Conflict of Heroes - first review is up

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Hi,

Wrote a couple of paragraphs of review stuff myself, but after having
read James Allen's review there's not much point in finishing it as I
agree with everything he writes - and he does it better :)

Review : http://www.outofeight.info/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear.html

… but just to stir up things a bit : everyone who buys this game and
then complains about it being “a boardgame on the computer” is an
idiot. That’s because “boardgame on a computer” is *exactly* as the
game is advertized.

I just love the solidity of the underlying boardgame mechanics, making
this easily the best tactical WW2 game out there. Yeah, for me this
game is way better than Combat Mission or Panzer Command, it’s even
better than Close Clombat, let alone Steel Panthers. And it’s just a
beer & pretzel boardgame really, nothing complicated.

The graphics could be better and the AI is just competent, nothing
more, but this is the best fun I’ve had with a digital wargame in
ages.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx



Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <cb96f9f7-a1ae-43ab-851d-
3379da...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> Wrote a couple of paragraphs of review stuff myself, but after having
> read James Allen's review there's not much point in finishing it as I
> agree with everything he writes - and he does it better :)
>
> Review : http://www.outofeight.info/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear.html
>

> ? but just to stir up things a bit : everyone who buys this game and
> then complains about it being ?a boardgame on the computer? is an
> idiot. That?s because ?boardgame on a computer? is *exactly* as the
> game is advertized.

Who cares? A better question would be, "Is Yet Another Boardgame
Simulator what PC gamers *wanted*?" If wanting real computer games
instead of paper boardgame simulators makes me an "idiot," then I
cheerfully put on my dunce cap.

> I just love the solidity of the underlying boardgame mechanics, making
> this easily the best tactical WW2 game out there. Yeah, for me this

> game is way better than Combat Mission or Panzer Command, it?s even
> better than Close Clombat, let alone Steel Panthers. And it?s just a

> beer & pretzel boardgame really, nothing complicated.

Yeah. Whew. Pushing counters and rolling dice is such a tactical rush.
It really gets my blood boiling when I get a "damage" result on
clickety-clicking.

The 3D counters are awesome, too.

> The graphics could be better and the AI is just competent, nothing

> more, but this is the best fun I?ve had with a digital wargame in
> ages.

TRANSLATION: "The AI is a digital retard, pretty much equivalent to
enemy counters just sitting there motionless, firing when a player unit
appears."

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We all know about 'undocumented workers.' Now we have Elizabeth
Warren, the undocumented Indian."
- Howie Carr

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 11:33, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <cb96f9f7-a1ae-43ab-851d-
> 3379dad4c...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > Wrote a couple of paragraphs of review stuff myself, but after having
> > read James Allen's review there's not much point in finishing it as I
> > agree with everything he writes - and he does it better :)
>

> > Review :http://www.outofeight.info/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear....

>
> > ? but just to stir up things a bit : everyone who buys this game and
> > then complains about it being ?a boardgame on the computer? is an
> > idiot. That?s because ?boardgame on a computer? is *exactly* as the
> > game is advertized.
>
> Who cares?  A better question would be, "Is Yet Another Boardgame
> Simulator what PC gamers *wanted*?"

Going by the overall positive reception the game is getting : yes.

> If wanting real computer games
> instead of paper boardgame simulators makes me an "idiot," then I
> cheerfully put on my dunce cap.

15 pc wargames got released this year, 14 of those got designed from
the ground up as pc wargames. How many of them are crap ? All but
one ? Am I close ?

Sure, this isn't the best tactical WW2 board wargame I can think of,
so the digital conversion of it isn't the ultra-uber-game either, but
I'm glad it's there and that it's a succes, so other developers may
get the clue that they stink at wargame design and better just code a
proper and proven paper design.

> > I just love the solidity of the underlying boardgame mechanics, making
> > this easily the best tactical WW2 game out there. Yeah, for me this
> > game is way better than Combat Mission or Panzer Command, it?s even
> > better than Close Clombat, let alone Steel Panthers. And it?s just a
> > beer & pretzel boardgame really, nothing complicated.
>
> Yeah.  Whew.  Pushing counters and rolling dice is such a tactical rush.

I observe that you basically avoid to counter the point that this beer
& pretzel design is simply better than those famous "from the ground-
up designed" pc wargames. Which isn't a surprise.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <d95760bb-af67-4f67-917e-35a4bedf37b2
@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Who cares?  A better question would be, "Is Yet Another Boardgame
> > Simulator what PC gamers *wanted*?"
>
> Going by the overall positive reception the game is getting : yes.

From who? They guys at "stuckonboardgamegeek.com"?

> > If wanting real computer games
> > instead of paper boardgame simulators makes me an "idiot," then I
> > cheerfully put on my dunce cap.
>
> 15 pc wargames got released this year, 14 of those got designed from
> the ground up as pc wargames. How many of them are crap ? All but
> one ? Am I close ?

I dunno. Show me your reviews.

> > Yeah.  Whew.  Pushing counters and rolling dice is such a tactical rush.
>
> I observe that you basically avoid to counter the point that this beer
> & pretzel design is simply better than those famous "from the ground-
> up designed" pc wargames. Which isn't a surprise.

What are you comparing it to? Specifically.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 12:52, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <d95760bb-af67-4f67-917e-35a4bedf37b2

> @f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > Who cares?  A better question would be, "Is Yet Another Boardgame
> > > Simulator what PC gamers *wanted*?"
>
> > Going by the overall positive reception the game is getting : yes.
>
> From who?  They guys at "stuckonboardgamegeek.com"?
>
> > > If wanting real computer games
> > > instead of paper boardgame simulators makes me an "idiot," then I
> > > cheerfully put on my dunce cap.
>
> > 15 pc wargames got released this year, 14 of those got designed from
> > the ground up as pc wargames. How many of them are crap ?  All but
> > one ? Am I close ?
>
> I dunno.  Show me your reviews.

I'm asking you because you bought SAI and Company of Heroes, but not
the other 13 that got released this year. Why not ? I guess for the
same reason as me : I took a 5-10 minute look at them and decided they
weren't worth my time, i.e. crap.

Which makes me curious why in Zeus' name you bought Company of Heroes
in the first place - so you could get some entertainment out of
blasting it to pieces because it delivers exactly as promised : a well-
known boardgame on the computer ?

> > > Yeah.  Whew.  Pushing counters and rolling dice is such a tactical rush.
>
> > I observe that you basically avoid to counter the point that this beer
> > & pretzel design is simply better than those famous "from the ground-
> > up designed" pc wargames. Which isn't a surprise.
>
> What are you comparing it to?  Specifically.

The games I listed in the text you snipped : Combat Mission, Panzer
Command, Steel Panthers, anything by HPS, Close Combat, Steel
Panthers.

Hmm. Maybe remove Close Combat from that list - that's also a fun
game.

Anyway, it's quiet telling that a game which in essence is just beer &
pretzels, and far from the best in breed in tactical WW2 board wargame
designs, is blowing esteemed from-the-ground-up-designed-as-a-computer
game wargames out of the water.

That's because it was designed by a proper wargame designer - not by
some clever coder who thinks he's a wargame designer too.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <535467e2-bf88-4e62-8a41-a441f8a82043
@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > I dunno.  Show me your reviews.
>
> I'm asking you because you bought SAI and Company of Heroes, but not
> the other 13 that got released this year. Why not ? I guess for the
> same reason as me : I took a 5-10 minute look at them and decided they
> weren't worth my time, i.e. crap.
>
> Which makes me curious why in Zeus' name you bought Company of Heroes
> in the first place - so you could get some entertainment out of
> blasting it to pieces because it delivers exactly as promised : a well-
> known boardgame on the computer ?

I bought it because you (and others) were touting this "modern"
boardgame stuff - like it was somehow awesomely better than the lousy
boardgame simulators of the past. I'm "blasting" it because I quickly
found it to be just the old wine in new bottles - the same old shit I
disliked about garbage like BATTLEGROUND XLVIII.

Hexes. Turns. Action points. Firepower factors. Dice rolling.
Counter-pushing. The same crap I was involved with playing SQUAD LEADER
in 1978.

I have no idea what's so "modern" about this.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 14:21, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <535467e2-bf88-4e62-8a41-a441f8a82043

> @em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > I dunno.  Show me your reviews.
>
> > I'm asking you because you bought SAI and Company of Heroes, but not
> > the other 13 that got released this year. Why not ? I guess for the
> > same reason as me : I took a 5-10 minute look at them and decided they
> > weren't worth my time, i.e. crap.
>
> > Which makes me curious why in Zeus' name you bought Company of Heroes
> > in the first place - so you could get some entertainment out of
> > blasting it to pieces because it delivers exactly as promised : a well-
> > known boardgame on the computer ?
>
> I bought it because you (and others) were touting this "modern"
> boardgame stuff - like it was somehow awesomely better than the lousy
> boardgame simulators of the past.  I'm "blasting" it because I quickly
> found it to be just the old wine in new bottles - the same old shit I
> disliked about garbage like BATTLEGROUND XLVIII.
>
> Hexes.  Turns.  Action points.  Firepower factors.  Dice rolling.
> Counter-pushing.  The same crap I was involved with playing SQUAD LEADER
> in 1978.
>
> I have no idea what's so "modern" about this.

Just a sec.

You can go back and check all my posts about it, but I *never* used
Conflict of Heroes as an example of a modern boardgame or one that
should be given a digital make-over.

275 board wargames got released in 2011 - the overwhelming majority of
them are of the same ol' seen-it-all-before type and maybe a dozen are
great innovative games, with a different - but intersecting - dozen
good candidates for a digital conversion.

What Conflict of Heroes did and does is give gamers a solid, yet light
WW2 tactical combat game without all the micro-management of the ASL
or the ATS systems.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1afaf41a-8288-4a47-a85e-302f8587d9e5
@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > I bought it because you (and others) were touting this "modern"
> > boardgame stuff - like it was somehow awesomely better than the lousy
> > boardgame simulators of the past.  I'm "blasting" it because I quickly
> > found it to be just the old wine in new bottles - the same old shit I
> > disliked about garbage like BATTLEGROUND XLVIII.
> >
> > Hexes.  Turns.  Action points.  Firepower factors.  Dice rolling.
> > Counter-pushing.  The same crap I was involved with playing SQUAD LEADER
> > in 1978.
> >
> > I have no idea what's so "modern" about this.
>
> Just a sec.
>
> You can go back and check all my posts about it, but I *never* used
> Conflict of Heroes as an example of a modern boardgame or one that
> should be given a digital make-over.
>
> 275 board wargames got released in 2011 - the overwhelming majority of
> them are of the same ol' seen-it-all-before type and maybe a dozen are
> great innovative games, with a different - but intersecting - dozen
> good candidates for a digital conversion.
>
> What Conflict of Heroes did and does is give gamers a solid, yet light
> WW2 tactical combat game without all the micro-management of the ASL
> or the ATS systems.

My apologies. I thought you guys said good things about COH.

Which raises the question; which boardgames - exactly - do you think
have been ported to awesome PC games?



--
Giftzwerg
***
"The real class warfare in this country isn't rich vs. poor, it's
government employees vs. we, the taxpayers, who pay their salaries."
- Ann Coulter

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 21 mei, 13:25, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1afaf41a-8288-4a47-a85e-302f8587d9e5

> @l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I bought it because you (and others) were touting this "modern"
> > > boardgame stuff - like it was somehow awesomely better than the lousy
> > > boardgame simulators of the past.  I'm "blasting" it because I quickly
> > > found it to be just the old wine in new bottles - the same old shit I
> > > disliked about garbage like BATTLEGROUND XLVIII.
>
> > > Hexes.  Turns.  Action points.  Firepower factors.  Dice rolling.
> > > Counter-pushing.  The same crap I was involved with playing SQUAD LEADER
> > > in 1978.
>
> > > I have no idea what's so "modern" about this.
>
> > Just a sec.
>
> > You can go back and check all my posts about it, but I *never* used
> > Conflict of Heroes as an example of a modern boardgame or one that
> > should be given a digital make-over.
>
> > 275 board wargames got released in 2011 - the overwhelming majority of
> > them are of the same ol' seen-it-all-before type and maybe a dozen are
> > great innovative games, with a different - but intersecting - dozen
> > good candidates for a digital conversion.
>
> > What Conflict of Heroes did and does is give gamers a solid, yet light
> > WW2 tactical combat game without all the micro-management of the ASL
> > or the ATS systems.
>
> My apologies.  I thought you guys said good things about COH.
>
> Which raises the question; which boardgames - exactly - do you think
> have been ported to awesome PC games?

On my iPad : Puerto Rico, Caylus (killer AI), Small World, Kingsburg,
Hive, Dominion.

On my pc : Race for the Galaxy, Brass (no AI though)

Oh, you meant wargames :)

Well, Hannibal : Rome vs Carthage was a graphical disaster, but
otherwise a fine port of the boardgame.

Empires in Arms is also pretty good as is Montjoie, though both
received very litte recognition. But War Plan Pacific was obviously
based on Victory in the Pacific and did get critical and popular
acclaim.

So, I'd say that given those examples, boardgame ports result in
better than average games. As expected given that the underlying game-
system at least works, which cannot be said of all pc wargames.

