematical operation based on some maximum number.
> This maximum number may be different on different machines. I guess,
> then, the solution would be to create your own random number generator
> which is independent of CPU type.
Exactly so. If you don't need lots of bits, or a 2^100000 period,
then the generator can be about 4 lines of code - not exactly killer
program bloat! System RNGs are not usually suitable for games.
Stan Shebs
Cygnus Solutions
sh...@cygnus.com
Ben Parrish
>universe that obeys Laplace's postulate? Well, not necessarily.
Jesus, that's what I've been trying to tell these people for YEARS, but
would they listen? Noooooooooo.
von Schmidt
Alex Pavloff <IDONTLIK...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3792851d...@news.earthlink.net...
> On 17 Jul 1999 16:30:03 -0500, s...@sig.invalid (Christoph Nahr) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 03:07:07 GMT, sons...@mindspring.com (Douglas
> >Henderson) wrote:
> >
> >>As Clausewitz said, "In war, Shit happens."
> >
> >Hmm, I'll have to look up that quote. :-P
>
> Must be one of those translations.........
>
Clausewitz' original concept of the friction of war. More or less meaning
that you can plan and practise for ages, but that unforseen events ALWAYS
arise in conflict (" No plan survives the first contact with the enemy).
So you'd better have some flexibility and slack in your plans, and some
reserves in place...and don't declare victory before the fat lady has sung.
von Schmidt
Douglas Henderson
Tokugawa Ieyesu said, "when the battle is won, tie your helmet
strings"
meaning, even when you think you have everything won, take no chances,
don't let down your guard.
It has since become an apocryphal saying in Japan. Oddly the most
recent time I came across it was in SB Griffith's great book on
Guadalcanal, where, with a nice touch of Irony, he applied it to a
Marine commander taking precautions against a Japanese attack.
[[[[[[[[[[
LaoWombat
Lao Ma Lives!
m (\/) m
Michael Kreuzer
>
> 1. Player 1 plots his turn, sends it to Player 2.
> 2. Player 2 plots her turn, executes, plots another turn, sends to
> Player 1.
> 3. Player 1 watches execution, plots his turn, executes, plots another
> turn, sends to Player 2.
> 4. Player 2 watches execution, plots her turn, executes, plots another
> turn, sends to Player 1.
This is what I've meant by wego all along ... what do other people mean!?
:-0 From memory this was the TacOps pbem system.
-Michael
--
Michael Kreuzer
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~mkreuzer/arbitrary.htm
Michael Kreuzer
>
Beat away, I've been really enjoying the thread, this is what the place is
for (imho).
Having said that I'm going to disagree (of course!:-). I tend to think the
system you're proposing would just exacerbate the (potential) memory problem
of wego games. I'd have to plot turns, not see what happens, get back info
from a turn ago (so we're talking what I did days or weeks ago now) and try
and remember why I sent that unit east .. or if indeed I did (etc etc).
I've played a lot of games (board & computer) via pbem over the last 10
years and have yet to think anyone's been cheating. Maybe I've just enjoyed
a lot of luck (!) but I'd like to think that wargamers are a pretty good
bunch.
As MajorH said somewhere else in the thread the memory problem is partly the
point of the thing, so I'm certainly not arguing against wego games, just
think this system wouldn't add anything to it and might take too much away .
-Michael
--
Michael Kreuzer
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~mkreuzer/arbitrary.htm
Rob <rs...@gci-net.com> wrote in message
news:378FE271...@gci-net.com...
> Amazingly, this just occurred to me: In past WEGO games where player
> #2 gets to execute the turn, does this not give him the unique
> opportunity to replay the turn if he's not satisfied with the results?
> It seems to me that player #1 does not have this opportnity to cheat.
> (Hmm, something to keep in mind when choosing which side to play. I'll
> have to play player #2 from now on to prevent my opponent from cheating
> :-) ).
> It's not that I'm fixated with cheating, but like some guy wrote
> several years ago on GEnie, "If I'm going to PBEM a game for a number of
> weeks/months/years only to eventually be defeated, I would always wonder
> whether I really did loose that crucial battle for that town".
>
> Rob
MajorH1
The emailing steps seem similar. The difference is that 'conceptually' the
TacOps players plot their orders simultaneously and then run the same conbat
turn on each computer simultaneously.
I have always had trouble explaining how TacOps PBEM works <g>. Its one of
those things that works much easier than it sounds.
