wargames and realism
Eddy Sterckx
with me putting together the "what's up doc" list of wargames in
development. Some games in development didn't make that list - the most
prominent example of this is the upcoming Axis & Allies game by Atari.
It seems to me that what we (or at least I) define as a wargame is
becoming a moving target. A game like Blitzkrieg would be called a very
realistic wargame if it were released in 1990, but not so when it was
released a couple of years ago.
This thing never happened in board-wargames. Say that a boardgame along
the lines of Tactics II were to be released today - nobody would hesitate
to call that a wargame - a simple one for sure, but still a wargame.
This isn't the case with computer wargames where the bar for it to be
called a wargame is set higher every year - cfr. the Blitzkrieg thread.
The major deciding factor/element seems to be the "realism" factor.
My feelings about this are a bit ambivalent : I've seen the flight
simulator genre getting killed by this relentless search for realism, but
I do like my games to be realistic yet fun i.e. no tedious bookkeeping.
The fact that more and more wargames get picked up by the military
(Yesterday's announcement that Uncommon Valor is going to be used by the
Australian military is just the newest) is a double edged sword. It shows
the wargaming community how "good" the current crop of wargames is, but
at the same time it might scare a lot of people away because
games are becoming painfully realistic and forget about the fun factor.
In short : are wargaming companies going to repeat the mistakes made by
the flight sim companies ? Are the wargame companies going to be driven
ever further in search of more realism by what might be only a very vocal
minority ?
A look at the list I've made tells me that this isn't the case yet - a
good mix of simple and very complex wargames are in development, but for
this healthy mix to continue I think that I at least will be more relaxed
in what I call a wargame. Axis & Allies will make it in the next
iteration of the "what's up doc" list.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Eddy Sterckx
news:33icf0hvikdu5kaoc...@4ax.com:
> On 15 Jul 2004 08:15:04 GMT the great cry-baby, Eddy Sterckx gave
> a whiny-assed opinion on, "wargames and realism",
>
>> A game like Blitzkrieg would be called a very
>>realistic wargame if it were released in 1990
>
> Sorry not even in 1990 would it be called a wargame.
I was around in 1990 - a game like Blitzkrieg would have been called a
very realistic Squad Leader conversion imho.
> Taken from the FAQ for this NG:
Written in stone, so it must be true - right - for all eternity - right ?
All kidding aside I don't think it's very sensible to deride the latest
crop of good RTS games as being "no real wargames". I think it's a bit
snobbish looking down on them and saying that they're just for kids, that
they're just clickfests and require no thinking at all. Rome : Total War
anyone ?
Blitzkrieg rewards good/realistic military tactics and punishes bad ones
- shouldn't that be regarded a wargame ?
The days of the RTS clickfests and tank rushes is over and the RTS genre
is moving to a thinking man's game genre. Lightweight on the realism :
yes, but not more so than a game of Tactics II. And that is a wargame -
right ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Henri Arsenault
Old77...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> With this one can recreate any battle from history, or
>any battle that could have or might have been fought. The
>outcome will depend on many factors, including, but not limited
>to: Any bias the game designer incorporated into the game, the
>accuracy of the data used, the battle plan used by a player, the
>level of ability of the player, etc, etc.
>
I don't disagree without your posting, but it avoids the nub of one
question which pops up more and more, the issue of realism.
More and more we see people here discounting a game as a historical
wargame because of one or more unrealistic aspects.For example some here
discount Blitzkrieg (which I haven't played) as not fitting for this forum
because soldiers can destroy tanks with rifles and grenades.
Assuming that description is valid, it raises the question of where is the
limit? All wargames are more or less unrealistic, granted that some are
more realistic than others. Is Tacops unrealistic because the
all-important element of morale is totally absent? (Most would agree that
the answer is no). Why should some unrealistic aspects be more important
than others, and how unrealistic does a game have to be before it is
considered non-historical for this forum? Even the wargames used by the
military for training make no claim to be fully realistic: their purpose
is to simulate CERTAIN aspects of warfare for training purposes.
My own view is that as long as a wargame is broadly historical, it is a
valid candidate for this forum. So this would include not only games like
Blitzkrieg and Medal of Honor, but games like Civ 3 Conquests and Total
War.
And having more games to discuss might decrease the noise level of
mindless flamefests into which I must admit I have unwisely participated
recently with the unrealistic hope that I could shed some light on the
controversial subjects being "discussed" (and I use the term loosely)...
Opinions welcome.
Henri
Eddy Sterckx
news:arseno-1507...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca:
> More and more we see people here discounting a game as a historical
> wargame because of one or more unrealistic aspects.
I've been guilty of this as well, but repenting :)
> Assuming that description is valid, it raises the question of where is
> the limit? All wargames are more or less unrealistic, granted that
> some are more realistic than others. Is Tacops unrealistic because the
> all-important element of morale is totally absent? (Most would agree
> that the answer is no). Why should some unrealistic aspects be more
> important than others, and how unrealistic does a game have to be
> before it is considered non-historical for this forum? Even the
> wargames used by the military for training make no claim to be fully
> realistic: their purpose is to simulate CERTAIN aspects of warfare for
> training purposes.
You pinpointed my concerns exactly : where do we draw the "realistic thus
wargame / unrealistic thus not" line. And how do we determine what
aspects of reality count in the realism stakes ? Not to mention : is
realism such A Good Thing (tm) in wargames ? Some of the best games out
there are not really realistic in one aspect or the other.
> My own view is that as long as a wargame is broadly historical, it is
> a valid candidate for this forum. So this would include not only games
> like Blitzkrieg and Medal of Honor, but games like Civ 3 Conquests and
> Total War.
"broadly historical" could be a good yardstick. I tend to agree with your
view on this - I wouldn't have a couple of years ago, but things change.
> And having more games to discuss might decrease the noise level of
> mindless flamefests into which I must admit I have unwisely
> participated recently with the unrealistic hope that I could shed some
> light on the controversial subjects being "discussed" (and I use the
> term loosely)...
Nah, more games to discuss means more flamewars :)
Incidently - I must admit I kind of love flamewars - nothing better to
cheer up a rainy day. unless it's troll baiting. We definitely have too
few trolls in here - must be because the regulars are really scary.
> Opinions welcome.
same here ... as long as you agree with me :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Jabba
"Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9527934D3F073ed...@195.238.3.190...
> ars...@nospamforme.ulaval.ca (Henri Arsenault) wrote in
> news:arseno-1507...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca:
>
Not really sure what the problem is here. If you enjoy a game that's good
isn't it? I enjoy AA: RDOA and Call Of Duty and Combat Mission.
Bo C Fuss
Tactics II is a very generic non-historical wargame.
NOTICE: Extra space left in for people who need to insert abusive personal
attacks on others to make their life fulfilled.
My News Server is Protected by SALTKILLER. SALTKILLER seeks out and
destroys useless, repetative, abusive personal attack
newsgroup postings from Old Salt.
"Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9527688DC6E93ed...@195.238.3.190...
HR
> with me putting together the "what's up doc" list of wargames in
> development. Some games in development didn't make that list - the most
> prominent example of this is the upcoming Axis & Allies game by Atari.
>
> It seems to me that what we (or at least I) define as a wargame is
> becoming a moving target. A game like Blitzkrieg would be called a very
> realistic wargame if it were released in 1990, but not so when it was
> released a couple of years ago.
>
You are correct but...the thing is that was 1990. So in effect you're
comparing a 2003 game to a 1990 game. No apples. Also strategy was more
emphazied then even if non-historical.
Blitzkrieg is still a non wargame. Its a RTS that has added armor effects
and all but the tactics are not that real. RTS got popular. The WW2
generation got popular. Hence all the RTS WW2 games...sudden strike etc.