But there is a problem : that of picking the wrong game for a
conversion - World in Flames comes to mind - but I wouldn't have
picked Conflict of Heroes either.

Games that I would pick include Manoeuvre, Hammer of the Scots, ...
I've given this list dozen times before.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <b108cd9d-1198-4882-8af6-
5b3db1...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > My apologies.  I thought you guys said good things about COH.
> >
> > Which raises the question; which boardgames - exactly - do you think
> > have been ported to awesome PC games?
>
> On my iPad : Puerto Rico, Caylus (killer AI), Small World, Kingsburg,
> Hive, Dominion.
>
> On my pc : Race for the Galaxy, Brass (no AI though)
>
> Oh, you meant wargames :)
>
> Well, Hannibal : Rome vs Carthage was a graphical disaster, but
> otherwise a fine port of the boardgame.
>
> Empires in Arms is also pretty good as is Montjoie, though both
> received very litte recognition. But War Plan Pacific was obviously
> based on Victory in the Pacific and did get critical and popular
> acclaim.

WPP is the only one I have serious experience with, and I gave it a very
favorable review and played the heck out of it.

But it's still gamey as all heck, the AI is brain-dead, and overall it's
abstracted to the Nth degree. Do I like it? Absolutely.

> So, I'd say that given those examples, boardgame ports result in
> better than average games. As expected given that the underlying game-
> system at least works, which cannot be said of all pc wargames.

I dunno. That's a pretty skimpy slate of examples, in my book.

[jps]

I for one miss die rolling in computer games that are converted to PC.
Looking back at playing AH games the die roll part of the game really
was exciting to me because you knew what the possibilities were with
the CRT and so if you had a 1 in 6 chance of getting a DE on a big
attack, that was exciting. Whereas with a pc game, just sitting and
watching the computer resolve combat and apply the results is a let
down. Basically, with die rolling it felt like you were involved in
the combat phase whereas nowadays, you are just an observer. When (I
think) Strat-O-Matic put their baseball game out for the pc 20 years
ago they had an option that allowed you to roll the dice and input the
results. I liked that. It might not have been SOM but I remember a pc
port of a boardgame that allowed you to do that.................

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 22/05/2012 4:53 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<b108cd9d-1198-4882-8af6-
> 5b3db1...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>>> My apologies. I thought you guys said good things about COH.
>>>
>>> Which raises the question; which boardgames - exactly - do you think
>>> have been ported to awesome PC games?
>>
>> On my iPad : Puerto Rico, Caylus (killer AI), Small World, Kingsburg,
>> Hive, Dominion.
>>
>> On my pc : Race for the Galaxy, Brass (no AI though)
>>
>> Oh, you meant wargames :)
>>
>> Well, Hannibal : Rome vs Carthage was a graphical disaster, but
>> otherwise a fine port of the boardgame.
>>
>> Empires in Arms is also pretty good as is Montjoie, though both
>> received very litte recognition. But War Plan Pacific was obviously
>> based on Victory in the Pacific and did get critical and popular
>> acclaim.
>
> WPP is the only one I have serious experience with, and I gave it a very
> favorable review and played the heck out of it.
>

[snip]

Hang on, hang on... Victory in the Pacific & Empires in Arms are
"modern" board wargame designs? Those are 1970s games. None of the
others is even remotely a wargame. So the count of modern board
wargame ports to PC is so far conveniently at 0? Hahahahahaha. How
convenient.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jpeebd$efv$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> >> Empires in Arms is also pretty good as is Montjoie, though both
> >> received very litte recognition. But War Plan Pacific was obviously
> >> based on Victory in the Pacific and did get critical and popular
> >> acclaim.
> >
> > WPP is the only one I have serious experience with, and I gave it a very
> > favorable review and played the heck out of it.
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> Hang on, hang on... Victory in the Pacific & Empires in Arms are
> "modern" board wargame designs? Those are 1970s games. None of the
> others is even remotely a wargame. So the count of modern board
> wargame ports to PC is so far conveniently at 0? Hahahahahaha. How
> convenient.

Gotta agree. I'm still waiting on HEROES OF STALINGRAD, a game that
should shoot like lightning into my hands, given its a proven design.

Or not.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 21 mei, 20:53, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <b108cd9d-1198-4882-8af6-
> 5b3db12d1...@z19g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > My apologies.  I thought you guys said good things about COH.
>
> > > Which raises the question; which boardgames - exactly - do you think
> > > have been ported to awesome PC games?
>
> > On my iPad : Puerto Rico, Caylus (killer AI), Small World, Kingsburg,
> > Hive, Dominion.
>
> > On my pc : Race for the Galaxy, Brass (no AI though)
>
> > Oh, you meant wargames :)
>
> > Well, Hannibal : Rome vs Carthage was a graphical disaster, but
> > otherwise a fine port of the boardgame.
>
> > Empires in Arms is also pretty good as is Montjoie, though both
> > received very litte recognition. But War Plan Pacific was obviously
> > based on Victory in the Pacific and did get critical and popular
> > acclaim.
>
> WPP is the only one I have serious experience with, and I gave it a very
> favorable review and played the heck out of it.
>
> But it's still gamey as all heck, the AI is brain-dead, and overall it's
> abstracted to the Nth degree.  Do I like it?  Absolutely.
>
> > So, I'd say that given those examples, boardgame ports result in
> > better than average games. As expected given that the underlying game-
> > system at least works, which cannot be said of all pc wargames.
>
> I dunno.  That's a pretty skimpy slate of examples, in my book.

Uh ? - all my examples are above-average games. Unless you now can
come up with terrible, terrible boardgame ports I rest my case that
boardgame conversions result in good and occasionaly great games.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 21 mei, 23:57, jps <jpshe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I for one miss die rolling in computer games that are converted to PC.

Conflict of Heroes has this option, if you have a webcam, of letting
you roll the dice and incorporating the results back into the game :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <381f3dc2-ac95-4ecb-9cb5-71643b6d9d64
@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > > So, I'd say that given those examples, boardgame ports result in
> > > better than average games. As expected given that the underlying game-
> > > system at least works, which cannot be said of all pc wargames.
> >
> > I dunno.  That's a pretty skimpy slate of examples, in my book.
>
> Uh ? - all my examples are above-average games. Unless you now can
> come up with terrible, terrible boardgame ports I rest my case that
> boardgame conversions result in good and occasionaly great games.

But shouldn't there be a lot more of them? I mean, your argument is
essentially based on the idea that "proven boardgame designs" will mean
swift porting to the PC, no?

So why am I still waiting on HEROES OF STALINGRAD? Four friggin' years,
and this "proven design" hasn't managed to wander onto my PC?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 mei, 10:12, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <381f3dc2-ac95-4ecb-9cb5-71643b6d9d64

> @w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > > So, I'd say that given those examples, boardgame ports result in
> > > > better than average games. As expected given that the underlying game-
> > > > system at least works, which cannot be said of all pc wargames.
>
> > > I dunno.  That's a pretty skimpy slate of examples, in my book.
>
> > Uh ? - all my examples are above-average games. Unless you now can
> > come up with terrible, terrible boardgame ports I rest my case that
> > boardgame conversions result in good and occasionaly great games.
>
> But shouldn't there be a lot more of them?

Well, that's what my rants are all about - trying to get a bit more
developers to "see the light" with regard to this. I'm not saying the
likes of Arjuna or Viktor Reijkersz or Grigsby or the SSG boys should
start doing it this way, but the overall quality of pc wargames isn't
great, mostly because everyone who offers a half-working game to a
publisher will see it published - witness the likes of Supremacy at
Sea or Team Assault or Hearts of Iron - whereas in the boardgame
world, due to various factors like printing costs, publishers are very
wary of putting out untested, unplayable, un-fun turkeys.

I realize it's an uphill struggle because most developers insist on
doing it "their own thing" and if you just approach this as a hobby or
after-hours 2nd job that's just fine and dandy, but if you want to
make a living doing this and aren't an established name, your chances
of success will improve by going this route.

> I mean, your argument is
> essentially based on the idea that "proven boardgame designs" will mean
> swift porting to the PC, no?

That in addition to starting with a proven and market-approved design.

> So why am I still waiting on HEROES OF STALINGRAD?  Four friggin' years,

Because Mark Walker's company took off like an F-15 on afterburner and
there's more money to be made in the boardgame world ?

In case you hadn't noticed : boardgames are booming right now -
Conflict of Heroes, the boardgame, has sold tens of thousands of
copies. I saw it make it's debut at Essen a couple of years ago and it
flew of the shelves.

Meanwhile pc wargames are in a curious state where certain titles do
exceptionally well, while others sell abysmally low. Iain McNeil
talked to Mr Beretta and me about this - how publishing is really
becoming a case of hit or miss, with the middle tier of sales, the 5K
one, almost disappearing.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <7318a773-66c8-487b-bf61-8715117b8191
@em1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > So why am I still waiting on HEROES OF STALINGRAD?  Four friggin' years,
>
> Because Mark Walker's company took off like an F-15 on afterburner and
> there's more money to be made in the boardgame world ?

<laughter>

See below.

> In case you hadn't noticed : boardgames are booming right now -
> Conflict of Heroes, the boardgame, has sold tens of thousands of
> copies. I saw it make it's debut at Essen a couple of years ago and it
> flew of the shelves.

Computer game sales seem rather healthy, as well. I see where SKYRIM
generated 230,000 people playing online the first day of release. First
week, seven million sales. Five million online users currently.

A half-*billion* dollars in sales in seven days.

Oh, and it's not a boardgame. Couldn't be a boardgame.

Tell me again about boardgame sales?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 mei, 12:27, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Computer game sales seem rather healthy, as well.  I see where SKYRIM
> generated 230,000 people playing online the first day of release.  First
> week, seven million sales.      Five million online users currently.

So ?

40 million copies of Monopoly sold world-wide.

That number is just as meaningless as your Skyrim one.

Me, I'm comparing board wargames with their digital brethren.

Both Lock 'n Load and Academia Games started with 1 game a couple of
years ago, now they have a dozen in their portfolio (*) and are
expanding and branching out like crazy. Show me one (1) pc wargame
developer who's hiring full-time employees. Alan Emrich (VPG) hired
several this year alone.

I think it's pretty clear where the money is right now and it's no
coincidence Slitherine/Matrix are trying to get as many strategic
partnerships as possible going with these guys.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(*) he, look a footnote ! - full-time board wargame developers can get
2-3 games a year to market, whereas the ratio is the inverse for pc
wargames where a full-time developer needs 2-3 years to get a game
finished. Make your own calculations regarding the ROI

[Giftzwerg]

In article <51e6fd99-4aed-41e9-afd4-94dfff18b801
@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Computer game sales seem rather healthy, as well.  I see where SKYRIM
> > generated 230,000 people playing online the first day of release.  First
> > week, seven million sales.      Five million online users currently.
>
> So ?

So computer games are pretty hot sellers. Folks who produce computer
games are raking in billions of dollars.

> 40 million copies of Monopoly sold world-wide.

It did? In seven days? Cite?

> That number is just as meaningless as your Skyrim one.

My point is that people designing *computer* games - games that could
not exist except as computer games - really do seem to be making strides
in the marketplace. For heaven's sake, there was even an advertisement
for SKYRIM on network TV!

That one 30-second spot probably cost more than the combined salary of
every boardgame designer on the planet.

> Me, I'm comparing board wargames with their digital brethren.

I think we need to go further. In every other genre of gaming - FPS,
RPG, flight simulators, RTS titles, sports games, casual games -
designers have embraced the CPU and created games that are *not*
boardgames. And could not be boardgames.

And these games sell like hotcakes.

> Both Lock 'n Load and Academia Games started with 1 game a couple of
> years ago, now they have a dozen in their portfolio (*) and are
> expanding and branching out like crazy. Show me one (1) pc wargame
> developer who's hiring full-time employees. Alan Emrich (VPG) hired
> several this year alone.

Yes. Show me one PC wargame developer who's hiring full-time employees.
And the guys at Bethesda - who decided to build PC games instead of
boardgames - are billionaires.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 mei, 13:43, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> My point is that people designing *computer* games - games that could
> not exist except as computer games - really do seem to be making strides
> in the marketplace.  For heaven's sake, there was even an advertisement
> for SKYRIM on network TV!

Hasbro has been advertising on our network tv channels for years -
their slogan is "We're playing a game tonight !"

> That one 30-second spot probably cost more than the combined salary of
> every boardgame designer on the planet.

LOL - Designers like Richard Garfield, Donald Vaccarino, Alan Moon and
Rainer Knizia are millionaires. How many of the design code-slaves of
Skyrim are driving around in a Ferrari ?

Game making millions <> the designers of the game making millions

And all totally beside the point really because see the line below
this one.

> > Me, I'm comparing board wargames with their digital brethren.
>
> I think we need to go further.  In every other genre of gaming - FPS,
> RPG, flight simulators, RTS titles, sports games, casual games -
> designers have embraced the CPU and created games that are *not*
> boardgames.  And could not be boardgames.
>
> And these games sell like hotcakes.

BFTB sold a couple of thousand.

