Detail vs. Realism
Daniel Ban
Dav1841617 wrote in message
<199807190028...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs.
Realism."
> I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
>general.
>
>The URL is:
>http://web1.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/depart/jun98/realdet.html
>
>Any comments?
>
>David
David, you posted this in both this group and the strat group. Although the
other group is larger, I suspect the more vigorous discussion will occur
here. Therefore, I am adding to my post and re-posting it here.
I thought Mr. Geryk made an excellent point. He also has a good related
article about PC Games "simulating" command, in regards to Sid Meir's
Gettysburg. Its well worth reading.
Personally, I love wargames, but I tend to focus on the GAME aspect. I see
the current focus on PC wargaming "realism" to be a bit of quest for a
non-existent Holy Grail. No PC game can really simulate battle due to the
absence of the possibility of physical harm. Also, as Mr. Geryk points out,
if a game really simulated battle COMMAND it would not be very fun.
Basically, the user would look at printed status reports or animated AI
adjutants who would tell the user of the battle, and the user would make
very limited decisions. Although many gamers clamor for "realism" they
don't REALLY want it: they don't want to smell the burning bodies or hear
the screams.
Basically, I think gamers are mis-guidedly seeking "realism" (which always
ends being represented by mind-numbing detail) because what they want is
IMMERSION. They want to be immersed in the period, vicariously experience a
sense of the conflict. In my mind, what game companies should try for is
VERSIMILITUDE, not REALISM. What I mean is, help the user feel immersed in
the game. Give just enough detail to convey a flavor of being there, but
not enough to bury the GAME aspects. By "versimilitude" I dont mean rigid
reality-based simulation, I mean the game should convery the "look and feel"
of the conflict.
I find games that emphasis detail to the exclusion of gameplay just not to
be very interesting. I am a student of history but I want more than just
history in a PC game; I want some GAME with my history.
Personally the over-emphasis on "realism" (which as Mr. Geryk points out is
not realistic at all, but is just massive detail) is why I have not been
able to stomach a main-line PC wargame since Steel Panthers. Steel Panthers
hit the right spot for me. I know it was totally historical accurate but it
conveyed the look and feel. Tanks rumbled, targets burst into flame, and
above the eye candy, each type of unit had its use in the gameplay.
Although certain gun ratings or armor factors might have been off and there
might have been other "realism" flaws, Steel Panthers made me think like a
small unit commander. It encouraged over-watch tactics, combined arms,
flanking, etc etc.
I wish more PC wargames were more like the first Steel Panthers and less
like "SimWar". I have tried several in the last couple of years but found
them uninspiring.
My 59 cents
Daniel Ban
Daniel Ban
Bob Soule wrote in message <01bdb2d1$21ac7060$a498d6ce@bobsoule>...
>Dav1841617 <dav18...@aol.com> wrote in article
><199807190028...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>> Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs
Realism."
>> I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
>> general.
> I don't think I understand his point regarding TOAW or the rest of the
>article, for that matter.
His point is this: many gamers post on newsgroups and message boards,
telling game companies they want more "realism". His observations is that
the game companies respond by giving the game more DETAIL, which is NOT the
same thing as realism. His further point is that when detail gets to be too
much, the gamer has too much information to meaningfully PLAY the game.
Instead the game becomes a simulation.
> I guess I just get tired of people complaining and whining about gaming in
>general, wargaming included. Why can't we all just enjoy the WEALTH of
>simulations available on the market today instead of crying about how "this
>game does supply like this...WAAH!" and "this game does command and control
>like this...WAAH!" and "this game doesn't let me do this...WAAH!" Get over
>it.
To some extent you make my point in this paragraph. You used the word
"simulations", not games. Perhaps you and I are interested in two different
products. But I don't really want a war SIMULATOR, I want a game. And IMO,
the PC war GAME market has been pretty poor. Personally, I have not enjoyed
a PC war game since Steel Panthers and Fantasy General.
And as to complaining about games in general, well, in my 15 year experience
of the market, I feel like there are some fairly bad trends in gaming and
that the gaming market is pretty damn screwed up. Hence the complaining.
Dav1841617
I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
general.
The URL is:
Bob Soule
> Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs.
Realism."
> I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
> general.
I don't think I understand his point regarding TOAW or the rest of the
article, for that matter. He doesn't really tell us WHAT he likes about
wargaming, and he doesn't tell us exactly what's wrong with wargaming.