In practice, TacOps players who trust one another, normally transmit two orders
files per round of PBEM play. This allows a single PBEM session to actually
yield two turns of orders giving and two turns of watching combat.
Probably doesn't make sense to those who have not done it but that is the way
it works <g>.
Paul Saunders
news:378F78C6...@tig.com.au...
> MajorH1 wrote:
>
> > A. Heritage. IGO-UGO is the game system that the designers grew
up on -
> > probably starting with board games. After using it for 10 to 30
years they have
> > accumulated a huge mental library of interlocked game control
concepts that
> > tend to only be useful in an IGO-UGO system.
>
> But haven't they heard of the saying: "Familiarity breeds
contempt"? ;)
It only breeds contempt if you don't like what you're familiar with.
Haven't you ever heard of the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix
it"?
Paul
Paul Saunders
news:19990716164541...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> The key to simutaneous execution in a PBEM game is to write code
which permits
> players to view a replay. This means that the program has to keep
records,
> fairly detailed records in a large complex wargame, of what happened
during the
> execution phase.
>
of writing
> replay code a factor in the continuing popularity of sequential
movement?
Perhaps the continuing popularity of sequential movement might have
something to with a lot of people actually liking those kind of games.
Paul
Paul Saunders
news:378DE442...@albany.net...
>
> Of late, there is a tendency to lump all of a player's actions
> into one single action phase (Steel Panthers, the CS series from
Talonsoft,
> etc.), which leads to headached regarding opportunity fire, moving
across
> lines of sight and fire lanes without a scratch, etc.
You sound like you've never played these games. I can't remember the
last time I moved across a fire lane without getting scratched. If
you move into the enemy's line of sight you get fired at, provided the
enemy saved some shots for opportunity fire. If he made the mistake
of using up all his shots during his turn then that's his mistake,
he's probably reloading while you're running across his fire lane.
> If a turn-based game used phases like Squad Leader or Talon's
Battleground
> games, this problem is mitigated somewhat (player 1 moves, then
player 2
> gets to defensive fire, player 1 does advancing fire, etc....do
something
> like in SL where a player can defensive fire on an enemy unit
anywhere along
> its movement path, and the problem is gone.
As I just said above, the enemy can already opportunity fire on a unit
anywhere along it's movement path, so that problem has gone. I was a
great fan of Squad Leader, but phased movement is too restrictive
these days - you have to move everything at the same time, fire
everything at the same time, rally everything at the same time. It's
too neat. The beauty of "lumping all of a player's actions into one
single action phase" as you put it, is that units can move, fire,
rally etc. in any order, and be fired on by the enemy at any time.
You thus get a really fluid sequence of actions which you never had in
Squad Leader.
Example: You move an infantry unit forward, a previously hidden enemy
infantry unit in the trees opens fire causing it to retreat, you try
to rally but can't. You bring a tank forward to fire at the enemy
infantry but before it gets there a hidden AT gun takes out the tank.
A nearby infantry unit throws a smoke grenade in front of the
suspected AT gun's position to block it's line of sight.
You bring up another tank, enemy infantry fires at the tank, tank
takes a little suppression, you rally the tank, tank takes a couple of
shots at the infantry causing them to retreat, then you move another
infantry unit forward to chase and finish off the enemy infantry, then
retreat the tank to a different position ready to support another
attack. Finally you plot a mortar bombardment on the AT gun's
position, which will come in next turn.
Now, ok, I admit, it's not realistic in the strict realtime sense, but
there's a real fluidity to the events and a great interaction between
you and the enemy, responding to one another's actions as they occur,
which makes for great gameplay. It's linear rather than simultaneous,
which makes the sequence of your actions crucially important, and
therefore creates a particular kind of strategical challenge that
doesn't exist in WEGO games.
Which is not to say that IGO games are necessarily better than WEGO
games, or vice-versa, it all depends on your particular definition of
the word "better". Most of the posters here seem to define better as
meaning "more realistic". My definition of better is "more
strategically challenging and enjoyable". You only have to look at
chess to see that strategy and realism are entirely separate concepts,
so improving realism doesn't necessarily improve strategy and
therefore enjoyment.
> For example, in Kampfgruppe, you never directly ordered your
> units to fire, just gave your formations objectives and defined
movement
> waypoints; the tactical minutia was handled by the computer. Your
job, as
> battalion commander, was to maneuver your forces into position.
This is as
> it should be.
This is as it should be if the purpose of the game is to simulate
being a battalion commander. If the purpose of the game is simply to
enjoy a good strategical challenge, then realism isn't necessarily an
issue.