Here's the harsh truth : people don't buy games that are designed from
the ground up to be the pure wargames you and I like so much. Mostly
because the real command experience is scary and unfamiliar to them.
But moving soldiers on grid and rolling dice, heck, everyone has done
that as a kid while playing Risk.

> > Both Lock 'n Load and Academia Games started with 1 game a couple of
> > years ago, now they have a dozen in their portfolio (*) and are
> > expanding and branching out like crazy. Show me one (1) pc wargame
> > developer who's hiring full-time employees. Alan Emrich (VPG) hired
> > several this year alone.
>
> Yes.  Show me one PC wargame developer who's hiring full-time employees.
> And the guys at Bethesda - who decided to build PC games instead of
> boardgames - are billionaires.

Some day I'd like to visit that alternative reality world you live in
where full-bore wargames sell more than a couple of thousand units.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[dougb]

I saw Dave's post on the other thread - $1 million for a kickstarter project for a really good Eastern Front game that breaks from the constraints of board game mechanics. That's a pretty depressing figure, as I can't for the life of me imagine that there would be enough contributors to get close to that figure. And I figure Dave has a better idea than anybody of the costs involved in such a project.

My heart is with Gifty on this one - I'd love to see some more games like Command Ops and SAI. I absolutely agree that the capabilities of the pc should be leveraged, that command level sims are absolutely the way to go. That sims like that allow you to have your cake (sim detail) and eat it too (playable because you're not pushing hundreds of counters).

But my head agrees with Eddy - the economics likely are just not there in terms of a sufficient pool of demand to generate much in the way of titles like that. I'll enjoy more board war game simulators if the choice is between those and not much of anything. I can certainly understand those that are not satisifed with board war game simulators and why they choose to skip those games rather than settle for something less.

PC war games are a niche within a niche - the best I can hope for is every now and then a new SAI or a Command Ops will pop up.

Doug

[Andy]

On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 23:15:01 UTC+12, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:


> expanding and branching out like crazy. Show me one (1) pc wargame
> developer who's hiring full-time employees. Alan Emrich (VPG) hired
> several this year alone.

This is the same Alan Emrich who was responsible for the MOO3 travesty?

Emrich tried to harness the "power of the computer" and produced a mess. Perhaps that's pertinent to this discussion?

Andy

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 mei, 16:32, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> My heart is with Gifty on this one - I'd love to see some more games like Command Ops and SAI.  I absolutely agree that the capabilities of the pc should be leveraged, that command level sims are absolutely the way to go.  That sims like that allow you to have your cake (sim detail) and eat it too (playable because you're not pushing hundreds of counters).

Oh, I'd like to see those too - but it ain't going to happen with the
current crop of developers who're into Big is Beautiful.

A corps/army level East front game with C&C and no hexes can be done
if

- the map has no elevation levels and is restricted to clear, city,
lake, marshes, forest and mountains with a limited granularity.

- each side has a 100 units maximum, with a dozen or so HQ units

- orders are limited to move, defend, engage and assault which
determine how hard you're willing to push in a particular direction

- supply is abstracted, unit data is just a couple of factors, no FoW,
you let the AI cheat a bit to give it an edge, ...

In other words : keep things *really* ultra-simple and abstracted.

Now, I know that Arjuna is physically incapable of producing such a
game :) - he'd be in total agony because there would be about a 1000
things he'd design with lots more detail, but the basic game described
above can be done in 1 man/year for 75K

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 22 mei, 22:22, Andy <brit_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 May 2012 23:15:01 UTC+12, eddys...@hotmail.com  wrote:
> > expanding and branching out like crazy. Show me one (1) pc wargame
> > developer who's hiring full-time employees. Alan Emrich (VPG) hired
> > several this year alone.
>
> This is the same Alan Emrich who was responsible for the MOO3 travesty?

Yup, but he got canned/quit halfway through the MOO3 project, so I'd
say he takes only partial blame for that.

> Emrich tried to harness the "power of the computer" and produced a mess.  Perhaps that's pertinent to this discussion?

I dunno - even if he was the sole responsible for MOO3, that doesn't
take anything away from the success story that is Victory Point Games
which he started out of his living room.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Andy]

On Wednesday, 23 May 2012 18:21:24 UTC+12, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I dunno - even if he was the sole responsible for MOO3, that doesn't
> take anything away from the success story that is Victory Point Games
> which he started out of his living room.

I know Alan Emrich is quite successful in the boardgame world. What I was trying to get at was that when he attempted to "port over" to PC games, he was less successful.

I suspect it's a lot easier to tear up and start over some boardgame rules that aren't quite working out than it is to replace parts of a computer program that have already taken scores of hours to code.

If we start from the same point (developer has brilliant idea for a game), I'd argue that turning that idea into a boardgame is an order of magnitude easier than turning it into a PC game. Perhaps the numbers of GOOD new titles released in each category reflects this?

Andy

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 23 mei, 11:57, Andy <brit_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 May 2012 18:21:24 UTC+12, eddys...@hotmail.com  wrote:
> > I dunno - even if he was the sole responsible for MOO3, that doesn't
> > take anything away from the success story that is Victory Point Games
> > which he started out of his living room.
>
> I know Alan Emrich is quite successful in the boardgame world.  What I was trying to get at was that when he attempted to "port over" to PC games, he was less successful.

IIRC he was involved in MOO2 as well, which was a success, so maybe he
fubar'ed it but also maybe the money-men tied his hands behind his
back. Hard to tell really, but the simple fact that he started his own
publishing company where he calls the shots tells a lot imho. That's
not the reacion of someone who couldn't cut it, that's the reaction of
someone who got frustrated by the leash he was on.

> If we start from the same point (developer has brilliant idea for a game), I'd argue that turning that idea into a boardgame is an order of magnitude easier than turning it into a PC game.

Sure - you need to be talented in *both* game design and coding to
create a good pc game.

> Perhaps the numbers of GOOD new titles released in each category reflects this?

Absolute numbers as well as proportion of released titles actually.

Another reason, apart from the talent one, is that boardgames go
through a much more rigorous vetting process. There is a clear
distinction between designer and developer in the boardgame world
whereas in the pc wargame world that differentiation simply does not
exist.

The net result of this is quite visible - it's all those times you go
"WTF did they do it this way ???" UI and conceptual disasters you
encounter when playing a computer wargame.

Another reason : you take a semi-working alpha version of a computer
wargame to a publisher and it'll get published. Boardgame publishers
reject 90%+ of boardgame prototypes.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[jps]

Recently considering Kickstarter I thought I'd be willing to pay quite
a bit for someone to update Battles of Napoleon. That is my favorite
computer wargame of all time. What an exciting fun game that was. Here
we are 25 years later and I don't think any other pc game of the
period is nearly as good and fun as that game was.

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> A corps/army level East front game with C&C and no hexes can be done
> if
>
> - the map has no elevation levels and is restricted to clear, city,
> lake, marshes, forest and mountains with a limited granularity.

I somehow doubt that the exact number of terrain types is much of a
problem, but to be nice to the player it sounds reasonable to have as
few as possible, not having to memorize what the difference is between
3-4 different types of woods terrain.

Don't think elevation levels make sense on this level anyway. You are
not tracing LOS from one corps to the other much in that way. Sounds
like a reasonable abstraction.

> - each side has a 100 units maximum, with a dozen or so HQ units

This might or might not have a huge impact on development time. But as
a player it sounds like a very good idea to keep this limit, or lower.

> - orders are limited to move, defend, engage and assault which
> determine how hard you're willing to push in a particular direction

This is double-edged. More commands means more work on the GUI, but
might mean less work on the AI. Less commands could also be easier AI if
the game mechanics are abstracted as well. It definitely is something
that should be considered early, to avoid having a set of commands that
will be time-consuming to implement later.

In my java4k wargame I removed the ability to move+attack in the same
turn because I realised it added too much AI code to let the AI use that
feature within my tight size-budget.

> - supply is abstracted, unit data is just a couple of factors, no FoW,
> you let the AI cheat a bit to give it an edge, ...

I wouldn't let the AI cheat. Maybe spawn the enemy units at random
rather than waste CPU cycles on simulating them moving far behind the
front until they get there.

I would prefer the "cheat" mentioned above that you modify the rules to
make the game eaasier for the AI. Abstract out things that the player
can successfully micro-manage, but the AI can not. Anyway that is what I
would do.

> In other words : keep things *really* ultra-simple and abstracted.

I'd pay for this game, especially if the relatively low development cost
is reflected in the price asked from the customer. Let us know when it
is on kickstarter.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Evolution …

At the moment I’m the only one in my wargame circle who still
occasioanally will play a pc wargame. Why that is is pretty obvious.
Why would they play the 2012 version of Panzer General ? – they’ve
played that one back in the nineties. And why on earth would they play
a game that takes tens or even hundreds of hours to finish ? That’s
just crazy, they don’t want to play those games if that is the
required commitment, they want shorter games that are still crunchy
because that type of game fits the 2012 life-rhythm.

This demand for shorter and more intense games is being met in the
boardgame world – people don’t play a 10-hour Advanced Civilization
games anymore, they play a 4-hour Through the Ages or even a 30-minute
7 Wonders, it’s being met in the board wargame world where 4-6 hour
games have become the norm, and it’s being met in the tabletop
miniature world where skirmish type games like Saga and quick playing
rules like Black Powder, Flames of War or IABSM have supplanted the
ponderous all-day big battalions games.

Oh, sure, pc wargames have evolved as well, just not in the direction
I, or my wargame buddies, much care about.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Another reason, apart from the talent one, is that boardgames go
> through a much more rigorous vetting process. There is a clear
> distinction between designer and developer in the boardgame world
> whereas in the pc wargame world that differentiation simply does not
> exist.

I also think boardgames are easier to modify late in the process. I have
seen this as a boardgame playtester. It is easier to change a few
sentences of text than to recode a subsystem of a computer game. Of
course you need to have time for a lot of playtesting to make sure that
a change did not break anything, but that problem you have with the
computer game as well.

> The net result of this is quite visible - it's all those times you go
> "WTF did they do it this way ???" UI and conceptual disasters you
> encounter when playing a computer wargame.

To be fair it is much easier with a boardgame since everyone knows the
UI of dice and cards etc. There are still things that can go wrong, but
not on the epic scale of disasters that are possible on a computer
screen.

> Another reason : you take a semi-working alpha version of a computer
> wargame to a publisher and it'll get published. Boardgame publishers
> reject 90%+ of boardgame prototypes.

Is that 90%+ really for board WARgames? From boardgame design forums I
can tell that it is very difficult to get an abstract or euro or even
ameritrash game published, with lots of attempts to self-publish in
desperation, but I think it seems easier for wargames, either to find a
small publisher or end up on the P500 list of a bigger publisher (ok,
some games get stuck in P500 forever).

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 24 mei, 09:45, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:
>
> To be fair it is much easier with a boardgame since everyone knows the
> UI of dice and cards etc.

Who the heck is stopping pc wargame developers from using the same
known and familiar UI concepts ?

> > Another reason : you take a semi-working alpha version of a computer
> > wargame to a publisher and it'll get published. Boardgame publishers
> > reject 90%+ of boardgame prototypes.
>
> Is that 90%+ really for board WARgames? From boardgame design forums I
> can tell that it is very difficult to get an abstract or euro or even
> ameritrash game published, with lots of attempts to self-publish in
> desperation, but I think it seems easier for wargames, either to find a
> small publisher or end up on the P500 list of a bigger publisher (ok,
> some games get stuck in P500 forever).

In the previous issue of the French wargame magazine there was an
interview with designer Jim Krohn. From this article and other stuff
like it I gather that the hardest thing is getting your first game
published - took him over a decade - but it becomes a little easier
after you've taken that hurdle.

The number of published wargames grew 40% in 2011 - from close to 200
to 275 - so I guess that in a boom the chances of getting your design
published are somewhat better now than they were 10 years ago, but I
still see a lot of self-publishing or games getting printed on 200
copies i.e. vanity projects.

... and frankly, after seeing the abomination that is Pavia 1525
getting published, I'd say any half-decent design certainly has a good
chance these days.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Who the heck is stopping pc wargame developers from using the same
> known and familiar UI concepts ?

Computers have their own set of established UI concepts, there is no
need to simulate boardgame UI concepts when there are more
screen-friendly alternatives (eg to cards) or no need to include
something in the UI at all (eg dice rolling).

Also the table you play a boardgame on is huge compared to any computer
tablet/screen. There is plenty of room to see the entire map, tables,
piles of future reinforcements, the rulebook, etc, all within arm's
reach and in sight, not hidden in a popup dialog somewhere. It's a
completely different environment to build a UI for.

> The number of published wargames grew 40% in 2011 - from close to 200
> to 275 - so I guess that in a boom the chances of getting your design
> published are somewhat better now than they were 10 years ago, but I
> still see a lot of self-publishing or games getting printed on 200
> copies i.e. vanity projects.