The article starts off by saying that "Campaign in North Africa" was to
big and detailed, and that the Waterloo mod for Quake 5 will be too
immersive. What does he want?
As far as TOAW is concerned, he says he doesn't like the way the combat
values are displayed or used to resolve combat. So, just because the
counter says a unit has an attack strength of 32 and defense of 20, instead
of 3200-2000 or 32000 to 20000, something is wrong? Maybe the
attack/defense strengths are 6387-4019.
Also, does he take into account the detail screen for each unit? Each
unit has anti-armor, anti-personnel, high and low anti-air, etc. All of
these numbers are probably used to form an aggregate total in trying to
somehow give the gamer an "attack and defense strength factor". All of the
info displayed on the individual unit displays would not fit on a unit
counter. That's why, to my understanding, the other information screens
are available.
Then, he "praises" the Battleground series for giving gamers information
on how much damage their attacks are expected to cause. He fails to
mention that TOAW does this in the "Plan an attack" screen.
I guess I just get tired of people complaining and whining about gaming in
general, wargaming included. Why can't we all just enjoy the WEALTH of
simulations available on the market today instead of crying about how "this
game does supply like this...WAAH!" and "this game does command and control
like this...WAAH!" and "this game doesn't let me do this...WAAH!" Get over
it.
--
Bob
bobs...@ix.netcom.com
Thanks for stopping by....
David Pipes
>
> Bob Soule wrote in message <01bdb2d1$21ac7060$a498d6ce@bobsoule>...
> >> I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
> >> general.
>
> > I don't think I understand his point regarding TOAW or the rest of the
> >article, for that matter.
>
> telling game companies they want more "realism". His observations is that
> the game companies respond by giving the game more DETAIL, which is NOT the
> same thing as realism. His further point is that when detail gets to be too
> much, the gamer has too much information to meaningfully PLAY the game.
> Instead the game becomes a simulation.
But it's wrong. He argues several things, among them: simulations are not
what wargames should be, and realism always equals untenable detail.
His point about CNA was completely wrong. The game was designed for use
by clubs, not individuals, and it was not a reflection of where SPI went
or an indicator of why they went down. SPI and other companies have been
offering detailled *and* realistic games since "Sniper!", at least, with
no problems for the players. Detail is not in and of itself a problem,
nor is it unpopular.
I got the feeling that he simply did not like having to learn what all
the little numbers and indicators meant. But if you read his TOAW
review, he busts on the game for not telling him exactly how the combat
algorithm works - a request for *more* detail, if I ever heard one! He's
looking for a game in the sense that he wants to *know* that if he tells
a unit to take a hill, it'll do it.
His expression of how games should work was very similar to chess. I
got the feeling that he wants a system where turning the flank always
takes the center; a kind of high-level abstraction of "command". For
me, totally uninteresting.
> > I guess I just get tired of people complaining and whining about gaming in
> >general, wargaming included. Why can't we all just enjoy the WEALTH of
> >simulations available on the market today instead of crying about how "this
> >game does supply like this...WAAH!" and "this game does command and control
> >like this...WAAH!" and "this game doesn't let me do this...WAAH!" Get over
> >it.
>
> To some extent you make my point in this paragraph. You used the word
> "simulations", not games. Perhaps you and I are interested in two different
> products. But I don't really want a war SIMULATOR, I want a game. And IMO,
> the PC war GAME market has been pretty poor. Personally, I have not enjoyed
> a PC war game since Steel Panthers and Fantasy General.
That's because of RTS's, I fear.
> And as to complaining about games in general, well, in my 15 year experience
> of the market, I feel like there are some fairly bad trends in gaming and
> that the gaming market is pretty damn screwed up. Hence the complaining.
Eeeeehhh, well, I can think of a *lot* of good games from that time period.
You can't? Settlers, GCACW, Adel Verpflichtet...? Is it really that bad,
aside from being a small market?
(I'll be in LA starting Monday, so I will seem to drop out of the discussion.
I'll try to follow along and post from DJNews.)
--
----------------------------------------
David Pipes
Remove P from return address to reply.
----------------------------------------
David Pipes
>
> On 19 Jul 1998 00:28:22 GMT, dav18...@aol.com (Dav1841617) decided
> to post words that all would read on, "Detail vs. Realism", lets see
> if they are worth reading. unless it is by Steve Boursy:
>
> >Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs. Realism."
> > I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
> >general.
> >
> having a game of such detail doesn't really add to a game. But
> disagree on what he said about TOAW. Since the numbers shown are
> there to give you just a general idea of your units strength.