Paul
Marko Peric
>
> Marko Peric <lone...@tig.com.au> wrote:
>
> > But haven't they heard of the saying: "Familiarity breeds
> contempt"? ;)
>
> It only breeds contempt if you don't like what you're familiar with.
>
> Haven't you ever heard of the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix
> it"?
I would then argue that it is "broke". But I don't feel like arguing,
either, particularly when I have already used a ";)" above.
Joe Kussey
Paul Saunders wrote:
> You sound like you've never played these games. I can't remember the
> last time I moved across a fire lane without getting scratched. If
> you move into the enemy's line of sight you get fired at, provided the
> enemy saved some shots for opportunity fire. If he made the mistake
> of using up all his shots during his turn then that's his mistake,
> he's probably reloading while you're running across his fire lane.
>
Paul,
That is part of the problem with igo\ugo games. In a game with two minute
turns, for example, movement should not be done sequentially, as in
igo\ugo games. That just is not very realistic. Real commanders don't
have the luxury of sending one group through an open field, seeing the
results, than sending more units, within a two minute time frame. The
movement factor of a particular unit takes into account that a unit moves
from the first moment of the turn. If a unit waited, then the unit can't
move during THAT turn. By the way, how long does it take to reload a
rifle? Certainly, units moving across the field of fire of a unit
sequentially should ALL be engaged!!!! It doesn't take as long to reload
as to move across an open field, does it? This is why simultaneous
execution is much more in tune to reality.
> squad leader example snipped.
> Now, ok, I admit, it's not realistic in the strict realtime sense, but
> there's a real fluidity to the events and a great interaction between
> you and the enemy, responding to one another's actions as they occur,
> which makes for great gameplay. It's linear rather than simultaneous,
> which makes the sequence of your actions crucially important, and
> therefore creates a particular kind of strategical challenge that
> doesn't exist in WEGO games.
True, and totally, artificially unrealistic. The main reason that
simulataneous movement is now becoming more prevalent in games is that the
computer does a much better job at it than paper games. There are a
number of tactical level games that used simultaneous movement in it.
SPI's Platoon and Tank comes to mind. Most paper Naval games at the
tactical level also used simultaneous movement. Unfortunately,
bookkeeping overwhelms the players and is a big distraction. In a
computer, this is done automatically. So now that the technology exists,
simultaneous movement is the way to go because it is more realistic with
real life, and offers more fluidity that you so desire.
There is greater interaction with the other player, because any movement
can be interfered with by your opponent SIMULTANEOUSLY, just as in real
life. During the course of a "turn", you are not going to have that
"fluidity" that you suggest. The capability to send a unit across a
field, analyze the results, then interact to send a different force,
within that "turn" is totally impossible. How is that second unit going
to be able to have the same movement allowance as the first unit, when the
second unit waited for the first to move? See my point? That is why
Igo\usgo games are/should be things of the past. Try playing Operation
Crusader against a human opponent, and you will see the difference.
> Which is not to say that IGO games are necessarily better than WEGO
> games, or vice-versa, it all depends on your particular definition of
> the word "better". Most of the posters here seem to define better as
> meaning "more realistic". My definition of better is "more
> strategically challenging and enjoyable". You only have to look at
> chess to see that strategy and realism are entirely separate concepts,
> so improving realism doesn't necessarily improve strategy and
> therefore enjoyment.
Most wargamers prefer to have a realistic historical simulation, as well
as a good strategic puzzle. If better methods of simulating realism are
available, why wouldn't you try them and see if you liked them better?
If you think the concept of igo/ugo is better than wego in a wargame, I am
afraid that you are wrong. Realism is better, and the same "strategic
puzzle" still exists in them.
> > For example, in Kampfgruppe, you never directly ordered your
> > units to fire, just gave your formations objectives and defined
> movement
> > waypoints; the tactical minutia was handled by the computer. Your
> job, as
> > battalion commander, was to maneuver your forces into position.
> This is as
> > it should be.
>
> This is as it should be if the purpose of the game is to simulate
> being a battalion commander. If the purpose of the game is simply to
> enjoy a good strategical challenge, then realism isn't necessarily an
> issue.
Are you refering to "Risk" as a wargame? That and chess certainly fall
into these categories of "good stategical challenge" where "realism isn't
necessarily an issue".
But wargames to me has to have some realism and historical context to it.
Otherwise, it just isn't a wargame, just a strategical challenge game,
like Poker. I think most wargamers believe historical realism IS an
issue, when they play wargames.