Yes, VPG and a few other small companies probably helps a lot in making
it easier to find a publisher now than 10 years ago. I don't have much
experience of what it was like that long ago.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 24 mei, 10:52, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Who the heck is stopping pc wargame developers from using the same
> > known and familiar UI concepts ?
>
> Computers have their own set of established UI concepts, there is no
> need to simulate boardgame UI concepts when there are more
> screen-friendly alternatives (eg to cards)

Sure about this ? Cards are perfect as containers for various player
options and actions and playing a card or cycling through a card deck
is a concept that needs no explanation, they don't take up a lot of
screen space when stacked, etc.

What would you replace it with ?

> or no need to include
> something in the UI at all (eg dice rolling).

It's funny, but the reaction of people seeing they rolled snake-eyes
is a lot different from people getting a "your attack was
unsuccessfull" message.

> Also the table you play a boardgame on is huge compared to any computer
> tablet/screen. There is plenty of room to see the entire map, tables,
> piles of future reinforcements, the rulebook, etc, all within arm's
> reach and in sight, not hidden in a popup dialog somewhere. It's a
> completely different environment to build a UI for.

To a certain degree this is true, but I just need to take one look at
the convoluted way many pc wargame UI's are designed to make me prefer
the simple, almost boardgame like, "click a tab to open the
reinforcement/production screen" approach - i.e. show a different part
of the board if you like.

> > The number of published wargames grew 40% in 2011 - from close to 200
> > to 275 - so I guess that in a boom the chances of getting your design
> > published are somewhat better now than they were 10 years ago, but I
> > still see a lot of self-publishing or games getting printed on 200
> > copies i.e. vanity projects.
>
> Yes, VPG and a few other small companies probably helps a lot in making
> it easier to find a publisher now than 10 years ago. I don't have much
> experience of what it was like that long ago.

A quick query of the BGG database shows that back in 2000 about a 100
wargames got published. But I'm pretty sure that the number of people
trying their hand at a design also has increased since 2000, so I'm
not sure about it being easier or harder now.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 24 mei, 10:52, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> Sure about this ? Cards are perfect as containers for various player
> options and actions and playing a card or cycling through a card deck
> is a concept that needs no explanation, they don't take up a lot of
> screen space when stacked, etc.
>
> What would you replace it with ?

In some cases the use of cards is obviously due to production costs
rather than function, as in Fields of Fire (if they keep the terrain
areas in the digital version card-shaped rather than squares or
irregular areas/points I will cry; likewise if they visualise hills as a
stack of cards/tiles like in the card game).

When you have a deck of cards you draw from to resolve actions, like
again Fields of Fire (or Up Front, and many other games) the cards
contain a lot of information not relevant for the current action, and
the fact that drawn cards modify the probability of future success is
most often an unfortunate side-effect. This type of deck there is no use
to replicate in a game, so I hope there is no hint of its existance in
Fields of Fire.

Not sure when they would be very good, except when simulating a
particular boardgame. If you want to give the player 7 different actions
to choose from in his turn, surely there are often better ways? Maybe
mark them on the map, and/or as a row of icons somewhere... like the
ways you normally highlight available options to a user on a computer?
Or at least no need to shape them like cards, unless that by chance
happens to be what fits the game screen in the most optimal way.

> It's funny, but the reaction of people seeing they rolled snake-eyes
> is a lot different from people getting a "your attack was
> unsuccessfull" message.

I agree rolling well is great fun in a boardgame, but I never felt ANY
of that on the screen, and I heard that from others as well. Saying only
the result is enough (and preferably some animation).

A big difference is that in a boardgame you know all the mechanics and
have to calculate the target number, see all the possible outcomes in a
table etc. On the screen, at most, you know a target number.

The combination with physical dice and a webcam might work. :)

> To a certain degree this is true, but I just need to take one look at
> the convoluted way many pc wargame UI's are designed to make me prefer
> the simple, almost boardgame like, "click a tab to open the
> reinforcement/production screen" approach - i.e. show a different part
> of the board if you like.

I'd prefer if as much as possible, preferably everything, was rendered
in the same window without screen switches or dialog windows. A shortcut
key to switch between two screens is ok I guess (like switching to the
2d map view in a first-person shooter), but that is as far as I would
like to go (but lots of reinforcements in a long game might be difficult
to display without a separate screen, unfortunately).

Displaying information in the main window rather than separate (dialog)
windows has been the norm in all other genres of games, and most
applications (and in particular mobile apps) for at least the last 10
years. It's something boardgames are not good at either (unless you
think obscuring stacks with information markers is good), so an
opportunity to make good use of the new medium, instead of just
replicating boardgame components on the screen.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 24 mei, 12:00, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:
>
> When you have a deck of cards you draw from to resolve actions, like
> again Fields of Fire (or Up Front, and many other games) the cards
> contain a lot of information not relevant for the current action,

Depends on the game - but what I'm talking about is the concepts of
cards - rectangular boxes with various bits of information that can be
stacked in a staggered way - as a UI element. Concepts like "drawing a
card" or "buying a card" or "playing a card" are part of every gamer's
repertoire, they're familiar, so there's no need for new-fangled
alternative UI ideas.

> and
> the fact that drawn cards modify the probability of future success is
> most often an unfortunate side-effect.

uh, for me that's a feature - cards are scarce resources.

> Not sure when they would be very good, except when simulating a
> particular boardgame. If you want to give the player 7 different actions
> to choose from in his turn, surely there are often better ways?

Like what ?

> Maybe
> mark them on the map, and/or as a row of icons somewhere...

A row of icons is conceptually the same a row of tiny cards, usually
with the (card) text then put into the mouseover. If you're very
familiar with a game icons + mouseover text are fine, but when you
pick up a game again after several years your first fight is usually
with the interface, trying to find that stupid icon again you know is
there ... somewhere.

> like the
> ways you normally highlight available options to a user on a computer?
> Or at least no need to shape them like cards, unless that by chance
> happens to be what fits the game screen in the most optimal way.

What could fit a rectangular screen better than smaller rectangles ?

> > It's funny, but the reaction of people seeing they rolled snake-eyes
> > is a lot different from people getting a "your attack was
> > unsuccessfull" message.
>
> I agree rolling well is great fun in a boardgame, but I never felt ANY
> of that on the screen, and I heard that from others as well. Saying only
> the result is enough (and preferably some animation).
>
> A big difference is that in a boardgame you know all the mechanics and
> have to calculate the target number, see all the possible outcomes in a
> table etc. On the screen, at most, you know a target number.

Unless you're talking about a boardgame simulator, which was the case
here I thought.

> > To a certain degree this is true, but I just need to take one look at
> > the convoluted way many pc wargame UI's are designed to make me prefer
> > the simple, almost boardgame like, "click a tab to open the
> > reinforcement/production screen" approach - i.e. show a different part
> > of the board if you like.
>
> I'd prefer if as much as possible, preferably everything, was rendered
> in the same window without screen switches or dialog windows. A shortcut
> key to switch between two screens is ok I guess (like switching to the
> 2d map view in a first-person shooter), but that is as far as I would
> like to go (but lots of reinforcements in a long game might be difficult
> to display without a separate screen, unfortunately).
>
> Displaying information in the main window rather than separate (dialog)
> windows has been the norm in all other genres of games, and most
> applications (and in particular mobile apps) for at least the last 10
> years.

Who said dialog windows ? They're annoying. For me tabs are the
prefered way

> It's something boardgames are not good at either (unless you
> think obscuring stacks with information markers is good), so an
> opportunity to make good use of the new medium, instead of just
> replicating boardgame components on the screen.

When I say boardgame conversion I mean mechanics, oob, scenarios, map
- what I don't mean is that I want a unit to get an "opp fire" counter
on top of it after it has fired. Gray it out, give it a particular
border color, whatever. I thought that was pretty obvious really.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> On 24 mei, 12:00, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

>> the fact that drawn cards modify the probability of future success is
>> most often an unfortunate side-effect.
>
> uh, for me that's a feature - cards are scarce resources.

That depends on the game and what the cards are used for. When drawing a
card to generate a random number from 1 to n in Fields of Fire, I wonder
if the digital version will retain the differences in probability for
different numbers that you get because the deck size is not dividable by
all values of n used, or because cards have been drawn from the deck.

When cards are used to represent limited resources, that is
different. If you made a Ave Caesar simulator or similar I agree you
would have to simulate the deck being depleted.

>> Maybe
>> mark them on the map, and/or as a row of icons somewhere...
>
> A row of icons is conceptually the same a row of tiny cards, usually
> with the (card) text then put into the mouseover. If you're very
> familiar with a game icons + mouseover text are fine, but when you
> pick up a game again after several years your first fight is usually
> with the interface, trying to find that stupid icon again you know is
> there ... somewhere.

I hate the Win3.11-wargame UI style with tiny buttons along the top,
often at least two thirds of which are disabled at any given moment
anyway.

Was thinking more like the icons you get in the lower left corner in
Battle Academy (Mac version, never tried on iPad). There is never a
question what those do or how to use them and you only get the options
that are available in the current scenario.

> What could fit a rectangular screen better than smaller rectangles ?

That of course depends on all sorts of things.

> Who said dialog windows ? They're annoying. For me tabs are the
> prefered way

When the game brings up a window displaying future reinforcements or
something, obscuring 25-75 % of the map, and not let you play more until
you close that window... then you know it's just a typical computer
wargame you are dealing with (or for nostalgia you started some
non-wargame designed in 1991; I'm sure that design was recommended in
some Microsoft UI guideline ca 1990-1994).

> When I say boardgame conversion I mean mechanics, oob, scenarios, map
> - what I don't mean is that I want a unit to get an "opp fire" counter
> on top of it after it has fired. Gray it out, give it a particular
> border color, whatever. I thought that was pretty obvious really.

It is not obvious, for some reason. Lots (most?) of VASSAL modules are
designed with markers that look just like in the original game, even
though the engine perfecly well supports things like adding small
markers, text tags, or changing the graphics of counters to represent
state, which of course makes about a million times more sense on a
computer screen. Love to double-click stacks to peek below the status
markers. I would not be surprised if the default for boardgames ported
to tablets will be equally stupid. Good to hear someone is thinking of
doing something better.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 25 mei, 10:26, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On 24 mei, 12:00, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:
> >> the fact that drawn cards modify the probability of future success is
> >> most often an unfortunate side-effect.
>
> > uh, for me that's a feature - cards are scarce resources.
>
> That depends on the game and what the cards are used for. When drawing a
> card to generate a random number from 1 to n in Fields of Fire, I wonder
> if the digital version will retain the differences in probability for
> different numbers that you get because the deck size is not dividable by
> all values of n used, or because cards have been drawn from the deck.

Pretty trivial to program really - using actual, visual cards in this
case would be stupid.

I always talked about cards as "player picks option x over y" - when
we get into the territory of cards as random number generators it's
pretty obvious there are better ways

> When cards are used to represent limited resources, that is
> different.

Well, here you have the limitation of a written medium - I always
meant it that way.

> If you made a Ave Caesar simulator or similar I agree you
> would have to simulate the deck being depleted.
>
> >> Maybe
> >> mark them on the map, and/or as a row of icons somewhere...
>
> > A row of icons is conceptually the same a row of tiny cards, usually
> > with the (card) text then put into the mouseover. If you're very
> > familiar with a game icons + mouseover text are fine, but when you
> > pick up a game again after several years your first fight is usually
> > with the interface, trying to find that stupid icon again you know is
> > there ... somewhere.
>
> I hate the Win3.11-wargame UI style with tiny buttons along the top,
> often at least two thirds of which are disabled at any given moment
> anyway.
>
> Was thinking more like the icons you get in the lower left corner in
> Battle Academy (Mac version, never tried on iPad). There is never a
> question what those do or how to use them and you only get the options
> that are available in the current scenario.

Don't they look like small cards to you ? :)

> > When I say boardgame conversion I mean mechanics, oob, scenarios, map
> > - what I don't mean is that I want a unit to get an "opp fire" counter
> > on top of it after it has fired. Gray it out, give it a particular
> > border color, whatever. I thought that was pretty obvious really.
>
> It is not obvious, for some reason. Lots (most?) of VASSAL modules are
> designed with markers that look just like in the original game, even
> though the engine perfecly well supports things like adding small
> markers, text tags, or changing the graphics of counters to represent
> state, which of course makes about a million times more sense on a
> computer screen.

95% of the games I play are FTF, so I'm not so familiar with Vassal,
but I do agree that a lot of modules are less than stellar - not
helped of course by the Byzantine nature of Vassal itself.

> Love to double-click stacks to peek below the status
> markers. I would not be surprised if the default for boardgames ported
> to tablets will be equally stupid.

Vassal modules get made by boardgame players, boardgame ports get made
by people who are at least familiar with computer game concepts.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

>> Was thinking more like the icons you get in the lower left corner in
>> Battle Academy (Mac version, never tried on iPad). There is never a
>> question what those do or how to use them and you only get the options
>> that are available in the current scenario.
>
> Don't they look like small cards to you ? :)

Not much really, no.

http://www.slitherine.com/screens.php?pic=853

> Vassal modules get made by boardgame players, boardgame ports get made
> by people who are at least familiar with computer game concepts.