>
> One of the things I hated in my old board wargaming days,
> were people who would not attack until they filtered out what die
> roll they needed to win a battle. If they couldn't get it they would
> either move more units into the fight, or not attack.
>
> TOAW gives you just enough info to know the basic strength of
> your units with out knowing for sure how they will do against the
> enemy.
>
> What you want in a game is the ability of the game to feel
> real, it doesn't need to be real.
Yeah, I agree with that last. What really got me was that he tossed
off some remark about how realism is for military commanders, and they
don't play wargames. Excuse me, but they do, and things like Tac Ops
reek the kind of detail he hates - and do very well for military-style
gaming; what the professionals do. (Yes, they do run wargames of all
sorts. I had a friend who designed a system for them, and their are
a number of folks at several facilities near DC who do nothing but
design *simulations* for the military. Which totally contradicts his
points.)
The essay really burned me up.
Dav1841617
>Yeah, I agree with that last. What really got me was that he tossed
>off some remark about how realism is for military commanders, and they
>don't play wargames. Excuse me, but they do . . .
I reread the article and did not see Mr. Geryk make such a statement. What am
I missing?
David
Kevin Klemme
Dav1841617 <dav18...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807190028...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs.
Realism."
> I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
> general.
>
> The URL is:
> http://web1.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/depart/jun98/realdet.html
>
> Any comments?
A couple.
In general: the essay as a whole doesn't really have much to say, despite
its length. On the one hand, the author says that wargamers who want more
detail are causing problems; on the other hand, he criticizes games for not
telling players their exact chances of success; on the third (?) hand, he
writes "After all, a battlefield commander doesn't have complete control
over his units, so why should a player have this?"
Hmm. Pretty hard to tell you your exact chances of success if you don't
have complete control over your units.
It sounds to me like he's against fog of war, and against outcomes he
can't calculate in advance.
I guess I'd have to recommend that he take up chess.
Specifically regarding TOAW: Our editorialist writes:
"The problem with this attitude from a game standpoint is that the player
becomes less of a player and more of a spectator, watching things happen to
his units rather than using them to their best competitive advantage.
TalonSoft's new The Operational Art of War has taken this to a ridiculous
extreme."
First, the whole comparison is silly. "...This attitude..." was offered in
the context of a game which shall not now be called Squad Leader. It's
quite a jump in scale from a game that allows you control at the squad
level to a game that models the operational level of war.
Sure, TOAW's editor allows designers to build units out of building blocks
that represent certain types of equipment. However, you don't control
individual tanks or squads in TOAW.
Given that a player in TOAW tells units where to move, whether to fight,
when to fight, against whom to fight, how hard to fight, etc. etc., it
would be difficult to call TOAW a spectator sport.
Second, the author writes: "What I do advocate is that these tools be used
in such a way that the data they yield are presented to the gamer in a way
that can be used to make intelligent decisions. What this approach
requires, however, is a basic comfort level regarding abstraction on the
part of the game designers. At some point, things have to be reduced to a
relatively simple set of numbers, no matter how complex the process that
produced them."
Then he turns around and criticizes TOAW for: "In other words, we have the
following situation: the game provides the player with a great many numbers
for each unit, but these only approximate the actual values that the game
engine is using to resolve combat." Isn't that what he just pointed out,
that you have to reduce things to a simple set of numbers?
He follows his complaint with: " In addition, since the combat algorithms
are a secret, the numbers the game does provide are almost useless."
Really? I've been playing the game for weeks now, using those very numbers.
I suppose the writer could say that he's more comfortable if the numbers
on the counter are exactly the numbers that the computer to uses to make
its calculations, but the distinction is irrelevant. There's no real
difference in the level of abstraction needed for a designer to just assign
a panzer unit a rating of "5" and the level of abstraction needed for Norm
to decide that "x panzer IVs=5" and code that into the program.
Kevin
bspag...@my-dejanews.com
"Bob Soule" <bobs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Dav1841617 <dav18...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199807190028...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs.
> Realism."
> > I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
> > general.
>
> wargaming, and he doesn't tell us exactly what's wrong with wargaming.
> The article starts off by saying that "Campaign in North Africa" was to
> big and detailed, and that the Waterloo mod for Quake 5 will be too
> immersive. What does he want?