Ken Rutsky
msg over two weeks ago...
A bit more below...
Paul Saunders wrote:
> You sound like you've never played these games.
Well, that's not the impression I hoped to give...I actually enjoy EF2/WF
a whole lotta lots, and played the hell out of all the Steel Panthers
games, have this on-again, off-again thing with TOAW (currently on again);
as a matter of fact, I bought all of them the day they hit the shelves.
No, I've played these games. Still do. A lot.
> I can't remember the
> last time I moved across a fire lane without getting scratched. If
> you move into the enemy's line of sight you get fired at, provided the
> enemy saved some shots for opportunity fire.
Maybe I didn't express my point too well. The problem that remains, is
that the player is granted too much control over his troops, and the
player knowledge problem is exaggerated in Igo-Ugo. This latter problem
(the player in any commercial wargame -- even one with Fog of War -- has
far more knowledge and control over his units than any commander really
would) still exists in Wego games, but the player cannot immediately react
to new threats as they appear as they can in Igo-Ugo games; he must wait
until the end of the resolution phase to react. Wego games that impose a
delay on the implementation of new orders are even better.
> If he made the mistake
> of using up all his shots during his turn then that's his mistake,
> he's probably reloading while you're running across his fire lane.
No, I don't buy that. People don't move in sequence in real life.
Everyone's moving and shooting at the same time. Players in Igo-Ugo games
can often take advantage of opfire routines to sneak juicy targets past
the enemy. Combat is chaos, not a well-ordered sequence of moves.
I can see the attraction of more chess-like decisionmaking, and I enjoy
that kind of thought-process at times, as well. But...why not just play
chess? It's the best game of its kind.
> Which is not to say that IGO games are necessarily better than WEGO
> games, or vice-versa, it all depends on your particular definition of
> the word "better". Most of the posters here seem to define better as
> meaning "more realistic". My definition of better is "more
> strategically challenging and enjoyable".
Here is the core of our disagreement: we each expect different things of a
wargame. Why is it so unreasonable to expect realism from a wargame,
especially given that the computer can simplify the task immeasurably?
> You only have to look at
> chess to see that strategy and realism are entirely separate concepts,
> so improving realism doesn't necessarily improve strategy and
> therefore enjoyment.
In your opinion. How do you know what I enjoy?
> This is as it should be if the purpose of the game is to simulate
> being a battalion commander. If the purpose of the game is simply to
> enjoy a good strategical challenge, then realism isn't necessarily an
> issue.
The great irony is that we seem to be discussing tactical games... :-)
If you enjoy games that give a good "strategical [sic]" challenge, then
Ultimate Risk for the PC or Panzer General are unsurpassed (IMHO, of
course). In fact, both of these games reside on my hard drive, and I
still enjoy playing them both. But I want something more from a game than
just an exercise in moving and positioning my units "just so."
As you said, however, I'm not trying to say that my preferred type of game
is the best. That's all in the eye of the beholder.
Ken Rutsky
--
Though it be broken--
Broken again--still it's there,
The moon on the water
--Chosu
Paul Saunders
> Hi, Paul...geez are my posts getting on this ng this late? I wrote
that
> msg over two weeks ago...
Hi Ken. No, it's my fault, I only discovered this newsgroup a few
days ago.
> > If he made the mistake
> > of using up all his shots during his turn then that's his mistake,
> > he's probably reloading while you're running across his fire lane.
>
> No, I don't buy that.
Hey, I'm just trying to rationalise it, these games do require a
certain suspension of belief.
> Players in Igo-Ugo games can often take advantage of opfire
> routines to sneak juicy targets past the enemy.
I know, I do it all the time...
> Combat is chaos, not a well-ordered sequence of moves.
No, but games are.
> I can see the attraction of more chess-like decisionmaking, and I
enjoy
> that kind of thought-process at times, as well. But...why not just
play
> chess
Because chess is too abstract for me.
Consider this - at one end of the scale we have total abstraction,
total unrealism - Chess - a game in the purest sense, unhampered by
reality. At the other end of the scale we have total realism - real
time, fog of war, command simulation, troops who ignore your orders
etc. (this hasn't been designed yet has it?)
Somewhere in between the two we have wargames, a compromise, a mixture
of game and reality. This is what I like to play. Enough gameplay to
enoy the chess-like decision making, enough realism to give the
impression of reality. It's a nice combination.