We'll see, I guess. I would have think most VASSAL module designers are
also familiar with computer games and able to think beyond stacks of
simulated cardboard markers. Like the rotating tanks in VASL. That is
one of the few exceptions I have seen.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 25 mei, 11:06, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> Was thinking more like the icons you get in the lower left corner in
> >> Battle Academy (Mac version, never tried on iPad). There is never a
> >> question what those do or how to use them and you only get the options
> >> that are available in the current scenario.
>
> > Don't they look like small cards to you ? :)
>
> Not much really, no.
>
> http://www.slitherine.com/screens.php?pic=853

Well, they act like a card and look (a bit) like a card ... so they
pass the duck test for me :)

> > Vassal modules get made by boardgame players, boardgame ports get made
> > by people who are at least familiar with computer game concepts.
>
> We'll see, I guess. I would have think most VASSAL module designers are
> also familiar with computer games and able to think beyond stacks of
> simulated cardboard markers. Like the rotating tanks in VASL. That is
> one of the few exceptions I have seen.

Well, my experience with boardgame ports is not so much Vassal but the
few wargames that actually got ported : Hannibal - Rome vs Carthage,
Empires in Arms, A Few Acres of Snow, Conflict of Heroes and War Plan
Pacific (borderline case) and with regular boardgames that got ported
to the digital platform - mostly the iPad - and even online-only
implementations like BSW.

As with everything, some implementations are bad, most are just
average/good, and some are brilliant. And it's to those brilliant ones
we must look for inspiration and guidance.

Take the iPad version of Puerto Rico - screen real estate is scarce if
your screen is 10 inch, so what they did was have expandable columns.
The regular size column just shows the option-icon - for those
familiar with the game - but expand it and you get all the details,
text. Another neat feature is how tiny specs of light in the doorways
represent x colonists in your buildings - bloody brilliant UI.

Maybe I just need to change my mantra to "port the mechanics, not the
visual implementation of boardgames"

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

"eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Well, they act like a card and look (a bit) like a card ... so they
> pass the duck test for me :)

Ugly ducklings perhaps.

> Take the iPad version of Puerto Rico - screen real estate is scarce if
> your screen is 10 inch, so what they did was have expandable columns.
> The regular size column just shows the option-icon - for those
> familiar with the game - but expand it and you get all the details,
> text. Another neat feature is how tiny specs of light in the doorways
> represent x colonists in your buildings - bloody brilliant UI.
>
> Maybe I just need to change my mantra to "port the mechanics, not the
> visual implementation of boardgames"

Then we would probably agree on more like 95 than only 90 percent. How
would that be more fun?

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 25 mei, 13:07, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> > Maybe I just need to change my mantra to "port the mechanics, not the
> > visual implementation of boardgames"
>
> Then we would probably agree on more like 95 than only 90 percent. How
> would that be more fun?

Good point :)

He, what about a political thread - that's even more fun ! :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Pelle Nilsson]

<ade...@inbox.com> writes:

> Still waiting for a monster wargame to be ported for shits and giggles.

This seemed like a lot of fun as a real boardgame (I only played for a
few minutes):

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/9190226#9190226

I think you need all players (8, in this particular game) in the same
room, for a long weekend or more, to make that work, not a tiny 10"
screen and trying to organize things online.

Maybe when we get good VR goggles we can pretend to be in a room with
other players with a huge map, and play online that way. The ultimate
boardgame simulator.

--
/Pelle

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 25 mei, 14:15, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>  Still waiting for a monster wargame to be ported for shits and giggles.

The cry to play a monster game also exists in my gamegroup.

In order to exorcise that demon once and for all I’m organizing a 24-
hour game day in mid-September at my place. My take on it is that if
certain individuals actually get to play one of those monster games
from back when, they’ll wake-up and realize what a Bad Idea it all
was. While they slowly die of boredom, the smart ones will be playing
lots of shorter games on the other table.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 25 mei, 14:22, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe when we get good VR goggles we can pretend to be in a room with
> other players with a huge map, and play online that way. The ultimate
> boardgame simulator.

I've no doubt we'll get to those given time, but in a rather strange
counter-reaction to all of this virtual gaming, reports show a 20-25%
increase in physical games getting sold (boardgames + cardgames) in
2011 and practically all conventions saw an increase in attendance.

Homo Sapiens is a social creature and the more technology removes
direct social contacts in the workplace and elsewhere, the more they
yearn for it in their leasure time.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 05:58:43 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 25 mei, 14:15, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Still waiting for a monster wargame to be ported for shits and giggles.
>
>The cry to play a monster game also exists in my gamegroup.

Want to buy a copy of SPI's "War in Europe", Eddy?

Hehehehehe!

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 16/05/2012 7:33 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<cb96f9f7-a1ae-43ab-851d-
> 3379da...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
> says...
>
>> Wrote a couple of paragraphs of review stuff myself, but after having
>> read James Allen's review there's not much point in finishing it as I
>> agree with everything he writes - and he does it better :)
>>
>> Review : http://www.outofeight.info/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear.html
>>
>> ? but just to stir up things a bit : everyone who buys this game and
>> then complains about it being ?a boardgame on the computer? is an
>> idiot. That?s because ?boardgame on a computer? is *exactly* as the
>> game is advertized.
>
> Who cares? A better question would be, "Is Yet Another Boardgame
> Simulator what PC gamers *wanted*?" If wanting real computer games
> instead of paper boardgame simulators makes me an "idiot," then I
> cheerfully put on my dunce cap.
>

[snip]

The first review of COH also seems to have been the last one as one
more unremarkable boardgame simulator recedes into the mists of well
deserved obscurity.

Stuckonboardgames is atwitter with speculation about what Curt
Schilling's video game venture's failure means for the production of ASL:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/807768/curt-schillings-video-game-venture-explodes-wha

Failed boardgame to PC translations don't just include the games, also
the players, producers (etc etc).

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com

[Giftzwerg]

In article <212272691359707652.21...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > Maybe when we get good VR goggles we can pretend to be in a room with
> > other players with a huge map, and play online that way. The ultimate
> > boardgame simulator.
>

> Nice map. Google are already working on the VR goggles thing, but it is
> unlikely to take off. The Holodeck is what you are looking for. :)

A Holodeck? And you guys are going to use it to play *boardgames*?

Yeah. Whew. Why would I waste my Holodeck time on a giant waterbed
covered only by a thin film of Wesson oil and the varsity cheerleading
squad from my high school, when I could be playing A FEW ACRES OF PAPER
COUNTERS.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The real class warfare in this country isn't rich vs. poor, it's
government employees vs. we, the taxpayers, who pay their salaries."
- Ann Coulter

[ERutins]

> The first review of COH also seems to have been the last one as one
> more unremarkable boardgame simulator recedes into the mists of well
> deserved obscurity.

I don't understand the hate here at all, but for the record there are a few reviews now:


Out of Eight PC Game Reviews (7/8 rating)
http://www.outofeight.info/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear.html
"Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! takes a solid board game foundation and creates a compelling computer wargame adaptation.... Conflict of Heroes benefits from the simplicity required for a board game, and the computer version is definitely approachable and appropriate for novices and veterans alike."

One Guy, Too Many Games (B+ rating)
Part I: http://www.oneguytoomanygames.com/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear.html
Part II: http://www.oneguytoomanygames.com/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear-pc.html
"The turn system in Conflict of Heroes shines in multiplayer since the back and forth action keeps the players engaged and not idle for long. Chat messages display in the log and also in large font at the top of the screen to get the player’s attention. Being able to engage a human instead of the AI should be a perk for those who play online more frequently than I do."

Net Wargaming Italia (8.8/10 rating)
http://www.netwargamingitalia.net/2012/recensione/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-the-bear-russia-1941-1942/

7iD Gaming (80% rating)
http://www.7idgaming.de/content.php?152-Matrix-Games-Conflict-of-Heroes-Awakening-the-Bear-REVIEW
"Eine Perle unter den Multiplayerspielen ist geboren." ("A pearl among multiplayer games is born.")

Real and Simulated Wars (A rating)
http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.de/2012/05/conflict-of-heroes-awakening-bear_20.html
"A bonafide, seamless port of an awesome board game with a tremendous amount of value added. Excellent artwork, professionally designed user interface and graphics, plenty of scenarios, a fully functional editor (your imagination is the limit) and a window to play this great game with anybody around the world. A great game made even better. Highly recommended."

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 30 mei, 04:04, ERutins <er...@matrixgames.com> wrote:
> > The first review of COH also seems to have been the last one as one
> > more unremarkable boardgame simulator recedes into the mists of well
> > deserved obscurity.
>
> I don't understand the hate here at all,

Well, me neither, but then again I'm playing the game whereas many
detractors haven't.

> but for the record there are a few reviews now:

Here's my review : it does what it sets out to do : to give you a
digital version of the smash-hit boardgame with both a build-in AI
opponent and easy access to hundreds of other players around the
world.

If you don't like the boardgame, don't bother - but if you do like the
boardgame, this is a no-brainer.

The one thing that needs improving is the AI

Score : 8/10

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[David]

I don't understand the hate either. I agree with Eddy's assessment. With better AI this would be an easy 9/10 game. The only thing I can think of is there may be a selection bias in this newsgroup where people that tend to read it have grown tired of any board game mechanics at all, since this is a PC game group instead of a board game group. I think if you ask a bunch of board gamers (like on Board Game Geek) what they think of the game you would get a more favorable response.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 30 mei, 09:10, David <singlem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand the hate either.  I agree with Eddy's assessment.  With better AI this would be an easy 9/10 game.  The only thing I can think of is there may be a selection bias in this newsgroup where people that tend to read it have grown tired of any board game mechanics at all, since this is a PC game group instead of a board game group.

The trouble is that true new pc wargames are few and far between - 1
or 2 each year - if we're lucky - with the remainder of the releases
being either re-do's of games we played years ago (Close Combat,
Panzer Corps, ...) or monster games or - and this is the sad part :
games where you'd wish the developer had taken some sound mechanics
from an existing boardgame instead of trying to re-invent the wheel
and coming up with a square one.

But the truely saddest part is when a free digital version of a
groundbreaking game like A Few Acres of Snow becomes available and
people rather spend 10 minutes bad-mouthing it in here, publicly
demonstrating they haven't got a clue, rather than actually trying it
out and then post about it.

> I think if you ask a bunch of board gamers (like on Board Game Geek) what they think of the game you would get a more favorable response.

They gripe about the AI too :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <bd9c5532-78c0-4406...@googlegroups.com>,
singl...@hotmail.com says...

>
> I don't understand the hate either. I agree with Eddy's assessment. With better AI this would be an easy 9/10 game. The only thing I can think of is there may be a selection bias in this newsgroup where people that tend to read it have grown tired of any board game mechanics at all, since this is a PC game group instead of a board game group. I think if you ask a bunch of board gamers (like on Board Game Geek) what they think of the game you would get a more
favorable response.

As if anyone can muster up enough passion to "hate" this forgettable
turkey.

And sure, you'll get a more favorable review of a boardgame simulator
from people who want boardgames. There are at least some of us out
there who've just plain had enough of boardgames. In 1972, a boardgame
was the closest we could come. In 2012, that's not true anymore.

And ... "better" AI? The AI in this game is so painfully brain-dead I'm
not sure it has any claim to "intelligence," artificial or otherwise.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <38fa8841-d5e3-442f...@googlegroups.com>,
er...@matrixgames.com says...

> > The first review of COH also seems to have been the last one as one
> > more unremarkable boardgame simulator recedes into the mists of well
> > deserved obscurity.
>
> I don't understand the hate here at all, but for the record there are a few reviews now:

For the record, I don't "hate" the thing, it's just that it's not a
computer game. It's a boardgame, right down to the slavish mimicking of
the the upside-down counters and the little rolling dice.

Just not what I'm looking for any longer.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 30 mei, 09:49, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> As if anyone can muster up enough passion to "hate" this forgettable
> turkey.

You started no one, not two, but three (3) threads about things you
didn't like about the game.

Looks pretty passionate to me.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <557e45da-08db-4a93-9e28-
0c6eda...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > As if anyone can muster up enough passion to "hate" this forgettable
> > turkey.
>
> You started no one, not two, but three (3) threads about things you
> didn't like about the game.
>
> Looks pretty passionate to me.

I've started not one, not two, but three threads so far about the
amazing Jetman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgdIE2t8QkM

... but that doesn't mean I want to have his babies or anything.

[David]

I agree the AI is terrible. I hope they can improve it to an acceptable level (not holding my breath). Its saving grace for me is it has a nice online service for playing against others. Since I have few opportunities to play actual board games this is a nice feature. My other complaints are mostly minor changes to the board game they made such as 3D LOS and the persistent activation system. If they're going to make a "board game simulator" I think they should've simulated the board game 100%.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <18b8ca44-e4d1-4d1c-97c3-e70e59303241
@x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> But the truely saddest part is when a free digital version of a
> groundbreaking game like A Few Acres of Snow becomes available and
> people rather spend 10 minutes bad-mouthing it in here, publicly
> demonstrating they haven't got a clue, rather than actually trying it
> out and then post about it.

<shrug>

Some of us don't want boardgames. Regardless of price. Regardless of
how "ground-breaking" they are. We don't care about whether we get
called "clueless" by boardgamers for not wanting boardgames and saying
so publicly in a group dedicated to computer games.

If playing a boardgame simulator earns us a "clue," then we don't want
one.