Personally I don't need a description of what is and what is not. If you're
a true wargamer you'll know the difference. If it walks like a duck then it
is a duck.
I've tried Blitzkreig several times and its just doesn't have it. No need to
think and put together a list of why nots. If you're a true wargamer you
just know.
Panzer General while simple and unrealistic is more a wargame than
Blitzkrieg. Don't ask me to explain:)
I'll even give SC wargame status ....ala beer and pretzel:)
James D Burns
Tactics 2 is probably more a strategy board game then a wargame, but it was
published by the leading board wargame publisher (at that time) and probably
got the wargame title out of players respect for the publisher more than
actual content of the game. Or perhaps simple marketing did the trick.
Either way if there had been a market for strategy board games at the time
I'm sure that would have been the genre used to describe it, but board
wargames is where the dollars were then.
Today it's easy to stuff one game or another into all the different genres
available, and I hate RTS games like most wargamers today do I think, so any
game branded an RTS gets little or no respect here. I think this stems
mostly from the frustration factor these kinds of games give to control
freak wargamers like myself.
I want the total control and unlimited time a turn basesd game gives me. I
get angry if somthing is going on elsewhere on the map while I'm immersed in
another area. I don't have the patience or imagination to call it FOW or
poor commnad decisions on the part of some local underling. Some people like
this kind of thing, but I think most wargamers simply chalk it up to an
uneccessary mistake due to poor game design desicions. Had the game system
allowed one time to sink their teeth into all areas of the map before
advancing the turn, then any mistakes would be those of my doing, not some
silly little oversight.
Remember RTS was invented to give players the impression that the computer
plays better than it does, not because of any genius in the AI, simply
because of all the mistakes and oversights it forces on the player. Some
call this fun, I call it frustration to the extreme.
Sid Meier's Gettysburg is a very good example. I would love to be able to
play the entire 3 day campaign using that system, but it is simply not
possible to keep track of everything going on in that large battle in a real
time environment. It ruined the experience for me and I bet many others as
well. I tried for months to get better at real time play, but it didn't
help, in the end things were simply too busy to keep up with all the little
details going on all over the field once more than two or three divisions
were engaged.
Jim
HR
"James D Burns" <jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10fe2av...@corp.supernews.com...
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> Remember RTS was invented to give players the impression that the computer
> plays better than it does, not because of any genius in the AI, simply
> because of all the mistakes and oversights it forces on the player. Some
> call this fun, I call it frustration to the extreme.
Real-time strategy games were invented as a method of getting around the
problems that arise when you have a large change in game state between
turns.
Graeme Dice
--
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?"
-- Albert Einstein.
Graeme Dice
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:16:21 GMT the great cry-baby, Graeme Dice
> gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
>>Real-time strategy games were invented as a method of getting around the
>>problems that arise when you have a large change in game state between
>>turns.
>
>
> game state between turns" Please elaborate.
Take a simple set of rules that allows one side to fire, then allows the
other side to fire, and assigns damage to each side immediately at the
time of firing. There's a large change in the state of the game when
you end your turn, since units will be killed before they have a chance
to respond. You can reduce this effect by reducing the amount of time
that each turn represents. Eventually though, you reach the point where
there might be thousands of turns where very little happens in each one.
At this point, you can keep the player pressing end turn forever, or
you can just make it happen automatically and adjust the interface to
compensate.
Graeme Dice
--
"WARNING: Do not look into laser with remaining eye!"
-- Sign found at MIT's Junior Lab.
Eddy Sterckx
> Personally I don't need a description of what is and what is not. If
> you're a true wargamer you'll know the difference. If it walks like a
> duck then it is a duck.
It needs to quack like a duck too :)
> I've tried Blitzkreig several times and its just doesn't have it. No
> need to think and put together a list of why nots. If you're a true
> wargamer you just know.
I'm glad you're sure, I'm really getting second thoughts about non-
inclusion in the wargame category of certain of the better RTS games.
> Panzer General while simple and unrealistic is more a wargame than
> Blitzkrieg. Don't ask me to explain:)
> I'll even give SC wargame status ....ala beer and pretzel:)
LOL - let's not go down that road again :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
James D Burns
complex area of the map for oh say, 1 minute. Next thing I know I check
other areas and units have broken or changed to face so their flanks are
exposed. AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!! Pausing play every 10-20 seconds wasn't playable
either... at least for me. I suppose if the AI acted a lot more
intelligently when controlling my units it wouldn't have been so painful,
but it continually made stupid move after stupid move, causing me no end of
angst.
Jim
"Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon" <old...@spambusters.com> wrote in
message news:pcgef0ptj9bjia4tu...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:46:55 -0700 the great cry-baby, James D
> Burns gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
> >Sid Meier's Gettysburg is a very good example. I would love to be able to
> >play the entire 3 day campaign using that system, but it is simply not
> >possible to keep track of everything going on in that large battle in a
real
> >time environment.
>
> I believe you can stop the time, to issue orders of
> movement, then start up again. This was a patch I believe since
> many complain of not able to keep up.
> --
> Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.
> Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
> My Mail Server is Protected by SPAMKILLER
James D Burns
click-fest like Mortal Combat. Players were complaining that while strategy
games were improving both visually and in scope, developers were spending
little or no time developing good AI opponents.
Remember all games prior to computers were designed for multiple players
(excepting a few solitaire board games), so until now there was no demand to
create opponents for players when designing games. Now players found they
could play alone (most prefer this now I think), but the developers were
spending little time on trying to make computer play challenging. So someone
got the bright idea to try and make strategy games more like a click fest
like Mortal Combat, players who learned a series of complex commands and
could rapidly change orders were rewarded while those who spent too much
time thinking were penalized.
Recently changes to the RTS genre have added formation control and to a
limited extent unit intelligence, but the overriding appeal to RTS titles is
still rapid order entry. The better you are at repeating a rapid set of
order changes the more successful you are in the games. Deep strategy plays
little part in the RTS genre games.
Wargamers are an analytical lot, we prefer deep immersive thought when we
play a game. My brother put it to me pretty well recently, he told me he
doesn't play complex wargames because he views them as work. He prefers not
to think when he games (mindless fun) so he prefers simple RTS, RPG's,
FPS's, etc. Nothing wrong with this, but for a wargame discussion board,
none of these genres come even close to the kind of games we enjoy, even if
they do use WWII or any other war as period backdrops.
Historical accuracy and deep complexity are what I enjoy, and I think most
others here do as well. I don't think it's elitist, its simply a symptom of
the genre I enjoy. I prefer deep thought to mindless fun when gaming, and
the term "historical-wargames" should be about deep thought I think. At
least I think that's what most here believe, I could be wrong though I
guess.
Jim
"Graeme Dice" <grd...@sasktel.net.NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:F%FJc.35192$od7.5070@pd7tw3no...
Henri Arsenault
Old77...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> By realism we mean a game portrays combat,
>tactics, an other aspects of warfare in a real life historal way.
>So depending on the scale used, the game should bring to the
>player an understanding of real life problems a commander might
>face.
And here is the burr under the sdaddle: few operational wargames portray
the real problems that a commander might face, because the player is
playing Corps Commander, Division Commander, Battalion commander, Company
Commander, Platoon commander, you name it, all at the same time, and in a
much shorter timeframe than in real life. Yes there are a few exceptions,
but a strict application of this criteria would exclude most wargames from
this forum.
A realistic simulation of a commander would face the player with problems
that only a commander at ONE level (say a batalion commander) would face,
and if that happened to be a high-level commander, most of those problems
would be extremely dull for a game.Not to mention that the player must
simulate not only the commander, but most of his staff.