Too much gameplay and the game becomes unbelievable, too much reality
and you start to lose gameplay. Some games lean one way, some the
other, it's a difficult balancing act. Different players prefer
different balances. Games like SP and EF are just about in the
middle, and that's the balance I like best.
PG on the other hand, leans more toward gameplay, I find it has a
chess-like quality that SP doesn't for instance. I still enjoy it,
though not as much. I haven't really tried games that lean the other
way yet. Does CC2 count? Probably not, it was fun, but I lost
interest quickly.
> > Which is not to say that IGO games are necessarily better than
WEGO
> > games, or vice-versa, it all depends on your particular definition
of
> > the word "better". Most of the posters here seem to define better
as
> > meaning "more realistic". My definition of better is "more
> > strategically challenging and enjoyable".
>
> Here is the core of our disagreement: we each expect different
things of a
> wargame. Why is it so unreasonable to expect realism from a
wargame,
> especially given that the computer can simplify the task
immeasurably?
It's not unreasonable, it's just that it's implementation would change
the nature of wargames as we currently know them. This is not a bad
thing per se, I just don't want the traditional type of wargame to
disappear.
> > You only have to look at
> > chess to see that strategy and realism are entirely separate
concepts,
> > so improving realism doesn't necessarily improve strategy and
> > therefore enjoyment.
>
> In your opinion. How do you know what I enjoy?
My apologies, those last three words "and therefore enjoyment" were a
careless addition, so I'll revoke them. My point was simply that
quality of strategy is not determined by quantity of realism, the two
are entirely independent. Quality of strategy is determined by
quality of game design.
> > ...a good strategical challenge...
>
> The great irony is that we seem to be discussing tactical games...
:-)
Yes, yes, I know, I was merely using the word in the generic sense as
applied by most gamers. Racing drivers often talk about race
strategy, yet surely it's a bit late for strategy when you're sitting
on the start line?
> If you enjoy games that give a good "strategical [sic]" challenge,
then
> Ultimate Risk for the PC or Panzer General are unsurpassed (IMHO, of
> course). In fact, both of these games reside on my hard drive, and
I
> still enjoy playing them both. But I want something more from a
game than
> just an exercise in moving and positioning my units "just so."
My mind is open to any good games in the wargame genre, but I don't
find the prospect of games which are so realistic that you have little
or no control over your troops very appealing, but then that would be
an extreme case.
> As you said, however, I'm not trying to say that my preferred type
of game
> is the best. That's all in the eye of the beholder.
Well, I'm glad we agree on that.
Paul
Paul Saunders
important issue in a "game". If you want realism, you want a
"simulation".
I therefore humbly suggest that a distinction be made between a
"wargame"
(emphasis on game) and a "historical simulation".
Joe Kussey <kus...@psn.net> wrote in message
news:37A47108...@psn.net...
> In a game with two minute turns, for example, movement should not be
done
> sequentially, as in igo\ugo games.
Why not? It's just a game.
> That just is not very realistic.
I know, so?
> <snip> This is why simultaneous execution is much more in tune to
reality.
Quite true.
> > It's linear rather than simultaneous,
> > which makes the sequence of your actions crucially important, and
> > therefore creates a particular kind of strategical challenge that
> > doesn't exist in WEGO games.
>
> True, and totally, artificially unrealistic.
Yes, most games are, that's why we call them games.
> So now that the technology exists, simultaneous movement is the way
to
> go because it is more realistic with real life,
Only if you want a simulation.
> That is why Igo\usgo games are/should be things of the past.
No, no, no. Just because YOU prefer realistic simulations, you're
telling me that I shouldn't play the kind of games I like anymore?
Just because you prefer oranges, is that any reason why I should stop
eating bananas?
> Try playing Operation Crusader against a human opponent, and you
will
> see the difference.
I haven't heard of that one. Is it a proper wargame? I must check
that out.
> Most wargamers prefer to have a realistic historical simulation, as
well
> as a good strategic puzzle.
How do you know that? Do you know most wargamers personally? (sorry,
just trying to wind you up here ;-) )
> If better methods of simulating realism are
> available, why wouldn't you try them and see if you liked them
better?
Who said I wouldn't try them? Are they available? I'd be most
interested in trying them.
> If you think the concept of igo/ugo is better than wego in a
wargame, I am
> afraid that you are wrong.
I never said it was better, they're different kinds of games, they
each have their own pros and cons.
> Realism is better,
There you go again... Realism is better at simulating reality,
(which is a very worthwhile cause) but it's not necessarily better at
creating an enjoyable GAME. (stress the word necessarily).