> > I think if you ask a bunch of board gamers (like on Board Game Geek) what they think of the game you would get a more favorable response.
>
> They gripe about the AI too :)

What AI?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 30 mei, 10:27, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <18b8ca44-e4d1-4d1c-97c3-e70e59303241

> @x21g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > But the truely saddest part is when a free digital version of a
> > groundbreaking game like A Few Acres of Snow becomes available and
> > people rather spend 10 minutes bad-mouthing it in here, publicly
> > demonstrating they haven't got a clue, rather than actually trying it
> > out and then post about it.
>
> <shrug>
>
> Some of us don't want boardgames.  Regardless of price.  Regardless of
> how "ground-breaking" they are.

Well, enjoy your new game - singular - each year.

And if that's all you need, that's fine, but if you like discovering
new wargame eras, new clever mechanics that make the history come
alive, new twists that make you bite your nails pondering over the
same questions the head honcho at the time was biting his nails about
than you better take a look at boardgames because you ain't getting
what you want in the stuffy ol' pc wargame world.

> We don't care about whether we get
> called "clueless" by boardgamers for not wanting boardgames and saying
> so publicly in a group dedicated to computer games.

A Few Acres of Snow is a computer wargame - a free one - the most
innovative to come along in years - and yet guys who say they're
totally into computer wargames refuse to even take a look at it
because it has some strange and unfamiliar mechanics. I guess some
people are just set in their ways.

> If playing a boardgame simulator earns us a "clue," then we don't want
> one.

I'll refrain from quoting Friedrich Schiller here.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <dd3c8396-00e3-468e-a7ea-2f5ec92e57c0@
6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > > But the truely saddest part is when a free digital version of a
> > > groundbreaking game like A Few Acres of Snow becomes available and
> > > people rather spend 10 minutes bad-mouthing it in here, publicly
> > > demonstrating they haven't got a clue, rather than actually trying it
> > > out and then post about it.
> >
> > <shrug>
> >
> > Some of us don't want boardgames.  Regardless of price.  Regardless of
> > how "ground-breaking" they are.
>
> Well, enjoy your new game - singular - each year.
>
> And if that's all you need, that's fine, but if you like discovering
> new wargame eras, new clever mechanics that make the history come
> alive, new twists that make you bite your nails pondering over the
> same questions the head honcho at the time was biting his nails about
> than you better take a look at boardgames because you ain't getting
> what you want in the stuffy ol' pc wargame world.

I just don't see it your way. The answer to bad boardgame simulators
isn't to make less-bad boardgame simulators; it's making computer games.

> > We don't care about whether we get
> > called "clueless" by boardgamers for not wanting boardgames and saying
> > so publicly in a group dedicated to computer games.
>
> A Few Acres of Snow is a computer wargame - a free one - the most
> innovative to come along in years - and yet guys who say they're
> totally into computer wargames refuse to even take a look at it
> because it has some strange and unfamiliar mechanics. I guess some
> people are just set in their ways.

It's not a computer game in my book, any more than the version of
Scrabble I play on my smartphone isn't a boardgame.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 30 mei, 12:41, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I just don't see it your way.  The answer to bad boardgame simulators
> isn't to make less-bad boardgame simulators; it's making computer games.

You're going to love Combat Leader - check out the specs I linked to
in the other thread.

Too bad you're never going to play that puppy as the specs say 5 man/
year full-time project to me, and he's doing this after hours.

> > > We don't care about whether we get
> > > called "clueless" by boardgamers for not wanting boardgames and saying
> > > so publicly in a group dedicated to computer games.
>
> > A Few Acres of Snow is a computer wargame - a free one - the most
> > innovative to come along in years - and yet guys who say they're
> > totally into computer wargames refuse to even take a look at it
> > because it has some strange and unfamiliar mechanics. I guess some
> > people are just set in their ways.
>
> It's not a computer game in my book, any more than the version of
> Scrabble I play on my smartphone isn't a boardgame.

Time for a thought experiment : say you never heard about the
boardgame and came across a computer wargame dealing with the Anglo-
French struggle for supremacy in North America from the late 17th to
the 18th century. A wargame which has command delay, supply &
transport problems, economic considerations, fur trade & piracy,
coureur-du-bois and native tribes that can be bought to join your
cause ... up to a point, militia & regulars, fortifications and
sieges, raids and so much more.

Would you at least take a look at it ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)]

On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:04:52 -0700 (PDT), ERutins <er...@matrixgames.com> wrote:

>
>> The first review of COH also seems to have been the last one as one
>> more unremarkable boardgame simulator recedes into the mists of well
>> deserved obscurity.
>
>I don't understand the hate here at all, but for the record there are a few reviews now:
>
>

Erik:
Have you never read any of Giftzwerg's posts on ANY topic?
"Hate" is what he does.
He does it quite well.
Sometimes, he even sways the opinions of other posters.
.
.
------------------------------------------------
Nice computers don't go down.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <406f34a4-0b84-4889-b9d3-b66dfc689560
@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > It's not a computer game in my book, any more than the version of
> > Scrabble I play on my smartphone isn't a boardgame.
>
> Time for a thought experiment : say you never heard about the
> boardgame and came across a computer wargame dealing with the Anglo-
> French struggle for supremacy in North America from the late 17th to
> the 18th century. A wargame which has command delay, supply &
> transport problems, economic considerations, fur trade & piracy,
> coureur-du-bois and native tribes that can be bought to join your
> cause ... up to a point, militia & regulars, fortifications and
> sieges, raids and so much more.
>
> Would you at least take a look at it ?

I have. First time you linked to it. It's just not what I'm looking
for.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 30 mei, 23:47, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <406f34a4-0b84-4889-b9d3-b66dfc689560

> @b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > It's not a computer game in my book, any more than the version of
> > > Scrabble I play on my smartphone isn't a boardgame.
>
> > Time for a thought experiment : say you never heard about the
> > boardgame and came across a computer wargame dealing with the Anglo-
> > French struggle for supremacy in North America from the late 17th to
> > the 18th century. A wargame which has command delay, supply &
> > transport problems, economic considerations, fur trade & piracy,
> > coureur-du-bois and native tribes that can be bought to join your
> > cause ... up to a point, militia & regulars, fortifications and
> > sieges, raids and so much more.
>
> > Would you at least take a look at it ?
>
> I have.  First time you linked to it.  It's just not what I'm looking
> for.

Then I guess you'r going to utterly dislike this one too :)

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=435700713120973&set=p.435700713120973&type=1&theater

The guy on the right is Martin Wallace, designer of A Few Acres of
Snow, and he's playing a prototype of a 2-player card-driven ACW
wargame tentatively called "Lincoln". I posted in here months ago that
this deck-building mechanic was just made for the ACW and here it is !
Chances are there's going to be a digital version of this one as well.

I'll try to reserve a playtest spot for this one @Essen so I can annoy
people in here some more with outragelously novel mechanics that just
aren't right in a proper pc wargame :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <64f51e1f-4cbd-4cc7-8ec6-
2af40c...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> The guy on the right is Martin Wallace, designer of A Few Acres of
> Snow, and he's playing a prototype of a 2-player card-driven ACW
> wargame tentatively called "Lincoln". I posted in here months ago that
> this deck-building mechanic was just made for the ACW and here it is !
> Chances are there's going to be a digital version of this one as well.
>
> I'll try to reserve a playtest spot for this one @Essen so I can annoy
> people in here some more with outragelously novel mechanics that just
> aren't right in a proper pc wargame :)

Deck-building. Ah. Really captures the flavor of the era. Many is the
time I saw early photographs of Bobby Lee furiously shuffling his deck
at Gettysburg.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 31 mei, 10:14, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <64f51e1f-4cbd-4cc7-8ec6-
> 2af40c34a...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > The guy on the right is Martin Wallace, designer of A Few Acres of
> > Snow, and he's playing a prototype of a 2-player card-driven ACW
> > wargame tentatively called "Lincoln". I posted in here months ago that
> > this deck-building mechanic was just made for the ACW and here it is !
> > Chances are there's going to be a digital version of this one as well.
>
> > I'll try to reserve a playtest spot for this one @Essen so I can annoy
> > people in here some more with outragelously novel mechanics that just
> > aren't right in a proper pc wargame :)
>
> Deck-building.  Ah.  Really captures the flavor of the era.  Many is the
> time I saw early photographs of Bobby Lee furiously shuffling his deck
> at Gettysburg.

Yeah, he should have played the Longstreet card - probably didn't draw
it in time.

Real generals don't care about the mechanics of their command - from
written notes given to a courier on horseback to orders given by
satelite radio.

And the only question wargamers should care about is whether you're
put in the shoes of said general or not.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <5e85ade9-a6c9-4f09-af3f-e659e2f6b0c5
@fr28g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > > I'll try to reserve a playtest spot for this one @Essen so I can annoy
> > > people in here some more with outragelously novel mechanics that just
> > > aren't right in a proper pc wargame :)
> >
> > Deck-building.  Ah.  Really captures the flavor of the era.  Many is the
> > time I saw early photographs of Bobby Lee furiously shuffling his deck
> > at Gettysburg.
>
> Yeah, he should have played the Longstreet card - probably didn't draw
> it in time.
>
> Real generals don't care about the mechanics of their command - from
> written notes given to a courier on horseback to orders given by
> satelite radio.
>
> And the only question wargamers should care about is whether you're
> put in the shoes of said general or not.

I'll cheerfully review any of these "proven boardgame designs which
result in awesome computer games." I thought CONFLICT OF HEROES was
such a thing ... but I guess not.

I mean, it *is* your argument that using these proven designs we're
getting shit-tons of great wargames, no? Po' dumb insists-on-computer-
game Giftzwerg is only gonna get a new game once in a blue moon - but
you guys are going to be rolling in epic boardgame simulators, right?

You already should be! Hasn't this argument gone on for several years?

So show me one. Proven board wargame design that went on to be amazing
computer wargame. Gotta have an AI, though.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 31 mei, 11:29, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll cheerfully review any of these "proven boardgame designs which
> result in awesome computer games."  I thought CONFLICT OF HEROES was
> such a thing ... but I guess not.

Check my posts - I *never* said Conflict of Heroes was a good
candidate for digital conversion in my eyes. And I gave plenty of
examples of games that I thought would make good digital games as
well.

> I mean, it *is* your argument that using these proven designs we're
> getting shit-tons of great wargames, no?

Proven designs AND picking the right kind of game. Before you mention
it : no, I don't think Lock 'n Load is a good choice as well. But it
can't be denied that tactical WW2 is still king of the hill in the
boardgame world so it comes as no surprise to me it's those games that
get picked over a less-known title which fits the medium better.

> Po' dumb insists-on-computer-
> game Giftzwerg is only gonna get a new game once in a blue moon - but
> you guys are going to be rolling in epic boardgame simulators, right?

I already am - I *love* my Caylus, Puerto Rico and Small World on my
iPad - not to mention Race for the Galaxy on my pc.

But in the wargame world : not yet - but given what got announced I
soon will

Strike of the Eagle (got the boardgame, think it'll convert well)
1812 : The Invasion of Canada (got a demo, don't think it'll convert
well)

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3186/interview-uwe-eickert-founder-of-academy-games

Battle of the Bulge
http://www.shenandoah-studio.com/battle-bulge/announcing-game/

Engage
Got demo-ed at GenCon 2011 so can't be far away

Manoevre
http://www.gmtgames.com/news.aspx?showarticle=195

Sekigahara
GMT January 2012 newsletter

Washington's War
http://ericleesmith.com/blog/our-games/

and so many others

> You already should be!  Hasn't this argument gone on for several years?

All of the above games were announced either this year or late last
year - it's pretty silly to blame me for seeing the opportunity before
developers/publishers take the jump.

> So show me one.  Proven board wargame design that went on to be amazing
> computer wargame.  Gotta have an AI, though.

http://matrixgames.com/products/388/details/Hannibal:.Rome.and.Carthage.in.the.Second.Punic.War

There's a demo for this which really shows the killer AI for this game
- too bad the graphics are crap. The AI is Panther Games level - no
kidding.

Another one is Empires in Arms - also from Matrix - I get ambushed
each year at the Crisis wargame convention by this guy who plays
nothing else - alone or computer multi-player with a fixed group of
friends - and he always grills me about variant 2.7.5 not being
completely implemented in the game or such other utter trivial thing,
but year after year he has to admit they keep playing the game.

Ask me again in a year or two though - these kind of games are only
now getting announced in numbers.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <2f3e04b0-a674-4e6d-becf-2e8aaa7d6740
@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > I'll cheerfully review any of these "proven boardgame designs which
> > result in awesome computer games."  I thought CONFLICT OF HEROES was
> > such a thing ... but I guess not.
>
> Check my posts - I *never* said Conflict of Heroes was a good
> candidate for digital conversion in my eyes. And I gave plenty of
> examples of games that I thought would make good digital games as
> well.

Fair enough.