>
> As far as TOAW is concerned, he says he doesn't like the way the combat
> values are displayed or used to resolve combat. So, just because the
> counter says a unit has an attack strength of 32 and defense of 20, instead
> of 3200-2000 or 32000 to 20000, something is wrong? Maybe the
> attack/defense strengths are 6387-4019.
(snip)
I really didn't understand Geryk's point either. What's displayed on the unit
icons may be an abstraction, but it's all the abstraction I need to make an
informed decision on what to do. He seems to be saying I would have to
take each component of the unit and figure out what each's strengths and
weaknesses are to be able to make an accurate decision; it just isn't so.
I have to wonder how much he played it. I also have to wonder what games
he does like.
wombats r us
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
radiospace
scribbled with the virtual quill:
>Dav1841617 <dav18...@aol.com> wrote in article
><199807190028...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>> Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs.
>Realism."
>> I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
>> general.
>>
>> The URL is:
>> http://web1.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/depart/jun98/realdet.html
>>
>> Any comments?
>
>
> A couple.
>
> In general: the essay as a whole doesn't really have much to say, despite
>its length. On the one hand, the author says that wargamers who want more
>detail are causing problems; on the other hand, he criticizes games for not
>telling players their exact chances of success; on the third (?) hand, he
>writes "After all, a battlefield commander doesn't have complete control
>over his units, so why should a player have this?"
> Hmm. Pretty hard to tell you your exact chances of success if you don't
>have complete control over your units.
> It sounds to me like he's against fog of war, and against outcomes he
>can't calculate in advance.
>I guess I'd have to recommend that he take up chess.
Or algebra.
The fact that his idea of the ideal wargame is the Battleground
series, and doesn't like TOAW, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, or presumably
Close Combat (he uses a picture of it next to some ranting so I'm just
presuming) and suggests that the phrase "too immersive" is a valid
criticism tells me everything I need to know.
Chess is a great game, though. I wish I played regularly.
Patrick
--
*remove the extra consonants when replying by email*
Alan Dunkin
> The problem with TOAW (and most other war alleged-games today) is that
> you really have no idea what it is doing; important parts are just too
> complicated (and hidden). The manual itself admits that numbers are very
> misleading, particularly if they are small, many other details are
> omitted, and so on.
Whoa, wait a second here. I seem to remember reading Geryk's article when it came out
and seem to remember disagreeing about it, but haven't read it since.
Anyway, let me get this straight -- Geryk complains that gamers want realism and get
detail, not necessarily the same thing. Okay. BUT Geryk then goes on to say that the
problem with wargames is that they don't tell you how combat works (the exact
equation) which is a *detail* and not at all realistic, albeit to a certain degree.
Personally I couldn't care either way, I play with 'em or without 'em just fine. I
don't consider a product a "war alleged-game" just because it doesn't tell you its
secrets, though granted it doesn't help you any :)
--- Alan Dunkin, GameSpot
Home Away From Home - http://www.utdallas.edu/~adunkin
radiospace
scribbled with the virtual quill:
>In <35b27b2e...@news.mindspring.com>, rradi...@mmindspring.com
>(radiospace) wrote:
>
>> The fact that his idea of the ideal wargame is the Battleground
>> series, and doesn't like TOAW,
>
>I gather you didn't read the review (with its award), either. Fanatics
>are a products - or an idea's - worst enemies.
>
> -- AK
Me, a fanatic? About what? TOAW? Is that why you've employed
creative snipping to my post?
If he wrote a glowing review of TOAW that wouldn't be consistent with
the opinion as he expressed it in that article, and that's his
problem.
Kevin Klemme
radiospace <rradi...@mmindspring.com> wrote in article
<35b27b2e...@news.mindspring.com>...
> Chess is a great game, though. I wish I played regularly.
Yep. Played a lot in younger days. No insult to chess enthusiasts
intended.
Kevin
Martin Rapier
dav18...@aol.com says...
>
>Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs. Realism."
> I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
>general.
>Any comments?
I read the article a while ago as it was referred to during the lengthy
discussion on the nature of CSL/Combat Mission on the BigTime forum.
It is an area that just isn't subject to glib analysis, games can be detailed,
yet playable, and provide a 'realistic' outcome. There seems to be a problem
with the defenitions used - some people define 'game' as a competitive event,
requiring an understanding of the game mechanics to the nth degree, others
view it as a simulation, experience or whatever.
I think you just have to take each game model as it comes - and there are
plenty of variants around, each with a different emphasis; from the first
person aspects of Panzer Commander, the ultra-detail of HPS games, the real
time chaos of Close Combat, and the chess-like Ardennes Offensive.
The debate about wargaming as detail/simulation/game/battle reenactment has
been going on as long as I've been wargaming, and I imagine it will continue
for as long as the hobby survives. In the medium of computer gaming, the
possibilities of the technology, and the unique market pressures (mainly
oveheads of development) compared to other forms of wargaming will mean the
inevitably major games companies will follow what they percieve to be the
largest market segments. Simply porting boardgames straight onto a computer is
commercial lunacy, as the the only market is people who already own the
boardgames... the massive success of PC IIIR is a case in point.
I still see plenty of options on the market, but these days I personally find
very detailed turn based games (like the HPS stuff, even the Steel Panthers
series etc) too time consuming to play. It isn't the detail or lack of it,
more how many mouse clicks are involved to get a result, and with 'real time'
or continuous action/sim execution systems it is just that much quicker to
play. The trend I personally loath in more recent computer wargames is the
'unit at a time' move/combat mechanism, as in Panzer General, Steel Panthers,
East Front etc. I can't bear it, it takes hours to move decent sized around,
and you can make decisions in a completely artificial environment, making one
step at a time. If you enjoy micromanagement etc then I can see it is a valid
system (and I've enjoyed playing all those games), but it doesn't take
advantage of the unique possibilities of the computer as a games medium. If I
really want to push units around one at a time, I can pull out my miniatures
or my dusty heaps of boardgames...
Don't know if any of that makes sense.
Cheers.
Martin.
--
Martin Rapier, Database Administrator
Corporate Information & Computing Services.
University of Sheffield Tel 0114 222 1137
The opinions expressed here may be those of my employer, or they may not.
http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/
Richard Wein
issue is really one of individual taste. I've decided not to buy TAOW,
because I don't think it's the sort of game I like. But clearly many people
are enjoying it, and I'm certainly not going to crticize Talonsoft for
producing a game which other people like, even if I don't.
So you've got an idea of where I'm coming from, a game that I've been
playing a lot recently and enjoying hugely is Clash of Steel. COS plays more
like a board game: you can see the odds and the die rolls, etc.
On a few details....
Kevin Klemme wrote in message <6otf85$q...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
<snip>
> Second, the author writes: "What I do advocate is that these tools be used
>in such a way that the data they yield are presented to the gamer in a way
>that can be used to make intelligent decisions. What this approach
>requires, however, is a basic comfort level regarding abstraction on the
>part of the game designers. At some point, things have to be reduced to a
>relatively simple set of numbers, no matter how complex the process that
>produced them."
> Then he turns around and criticizes TOAW for: "In other words, we have the
>following situation: the game provides the player with a great many numbers
>for each unit, but these only approximate the actual values that the game
>engine is using to resolve combat." Isn't that what he just pointed out,
>that you have to reduce things to a simple set of numbers?
It sounds to me as though this is not a simple set set of numbers, because
(a) there's a "great many" of them, and (b) (more importantly) it isn't
clear what the numbers mean.
> He follows his complaint with: " In addition, since the combat algorithms
>are a secret, the numbers the game does provide are almost useless."
>Really? I've been playing the game for weeks now, using those very numbers.
But I've read posts from intelligent-sounding people who said they couldn't
see the relationship between the numbers and the behaviour of units. For
example, units with high values being defeated by units with much lower
values, for no apparent reason.
> I suppose the writer could say that he's more comfortable if the numbers
>on the counter are exactly the numbers that the computer to uses to make
>its calculations, but the distinction is irrelevant.
The distinction is very relevant if you're told the algorithms, because then
you can do the calculations yourself.
>There's no real
>difference in the level of abstraction needed for a designer to just assign
>a panzer unit a rating of "5" and the level of abstraction needed for Norm
>to decide that "x panzer IVs=5" and code that into the program.
The difference is that, in TAOW, the overall effectiveness of the panzer
unit is, I believe, a function of may parameters, not just one.
-----
Richard Wein (Tich) <richar...@rubbish.virgin.net> Remove the "rubbish."
to reply.
See my web sites for multiplayer PBEM games and EFS Nova at
http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.wein/
"Don't panic!"
Richard Wein
>
>Anyway, let me get this straight -- Geryk complains that gamers want
realism and get
>detail, not necessarily the same thing. Okay. BUT Geryk then goes on to say
that the
>problem with wargames is that they don't tell you how combat works (the
exact
>equation) which is a *detail* and not at all realistic, albeit to a certain
degree.
I think his point is (and mine certainly would be) that, if the game were
less detailed, it would be more practical to give players the full
algorithms, and the players would be more able to use them.
I agree that having the full algorithms is not realistic, but I maintain
that wargames are not very realistic anyway, so I would prefer designers to
concentrate on making them playable, rather than sacrifice playability in
the pursuit of unattainable realism.
Mats Olsson
Alan Dunkin <adu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Adam Kippes wrote:
>
>> The problem with TOAW (and most other war alleged-games today) is that
>> you really have no idea what it is doing; important parts are just too
>> complicated (and hidden). The manual itself admits that numbers are very
>> misleading, particularly if they are small, many other details are
>> omitted, and so on.
>
>Whoa, wait a second here. I seem to remember reading Geryk's article when it came out
>and seem to remember disagreeing about it, but haven't read it since.
>
>detail, not necessarily the same thing. Okay. BUT Geryk then goes on to say that the
>problem with wargames is that they don't tell you how combat works (the exact
>equation) which is a *detail* and not at all realistic, albeit to a certain degree.
I think Geryk complains because he can't make good decisions without
knowing - or at least have a good idea about - how much force he needs to
win a battle.
Personally, I find it irritating to have no information about the worth
of artillery or air attacks, or knowing how much an AT company is worth vs
enemy tanks. It makes it difficult to make good decisions.
/Mats
Kevin Klemme
Richard Wein <richar...@rubbish.virgin.net> wrote in article
<6ovl02$a1p$3...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>>Isn't that what he just pointed out,
> >that you have to reduce things to a simple set of numbers?
>
> It sounds to me as though this is not a simple set set of numbers,
because
> (a) there's a "great many" of them, and (b) (more importantly) it isn't
> clear what the numbers mean.
You can set the counters to show you two numbers, offense and defense.
They are approximations of relative strength based on the ("great many")
actual numbers. I find them perfectly clear. 15 is higher than 10--that
"15" unit is *generally* stronger. So what's unclear?
> But I've read posts from intelligent-sounding people who said they
couldn't
> see the relationship between the numbers and the behaviour of units. For
> example, units with high values being defeated by units with much lower
> values, for no apparent reason.
That happens all through military history. That's why I drew the
comparison to chess in my post--if you want to guarantee that you can take
a spot, play chess. I'm not interested in a wargame where a higher number
guarantees victory, and I doubt most wargamers are, either (happy to eat
crow here if I'm shown to be wrong).
> > I suppose the writer could say that he's more comfortable if the
numbers
> >on the counter are exactly the numbers that the computer to uses to make
> >its calculations, but the distinction is irrelevant.
>
> The distinction is very relevant if you're told the algorithms, because
then
> you can do the calculations yourself.
Not if they're very complex calculations, you can't (or at least, I
wouldn't want to. I suppose with a computer you can do all the calculations
you want).
TOAW plays a lot like a board wargame, but behind the scenes it breaks
that mold. There is no traditional "combat results table" on which you roll
a die and think, "4--attacker loses two steps".
> >There's no real
> >difference in the level of abstraction needed for a designer to just
assign
> >a panzer unit a rating of "5" and the level of abstraction needed for
Norm
> >to decide that "x panzer IVs=5" and code that into the program.
>
> The difference is that, in TAOW, the overall effectiveness of the panzer
> unit is, I believe, a function of may parameters, not just one.
I didn't say there was no difference; I said there was no difference in
the level of abstraction. Somebody still assigned arbitrary but hopefully
researched numbers to a unit. It doesn't matter whether that arbitrary
number was reached by a guesstimate of the strength of a unit, or a
guesstimate of the calculated strengths of several pieces of equipment.
Kevin
radiospace
scribbled with the virtual quill:
>> For
>> example, units with high values being defeated by units with much lower
>> values, for no apparent reason.
>
> That happens all through military history. That's why I drew the
>comparison to chess in my post--if you want to guarantee that you can take
>a spot, play chess. I'm not interested in a wargame where a higher number
>guarantees victory, and I doubt most wargamers are, either (happy to eat
>crow here if I'm shown to be wrong).
Something I would have liked in TAOW is more feedback in the
after-action report giving you some idea about what the main factors
in the outcome of the battle were. Not in math terms, but more like
in reading a book. "Russians use mountain cover to stage heroic
defense against overwhelming odds", or "German tanks hammer the
Russian rear, causing terrible casulties." Maybe not a reasonable
wish from a programming perspective, but it would give a better
understanding of what just transpired, particularly when you've just
lost to a seemingly inferior opponent. Maybe your guys ran low on
supply, and had to pull back, or maybe they're just inexperienced
troops and folded without reason. Most of this sort of info is in
there, and you could make an educated guess as to what happened if you
looked at all the unit stats carefully, and who broke off when, but it
would take an inordinate amount of time in any but the smallest
battle.
As far as being able to compute the outcomes beforehand, as I
understand it each piece of equipment or squad actually fires shots at
each other, and the results are calculated from the ground up. I
don't think you could ask for a more realistic system at this scale,
assuming the formulas underneath are accurate. From my experience
they seem to be remarkably believable, at least, with a few
exceptions, such as the behavior of artillery.
radiospace
scribbled with the virtual quill:
>In <35b28ac8...@news.mindspring.com>, rradi...@mmindspring.com
>(radiospace) wrote:
>
>> >I gather you didn't read the review (with its award), either. Fanatics
>> >are a products - or an idea's - worst enemies.
>
>> Me, a fanatic? About what? TOAW? Is that why you've employed
>> creative snipping to my post?
>
>It's called editing and it is a courtesy to those who read your posts;
>if something I left out was material, let me know.
Yes, you've attempted to make it look like my opinion is based only on
my "fanatic" support of TOAW, when in fact I listed his dislike of 3
games, all of which I like: Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Close Combat, and
TOAW and his preference for a series that I completely dislike
(Battleground) as a strong indication that I don't share his tastes in
wargames in any way.
>
>And if being called a fanatic bothers you, how about "gratuitously
>rude" and "close-minded"...
How does this one sound to you?
"Plonk"
wnowotny
Daniel Ban wrote:
> Dav1841617 wrote in message
> <199807190028...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> >Anyone who plays TOAW should read Bruce Geryk's article "Detail vs.
> Realism."
> > I feel he makes a valid point concerning TOAW and computer wargames in
> >general.
> >
> >The URL is:
> >http://web1.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/depart/jun98/realdet.html
> >
> >Any comments?
> >
Well put, and I agree 100%. Just wish I was articulate enough to express it
quite so well.
Kevin Klemme
> Something I would have liked in TAOW is more feedback in the
> after-action report giving you some idea about what the main factors
> in the outcome of the battle were. Not in math terms, but more like
> in reading a book. "Russians use mountain cover to stage heroic
> defense against overwhelming odds", or "German tanks hammer the
> Russian rear, causing terrible casulties." Maybe not a reasonable
> wish from a programming perspective, but it would give a better
> understanding of what just transpired, particularly when you've just
That would be great fun! I have no idea how hard it would be to program,
or even how hard it would be to determine the decisive factor(s) in a given
assault. I suspect that in a game of TOAW's complexity the latter would be
fairly difficult.
But maybe not. Historians can always tell you exactly what happened in
real life.<g>
Take Care,
Kevin
Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
--Mark Twain
Bird...@my-dejanews.com
"Richard Wein" <richar...@rubbish.virgin.net> wrote:
>
> So you've got an idea of where I'm coming from, a game that I've been
> playing a lot recently and enjoying hugely is Clash of Steel. COS plays more
> like a board game: you can see the odds and the die rolls, etc.
I agree. However COS also provides a lot of depth in the numbers. I guess
this is what makes it such a great game, appealing to both new wargamers and
old grognards. One can play a pretty good game just by looking at the
numbers on the on-screen counters. However, the way the numbers are computed
is a masterpiece of wargaming design. The system takes into account morale,
unit cohesiveness, unit efficiency, weather, supply, partisans. These
factors are in turn affected by the positioning of army group supply depots,
lines of communications, and even the location and disposition of fleets for
supply and interdiction (when a port city is being used for supply).
And, by the way, most equations and game mechanics are all presented in the
manual. I've taken a long hard look at these equations and believe they not
only provide detail, but realism as well. But, as I mentioned above, the
beauty of COS is you don't have to know any of he detail to have a good time
with the game. However, having a rudimentary understanding helps with one's
strategy. And, if you're a die hard grognard, you can pull out your
calculator and crunch some numbers.
COS relies heavily upon the CPU to perform bookkeeping chores which add
significantly to the game, but would be too cubersome without he computer
(i.e. COS couldn't survive as a board game). Imagine checking every single
hex on the board for the closest enemy or friendly unit (factoring in terrain
costs) twice per impulse (up to 20 times per turn!). In addition, you would
have to keep track of every hex a unit entered during its movement, as it
changes sides during the movement (but can revert back during the next
impulse). Having done all this, one must then count the number hexes for
EVERY unit to the closest supply base to get each units supply status. Oh by
the way, one must also determine if the supply base is isolated or not.
Then, to get the current strength of the unit, the player would have to input
the supply value along with efficiency numbers and updated morale factors
into an equation. Since each battle or air strike changes morale, the
strength number and equatinos would have to be recalculated each turn. The
computer does all this in a near instantenous fashion, with the result
rounded to a whole number on the displayed on-screen counter. What would
take human an hour to accomplish is provided to the player(s) in less than a
second; this is the way to use the computer to keep up with the tedious
bookkeeping chores. The detail is distilled into a simple number. Yet, the
detail, depth, and realism is all there if you really want to run the numbers
yourself.
Detail vs Realism? Take a look at the COS design. Personally, I believe its
a good case study in the way it should be done, at least on the Grand
Strategy scale.
JTP
Eric Moon
about his main points, but could not sort out the specific reasons why. After,
sorting them out I posted the following message to GDR's letter department. I'm
glad to see it sparked interest in others as well.
Bruce Geryk makes several clarifying points about wargaming and gaming
in general in his GDR featured article "Detail vs. Realism: What this
means for PC wargames".
He clarifies the two extremes in wargaming objectives and more
importantly the value and purpose of each. Bruce draws the distinction
between a game in which you spend an hour learning the rules and a
lifetime to master (i.e., Chess) vs. a game in which the rules are so
complex no one could never expect to grasp them all at once. In fact,
he questions the latter as even being correctly labeled a game. I
would agree with him in the correctness of the label. I believe that a
model would be a better description. However, I do not agree with his
point about the value of this evolution in wargaming. I think both
types of programs have their purpose and will depend on the user's
objective.
Why would someone want a model over a game? I construct computer models
of dynamic systems for a living. The purpose of the model is to aid in
the design of a feedback control system to stabilize and then optimize
the system's frequency response. In school, you learn the "classical"
control design methods on a "given" dynamic system to learn technique.
It is very possible, in fact noble, to spend one's career learning and
mastering the classical design methods on "given" textbook systems as is
the case in academia. In the real world, you are never "given"
anything, but rather are required to build models so complex and
nonlinear, or non-classical, that you must use what you have learned in
school only as tools to help gain insight into your *real* system.
Now to the point, what you find after constructing a model so complex,
is that mentally grasping it in its entirety is impossible What you do
instead is "play" with it. A heuristic, or iterative, approach to
solving the design problem is adopted. And, one begins to realize that,
even though we built the model, the behavior of the system as a whole is
always unexpected. The model teaches us something. This is the value of
the detailed model as a design tool. A tool that is as equally valid as
the classical design (tactical) techniques one learnes on the simpler
textbook systems.
Wargamers are interested in playing games that allow one to relive
history in order to gain an interactive appreciation of battle. The
one-way communication of reading history cannot provide this same
experience. In other words, mastering the "game" is not the sole
objective. Chess provides this tactical challenge in volumes.
The beautifully rendered and highly detailed models of military history
such as "The Operational Art of War" and "The Age of Rifles", developed
by Norm Koger require that the user open himself to the possiblity that
the model may teach him something. This process requires playing with
the model and evaluating the results of chosen tactics. One may only
realistically master such a game by learning the subtle details that are
acquired through experience. This opens up both insight and respect
for those that commanded and fought in such historic events.
In other words, you don't learn it in school!
Eric Moon
Phoenix, Arizona
JOE J KUSSEY
Kevin Klemme wrote in message <6p23d5.
>>."... Maybe not a reasonable
>> wish from a programming perspective, but it would give a better
>> understanding of what just transpired, particularly when you've just
>> lost to a seemingly inferior opponent...[snip]
>
> That would be great fun! I have no idea how hard it would be to program,
>or even how hard it would be to determine the decisive factor(s) in a given
>assault. I suspect that in a game of TOAW's complexity the latter would be
>fairly difficult.
> But maybe not. Historians can always tell you exactly what happened in
>real life.<g>
Kevin,
This "after-battle report" does exist in some games, such as "Operation
Crusader" by Atomic. You can look at the detailed odds of a particular
battle, and analyze what was the decisive effect in the battle (every column
shift, or artillery points, or armour points, are shown and compared)
Joe