> and the same "strategic puzzle" still exists in them.
No it doesn't, it may look the same, but the solution is different.
> > If the purpose of the game is simply to enjoy a good strategical
> > challenge, then realism isn't necessarily an issue.
>
> Are you refering to "Risk" as a wargame?
No.
>That and chess certainly fall into these categories of "good
stategical
> challenge" where "realism isn't necessarily an issue".
> But wargames to me has to have some realism and historical context
to it.
> Otherwise, it just isn't a wargame, just a strategical challenge
game,
> like Poker.
So let me see if I understand this, if realism is a necessary
prerequisite for a game to qualify as a wargame then what have I been
playing for the past 20 years? Panzer Blitz, ASL, Blitzkreig, Battle
of the Bulge, Third Reich, and countless other games by Avalon Hill
and SPI aren't actually wargames?
And all that time I thought I was a wargamer... Learn something new
every day. ;-)
> I think most wargamers believe historical realism IS an
> issue, when they play wargames.
Yes, I agree, it is an issue, but it's not the most important issue in
a GAME. The most important issue in a game is the game mechanics, the
user interface. You could have the most realistic wargame ever but if
it was a pig to play, how many people would bother to play it? The
bottom line is that most people play games for fun. I like a certain
amount of historical realism mixed in with my fun, but the fun is the
most important thing. Show me a totally realistic wargame which is
also fun to play and I'll gladly play it.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I've got nothing against realistic
games, I'm very keen to look at developments in that direction, but
they're not going to stop me enjoying the kind of games that I've
enjoyed for the past 20 years. It just annoys me when people try to
say that the traditional type of wargames are now redundant and should
be done away with in favour of more realistic games. Why can't they
exist side by side?
Paul
Joe Kussey
Paul Saunders wrote:
> The main crux of my argument is that "realism"is not the most
> important issue in a "game". If you want realism, you want a
> "simulation".
>
> I therefore humbly suggest that a distinction be made between a
> "wargame"
> (emphasis on game) and a "historical simulation".
>
> Joe Kussey <kus...@psn.net> wrote in message
> news:37A47108...@psn.net...
>
> > In a game with two minute turns, for example, movement should not be
> done
> > sequentially, as in igo\ugo games.
>
> Why not? It's just a game.
>
> > That just is not very realistic.
>
> I know, so?
snip....
Paul,
First of all, I hope I didn't come on too strong to your previous
arguements. It's just that I have been discussing this very issue with
some other stubborn gents, and it probably carried on to your post.
While you are correct in realizing that wargames are "games", I submit to
you some of the advertisement on the typical "wargame" box....For example,
I am looking at the East Front box from Talonsoft (I love dogging that
game), and see many such buzz words as "we make history", the "next
generation of War Gaming", "...puts you square in the middle of the
greatest struggle of the 20th Century...". These phrases, coupled with
the advertisements on the bulletin boards, and other boot-lickers of
Talonsoft suggest that this is more a historical simulation, one that
gives you the feeling of being there. It certainly does not suggest
"...this game does not represent actual warfare in any way except the
pieces have tanks on them", or "...the results you obtain do not represent
history in any fashion, except that we got the name of the warring
factions correct". In other words, Talonsoft DOES NOT tell anyone that
its product is merely an amusing version of warfare, not subject to any
realism or historical conventions.
Sorry if I seem so cynical about this subject, but if a company puts out a
"wargame", realism should be its main forte. Otherwise, gamers can play
checkers and other such games if they want a strategic challenge without
concern for realism. Strategy games and wargames are not necessarily the
same things, as you correctly point out. But when I buy a game expecting
realism, I expect to get it. If I want strategy without concern for
realism, I'll stick with Alpha Centauri.
As to your enjoying the "oldies but goodies" I can empathisize with you.
I also find myself playing older games. I am just suggesting that if
these games were designed in the WEGO fashion, they would likely be more
realistic. But they still are fun games irregardless.
Joe Kussey
Sean Emerson
permits
> players to view a replay. This means that the program has to keep
records,
> fairly detailed records in a large complex wargame, of what happened
during the
> execution phase.
>
> Technical question: Is this a difficult programming task? Is fear of
writing
> replay code a factor in the continuing popularity of sequential movement?
It _is_ a daunting task. It's also been done. See my WarGame Processor
home page. Let me know if there's any game modules you'd like to see.
Seán
The WarGame Processor:
http://www.transport.com/~semerson/wgp.html