> > I mean, it *is* your argument that using these proven designs we're
> > getting shit-tons of great wargames, no?
>
> Proven designs AND picking the right kind of game. Before you mention
> it : no, I don't think Lock 'n Load is a good choice as well. But it
> can't be denied that tactical WW2 is still king of the hill in the
> boardgame world so it comes as no surprise to me it's those games that
> get picked over a less-known title which fits the medium better.
>
> > Po' dumb insists-on-computer-
> > game Giftzwerg is only gonna get a new game once in a blue moon - but
> > you guys are going to be rolling in epic boardgame simulators, right?
>
> I already am - I *love* my Caylus, Puerto Rico and Small World on my
> iPad - not to mention Race for the Galaxy on my pc.
>
> But in the wargame world : not yet - but given what got announced I
> soon will

Ah. So these games will flood the market "real soon now?"

> > So show me one.  Proven board wargame design that went on to be amazing
> > computer wargame.  Gotta have an AI, though.
>
> http://matrixgames.com/products/388/details/Hannibal:.Rome.and.Carthage.in.the.Second.Punic.War
>
> There's a demo for this which really shows the killer AI for this game
> - too bad the graphics are crap. The AI is Panther Games level - no
> kidding.

I've had this game for some time. Not a bad one, but certainly nothing
that set my hair on fire.

> Another one is Empires in Arms - also from Matrix - I get ambushed
> each year at the Crisis wargame convention by this guy who plays
> nothing else - alone or computer multi-player with a fixed group of
> friends - and he always grills me about variant 2.7.5 not being
> completely implemented in the game or such other utter trivial thing,
> but year after year he has to admit they keep playing the game.

Bleagh. I didn't get past the reviews. No tutorial, vicious learning
curve, complex and confusing interface, no smaller scenarios - only one
big monstery one of 100+ turns. And phases, phases, phases, phases.

The whole thing seemed redolent of GUNS OF AUGUST - another title that
failed because of slavish devotion to all the evils of paper boardgames.

> Ask me again in a year or two though - these kind of games are only
> now getting announced in numbers.

So that's it? Two?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 31 mei, 13:27, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > But in the wargame world : not yet - but given what got announced I
> > soon will
>
> Ah.  So these games will flood the market "real soon now?"

<shrug> it took a couple of years for all announced regular boardgames
to appear on the iPad too so there's always 1-2 years between
announcement and actual game. Given that practically all wargame ports
were only announced in the last 12 months I'd say that we should see
some in 2012 and some more in 2013. If the trickle becomes a flood
remains anyone's guess but in the regular boardgame world people
aren't complaining because there's almost a new game every week.

> > Ask me again in a year or two though - these kind of games are only
> > now getting announced in numbers.
>
> So that's it?  Two?

I can only name 4-5 pc wargames in the past decade that started out as
boardgames and you think 40% of those having a really good AI is
somehow a bad percentage ?

That's about quadrupple the percentage pure-bred pc wargames manage to
get.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[David]

I'm not sure what boardgame Hannibal Rome and Carthage is based on. Is it based on this?

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10914/hannibal-rome-and-carthage-in-the-second-punic-war

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 31 mei, 20:53, David <singlem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure what boardgame Hannibal Rome and Carthage is based on.  Is it based on this?
>

> http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/10914/hannibal-rome-and-carthage-i...

Yup.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 30/05/2012 5:49 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<bd9c5532-78c0-4406...@googlegroups.com>,
> singl...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> I don't understand the hate either. I agree with Eddy's assessment. With better

[snip]

> favorable response.
>
> As if anyone can muster up enough passion to "hate" this forgettable
> turkey.
>
> And sure, you'll get a more favorable review of a boardgame simulator
> from people who want boardgames. There are at least some of us out
> there who've just plain had enough of boardgames. In 1972, a boardgame
> was the closest we could come. In 2012, that's not true anymore.
>
> And ... "better" AI? The AI in this game is so painfully brain-dead I'm
> not sure it has any claim to "intelligence," artificial or otherwise.
>

Likewise. Amused indifference from me, not hate.

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com | www.wargamedispatches.com

[Mike Kreuzer]

And it's no surprise that a torrent of examples failed to appear. Some
time soon, some sort of game will be ported. Any day now. An-y da-ay
nowwwwwww... Whatever. It's an amazing opportunity that for some
reason nobody's ever taken up. Sure, sure.

Any board wargame conversion that appears won't have been anointed as
"modern" enough, or "suitable" enough, or some other arbitrary BS
qualification enough. My prediction is the number of examples will sit
at precisely zero. Forever.

It's a pipedream of a theory that's beguiling to some in its abstract
form but rubbish when actually put into practice. Boardgame
conversions: the socialism of wargaming. <g>

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jqbmol$c3q$3...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

This is how I feel about CONFLICT OF HEROES. Rob Pollard said nice
things about this game, and Eddy said nice things about this game.
These are guys whose opinions I take *very* seriously. Neither of them,
on re-Googling, asserted that this game would make an awesome PC game
... but if not ... why are we recalling those opinions in a PC games
group?

Isn't the theory here that non-1970s, "modern" boardgames will make
excellent PC games? If not, what is the theory?

Exactly.

[Mike Kreuzer]

It seems to shrink every time it's examined. (Which is what she said...)

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jqekoc$852$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> > Isn't the theory here that non-1970s, "modern" boardgames will make
> > excellent PC games? If not, what is the theory?
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
>
> It seems to shrink every time it's examined. (Which is what she said...)

And didn't CONFLICT OF HEROES win The Prestigious Charles F. Roberts
Super-Atomic Awesome Wargame Of The Glorious Millennium Award?

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 3/06/2012 4:22 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<jqekoc$852$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
> says...
>
>>> Isn't the theory here that non-1970s, "modern" boardgames will make
>>> excellent PC games? If not, what is the theory?
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>
>> It seems to shrink every time it's examined. (Which is what she said...)
>
> And didn't CONFLICT OF HEROES win The Prestigious Charles F. Roberts
> Super-Atomic Awesome Wargame Of The Glorious Millennium Award?
>

I'm pretty sure right up until the moment it was disavowed it was
lauded. So much better than the crufty old ASL and all that.

The bottom line for me: If I wanted to play this boardgame, or any
boardgame on my PC I'd play the vassal version against a real human,
for free. I'm not playing this game not because I'm not able to but
because I don't want to.

[dougb]

I think that tactical board wargames probably make the least compelling translation to the pc. At the operational or strategic scale the conversions probably work quite a bit better. For instance I can't imagine wanting to play a direct conversion of a tactical flight combat board game on the pc. But a wargame based on the strategic air campaign converted from a board game to the pc would probably make for a reasonable game.

Doug.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <60478b36-c8d1-44e9...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...

>
> I think that tactical board wargames probably make the least compelling translation to the pc. At the operational or strategic scale the conversions probably work quite a bit better. For instance I can't imagine wanting to play a direct conversion of a tactical flight combat board game on the pc. But a wargame based on the strategic air campaign converted from a board game to the pc would probably make for a reasonable game.

Which one?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 3 jun, 00:51, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is how I feel about CONFLICT OF HEROES.  Rob Pollard said nice
> things about this game, and Eddy said nice things about this game.
> These are guys whose opinions I take *very* seriously.  Neither of them,
> on re-Googling, asserted that this game would make an awesome PC game
> ... but if not ... why are we recalling those opinions in a PC games
> group?
>
> Isn't the theory here that non-1970s, "modern" boardgames will make
> excellent PC games?  If not, what is the theory?
>
> Exactly.

That *some* modern boardgames would make excellent pc wargames.

Usually followed by half a dozen examples.

And that wannabe pc wargame developers could do worse than picking one
of those and porting it instead of programming their own half-baked
crummy designs.

I can't recall ever having stated something different, so I'm baffled
how this somehow got stuck in your mind as "all modern wargames are
soo triple-ultra-awesome excellent Arjuna and Grigsby et al need to
drop what they're doing and start converting stuff now !"

As someone who has witnessed and experienced the "euro" revolution in
boardgames, where contrary to most other types of entertainment the
exact opposite of dumbing things down happened, I am equally baffled
by the inability (or unwillingness) of pc wargame developers to take a
look over the hedge.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 3 jun, 08:22, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> And didn't CONFLICT OF HEROES win The Prestigious Charles F. Roberts
> Super-Atomic Awesome Wargame Of The Glorious Millennium Award?

Nope.

What made this game (and Lock 'n Load) significant is that they took
on ASL and ATS which had ruled the tactical WW2 wargame world for
decades and were the launch pad for 2 new publishers who're doing
rather well today.

I personally witnessed the launch of the game @Spiel and the buying
frenzy it created - people were hungry for a WW2 tactical wargame that
gave them a good game instead of the lifestyle commitment that is ASL

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 3 jun, 15:56, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I think that tactical board wargames probably make the least compelling translation to the pc.  At the operational or strategic scale the conversions probably  work quite a bit better.  For instance I can't imagine wanting to play a direct conversion of a tactical flight combat board game on the pc.  But a wargame based on the strategic air campaign converted from a board game to the pc would probably make for a reasonable game.

Exactly. But tactical games do work in particular cases - the digital
version of Command and Colours for instance has a *huge* player base
at the Wargameroom

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 3 jun, 17:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <60478b36-c8d1-44e9...@googlegroups.com>,
> douglasbrun...@rogers.com says...

>
>
>
> > I think that tactical board wargames probably make the least compelling translation to the pc.  At the operational or strategic scale the conversions probably  work quite a bit better.  For instance I can't imagine wanting to play a direct conversion of a tactical flight combat board game on the pc.  But a wargame based on the strategic air campaign converted from a board game to the pc would probably make for a reasonable game.
>
> Which one?

Let me take a shortcut here :

I'll post some games, links, and explanations as to why they'd work,
then you'll pooh-pooh them because they have "cards" or some other
insurmountable hurdle for you and that'll be it.

There. Saved us all some time.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <466bc248-e3c1-4b9c-9a2c-
4b9983...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > Isn't the theory here that non-1970s, "modern" boardgames will make
> > excellent PC games?  If not, what is the theory?
> >
> > Exactly.
>
> That *some* modern boardgames would make excellent pc wargames.
>
> Usually followed by half a dozen examples.

... of which only *two* aren't vaporware, one of those being the awful
EMPIRES IN ARMS - a game which richly illustrates my point of the crap
that typically results when all the compromises and pathologies of a
boardgame are simulated on a PC.

From James Allen's review:

"The reinforcement phase allows you to (surprise!) reinforce your
armies. However, unlike in the setup phase, you can't double-click to
add units (you must use the ?add units? button in the bottom left) and
the game doesn?t even tell you what kind of units are ready to be
deployed. If you try to advance the turn, the game will warn you that
you have unplaced reinforcements; however, I can?t seem to find them
(clicking on the reinforce buttons in the bottom left all say ?proper
factor type not present this turn?). This is yet another part of Empires
in Arms that is poorly designed and will confuse new players."

And this is an example of a "modern" boardgame that was well-suited for
the PC and demonstrates the excellence that ensues when the right
boardgame is developed for PC?!?! The rest of the review leaves nothing
to the imagination:

http://www.outofeight.info/2008/04/empires-in-arms-review.html

> And that wannabe pc wargame developers could do worse than picking one
> of those and porting it instead of programming their own half-baked
> crummy designs.

I'd rather have a half-baked crummy computer game than a half-baked
crummy boardgame simulator.

> I can't recall ever having stated something different, so I'm baffled
> how this somehow got stuck in your mind as "all modern wargames are
> soo triple-ultra-awesome excellent Arjuna and Grigsby et al need to
> drop what they're doing and start converting stuff now !"

Come now. You do talk up boardgames a lot; is it really so surprising
that some of us appear to have heard you?

> As someone who has witnessed and experienced the "euro" revolution in
> boardgames, where contrary to most other types of entertainment the
> exact opposite of dumbing things down happened, I am equally baffled
> by the inability (or unwillingness) of pc wargame developers to take a
> look over the hedge.

Speaking for myself, I don't want them to; I want computer games, not a
boardgame simulator that simulates a better sort of boardgame. And the
one thing I'll never get from a designer straight-porting a boardgame to
the PC is a computer game; the best I can hope for is a boardgame I can
play against a dumber-than-human opponent.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 jun, 14:09, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <466bc248-e3c1-4b9c-9a2c-
> 4b998356f...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> says...

>
>
> > That *some* modern boardgames would make excellent pc wargames.
>
> > Usually followed by half a dozen examples.
>
> ... of which only *two* aren't vaporware, one of those being the awful
> EMPIRES IN ARMS - a game which richly illustrates my point of the crap
> that typically results when all the compromises and pathologies of a
> boardgame are simulated on a PC.

Are you being stupid on purpose or what ?

Empires in Arms is 30 years old and *never* featured on *any* list I
ever gave of boardgames which would make excellent conversions.

I'm pretty fed up with this - gonna take a break

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[dougb]

Well I'm thinking of some future releases - Mark Simonitch's Caucasus Campaign being one that I think has a good prospect of success. But my point was more that I can imagine a game based on management of operational forces being a better candidate for conversion than tactical games.

At the moment though, you're right. There aren't really any shining examples to point to. Sadly in my favorite wargaming subject (Russian Front at corps/army level) there aren't any good original pc wargames either.