I understand that the wording of the FAQ attempts to formulate the
impossible, that is to formulate which aspects of warfare must be
abstracted to make a simulation realistic. This immediately raises the
problem that if certain aspects are NOT simulated (for example morale),
does that make the game unrealistic? And who decides that it is OK to have
unrealistic morale but not unrealitic firepower? Some would claim that
morale is more important than firepower to win a battle.
Let us take another example: Giftzwerg claimed earlier that Soviet
movement capabilities in Across the Dnepr are unrealistic (he was wrong,
but that is beside the point of this discussion). Let us assume that he
was right for discussion purposes: if that were true, then AtD would not
be a historical wargame, because at the time of that battle, German
commanders were certainly not too concerned about the danger of the
Soviets moving faster than anticipated. Would this make the game
unacceptable because the problems faced by the commanders are not
realistic?
The argument that a wargamer "knows" whether a game is historical or not
is just a way to avoid having to face the above contradictions anmd to
justify one's own preconceptions.
A possible solution would be, instead of trying to define what is NOT a
valid wargame, to define in a more realistic manner what it is. For this
we should perhaps consider what the REAL military does.
For example, despite its lack of morale factors, TacOps is used by a
number of military organizations as a simulation tool, because it fairly
accurately simulates CERTAIN aspects of warfare. Other military
simulations simulate OTHER aspects of warfare that have little to do with
direct combat, such as communications and logistics.Of course the military
have a dominant criteria that is absent for wargamers - usefulness: if
something is useful for a specific purpose, use it!
Using the criteria that if a wargame models CERTAIN aspects correctly then
in the absence of a usefulness criteria it is OK for this forum would open
the door to games like Blitzkrieg, which apparently models CERTAIN aspects
of warfare accurately (I haven't played it myself). Games that don't
model at least ONE aspect of warfare correctly are pretty rare.
From all this, the only sure conclusion that I can draw is that what
constitutes a valid historical wargame is fairly arbitrary. Whether more
or fewer gamers are in consensus about any particular arbitrariness is not
only difficult to determine, but still leaves it arbitrary.
If I may venture an opinion at the end of this rambling, it is that a
wargame should NOT be excluded because of a single unrealistic aspect,
which if strictly applied, would exclude ALL wargames from this forum.
Henri
Eddy Sterckx
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:38:53 -0700 the great cry-baby, James D
> Burns gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
>>but I'd get fixated on a
>>complex area of the map
>
> Been there, done that. The only thing I miss from board
> wargames that never was able to brought over to computer
> wargames, is the ability to see the whole map at once where one
> can see the detail.
Don't you have a 75 inch screen like everyone else in here ???
... alternatively you could go for the 12800 by 10240 pixel display and
really good glasses :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Eddy Sterckx
> On 16 Jul 2004 11:50:03 GMT the great cry-baby, Eddy Sterckx gave
> a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
>>Don't you have a 75 inch screen like everyone else in here ???
>
> I am waiting for the hologram monitor to come out, so I
> can move the units with my fingers instead of the keyboard.
I find that type of monitor dangerous - one sneeze and it'll blow a hole in
your frontline :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Steve H
"Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9527688DC6E93ed...@195.238.3.190...
> The recent discussion about Blitzkrieg being a wargame or not coincided
> with me putting together the "what's up doc" list of wargames in
> development. Some games in development didn't make that list - the most
> prominent example of this is the upcoming Axis & Allies game by Atari.
>
> It seems to me that what we (or at least I) define as a wargame is
> becoming a moving target. A game like Blitzkrieg would be called a very
> realistic wargame if it were released in 1990, but not so when it was
> released a couple of years ago.
>
> This thing never happened in board-wargames. Say that a boardgame along
> the lines of Tactics II were to be released today - nobody would hesitate
> to call that a wargame - a simple one for sure, but still a wargame.
> This isn't the case with computer wargames where the bar for it to be
> called a wargame is set higher every year - cfr. the Blitzkrieg thread.
> The major deciding factor/element seems to be the "realism" factor.
>
> My feelings about this are a bit ambivalent : I've seen the flight
> simulator genre getting killed by this relentless search for realism, but
> I do like my games to be realistic yet fun i.e. no tedious bookkeeping.
>
> The fact that more and more wargames get picked up by the military
> (Yesterday's announcement that Uncommon Valor is going to be used by the
> Australian military is just the newest) is a double edged sword. It shows
> the wargaming community how "good" the current crop of wargames is, but
> at the same time it might scare a lot of people away because
> games are becoming painfully realistic and forget about the fun factor.
> In short : are wargaming companies going to repeat the mistakes made by
> the flight sim companies ? Are the wargame companies going to be driven
> ever further in search of more realism by what might be only a very vocal
> minority ?
>
> A look at the list I've made tells me that this isn't the case yet - a
> good mix of simple and very complex wargames are in development, but for
> this healthy mix to continue I think that I at least will be more relaxed
> in what I call a wargame. Axis & Allies will make it in the next
> iteration of the "what's up doc" list.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Graeme Dice
> gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
>
>>Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:16:21 GMT the great cry-baby, Graeme Dice
>>>gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Real-time strategy games were invented as a method of getting around the
>>>>problems that arise when you have a large change in game state between
>>>>turns.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, I am not gasping what you mean by "large change in
>>>game state between turns" Please elaborate.
>>
>>Take a simple set of rules that allows one side to fire, then allows the
>>other side to fire, and assigns damage to each side immediately at the
>>time of firing. There's a large change in the state of the game when
>>you end your turn, since units will be killed before they have a chance
>>to respond.
>
>
> computer games done that were turn base. Many turn base games
> today use WeGo so we no longer have this problem. The real
> reason RTS came into being, was as James D Burns stated.
No, they don't have this problem, but they still have similar ones.
It's asinine to state that the only reason real-time games came around
was to make the computer look smarter.
Jabba
What about the monitor that allows a counter to get stuck to your finger and
then a little agrument to where exactly that platoon was?
IMHO I always thinks games are games, if you enjoy them, thats's good. Does
it really matter whether game X is and RTS and game Y is a wargame?
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Graeme Dice
> I'm afraid not. RTS titles came out of a melding of strategy games and
> click-fest like Mortal Combat. Players were complaining that while strategy
> games were improving both visually and in scope, developers were spending
> little or no time developing good AI opponents.
Really? Since Dune 2 and Warcraft came out in the mid 90's, you should
be able to find some posts in the Google archives that illustrate this
phenomena.
> Remember all games prior to computers were designed for multiple players
> (excepting a few solitaire board games), so until now there was no demand to
> create opponents for players when designing games. Now players found they
> could play alone (most prefer this now I think), but the developers were
> spending little time on trying to make computer play challenging. So someone
> got the bright idea to try and make strategy games more like a click fest
> like Mortal Combat, players who learned a series of complex commands and
> could rapidly change orders were rewarded while those who spent too much
> time thinking were penalized.
Do you really believe this kind of silly conspiracy theory?
> Recently changes to the RTS genre have added formation control and to a
> limited extent unit intelligence, but the overriding appeal to RTS titles is
> still rapid order entry. The better you are at repeating a rapid set of
> order changes the more successful you are in the games. Deep strategy plays
> little part in the RTS genre games.
This, along with the rest of your post, has nothing to with your claim
of the reasons behind the development of RTS games.
Henri Arsenault
Old77...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>A possible solution would be, instead of trying to define what is NOT a
>>valid wargame, to define in a more realistic manner what it is. For this
>>we should perhaps consider what the REAL military does.
>
> I would be happy if you would like to write that up for
>the FAQ and replace what I have there for it.
>--
Thanks, but that may well be an impossible task. But justr for discussion
sake, what that would imply would be that no wargame would be excluded
because of any unrealistic aspect: it would be judged acceptable if it
simulated at least ONE aspect in a realistic manner.
If not ONE, then how would one go about deciding how many? Two? Three?
From a list? Who would make the list? I dunno...
Henri
Giftzwerg
says...
> Recently changes to the RTS genre have added formation control and to a
> limited extent unit intelligence, but the overriding appeal to RTS titles is
> still rapid order entry. The better you are at repeating a rapid set of
> order changes the more successful you are in the games. Deep strategy plays
> little part in the RTS genre games.
This point is painfully obvious if you've ever seen an RTS game running
in a virtual machine where the meta-OS can control the speed of
execution. Allowing the human player plenty of time to move each piece
on an individual basis makes the game infant-simple to win.
But we needn't really look any farther than some of the Insane Clown
Strategies that proved to be winning ones in C&C et al. I mean, try
that moonbat "tank rush" maneuver in something worthwhile like HTTR or
CM, and the worst wargamer will hand you your ass.
Overall, one wonders why these RTS games never allow the player to turn
the speed down to a comfortable level, if there's any validity to the
theory that speed isn't ... uh, the whole point.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Moore is one of the folks about whom a particularly apt lesson applies:
you can't make an asshole feel like one."
- Fritz Schrank
Nathan Engle
> James D Burns
> > Sid Meier's Gettysburg is a very good example. I would love to be able to
> > play the entire 3 day campaign using that system, but it is simply not
> > possible to keep track of everything going on in that large battle in a real
> > time environment.
> I believe you can stop the time, to issue orders of
> movement, then start up again. This was a patch I believe since
> many complain of not able to keep up.
Actually pausing the game was always present in the system
but it's still very difficult to keep track of a front that
stretches all the way from Black Cat Knob to Culps Hill.
My big problem with SM:G at this point is that the 3 day
full battle scenario that was available as a download back
in Win98 days doesn't seem to work (at least not on my
system) with the WinXP patch. I can play all of the other
smaller scenarios, but the old 3 day battle just fires up
with nothing present on the map and nothing ever arrives.
Maybe some sort of array limit on the order of battle? If
anyone knows a way to get around this short of a dual-boot
Win98 I'd be interested to hear it. For what it's worth
I think I HAVE tried Win98 compatibility - whatever the
problem is seems to be related to the WinXP patch and not
legacy compatibility.
--
Nathan Engle Computer Support, IUB Psych Dept
nen...@indiana.edu http://mypage.iu.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"
Graeme Dice
> gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
>
>>It's asinine to state that the only reason real-time games came around
>>was to make the computer look smarter.
>
>
> the easiest way to make the AI look smarter was to handicap the
> human player, this was done with speed (clickfest), and
> overwhelming the play with control over many units.
That it may be possible to make the AI look smarter by making the game
happen faster has no bearing on whether that was the reason to make the
game realtime. There are other reasons for working with a realtime
engine, such as the timing issues I've described above. If WEGO was the
panacea to solve all such problems, which it isn't, then it's certainly
been around for at least as long as the real-time games. VGA=Planets 3
was released in 1993 after all, and Dune 2 was less than a year before
that. Yes, it is possible to make a complicated ruleset that attempts
to deal with these issues, but it can often be simpler to avoid them
entirely by making the granularity in time very small.
Are you going to do anything to prove your point other than to repeat
the same assertion over and over again?
Graeme Dice
HR
"Jabba" <no.th...@no.hope> wrote in message
news:SsyJc.140$Ag...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9527934D3F073ed...@195.238.3.190...
> > ars...@nospamforme.ulaval.ca (Henri Arsenault) wrote in
> > news:arseno-1507...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca:
> >
>
> Not really sure what the problem is here. If you enjoy a game that's good
> isn't it? I enjoy AA: RDOA and Call Of Duty and Combat Mission.
>
>
>
Graeme Dice
> gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
>
>>Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:29:32 GMT the great cry-baby, Graeme Dice
>>>gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, they don't have this problem, but they still have similar ones.
>>>>It's asinine to state that the only reason real-time games came around
>>>>was to make the computer look smarter.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was the main reason. As one who was in the industry,
>>>the easiest way to make the AI look smarter was to handicap the
>>>human player, this was done with speed (clickfest), and
>>>overwhelming the play with control over many units.
>>
>>That it may be possible to make the AI look smarter by making the game
>>happen faster has no bearing on whether that was the reason to make the
>>game realtime.
>
>
Like I said, I'm still waiting for something other than your unsupported
assertion that this is the case.
>>There are other reasons for working with a realtime
>>engine, such as the timing issues I've described above. If WEGO was the
>>panacea to solve all such problems, which it isn't, then it's certainly
>>been around for at least as long as the real-time games.
>
>
> WeGo is for turn base games.
Yes, it's for turn-based games, why would you even bother bringing an
irrelevant point like that up? I do happen to be fully aware of what
the word means, and I even supplied an example of a game that used the
system. That would be VGA Planets version 3.0 and eariler, both of
which existed well before the advent of Dune 2. Thus your earlier point
that WEGO is some kind of new phenomena is hardly correct.
WEGO is also still a turn-based system, and still has associated timing
issues. As another example, take a naval wargame where each turn
represents a long enough period of time that a ship may make several
course changes, and where a very fine granularity is used in the space
mapping. Even if all movement is supposed to happen simultaneously, the
actual position of that ship at any given point in time during the turn
must be known, as it must be possible to determine whether an
intercepting ship was able to catch it, whether it engaged in combat
with any hostile vessels it met, or for a variety of reasons. Just
using the example of an intercepting ship, one must decide how to deal
with this. One way, of course, is to have all ships that are not set to
intercept another ship move first, then move the intercepting ships.
This, of course, has problems, in that the intercepting ship certainly
didn't know what course changes its target was goign to make beforehand.
One could pick a random order to move the ships in, but this would
make intercepting another ship nearly impossible.
One could also analytically break down the course of each ship, and
determine the courses of any interceptors, but this problem quickly
becomes untenable. The simplest method, is probably to just break the
turn calculation down into a very large number of small time increments,
and randomly (or otherwise) pick the order in which ships will act in
each time increment. This would give you the desired effect in that any
number of course changes could be made, and any intercepting ships would
be able to plot the appropriate course. This is essentially just
creating a real-time rules system where order changes are made as a
standard turn-based system. This is the advantage of being able to
break the time step down into smaller chunks; it allows for much more
complicated behaviour to emerge with less programming effort.
>>Are you going to do anything to prove your point other than to repeat
>>the same assertion over and over again?
>
>
> I was waiting for you to prove your point.
You're the one who's claiming that it was all about making the AI appear
smarter. It's your job to prove yourself correct, not mine to disprove
you. Since you haven't been able to supply anything beyond your own
supposition, I'll have to assume that you can't actually supply any proof.
Jabba
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:31:39 GMT the great cry-baby, Jabba gave a
> whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
> >it really matter whether game X is and RTS and game Y is a wargame?
>
> have fun, and play what you like.
I read this group most days and have yet to see any problems with
discussions about wargames that aren't really wargames.
Eddy Sterckx
news:2lq4a0F...@uni-berlin.de:
> were is this list?
Starting post in the thread called "What's up Doc ?"
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Eddy Sterckx
news:MPG.1b61c3c4a...@news-east.giganews.com:
> But we needn't really look any farther than some of the Insane Clown
> Strategies that proved to be winning ones in C&C et al. I mean, try
> that moonbat "tank rush" maneuver in something worthwhile like HTTR or
> CM, and the worst wargamer will hand you your ass.
I seem to remember an AAR of you where your opponent used the "tank rush"
maneuver on you in a HTTR scenario - and it nearly worked :)
> Overall, one wonders why these RTS games never allow the player to
> turn the speed down to a comfortable level, if there's any validity to
> the theory that speed isn't ... uh, the whole point.
Speed, hundreds of units to control, having to hold the hand of every unit
in your game - all these keep the player busy and gives them a sense of
total controll and (good) game related stress. The kick is in the
adrenaline rush when you pull it off. Same tactic used in Space Invaders 30
years ago : increase speed to ludicrous.
To be fair : the latest crop of good RTS games do allow time to slow down
to a crawl or even stop. Medieval : Total War is one example, games based
on the Europa Universalis engine are others.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Jabba
>
> To be fair : the latest crop of good RTS games do allow time to slow down
> to a crawl or even stop. Medieval : Total War is one example, games based
> on the Europa Universalis engine are others.
>
not?). The main difference is that is combines both the 'grand' strategy
part and the kick the crap out of each other of the battle field part, into
a single game.
I've always thought that the RTS term is a bit of a mis-nomer as it really
seems to refer to resource building games that you can't pause. It's not RT
at all 1 hour = 50 years. Why isn't say HTTR defined as an RTS or CLose
Combat for that matter?
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > But we needn't really look any farther than some of the Insane Clown
> > Strategies that proved to be winning ones in C&C et al. I mean, try
> > that moonbat "tank rush" maneuver in something worthwhile like HTTR or
> > CM, and the worst wargamer will hand you your ass.
>
> I seem to remember an AAR of you where your opponent used the "tank rush"
> maneuver on you in a HTTR scenario - and it nearly worked :)
Oh, I "handed him his ass" all right. It was just that my own ass went
poof in the same conflagration.
It's the same "strategy" Slim Pickens used in "Dr. Strangelove;" ride
the bomb all the way down, waving your hat as you go.
> > Overall, one wonders why these RTS games never allow the player to
> > turn the speed down to a comfortable level, if there's any validity to
> > the theory that speed isn't ... uh, the whole point.
>
> Speed, hundreds of units to control, having to hold the hand of every unit
> in your game - all these keep the player busy and gives them a sense of
> total controll and (good) game related stress. The kick is in the
> adrenaline rush when you pull it off. Same tactic used in Space Invaders 30
> years ago : increase speed to ludicrous.
>
> To be fair : the latest crop of good RTS games do allow time to slow down
> to a crawl or even stop. Medieval : Total War is one example, games based
> on the Europa Universalis engine are others.
I think this trend will continue, as RTS fans start to look for
something more than just the usual click & twitch action.
dlw
<old...@spambusters.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:20:55 -0500 the great cry-baby, Nathan
>Engle gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "SM:Gettysburg (was:
>wargames and realism)",
>
>>with the WinXP patch.
>
> Where's the patch, I got problems with SM Gettysburg
>after upgrading to Win Pro 2000.
Jabba
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 08:57:02 GMT the great cry-baby, Jabba gave a
> whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
> >
> >"Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon" <old...@spambusters.com> wrote in
> >message news:6uugf05v1dpcmfnrk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:31:39 GMT the great cry-baby, Jabba gave a
> >> whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
> >>
> >> >Does
> >> >it really matter whether game X is and RTS and game Y is a wargame?
> >>
> >> Only for which NG to discuss them in, yes. Other wise
> >> have fun, and play what you like.
> >
> >I read this group most days and have yet to see any problems with
> >discussions about wargames that aren't really wargames.
>
> don't ask the question.
Not didn't like the answer ... just didn't understand why I had to ask the
question ... :-)
Graeme Dice
> gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
<snip>
>>Like I said, I'm still waiting for something other than your unsupported
>>assertion that this is the case.
>
>
> Unsupported, like I said I was in the business. But feel
> free to believe what you want, to make this clear for you, I
> don't care what you belive, nor am I going to waste my time on
> what you wish to believe.
So what if you were in the business? That doesn't make you an authority
over the matter. You are also apparently incapable of making a coherent
argument, or even reading for that matter, since you are continually
ignoring everything I've written.
>>> WeGo is for turn base games.
>>
>
>>WEGO is also still a turn-based system, and still has associated timing
>>issues. As another example,
>
>
> <snip silly example> There is NO time issues with Wego,
I've just outlined the timing issues, and since you've ignored them once
again, I take it that you are actually not capable of rational discussion.
> just look at Combat Mission, where each bullet is taken into
> account. As the units move, they spot and fire on new units as
> they come into view. No need to brake the time down to less then
> a min. CPU watches it all and keep tracks of it all.
Please actually _read_ what I wrote. Your example of units moving in
small time increments is absolutely _identical_ to my example where
ships move in small time increments. The system you've just described
is functionally identical to a real-time game that automatically pauses
at certain intervals, and only allows you to input orders at those
times. That would be the third WEGO system I described in my previous post.
>>> I was waiting for you to prove your point.
>>
>>You're the one who's claiming that it was all about making the AI appear
>>smarter. It's your job to prove yourself correct, not mine to disprove
>>you. Since you haven't been able to supply anything beyond your own
>>supposition, I'll have to assume that you can't actually supply any proof.
>
>
> You were the one who first came out with your assertion
> on why RTS came about. The rest of us corrected you, so the ball
> is in your court, if we are wrong prove it.
You're a liar:
"Remember RTS was invented to give players the impression that the
computer plays better than it does, not because of any genius in the AI,
simply because of all the mistakes and oversights it forces on the
player. Some call this fun, I call it frustration to the extreme. "
If you want to continue to state that this
Graeme Dice
--
Louis Pasteur discovered a cure for rabbis. Charles Darwin was a
naturalist who wrote the Organ of the Species. Madman Curie discovered
radio. And Karl Marx became one of the Marx brothers.
Rod
news:f7gff09c7ael8r2qn...@4ax.com:
>
> But since Blitzkrieg is what brought this up, lets look
> at that game. Is the weapons the only thing that is wrong with
> the game that makes it not a wargame, no. The other thing is
> it's a puzzle game, you can ONLY move to the next level (that in
> of it's self is a giveaway that it's not a wargame) by figuring
> out how beat that level. Tactics do not play that much to the
> game, its a clickfest, do I really need to add anything more to
> the list?
>
I don't agree with your assesment of Blitzkrieg. Simply because a level
must be defeated to move on to the next level doesn't make BK any less of a
wargame, unless you define games by mechanics. Having to meet certain
conditions to move on to the next level is no different than having to hold
a certain amount of victory hexes to win a scenario, it's a game mechanic,
not an admission to being a puzzle game.
Tactics play a very important role in BK, try running a group tanks
anywhere near an AT placement, you will lose everytime, AT is deadly in
this game.
It's not a clickfest when compared to the current crop of RTS on the
market, but if you compare it to HTTR or an HPS sim then yes it is a
clickfest.
I just don't like to see BK vehemently railed against on something as
superficial as the elements you point out. I'm definitely not the
prototypical wargamer, my tastes are more along the lines of Combat
Mission, Strategic Command and Medieval 2. Deep wargames really don't do
it for me, but to classify BK as a 'Pure RTS' (you didn't) and 'Clickfest'
is a little over the top in my estimation.
If you don't like the game fine, but don't try to turn others off by
arguing minutea, 'infantry taking out tanks'. Yes they do, however, like
any other wargame, liberties are taken in the interest of gameplay.
I just think when fringe games are excluded it does the hobby and this
group more harm than good. My first sim was the Jet Fighter series, I
inquired about it on C.S.I.P.G.Flight-Sim, because I wanted more in the way
of realism. Maybe the guy inquiring about Blitzkrieg will eventually go on
to become the next Old-Salt and buy every HPS sim in it's library.
Roderick
James Cobb
"Rod" <roderick...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:T9xKc.19949195$Id.33...@news.easynews.com...
> Tactics play a very important role in BK, try running a group tanks
> anywhere near an AT placement, you will lose everytime, AT is deadly in
> this game.
>
> It's not a clickfest when compared to the current crop of RTS on the
> market, but if you compare it to HTTR or an HPS sim then yes it is a
> clickfest.
>
> I just don't like to see BK vehemently railed against on something as
> superficial as the elements you point out. I'm definitely not the
> prototypical wargamer, my tastes are more along the lines of Combat
> Mission, Strategic Command and Medieval 2. Deep wargames really don't do
> it for me, but to classify BK as a 'Pure RTS' (you didn't) and 'Clickfest'
> is a little over the top in my estimation.
>
> If you don't like the game fine, but don't try to turn others off by
> arguing minutea, 'infantry taking out tanks'. Yes they do, however, like
> any other wargame, liberties are taken in the interest of gameplay.
>
> I just think when fringe games are excluded it does the hobby and this
> group more harm than good.
I agree with Roderick here. I've been playing BK and BK:Burning Horizons
lately for an article and find them several cuts above a clickfest,
especially with the many low speeds. Recon, maneuver and selecting the
right weapons platform against obstacles are quite historic. Is it in the
same class as HttR? No, but I've read too many posts from newbies that HttR
is overwhelming. BK is a nice engine to bring them along.
BTW, infantry does carry the AT weapons of the period. You, too, can find
out how well the Boyes AT rifle works against SPWs (pretty god) or PZKWs
(pretty bad).
Eddy Sterckx
news:MPG.1b62ef008...@news-east.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns952970307B552ed...@195.241.76.210>,
> eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>> To be fair : the latest crop of good RTS games do allow time to slow
>> down to a crawl or even stop. Medieval : Total War is one example,
>> games based on the Europa Universalis engine are others.
>
> I think this trend will continue, as RTS fans start to look for
> something more than just the usual click & twitch action.
the RTS nomen is quickly becoming something you put on the box like
"light" or "diet" - you have to read the small print to distinguish the
crap from the good stuff.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Eddy Sterckx
news:3S6Kc.49$FY4...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net:
>
> "Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns952970307B552ed...@195.241.76.210...
>> Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.1b61c3c4a...@news-east.giganews.com:
>>
> /snip/.
>>
>> To be fair : the latest crop of good RTS games do allow time to slow
>> down to a crawl or even stop. Medieval : Total War is one example,
>> games based on the Europa Universalis engine are others.
>>
> I would say the Medieval: TW was a wargame (not sure if you think it
> is or not?).
Wargame.
> The main difference is that is combines both the 'grand'
> strategy part and the kick the crap out of each other of the battle
> field part, into a single game.
The idea of combining the two wasn't new, but it's the king of the genre.
> I've always thought that the RTS term is a bit of a mis-nomer as it
> really seems to refer to resource building games that you can't pause.
> It's not RT at all 1 hour = 50 years. Why isn't say HTTR defined as an
> RTS or CLose Combat for that matter?
HTTR (from the Panthergames website) : "pausable, continuous time game
play" = RTS without putting it on the box :)
An article in PCGamer (UK) alerted me to the fact that the resource
gathering / economy management part of RTS games is disappearing. The
current trend for RTS games is to become combat oriented. With ever more
sophisticated AI this means that RTS games are moving closer to the strict
definition of wargames - and some of the better ones are already in the
wargame category imho.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Eddy Sterckx
news:T9xKc.19949195$Id.33...@news.easynews.com:
> I don't agree with your assesment of Blitzkrieg. Simply because a
> level must be defeated to move on to the next level doesn't make BK
> any less of a wargame, unless you define games by mechanics. Having
> to meet certain conditions to move on to the next level is no
> different than having to hold a certain amount of victory hexes to win
> a scenario, it's a game mechanic, not an admission to being a puzzle
> game.
Well put.
> Tactics play a very important role in BK, try running a group tanks
> anywhere near an AT placement, you will lose everytime, AT is deadly
> in this game.
More importantly : correct (military) tactics will prevail - that's what
makes it a - lightweight - wargame.
> It's not a clickfest when compared to the current crop of RTS on the
> market, but if you compare it to HTTR or an HPS sim then yes it is a
> clickfest.
HPS games are clickfests - just not fast ones - you have to move every
damn unit on the map each turn :)
> Maybe the guy inquiring about Blitzkrieg will
> eventually go on to become the next Old-Salt
Quickly - ban that guy from this ng - one Old Salt is enough :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
>Personally I don't need a description of what is and what is not. If you're
>a true wargamer you'll know the difference. If it walks like a duck then it
>is a duck.
The number of disagreements around here about whether a game is or
isn't on topic gives lie to that statement. You might now a wargame
when you see it but obviously your criteria aren't shared by everyone
around here.
Personally, I'm much more comfortable with just discussing
'borderline' wargames like Blitzkrieg and EU2 than with the endless
threads about whether a particular game is or isn't on topic.
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I've always thought that the RTS term is a bit of a mis-nomer as it
> > really seems to refer to resource building games that you can't pause.
> > It's not RT at all 1 hour = 50 years. Why isn't say HTTR defined as an
> > RTS or CLose Combat for that matter?
>
> HTTR (from the Panthergames website) : "pausable, continuous time game
> play" = RTS without putting it on the box :)
Didn't somebody from the Panther world (Arjuna? Golf33?) in fact coin
this phrase, specifically to distinguish their new game from the RTS
ilk?
Eddy Sterckx
news:MPG.1b65adc2e...@news-east.giganews.com:
> In article <Xns952B52513251Aed...@195.238.3.190>,
> eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > I've always thought that the RTS term is a bit of a mis-nomer as it
>> > really seems to refer to resource building games that you can't pause.
>> > It's not RT at all 1 hour = 50 years. Why isn't say HTTR defined as an
>> > RTS or CLose Combat for that matter?
>>
>> HTTR (from the Panthergames website) : "pausable, continuous time game
>> play" = RTS without putting it on the box :)
>
> Didn't somebody from the Panther world (Arjuna? Golf33?) in fact coin
> this phrase, specifically to distinguish their new game from the RTS
> ilk?
I seem to recall something along those lines as well.
For some reason :) the term RTS has a bad rap among wargamers. Now if your
wargame IS a veritable world-class real-time strategy game you've got a
marketing problem :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
JP
> news:f7gff09c7ael8r2qn...@4ax.com:
> It's not a clickfest when compared to the current crop of RTS on the
> market, but if you compare it to HTTR or an HPS sim then yes it is a
> clickfest.
<snip>
>
Roderick
hehe, hps games are a clickfest, in mind-numbing fashion.
HR
started to want to play but of course couldn't because they didn't have a
clue. So they made easy click and point games and called it strategy and
added realtime...ala C&C. It caught on and the rest is history.
I remember when I worked in a game store lots of average joes bought
wargames thinking they were giddyup and shoot. I warned them they would like
it. They returned it the next day. The reasons being.. "the graphics sucked"
"I couldn't understand it" " It was boring". "What are the hexes for"
Once the rts hit the store I was estatic. Now I had something to sell all
the dummies. When a new wargame came out we usually got two copies.We'd get
20-30 copies of a new RTS. Nuff said about that.
The original close combat was deemed a wargame in real time and was never
labeled RTS. Forget the actual words in RTS...it's just a cliche to attract
a certain genre.
imo there is no strategy in the typical rts with the original C&C being more
a RT puzzle game (clue books anyone) using military figures. They have
evolved slightly to games such as Blitzkrieg depicting the graphics of
historical units but underneath they're still the same color.
HTTR is just a wargame that happens to use real time and in no way is a RTS
as we know them.
Once again if it quacks like a duck then it is a duck.
Perhaps one thing that might separate rts from a wargame is a cluebook. A
real wargame does not need one:)
"Eddy Sterckx" <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns952C32C179D6ed...@195.241.76.210...
Rod Pommier
> Actually RTS stole the term strategy from war
A
> real wargame does not need one:)
More like they're not popular enough to justify the expense of publishing
one.
Rod
HR
"Rod Pommier" <m...@email.address> wrote in message
news:jbbMc.20294309$Id.33...@news.easynews.com...
Giftzwerg
m...@email.address says...
> > real wargame does not need one:)
>
> More like they're not popular enough to justify the expense of publishing
> one.
Didn't BTS just release a companion book for CMAK?
And I've seen "strategy guides" for any number of wargames. I think I
once owned one. HARPOON, IIRC; I think it came in the box of an
"Admiral's Edition" or some such...
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The tale spun by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson that Iraq did not ever
try to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is now in the process of
unraveling. And, of course, the phalanx of anti-war journalists is
desperately trying to stop the bust-up. But it can't be done."
- Martin Peretz
Giftzwerg
old...@spambusters.com says...
> >I've seen "strategy guides" for any number of wargames. I think I
> >once owned one. HARPOON,
>
> A strategy guide for a wargame is not a clue book.
The difference, though, seems entirely one of semantics; "clue books"
and "strategy guides" perform precisely the same function regardless of
what they're called. Wargames aren't as linear as, say, a first-person
shooter or C&C clone, but that simply means that the nature of the
"clues" are more general.
> Most
> folks who either did not served in the military, or in a
> different branch then the game they are playing would need to
> know basic military strategy. Such as how do you use subs,
> destroyers, carriers, etc for a naval game.
"Most folks who either didn't serve as a Wizard or Hobbit would need to
know basic sorcery, such as how you use Elven-scrolls, The Phial of
Galadriel, spells, runes, etc., for a Middle-Earth game."
Same-same.
Jabba
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:04:54 -0400 the great cry-baby, Giftzwerg
> gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
> >once owned one. HARPOON,
>
> folks who either did not served in the military, or in a
> different branch then the game they are playing would need to
> know basic military strategy. Such as how do you use subs,
> destroyers, carriers, etc for a naval game.
I think that really come down to what you mean be 'clue book' if a game has
a limite number of scenarios (HoI, Korsun Pocket, HTTR etc.) then you can
and do have 'clue books' for how to complete each scenario. They may by more
general than the one I have for Sudden Strike, but IMHO the're still clue
books. Games like CMxx and Steel Panthers have so many different scenarios
that they can only end up having overall strategy guides.
Giftzwerg
old...@spambusters.com says...
> >"Most folks who either didn't serve as a Wizard or Hobbit would need to
> >know basic sorcery, such as how you use Elven-scrolls, The Phial of
> >Galadriel, spells, runes, etc., for a Middle-Earth game."
>
> Thanks for proving you are brain dead.
<laughter>
By pointing out it's exactly the same thing?
People buy "clue books" or "strategy guides" because they're unfamiliar
with the subject matter. It makes no difference if the game is based on
reality, fantasy, or fiction. Speaking for myself, I'd be far more
likely to buy (or better yet, read, if one was included...) the strategy
guide to a role-playing game than one dealing with a military topic.
Heck, TACOPS even comes with a built-in "strategy guide," consisting of
elaborate Q&A sessions, articles on strategy and weapons, scenario
guides, and TO&E charts; taken as a whole, it's three times as big as
the clue books you find at your local software outlet. Of course, the
"hints" need to be a lot more general than, "take the lift up one level,
kill the Pink Demon, and get the yellow key," but if you're unfamiliar
with the AH-64 helicopter and how to employ it tactically, Kyle
Mizokami's page in Appendix B comes in pretty handy.
HR
obvious and perhaps a little insulting to the gamer. It's all about
marketing.
You often buy a strategy guide that is sold separate ($15-19) which purpose
is to show you how to get through hard parts in the game where you might get
stuck...such as Medal of Honor and other FPS other RTS.
I've never seen a strategy guide of this type for a wargame. You learn to
play wargames by studying military units and what not. If they did produce
a strategy guide it would be a synopsis military tactics (such as how to use
armor and inf) which can be found in any library.
And if such a strategy guide were done (a synopsis of military tactics for
ww2) it would serve for all WW2 games..or most.
A FPS or RTS strat guide is game specific. Usually a combination of
maps,clues, and unit characteristics.
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b6c2c0d8...@news-east.giganews.com...
Major H
> elaborate Q&A sessions, articles on strategy and weapons, scenario
> guides, and TO&E charts; taken as a whole, it's three times as big as
> the clue books you find at your local software outlet.
Harumph - its more than a mere three times as much. :).
The direct and indirect documentation included on the TacOps4 CD weighs in
at about 9,000 letter sized pages. Tutorial, User Guide, Change Log,
TacOps Gazette Compilation, 21 US Army Field Manuals, and 15 USMC
Publications.
I do cheerfully attempt to pry a little extra money out of people with The
Military Reference Library CD which contains about 37,000 pages of field
manuals. The sales rate for the reference CD is about 25 percent of the
rate for the game CD.
Best regards, Major H.
tac...@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/
Giftzwerg
> > Heck, TACOPS even comes with a built-in "strategy guide," consisting of
> > elaborate Q&A sessions, articles on strategy and weapons, scenario
> > guides, and TO&E charts; taken as a whole, it's three times as big as
> > the clue books you find at your local software outlet.
>
> Harumph - its more than a mere three times as much. :).
> The direct and indirect documentation included on the TacOps4 CD weighs in
> at about 9,000 letter sized pages. Tutorial, User Guide, Change Log,
> TacOps Gazette Compilation, 21 US Army Field Manuals, and 15 USMC
> Publications.
Well. I stand corrected.
<g>
But I'm just talking about the material created specifically to
accompany the TACOPS software; this is easily the best - hands down -
suite of documentation in the industry. Better yet, we can even
disregard the manual and focus specifically on the stuff that is
included with TACOPS - but that other games would relegate to the
"strategy guide." Really, that boils down to the Scenario Guide and
Appendixes A through ... what?
K? L?
Giftzwerg
old...@spambusters.com says...
> >> >"Most folks who either didn't serve as a Wizard or Hobbit would need to
> >> >know basic sorcery, such as how you use Elven-scrolls, The Phial of
> >> >Galadriel, spells, runes, etc., for a Middle-Earth game."
> >>
> >> Thanks for proving you are brain dead.
> >
> ><laughter>
> >
> >By pointing out it's exactly the same thing?
>
> No it's not. Anyone who has servied in the military
> knows the basics depending on which branch. Thoes who never did,
> would not know the basics of tactics or strategy.
So what? Nobody buys a "strategy guide" for a specific game to hear
general boilerplate about basic tactics or strategy - you want precisely
the detailed information about the nuts and bolts of the game/topic that
such guides are tailored to provide.
> A book such as
> the one you refer to for Harpoon, gave basic Naval strategy for
> using the different weapon platforms for one who never been in
> the Navy.
Exactly. And since not everyone is a Tolkien fan, someone unfamiliar
with the lore of Middle Earth would be equally in need of the specifics
of the fictional situation created in such a game.
It's exactly the same thing.
> As such it is no where near a cluebook for figuring
> out puzzles that many clickfest type games have. Where you need
> to do thing in order to win at that level before you can move to
> the next level.
Who cares? As I already mentioned, a strategy guide for a wargame is
far more general ... but what of it?
> The same information found in wargame strategy books can
> also be found in military books either printed for civilians or
> unclassified manuals done by the military.
That's fine. But authors of strategy guides make their buck by offering
a convenient compilation of specific and useful information in one neat
package - regardless of whether they're documenting HIGHWAY TO THE REICH
or MUPPET TREASURE ISLAND.
Golf33
scenario". There would be
no point in us doing this, anyway, since the nature of the game means it
will play out differently each time.
What we did put in the strategy guide was a decent primer on military
organisation and capabilities, some
quick-reference information about equipment in the game, and a detailed
historical discussion of the actual
campaign. While this information is indeed available elsewhere, having it
packaged in a single Strategy
Guide where it is inthe context of the game makes it that much more useful
for the customer. We certainly
haven't had anyone say it wasn't worth the money!
The guide was produced in two parts, the first part containing information
on understanding the game and
improving play, and the second providing the historical background to the
battle for players who are
unfamiliar with it. A brief summary of the contents:
* Basic Concepts for players totally new to military organisations and
capabilities, the chain of command,
the Principles of War, and how to conduct basic operations in the game;
* Planning processes (illustrated by a detailed examination of *one* of the
scenarios), this is substantially similar to the Individual Estimate or MAP;
* Fighting the Battle which shows how to put the plan into action and when
to deviate from it;
* Useful Tips for players who are familiar with the basics and just want to
pick up some useful hints to
fine-tune their play;
* Weapons and Equipment, a quick-reference guide to the major weapons and
vehicles in the game and
how they perform in battle; and
* Detailed Order of Battle, a list of all the units in the game in their
usual command structure.
* Historical Analysis, a detailed account of the course of Operation
Market-Garden, historical analysis of
the key events, and some hints for players attempting the Historical
Scenarios in the game.
I do agree that while it was produced with HTTR in mind, the general
principles in the guide would be
applicable to any similar wargame which accurately modelled warfare on this
scale.
Regards
33
"Jabba" <no.th...@no.hope> wrote in message
news:iytMc.379$YP1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
Jabba
"Golf33" <n...@no.no> wrote in message news:4103...@news.comindico.com.au...
> Actually the HTTR Strategy Guide does *not* contain "how to complete each
> scenario".
/snip/
Just to clarify I wasn't refering to real strategy guides (I've never seen
the one for HTTR) but was making the point that with a small number of
scenarios you could write a pretty good guide as to how to 'win' each time.
Sorry for the slight confusion.
Jabba
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:33:02 GMT the great cry-baby, Jabba gave a
> whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
> >
> >"Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon" <old...@spambusters.com> wrote in
> >message news:i9s3g0dn6hkgp9ev5...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:04:54 -0400 the great cry-baby, Giftzwerg
> >> gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
> >>
/snip/
> There is NEVER just one way to win a battle in a true
> wargame, so there can never be a hint book.
This just doesn't make sense. In all computer games I've played (against the
AI) there maybe be more than one way to win but there is always a least one
set way of almost always winning.
Major H
> AI) there maybe be more than one way to win but
>there is always a least one
> set way of almost always winning.
When I discover a way to always or almost always win a scenario in solitaire
play then I don't use that plan again. From a purely recreational
perspective I enjoy having about a 70% success rate. A lower chance of
success requires more thought and work than I want to put into a solitary
activity. A higher success rate bores me.
When I am playing a single human then I like things to be 50/50. When I am
in a group game (teams of players) I don't care who wins or loses as the
process is the thing that interests me the most.
When I umpire a group CPX I like to throw new challenges at any team that
begins to run away with the game. My idea of a perfect CPX is one that ends
in almost a draw with most participants nearing happy exhaustion. :)
raymond o'hara
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:52:09 GMT the great cry-baby, Jabba gave a
> whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
the
> >question ... :-)
>
> Can't help you there. ;)
> --
you are not the arbiter of what is a wargame ,they are all abstracts. now
it so happens my idea of a wargame matches yours. that doesn't mean others
can't discuss what they consider to be wargames here. i think role playing
games and fps suck a big one . i'm a little more forgiving of rts, depending
on the subject , i consider close combat a war game but i don't think
resourse games are, others do , they are allowed their mistaken opinions and
they can discuss them here if they want.
if you wish a moderated group start one and nazi folks about like all
moderated groups do.
this group ain't moderated .
raymond o'hara
"Adam Kippes" <adam....@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:2nrgf0l2n47rtk9gt...@4ax.com...
> In <Xns952894F37BC78ed...@195.238.3.190>, Eddy Sterckx
> wrote:
>
> > I find that type of monitor dangerous - one sneeze and it'll blow a hole
in
> > your frontline :)
>
> Just like the old days!
>
> -- AK
>
the biggest advantage of computers is in set up and the avoidance of the
dreaded "cat-quakes".
Eddy Sterckx
news:w%0Nc.159531$a24.80179@attbi_s03:
> the biggest advantage of computers is in set up and the avoidance of
> the
> dreaded "cat-quakes".
I always hear this story about cats messing up boardgames - and dogs eating
homework, but never vice versa ... if you ask me this is an ideal subject
for a thesis :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Eddy Sterckx
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 05:53:32 GMT the great cry-baby, raymond
> o'hara gave a whiny-assed opinion on, "Re: wargames and realism",
>
>> the biggest advantage of computers is in set up and the avoidance of
>> the
>>dreaded "cat-quakes".
>>
>
> And rule lawyers.
LOL - Good one !
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
old...@spambusters.com says...
> >So what? Nobody buys a "strategy guide" for a specific game to hear
> >general boilerplate about basic tactics or strategy - you want precisely
> >the detailed information about the nuts and bolts of the game/topic that
> >such guides are tailored to provide.
>
> Not for a wargame, since a true wargame one only needs to
> know boilerplate about basic tactics and strategy.
Nonsense. A newbie would need to know *tons* more than "basic tactics
and strategy" to succeed at a specific wargame, and a strategy guide
would provide precisely this.
How can "basic tactics," for example, help the newcomer understand the
problems a German panzer company commander faced, needing to attack and
defeat heavier French machines in 1940? Or the troubles an Allied
commander might have with Tigers and Panthers in 1944 taking on his
lighter armor? "Basic tactics" won't help with this - you need to (a)
know that French or German armor is heavier, (b) understand that lighter
machines have their own advantages, (c) get some help with a historical
perspective on how this sort of thing was handled in practice, and (d)
see other possibilities - including the importance of combined arms and
support weapons.
> Now depending
> one the type of wargame or level of the wargame, what is needed
> to know, is going to be different. If you are playing Combat
> Mission, the strategy guide for Harpoon isn't going to help you.
Well, that demonstrates a fine mastery of the flagrantly obvious. Is
anyone asserting that a primer on Checkers is going to help you at
Monopoly?
> You would need one that deals with combine arms, range of
> different tanks, armor of different tanks, small arms, etc. As
> well as basic tank and inf movement. Such as use of reservers,
> turning a flank, pincer movement, etc.
>
> NONE of this would be hints for one scenario over
> another, but for all tactical level WW-II wargames.
So what? That's exactly what a decent strategy guide brings to the
table; it would offer up helps for the specific weapons and situations a
gamer might face, and eliminate anything extraneous.
> >That's fine. But authors of strategy guides make their buck by offering
> >a convenient compilation of specific and useful information in one neat
> >package - regardless of whether they're documenting HIGHWAY TO THE REICH
> >or MUPPET TREASURE ISLAND.
>
> While true, it does NOT change the fact no true wargame
> has hint books.
Semantics, again. A strategy guide is nothing more than a "hint book,"
it's just that the "hints" are more general.