Doug

[Giftzwerg]

In article <030e55e5-fc0d-49cc-9ebb-b8eddffe02b7
@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > > I think that tactical board wargames probably make the least compelling translation to the pc.  At the operational or strategic scale the conversions probably  work quite a bit better.  For instance I can't imagine wanting to play a direct conversion of a tactical flight combat board game on the pc.  But a wargame based on the strategic air campaign converted from a board game to the pc would probably make for a reasonable game.
> >
> > Which one?
>
> Let me take a shortcut here :
>
> I'll post some games, links, and explanations as to why they'd work,
> then you'll pooh-pooh them because they have "cards" or some other
> insurmountable hurdle for you and that'll be it.

The problem isn't that boardgames need "cards" et al, but that when the
design is prepared for the PC, they *leave the cards in*.

This is why the example of STAR FLEET BATTLES and its highly successful
translation to the PC in STARFLEET COMMAND is so telling. Similarly,
I'm recalling the early Atomic efforts at producing BEYOND SQUAD LEADER
- they, too, understood the importance of stripping out compromises
necessary to shoe-horn WW2 infantry combat into a paper box.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <4e92e8c4-fc51-4af4-b534-ebbd81b1d6c4
@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

>
> On 4 jun, 14:09, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <466bc248-e3c1-4b9c-9a2c-
> > 4b998356f...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
> > says...
> >
> >
> > > That *some* modern boardgames would make excellent pc wargames.
> >
> > > Usually followed by half a dozen examples.
> >
> > ... of which only *two* aren't vaporware, one of those being the awful
> > EMPIRES IN ARMS - a game which richly illustrates my point of the crap
> > that typically results when all the compromises and pathologies of a
> > boardgame are simulated on a PC.
>
> Are you being stupid on purpose or what ?

Hmmm. I asked:

"So show me one. ï¿œProven board wargame design that went on to be amazing
computer wargame. ï¿œGotta have an AI, though."

And you responded:

"http://matrixgames.com/products/388/details/Hannibal:.Rome.and.Carthage

.in.the.Second.Punic.War

There's a demo for this which really shows the killer AI for this game
- too bad the graphics are crap. The AI is Panther Games level - no
kidding.

Another one is Empires in Arms - also from Matrix - I get ambushed
each year at the Crisis wargame convention by this guy who plays
nothing else - alone or computer multi-player with a fixed group of
friends - and he always grills me about variant 2.7.5 not being
completely implemented in the game or such other utter trivial thing,
but year after year he has to admit they keep playing the game."

I'm pretty sure when I ask for "proven wargame designs that went on to
be amazing computer wargames," and you respond with "another one is
Empires in Arms," it's not "stupid" to suggest that you're proposing
that game as an example.

What were you proposing?

> Empires in Arms is 30 years old and *never* featured on *any* list I
> ever gave of boardgames which would make excellent conversions.

See above.

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 5/06/2012 12:13 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<4e92e8c4-fc51-4af4-b534-ebbd81b1d6c4
> @cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>>
>> On 4 jun, 14:09, Giftzwerg<giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article<466bc248-e3c1-4b9c-9a2c-
>>> 4b998356f...@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com
>>> says...
>>>
>>>
>>>> That *some* modern boardgames would make excellent pc wargames.
>>>
>>>> Usually followed by half a dozen examples.
>>>
>>> ... of which only *two* aren't vaporware, one of those being the awful
>>> EMPIRES IN ARMS - a game which richly illustrates my point of the crap
>>> that typically results when all the compromises and pathologies of a
>>> boardgame are simulated on a PC.
>>
>> Are you being stupid on purpose or what ?
>
> Hmmm. I asked:
>

> "So show me one. Proven board wargame design that went on to be amazing
> computer wargame. Gotta have an AI, though."

>
> And you responded:
>
> "http://matrixgames.com/products/388/details/Hannibal:.Rome.and.Carthage
> .in.the.Second.Punic.War
>
> There's a demo for this which really shows the killer AI for this game
> - too bad the graphics are crap. The AI is Panther Games level - no
> kidding.
>
> Another one is Empires in Arms - also from Matrix - I get ambushed
> each year at the Crisis wargame convention by this guy who plays
> nothing else - alone or computer multi-player with a fixed group of
> friends - and he always grills me about variant 2.7.5 not being
> completely implemented in the game or such other utter trivial thing,
> but year after year he has to admit they keep playing the game."
>
> I'm pretty sure when I ask for "proven wargame designs that went on to
> be amazing computer wargames," and you respond with "another one is
> Empires in Arms," it's not "stupid" to suggest that you're proposing
> that game as an example.
>
> What were you proposing?
>
>> Empires in Arms is 30 years old and *never* featured on *any* list I
>> ever gave of boardgames which would make excellent conversions.
>
> See above.
>
>

Game, set, & match.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jqj75h$jhh$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

But the central issue is still whether there are examples of straight-
ported "proven boardgames designs" which have become awesome *computer*
games. I would argue the inverse; to the extent that proven boardgame
designs have formed the basis for awesome computer games, it's only
because the designers wisely ripped out every pathology of the boardgame
in turning the game into a PC game.

In another lifetime, it now seems, I participated in the flame wars
about Avalon Hill licensing SQUAD LEADER to Atomic. I've forgotten the
particulars, and would probably get everything wrong in the re-telling,
but suffice to say I was one of the idiots calling for a straight-port
of SL, incorporating every sad, silly, unnecessary boardgaming
convention into the computer version.

Huge mistake. Although the eventual product that emerged - CLOSE COMBAT
- had (and *has*) some fairly obvious flaws, the design team did manage
to strip away the mind-numbingly stultified boardgaming rules and
produce a proper computer game. Not the one I wanted, to be sure, but
recognizably a proper computer game.

Even today, the contrast between this nearly 20-year-old game and a
"modern" boardgame simulator like CONFLICT OF HEROES is ridiculous.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <86915112360592329.64...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > Even today, the contrast between this nearly 20-year-old game and a
> > "modern" boardgame simulator like CONFLICT OF HEROES is ridiculous.
>

> Why not do both.
>
> The developers if retro updates on the consoles usually include the
> original game as well as their version of the game in the remake. Thus
> wargames can copy that system by including a straight port of the
> boardgames, warts and all, as well as a computer reimagining of said
> wargame, making full use of all the advantages that the format accords.

Hmmm. You mean the developers of STARFLEET COMMAND should have provided
a straight-port version of STAR FLEET BATTLES - including all the forms
to fill out - with the computer version?

That seems almost a surreal duplication of effort.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 jun, 15:58, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Well I'm thinking of some future releases - Mark Simonitch's Caucasus Campaign being one that I think has a good prospect of success.  But my point was more that I can imagine a game based on management of operational forces being a better candidate for conversion than tactical games.

Strategic level games even more - I just posted a link to the pre-
order for Twilight Struggle on the pc - yeah, it uses cards so if they
give you hives stay well clear, but if you reckon that this is the #1
game on BGG in the categories overall game, wargame and strategic
game, I guess they did something right.

> At the moment though, you're right.  There aren't really any shining examples to point to.  Sadly in my favorite wargaming subject (Russian Front at corps/army level) there aren't any good original pc wargames either.

The GMT version of No Retreat got a very nice review in the latest
issue of the Vae Victis magazine - maybe it'll attract the attention
of a pc wargame developer who knows his limitations.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 jun, 16:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <4e92e8c4-fc51-4af4-b534-ebbd81b1d6c4
> @cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...


> Hmmm.  I asked:
>
> "So show me one. Proven board wargame design that went on to be amazing
> computer wargame. Gotta have an AI, though."

>
> And you responded:
>
> "http://matrixgames.com/products/388/details/Hannibal:.Rome.and.Carthage
> .in.the.Second.Punic.War
>
> There's a demo for this which really shows the killer AI for this game
> - too bad the graphics are crap. The AI is Panther Games level - no
> kidding.
>
> Another one is Empires in Arms - also from Matrix - I get ambushed
> each year at the Crisis wargame convention by this guy who plays
> nothing else - alone or computer multi-player with a fixed group of
> friends - and he always grills me about variant 2.7.5 not being
> completely implemented in the game or such other utter trivial thing,
> but year after year he has to admit they keep playing the game."
>
> I'm pretty sure when I ask for "proven wargame designs that went on to
> be amazing computer wargames," and you respond with "another one is
> Empires in Arms," it's not "stupid" to suggest that you're proposing
> that game as an example.

You asked for existing ports that turned out to be good games. Empires
in Arms fits that criterium because boardgamers who're nuts about this
game like the digital implementation of it, not because I personally
like this game because I don't. The rulebook is like 100 pages of tiny
condensed text and is ultra-complicated - does this sound like a game
I'd play or put on a list of "needs digital conversion" ?

If I were to put a strategic level Napoleonic game on my list it would
be Napoleonic Wars

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/3409/the-napoleonic-wars

from the game's blurb :

"In The Napoleonic Wars, GMT Games brings you a fast-paced, tension-
filled, card-driven wargame with a point-to-point movement system that
pushes the envelope in a new direction for a pivotal period of
history. Rooted soundly in Mark Herman's award-winning We The People
system, The Napoleonic Wars provides refinements that allow two-to-
five players to play an exciting game requiring two to ten hours. The
majority of your games will easily end in a single evening, thanks to
sudden death victory conditions providing variable game lengths that
eliminate the "end of the world" phenomenon that plague many games.
Often, you'll set 'em up and knock 'em down twice a night, and once in
a great while your Campaign game will require two nights of play for
the terrific panoramic history to unfold before your eyes."

That's the kind of game I play not

(blurb from Empires in Arms)

"A game covering the major elements of diplomacy and warfare during
the Napoleonic Wars of 1805-1815. Each player is absolute monarch of
one of the major powers(England, France, Austria, Russia, Prussia,
Spain and Turkey). The full game lasts 132 turns 1 for each month
approx playing time is 100-150 hours."

Which is a game for nutcases.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/254/empires-in-arms

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <9242ee02-fc12-4c7c-b2eb-3da88b99dbd1
@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > I'm pretty sure when I ask for "proven wargame designs that went on to
> > be amazing computer wargames," and you respond with "another one is
> > Empires in Arms," it's not "stupid" to suggest that you're proposing
> > that game as an example.
>
> You asked for existing ports that turned out to be good games. Empires
> in Arms fits that criterium because boardgamers who're nuts about this
> game like the digital implementation of it, not because I personally
> like this game because I don't. The rulebook is like 100 pages of tiny
> condensed text and is ultra-complicated - does this sound like a game
> I'd play or put on a list of "needs digital conversion" ?

My suspicion, though, is that very few wargamers who didn't play the
boardgame - or play only computer games - would consider this game to be
a good one.

Sure, guys who liked the boardgame think the faithful-to-the-paper
version is great, but this would be true even for a straight-ported
version of ASL - replete with every tome of the rulebook and
idiosyncrasy of the counterset.

Heck, I myself would buy a PC version of PANZERBLITZ on the day it came
out - even if the "panzerbush" rules were baked in.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 jun, 09:35, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <9242ee02-fc12-4c7c-b2eb-3da88b99dbd1

> @v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > I'm pretty sure when I ask for "proven wargame designs that went on to
> > > be amazing computer wargames," and you respond with "another one is
> > > Empires in Arms," it's not "stupid" to suggest that you're proposing
> > > that game as an example.
>
> > You asked for existing ports that turned out to be good games. Empires
> > in Arms fits that criterium because boardgamers who're nuts about this
> > game like the digital implementation of it, not because I personally
> > like this game because I don't. The rulebook is like 100 pages of tiny
> > condensed text and is ultra-complicated - does this sound like a game
> > I'd play or put on a list of "needs digital conversion" ?
>
> My suspicion, though, is that very few wargamers who didn't play the
> boardgame - or play only computer games - would consider this game to be
> a good one.

Good as in enjoyable to play or good as in does what it advertizes to
do ?

The former I agree, I don't find this game, even this type of game,
enjoyable at all - I've dabbled enough with the pc version to know
that - but from the evidence I have the pc version was well-liked by
those ultra-grog players of the boardgame and judged as such it is
"good".

It's also ranked #83 in the wargame list @BGG so it'll be hard to
dispute that the base-game is good ... for its intended audience.

> Sure, guys who liked the boardgame think the faithful-to-the-paper
> version is great, but this would be true even for a straight-ported
> version of ASL - replete with every tome of the rulebook and
> idiosyncrasy of the counterset.
>
> Heck, I myself would buy a PC version of PANZERBLITZ on the day it came
> out - even if the "panzerbush" rules were baked in.

Fans will be fans - why else have a "Doom - the movie" ?

Contrary to what you think I don't consider every modern boardgame,
not even every modern boardgame I like, a good candidate for digital
conversion, but some are really crying out for a digital treatment
because it could be done relatively cheap and produce a result 2 steps
above the cookie-cutter crap and re-do's of 1995 games we're subjected
to today.

Some modern solitaire wargames for instance - there would be no need
for a costly AI, just program the build-in rules. Graphics etc. : copy
& paste and done.

What games am I thinking of ? Well games like the Field Commander
Napoleon from DVG or Steel Wolves from Compass Games.

Also theme-wise these would make a refreshing change from yet another
WW2 tactical combat games we get bombarded with.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx