CONFLICT OF HEROES: This is why boardgames make me vomit...

[Giftzwerg]

RALLYING, HIDING, AND OTHER UNIT ACTIONS

RALLYING

"Wounded units can be rallied using the 'Rally' button (see Unit Action
Buttons). Rallying costs 5AP for all units. A successful rally attempt
removes the wound condition from the unit. Not all wound conditions can
be removed, and the difficulty of removing a wound condition varies
with the type of condition. Units receive a bonus to their rally rolls
when they are in terrain with a defense bonus, and/or when they are in
the same hex as other friendly unwounded units. Units cannot rally when
in the same hex as an enemy unit. Some wound conditions do not permit
rallying."

How clear. How obvious. "A bonus to their rally roll!" Dice! Nice!
And only *56* pages of this sort of incomprehensible
nonsense^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h clarity. In this wonderful modern boardgame
simulator of a high-tech boardgame!

Makes me hunger insatiably to move on to the next paragraph - which
deals with HIDING.

Hint: It's even *longer* - and less comprehensible! If that can be
believed! I had less trouble internalizing Vermont Statues Annotated
Title 23: Rules and Criminal Procedure.

Heck, I had a meeting with a NY State Tax Auditor going over seven years
of corporate sales. I had less trouble telling her, "OK, that sounds
fine. If you'll work with us a bit, we can get what you need."

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

[David]

This is based on a simple beer and pretzels board game. I'm shocked you find it hard to understand. The PC games you love such as Battles from the Bulge (213 pages of rules) and Navies at War are *much* more complex. I mean, you played Star Fleet Battles for god sakes which is one of the most complex board games there is.

[Mike Kreuzer]

Is the manual on-line anywhere? Looked, couldn't find it anywhere obvious.

A lot of the boardgame publishers put their manuals up, have for ages.
If the computer game publishers wanted to copy stuff from the
boardgame world that'd be something to copy, though of course NWS's
SAI manual was up way before the game. Nothing for them to hide I suppose.


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

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jokb9k$api$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> > Heck, I had a meeting with a NY State Tax Auditor going over seven years
> > of corporate sales. I had less trouble telling her, "OK, that sounds
> > fine. If you'll work with us a bit, we can get what you need."
> >
>
> Is the manual on-line anywhere? Looked, couldn't find it anywhere obvious.

Sent. To your above email addy.

> A lot of the boardgame publishers put their manuals up, have for ages.
> If the computer game publishers wanted to copy stuff from the
> boardgame world that'd be something to copy, though of course NWS's
> SAI manual was up way before the game. Nothing for them to hide I suppose.

Heh. I didn't even know there was a manual for SAI. Never looked for
it. Didn't need it.

Proper computer game!

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

- Howie Carr

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 12/05/2012 11:54 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<jokb9k$api$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
> says...
>
>>> Heck, I had a meeting with a NY State Tax Auditor going over seven years
>>> of corporate sales. I had less trouble telling her, "OK, that sounds
>>> fine. If you'll work with us a bit, we can get what you need."
>>>
>>
>> Is the manual on-line anywhere? Looked, couldn't find it anywhere obvious.
>
> Sent. To your above email addy.
>

Ta for that. I'll mull it over with a wine & probably a whine later on
tonight.

>> A lot of the boardgame publishers put their manuals up, have for ages.
>> If the computer game publishers wanted to copy stuff from the
>> boardgame world that'd be something to copy, though of course NWS's
>> SAI manual was up way before the game. Nothing for them to hide I suppose.
>
> Heh. I didn't even know there was a manual for SAI. Never looked for
> it. Didn't need it.
>
> Proper computer game!
>
>
>

40m hexes, blah blah blah... it all seems vaguely familiar. <g> Game
of the year - 1995?

I just feel like we've moved on from this. SSG took boardgame
simulators, not as far as they could go probably, but certainly as far
as there was some point in taking them. Now we're down to adding
completely unusable 3D views? Time for some more PC wargames designed
as PC wargames I think.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jokj9a$qu5$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> > Heh. I didn't even know there was a manual for SAI. Never looked for
> > it. Didn't need it.
> >
> > Proper computer game!

> 40m hexes, blah blah blah... it all seems vaguely familiar. <g> Game
> of the year - 1995?
>
> I just feel like we've moved on from this. SSG took boardgame
> simulators, not as far as they could go probably, but certainly as far
> as there was some point in taking them. Now we're down to adding
> completely unusable 3D views? Time for some more PC wargames designed
> as PC wargames I think.

Exactly. I think it was a natural move when PCs first appeared to port
existing games, particularly since computers didn't have the processing
power for a MSFS-X, SKYRIM, or BFTB.

But once it was possible to build, say, a realistic flight simulator,
the designers wisely based their design on a real airplane, allowed the
gamer realistic information that a pilot would have, and let the game
proceed by allowing the control over the simulation that a real pilot
would have over the real airplane.

What they didn't do was construct a paper-based simulation of an
airplane and then translate *that* wretchedly-compromised horror onto a
computer screen.

And it's all about the interface; I don't care what's going on behind
the scenes - whether boardgame, or computer simulation, or the Keebler
Elf Tree - the only thing that matters is whether I'm presented with all
and only the information the real-world command would get, and whether
the inputs I can make to the system are realistic and properly limited.

But it really has to be a computer simulation behind the scenes, for one
crucial reason; there *must* be a system for controlling player-side
units that the player is not in contact with. Boardgames handle this by
something like making the player roll against the "In Contact" CRT, and
requiring success to issue an order to the unit.

Right there, though, your design is an epic FAIL. Units out of contact
with HQ don't just sit there; they take action on their own, and only a
computer can do same-side AI without some gamey, Byzantine scheme
involving random chance.

[dougb]

I'm enjoying the game, but I enjoy playing board games on vassal so that's not a surprise. It's a faithful conversion of the board game to the pc and yep absolutely it's a board game simulator - pretty much the intention of the design and programming team. I don't think this title will change the minds of anyone who is not interested in board war games.

And I'm definitely looking forward to the tactical version of Command Ops that Dave has indicated is in development. I can play both board and pc wargames but where I have a pc game like SAI or Commmand Ops I usually won't bother with the board war games on the same subject. So I have little or no interest in Bulge or Market Garden board games as Command Ops series is clearly superior to any of the board wargame variants on those battles.

Doug

[Mike Kreuzer]

I can see your stuff in Google groups now but not via aioe.org... oh well, plan B, I was always going to revert to Google at some point.

Boardgame simulators never used to bother me. Then for the longest time boardgames themselves didn't bother me... but just the other night I was playing a boardgame, and we were bidding for initiative & I thought, what the hell is this actually meant to represent.

It was pure gamey mechanic - picking which person in the seating order goes first had nothing to do with what the game was about, but everything to do with who was going to win. Hard to suspend the disbelief after that. And hard to swallow a PC game with those sort of mechanics implemented on purpose, with no reason behind it other than it was necessary in cardboard. That's just me. Others mileage may vary.

[dougb]

Yeah Mike I get that feeling to as well from time to time - often after a brutal sequence of chit draws that means it's curtains for whatever side I'm playing.

I sure hope we get another nice surprise like SAI this year. Saw Dave's post that he hoped that the Eastern Front Command Ops would be out by the end of the year and that makes me think that there is a good chance it won't be unfortunately.

Doug

[Jeff Urs]

On Sunday, May 13, 2012 3:26:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Kreuzer wrote:

> I can see your stuff in Google groups now but not via aioe.org... oh
> well, plan B, I was always going to revert to Google at some point.

That's because Google Groups is once again failing to feed its new posts
out to other Usenet servers.

--
Jeff

[Giftzwerg]

In article <5925234.414.1336700548663.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@vbws2>, singl...@hotmail.com says...

> This is based on a simple beer and pretzels board game. I'm shocked you find it hard to understand. The PC games you love such as Battles From the Bulge (213 pages of rules) and Navies at War are *much* more complex. I mean, you played Star Fleet Battles for god sakes which is one of the most complex board games there is.

I did play STAR FLEET BATTLES - but when I did, it was the only game in
town. And I believe I've explained at great length why STARFLEET
COMMAND was a brilliant PC production, even if based on a nasty
boardgame.

WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant. It's how many of
them you need to read to play that game that counts.

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

- Howie Carr

[Giftzwerg]

In article <20260917.1005.1336850392891.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynmk20>, douglas...@rogers.com says...

> I'm enjoying the game, but I enjoy playing board games on vassal so that's not a surprise. It's a faithful conversion of the board game to the pc and yep absolutely it's a board game simulator - pretty much the intention of the design and programming team. I don't think this title will change the minds of anyone who is not interested in board war games.

I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind. The core of my whole
world-view is that this group is about *Historical PC wargames*.

Not boardgames.

> And I'm definitely looking forward to the tactical version of Command Ops that Dave has indicated is in development. I can play both board and pc wargames but where I have a pc game like SAI or Commmand Ops I usually won't bother with the board war games on the same subject. So I have little or no interest in Bulge or Market Garden board games as Command Ops series is clearly superior to any of the board wargame variants on those battles.

Any version of Arjuna's vision floats my boat. Panther's efforts, IMO,
are the *ne plus ultra* of PC game design.

I'll take boardgame simulators, and I'm playing my way though COH, but
it's like saying I'll eat a mash of corn and potatoes in order to stay
alive. I don't want it, but I'll eat it if that's all that's offered.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <3676860.729.1336893962433.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@pbnh4>, mi...@mikekreuzer.com says...

> Boardgame simulators never used to bother me. Then for the longest time boardgames themselves didn't bother me... but just the other night I was playing a boardgame, and we were bidding for initiative & I thought, what the hell is this actually meant to represent.

"How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"

Yeah. Whew. "Bidding for initiative." Can it be that you don't recall
the "bidding for initiative" session conducted along the Chir River when
von Manstein's relief effort for the Stalingrad *kessel* failed? I fear
for your historical knowledge. <g>

[Pelle Nilsson]

Mike Kreuzer <mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> writes:

> I just feel like we've moved on from this. SSG took boardgame
> simulators, not as far as they could go probably, but certainly as far
> as there was some point in taking them. Now we're down to adding
> completely unusable 3D views? Time for some more PC wargames designed
> as PC wargames I think.

Yes, please.

COH is an OK beer & pretzel's game. I played the boardgame twice, and
might play it again (preferably over a few beers). But surely there are
better ways to represent tactical combat in a computer game? Simulating
die rolls, adding markers under units...? Forcing players to zoom in to
read numbers printed on simulated cardboard counters?!

--
/Pelle

[Pelle Nilsson]

Mike Kreuzer <mi...@mikekreuzer.com> writes:

> Boardgame simulators never used to bother me. Then for the longest
> time boardgames themselves didn't bother me... but just the other
> night I was playing a boardgame, and we were bidding for initiative &
> I thought, what the hell is this actually meant to represent.
>
> It was pure gamey mechanic - picking which person in the seating order
> goes first had nothing to do with what the game was about, but
> everything to do with who was going to win. Hard to suspend the
> disbelief after that. And hard to swallow a PC game with those sort of
> mechanics implemented on purpose, with no reason behind it other than
> it was necessary in cardboard. That's just me. Others mileage may
> vary.

Yup.

List of randomly choosen actions to choose from is fine, but displaying
images of cards is horrible. Even worse is simulating die rolls.

I suggest this simple method: If you want to simulate X, simulate X, do
not simulate a boardgame simulating X. Is that so difficult?

Of course sometimes boardgames have great ideas that could be
reused. The method X that happens to work great in a boardgame also
happens to work great in your computer game. Fine then. Simulating
supply by simple supply-lines is an abstraction I really like, as
opposed to the spreadsheet-accountant-method of using secret clever
algorithms to assign % supply values to all locations and units.

--
/Pelle

[Giftzwerg]

In article <2pr4ulr...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
says...

> I suggest this simple method: If you want to simulate X, simulate X, do
> not simulate a boardgame simulating X. Is that so difficult?

From a previous post of mine:

"Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."

[BasKa]

> So I am thinking of having an Artemis for wargames where the main screen is
> for the Commander and the other screens for his Staff Officers. Any
> developer wants to bite?
>
> The challenge will be gathering a flock of wargamers, as due to in the real
> time nature of the game all players must be online simultaneously.

Something like this is done in RT as well: http://megagame-makers.nl/wiki/doku.php/introduction
I've played two so far: Bello Gallica (Ceasar against the Gauls) and Breakthrough 1940 (German blitzkrieg in 1940) and they are intense, very satisfying experiences where teams will play the actual commanders and give orders to their units (and other commanders) under the stress of time. The Megagames take a whole day to play (10.00 - 17.30) and have some 40 - 50 players and umpires.
This year it is Barbarossa 1941 and as commander of the Leningrad Military District I fear Comrade Stalin even more than the German troops!

Bas

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 09:27, BasKa <curt...@hetnet.nl> wrote:

> Something like this is done in RT as well:http://megagame-makers.nl/wiki/doku.php/introduction
> I've played two so far: Bello Gallica (Ceasar against the Gauls) and Breakthrough 1940 (German blitzkrieg in 1940) and they are intense, very satisfying experiences where teams will play the actual commanders and give orders to their units (and other commanders) under the stress of time.

Never mind the added stress of conflicting victory conditions of
various players who are supposed to be on your side ...

I was part of both of those mega-games mentioned above and as command
experiences go they're as real as you can get without serving in a
real war.

> This year it is Barbarossa 1941 and as commander of the Leningrad Military District I fear Comrade Stalin even more than the German troops!

I'll tell my buddy Alan to head north then :)

Can't make it this year - family obligations - next year ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 11 mei, 02:59, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> RALLYING, HIDING, AND OTHER UNIT ACTIONS
>
> RALLYING
>
> "Wounded units can be rallied using the 'Rally' button (see Unit Action
> Buttons). Rallying costs 5AP for all units. A successful rally attempt
> removes the wound condition from the unit. Not all wound conditions can
> be removed, and the difficulty of removing a wound condition varies
> with the type of condition. Units receive a bonus to their rally rolls
> when they are in terrain with a defense bonus, and/or when they are in
> the same hex as other friendly unwounded units. Units cannot rally when
> in the same hex as an enemy unit. Some wound conditions do not permit
> rallying."

Sound pretty bog standard to me.

> How clear.  How obvious.

Exactly. Beer & pretzel level - some of our homegrown rulesets have
almost identical mechanics.

> "A bonus to their rally roll!"  Dice!  Nice!
> And only *56* pages of this sort of incomprehensible
> nonsense^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h clarity.

What are you complaining about ? The manual is excellent.

> In this wonderful modern boardgame
> simulator of a high-tech boardgame!

I'm glad you agree.

> Makes me hunger insatiably to move on to the next paragraph - which
> deals with HIDING.
>
> Hint:  It's even *longer* - and less comprehensible!  If that can be
> believed!  I had less trouble internalizing Vermont Statues Annotated
> Title 23: Rules and Criminal Procedure.

"Shoot, then ask questions" ?

> Heck, I had a meeting with a NY State Tax Auditor going over seven years
> of corporate sales.  I had less trouble telling her, "OK, that sounds
> fine.  If you'll work with us a bit, we can get what you need."

Yeah, but in that case you know what you're talking about, whereas
with modern boardgames : you obviously haven't played one in decades.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 mei, 03:54, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Heh.  I didn't even know there was a manual for SAI.  Never looked for
> it.  Didn't need it.

There is one - and it sucks - unlike the manual for Conflict of
Heroes.

> Proper computer game!

SAI for WotY 1985 !

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 mei, 21:19, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:

> And I'm definitely looking forward to the tactical version of Command Ops that Dave has indicated is in development.  I can play both board and pc wargames but where I have a pc game like SAI or Commmand Ops I usually won't bother with the board war games on the same subject.  So I have little or no interest in Bulge or Market Garden board games as Command Ops series is clearly superior to any of the board wargame variants on those battles.

I love BFTB, but it doesn't give me the "Grand Campaign" game I also
enjoy and I'm looking for a replacement for my 10-year old SSG Bulge
game.

Luckily that hole is getting filed by Battle of the Bulge

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2102739237/battle-of-the-bulge-the-simulation-game-for-the-ip

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 15 mei, 01:57, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant.  It's how many of
> them you need to read to play that game that counts.

Well, for SAI a whole lot more than are actually in the manual, which
is why it's a fail, for Conflict of Heroes the manual gives you all
the info you need.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 15 mei, 02:21, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <3676860.729.1336893962433.JavaMail.geo-discussion-

> forums@pbnh4>, m...@mikekreuzer.com says...

>
> > Boardgame simulators never used to bother me. Then for the longest time boardgames themselves didn't bother me... but just the other night I was playing a boardgame, and we were bidding for initiative & I thought, what the hell is this actually meant to represent.
>
> "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"
>
> Yeah.  Whew.  "Bidding for initiative."  Can it be that you don't recall
> the "bidding for initiative" session conducted along the Chir River when
> von Manstein's relief effort for the Stalingrad *kessel* failed?  I fear
> for your historical knowledge. <g>

That you fail to see beyond a mechanic which forces players to focus
and prioritize - just like happened IRL - is beyond me.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <b62a193a-7e01-4ee3-9330-77844c808407
@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Heck, I had a meeting with a NY State Tax Auditor going over seven years
> > of corporate sales.  I had less trouble telling her, "OK, that sounds
> > fine.  If you'll work with us a bit, we can get what you need."
>
> Yeah, but in that case you know what you're talking about, whereas
> with modern boardgames : you obviously haven't played one in decades.

Isn't CONFLICT OF HEROES a "modern boardgame?" You know, the one I'm
playing *now*? It's awful.

There's nothing "modern" about it. It's the old story. A boardgame
simulator, and a bad one.

Here's an example. COH faces the counters to a certain hexside, right?
Just like you have to do in a paper boardgame? So you have counters all
over the map that are pretty much upside down and very difficult to
read.

On a PC? Stupid. Fucking brain-dead stupid. Why not face the counters
all upright, and just have a facing indicator pointing to the hexside
the unit faces? For that matter, why not make the counters *hexagonal*
instead of square, and light up the facing in a contrasting color?

The answer is that the paper boardgame publishing company wants square
counters to make printing the counter sheets cheaper, and the straight-
port morons who built the computer version cheerfully incorporated even
this idiotic pathology of the boardgame world on a platform where it
made zero sense.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 15 mei, 14:38, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:
>
> COH is an OK beer & pretzel's game. I played the boardgame twice, and
> might play it again (preferably over a few beers). But surely there are
> better ways to represent tactical combat in a computer game?

Sure.

The problem is that there's simply not enough money (and talent) in
the business to AND design a realistic WW2 tactical wargame AND
program it.

Could they have picked a better and more realistic boardgame to start
with ? Sure - Band of Brothers comes to mind which really is the most
realistic tactical WW2 game on the market - but Uwe Eickert's design
isn't bad either and it's available.

Incidentally - he has let drop that they're thinking about doing his
Gettysburg game for the computer as well. It seems more and more
people are starting to realize what great boardgame designs are out
there.

> Simulating
> die rolls, adding markers under units...? Forcing players to zoom in to
> read numbers printed on simulated cardboard counters?!

Yeah, those are the things I would have streamlined - but it is a
first attempt by this boardgame publisher to port his designs and I
can see why he's reluctant to take it too far given his boardgame
audience and background.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 11:23, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> The answer is that the paper boardgame publishing company wants square
> counters to make printing the counter sheets cheaper, and the straight-
> port morons who built the computer version cheerfully incorporated even
> this idiotic pathology of the boardgame world on a platform where it
> made zero sense.

Yeah, I've *never* seen a square unit counter in a properly designed
pc wargame either.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 12 mei, 17:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> But once it was possible to build, say, a realistic flight simulator,
> the designers wisely based their design on a real airplane, allowed the
> gamer realistic information that a pilot would have, and let the game
> proceed by allowing the control over the simulation that a real pilot
> would have over the real airplane.

Yup - and then they made it so real they killed all the fun and flight
simulators disappeared from my radar. Luckily they still sell millions
of copies to other gamers - wait, what ?

> What they didn't do was construct a paper-based simulation of an
> airplane and then translate *that* wretchedly-compromised horror onto a
> computer screen.

Yeah, that would have sold too many copies to the unwashed masses - we
can't have that you know, we're elite.

> And it's all about the interface; I don't care what's going on behind
> the scenes - whether boardgame, or computer simulation, or the Keebler
> Elf Tree - the only thing that matters is whether I'm presented with all
> and only the information the real-world command would get, and whether
> the inputs I can make to the system are realistic and properly limited.

... just like in most modern boardgame designs.

> But it really has to be a computer simulation behind the scenes, for one
> crucial reason; there *must* be a system for controlling player-side
> units that the player is not in contact with.  Boardgames handle this by
> something like making the player roll against the "In Contact" CRT, and
> requiring success to issue an order to the unit.

Repeat : you obviously haven't played a modern boardgame in decades,
so please stop making assumptions about them. Check out this game for
instance :

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/49096/battleground-historical-warfare-second-punic-war-2

> Right there, though, your design is an epic FAIL.  Units out of contact
> with HQ don't just sit there; they take action on their own, and only a
> computer can do same-side AI without some gamey, Byzantine scheme
> involving random chance.

LOL - just check how this is beautifully handled in the game linked to
above. Basically you give orders to units - advance and attack nearest
enemy, take that hill, defend this position, etc. and they'll keep
doing this until a counter-order reaches them. This is *exactly* the
way BFTB works btw.

Repeat : stop talking about things you obviously don't know anything
about - it damages your reputation.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Mike Kreuzer]

What I'm not getting: if I wanted to play this boardgame simulation,
vs as good an opponent as there is, why wouldn't I just download the
vassal module & play for free?

http://www.vassalengine.org/wiki/Module:Conflict_of_Heroes:_Awakening_the_Bear!_Russia_1941-1942

*If* I wanted to simulate playing this boardgame on my PC, why on
earth would I buy it from Matrix? What do I get with their PC
"conversion"? Crappy AI? Worse graphics? Warm inner glow? What? I just
don't get it.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <9932904d-944f-4a22-9c1d-47cd4df72715@
8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Heh.  I didn't even know there was a manual for SAI.  Never looked for
> > it.  Didn't need it.
>
> There is one - and it sucks - unlike the manual for Conflict of
> Heroes.

Doesn't matter. I didn't need it.

> > Proper computer game!
>
> SAI for WotY 1985 !

COH for WOTY 1975. Just edged out PANZERBLITZ.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <f4357b56-2cb6-4761-b231-3f5fa945c036
@dg7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

>
> On 12 mei, 17:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But once it was possible to build, say, a realistic flight simulator,
> > the designers wisely based their design on a real airplane, allowed the
> > gamer realistic information that a pilot would have, and let the game
> > proceed by allowing the control over the simulation that a real pilot
> > would have over the real airplane.
>
> Yup - and then they made it so real they killed all the fun and flight
> simulators disappeared from my radar. Luckily they still sell millions
> of copies to other gamers - wait, what ?

I'm pretty sure Microsoft Flight Simulator has sold more copies than A
FEW ACRES OF GAMEY NONSENSE, though.

> > And it's all about the interface; I don't care what's going on behind
> > the scenes - whether boardgame, or computer simulation, or the Keebler
> > Elf Tree - the only thing that matters is whether I'm presented with all
> > and only the information the real-world command would get, and whether
> > the inputs I can make to the system are realistic and properly limited.
>
> ... just like in most modern boardgame designs.

Oh, please. CONFLICT OF COUNTERS is nothing like reality. The player
is concerned about wee numbers painted on unreadable counters, not
squads of men.

> > But it really has to be a computer simulation behind the scenes, for one
> > crucial reason; there *must* be a system for controlling player-side
> > units that the player is not in contact with.  Boardgames handle this by
> > something like making the player roll against the "In Contact" CRT, and
> > requiring success to issue an order to the unit.
>
> Repeat : you obviously haven't played a modern boardgame in decades,
> so please stop making assumptions about them. Check out this game for
> instance :

I thought we were talking about CONFLICT OF HEROES? There is *zilch* in
this boardgame simulator that controls a player's own forces - you have
to push each counter, hex-by-hex, every turn. And "out of contract?"
Nope. The boardgame magic ensures - heck, *requires* - magic contact on
every turn.

> > Right there, though, your design is an epic FAIL.  Units out of contact
> > with HQ don't just sit there; they take action on their own, and only a
> > computer can do same-side AI without some gamey, Byzantine scheme
> > involving random chance.
>
> LOL - just check how this is beautifully handled in the game linked to
> above.

I thought we were talking about CONFLICT OF HEROES?

> Basically you give orders to units - advance and attack nearest
> enemy, take that hill, defend this position, etc. and they'll keep
> doing this until a counter-order reaches them. This is *exactly* the
> way BFTB works btw.

Pff. I bet it's a totally seamless experience, too.

> Repeat : stop talking about things you obviously don't know anything
> about - it damages your reputation.

I don't care if it "damages my reputation." I want computer games, not
boardgame simulators.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1d179b71-465a-410c-8df7-214cc2889499
@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant.  It's how many of
> > them you need to read to play that game that counts.
>
> Well, for SAI a whole lot more than are actually in the manual, which
> is why it's a fail, for Conflict of Heroes the manual gives you all
> the info you need.

Speaking for myself, I've never looked at the SAI manual. Didn't need
to.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <5caf4ca7-cf5b-4302-a7bf-
123b27...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"
> >
> > Yeah.  Whew.  "Bidding for initiative."  Can it be that you don't recall
> > the "bidding for initiative" session conducted along the Chir River when
> > von Manstein's relief effort for the Stalingrad *kessel* failed?  I fear
> > for your historical knowledge. <g>
>
> That you fail to see beyond a mechanic which forces players to focus
> and prioritize - just like happened IRL - is beyond me.

How about a realistically-designed proper computer game where you don't
need a boardgamey "mechanic" to force players to focus and prioritize?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <0395a762-82e7-4bf7-a9c7-5b394e14f1a9
@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > The answer is that the paper boardgame publishing company wants square
> > counters to make printing the counter sheets cheaper, and the straight-
> > port morons who built the computer version cheerfully incorporated even
> > this idiotic pathology of the boardgame world on a platform where it
> > made zero sense.
>
> Yeah, I've *never* seen a square unit counter in a properly designed
> pc wargame either.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a properly designed PC wargame that tilted
counters upside down to show facing - even those with square ones.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 12:44, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1d179b71-465a-410c-8df7-214cc2889499

> @l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant.  It's how many of
> > > them you need to read to play that game that counts.
>
> > Well, for SAI a whole lot more than are actually in the manual, which
> > is why it's a fail, for Conflict of Heroes the manual gives you all
> > the info you need.
>
> Speaking for myself, I've never looked at the SAI manual.  Didn't need
> to.

I'm sure that for their intended target audience - naval buffs - the
manual is superfluous, thus an afterthought, item #368 on the to-do
list - and it shows.

It's not as bad as the "manual" for NAW - an incomprehensible single
web-page full of naval jargon - but it's one of the reasons this game
will not be breaking out of its niche.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Mike Kreuzer]

Exactly - focussing on & prioritising something that doesn't actually occur at the expense of stuff that does occur is pure boardgamey nonsense.

[Mike Kreuzer]

Exactly. The much touted "modern" aspect of it is eluding me.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 12:43, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <f4357b56-2cb6-4761-b231-3f5fa945c036

> @dg7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
>
>
> > On 12 mei, 17:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But once it was possible to build, say, a realistic flight simulator,
> > > the designers wisely based their design on a real airplane, allowed the
> > > gamer realistic information that a pilot would have, and let the game
> > > proceed by allowing the control over the simulation that a real pilot
> > > would have over the real airplane.
>
> > Yup - and then they made it so real they killed all the fun and flight
> > simulators disappeared from my radar. Luckily they still sell millions
> > of copies to other gamers - wait, what ?
>
> I'm pretty sure Microsoft Flight Simulator has sold more copies than A
> FEW ACRES OF GAMEY NONSENSE, though.

Yeah, extremely good sales, that's why M$ killed the franchise back in
2009.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/03/microsoft_flight_simulator_partners/

But wait, they're reviving it now - and trying to get customers
interested in it again by making it more simple - and free

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/06/microsoft_flight_sim_free/

If they manage to put the fun back into flight simming they might even
see some more money from me.

Meanwhile A Few Acres of Snow has sold-out its first print-run of 6000
- about treble the normal amount of a print-run for a board wargame.

Oh, sure, M$ Flight Sim is selllng more units, but with 150 M$ coders
on the payroll and all other expenses I wonder which game has the
highest ROI

> > > And it's all about the interface; I don't care what's going on behind
> > > the scenes - whether boardgame, or computer simulation, or the Keebler
> > > Elf Tree - the only thing that matters is whether I'm presented with all
> > > and only the information the real-world command would get, and whether
> > > the inputs I can make to the system are realistic and properly limited.
>
> > ... just like in most modern boardgame designs.
>
> Oh, please.  CONFLICT OF COUNTERS is nothing like reality.  The player
> is concerned about wee numbers painted on unreadable counters, not
> squads of men.

Just like most other pc wargame then. The difference being that here
the underlying game-engine-mechanics work.

> > > Right there, though, your design is an epic FAIL.  Units out of contact
> > > with HQ don't just sit there; they take action on their own, and only a
> > > computer can do same-side AI without some gamey, Byzantine scheme
> > > involving random chance.
>
> > LOL - just check how this is beautifully handled in the game linked to
> > above.
>
> I thought we were talking about CONFLICT OF HEROES?

Your words : "Only a computer can do ..." - while I can give a couple
of examples of boardgames which can do likewise.

> > Basically you give orders to units - advance and attack nearest
> > enemy, take that hill, defend this position, etc. and they'll keep
> > doing this until a counter-order reaches them. This is *exactly* the
> > way BFTB works btw.
>
> Pff.  I bet it's a totally seamless experience, too.

Pretty much - but again, how would you know ?

> > Repeat : stop talking about things you obviously don't know anything
> > about - it damages your reputation.
>
> I don't care if it "damages my reputation."  I want computer games, not
> boardgame simulators.

Well, you've got 14 of them already this year - too bad most of them
are crappy designs - as predicted.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 12:36, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <9932904d-944f-4a22-9c1d-47cd4df72715@

> 8g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > Heh.  I didn't even know there was a manual for SAI.  Never looked for
> > > it.  Didn't need it.
>
> > There is one - and it sucks - unlike the manual for Conflict of
> > Heroes.
>
> Doesn't matter.  I didn't need it.
>
> > > Proper computer game!
>
> > SAI for WotY 1985 !
>
> COH for WOTY 1975.  Just edged out PANZERBLITZ.

Well, it was a nominee for best wargame of 2009 over at BGG, but IIRC
Combat Commander took the prize.

Combat Commander isn't a good candidate for conversion though - just
too much randomness and chaos in it - OCD-type pc wargames would just
freak out at so much realism.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 15 mei, 01:57, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant.  It's how many of
>> them you need to read to play that game that counts.
>
>Well, for SAI a whole lot more than are actually in the manual, which
>is why it's a fail,

Huh? What did you even need a manual for in SAI?

Rgds, Frank

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 12:45, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <5caf4ca7-cf5b-4302-a7bf-
> 123b279a9...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

> says...
>
> > > "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"
>
> > > Yeah.  Whew.  "Bidding for initiative."  Can it be that you don't recall
> > > the "bidding for initiative" session conducted along the Chir River when
> > > von Manstein's relief effort for the Stalingrad *kessel* failed?  I fear
> > > for your historical knowledge. <g>
>
> > That you fail to see beyond a mechanic which forces players to focus
> > and prioritize - just like happened IRL - is beyond me.
>
> How about a realistically-designed proper computer game where you don't
> need a boardgamey "mechanic" to force players to focus and prioritize?

You mean a system where the player can decide how much from a limited
pool of resources he wants to invest in a particular endeavour ?

If only someone would invent a system like that. It would involve
having a limited number of items and a means to select a number of
them and put them towards a particular goal, preferably with some back-
and-forth bluffing with your opponent.

If only there was an easy to understand, real world example of a
system like that. But you know what ? Maybe we can invent such a
system - let's call it Better Indirect Decisions - or "bid" for short.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <af1b87d5-41f9-4b16-8070-362454353515
@l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > > > Right there, though, your design is an epic FAIL.  Units out of contact
> > > > with HQ don't just sit there; they take action on their own, and only a
> > > > computer can do same-side AI without some gamey, Byzantine scheme
> > > > involving random chance.
> >
> > > LOL - just check how this is beautifully handled in the game linked to
> > > above.
> >
> > I thought we were talking about CONFLICT OF HEROES?
>
> Your words : "Only a computer can do ..." - while I can give a couple
> of examples of boardgames which can do likewise.

This boardgame moves out-of-contact units via an AI system that requires
absolutely zero player interaction? Like, a ghostly hand appears over
the board and moves the counter? Without some Byzantine system of
rules, card-turning, dice-rolling, chit-picking?

> > > Basically you give orders to units - advance and attack nearest
> > > enemy, take that hill, defend this position, etc. and they'll keep
> > > doing this until a counter-order reaches them. This is *exactly* the
> > > way BFTB works btw.
> >
> > Pff.  I bet it's a totally seamless experience, too.
>
> Pretty much - but again, how would you know ?

I wouldn't. The only contact I've had with it is the boardgamegeek.com
page that shows a bunch of pictures.

Perhaps you could post the relevant text from the rulebook where this
AI-system is implemented?

> > > Repeat : stop talking about things you obviously don't know anything
> > > about - it damages your reputation.
> >
> > I don't care if it "damages my reputation."  I want computer games, not
> > boardgame simulators.
>
> Well, you've got 14 of them already this year - too bad most of them
> are crappy designs - as predicted.

Which ones? We should be talking about concrete examples.

[Holdit]

In article <f4357b56-2cb6-4761-b231-3f5fa945c036
@dg7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> On 12 mei, 17:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > But once it was possible to build, say, a realistic flight simulator,
> > the designers wisely based their design on a real airplane, allowed the
> > gamer realistic information that a pilot would have, and let the game
> > proceed by allowing the control over the simulation that a real pilot
> > would have over the real airplane.
>
> Yup - and then they made it so real they killed all the fun and flight
> simulators disappeared from my radar. Luckily they still sell millions
> of copies to other gamers - wait, what ?
>

Hmmmm...what exactly did they do to take out the fun? The realism is
there alright, but only if you want it. You can still fire up your
Cessna 172 and depart from 13R at JFK without filing a flight plan or
bothering to talk to air traffic control and with your flight dynamic
settings on simple, with auto-rudder and auto-mixture enabled. I'm
having a problem seeing where realism is killing the fun in this
scenario.

I reckon their effort to make more of a fun game with MS Flight is
misguided, myself, because it seems to be more about creating a cash cow
than it is about putting fun back into the game. I doubt it'll be enough
fun to distract "gamer" types from RPGs and FPS's in any meaningful way,
and it certainly doesn't look like it'll be realistic enough to attract
those who already own FSX. That baton now seems to have been passed to
Lockheed Martin, who have released their own version of FSX, Prepar3D.
If I had to put money on one of them being around a few years from now,
I wouldn't be putting it on MS Flight.

Holdit

--
"Can I touch it if I wash my hands first? Especially this one?"
- Loud Howard

[Giftzwerg]

In article <f6c1a811-1f2c-412c-8953-
f40085...@c8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com

says...

> > > > "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"
> >
> > > > Yeah.  Whew.  "Bidding for initiative."  Can it be that you don't recall
> > > > the "bidding for initiative" session conducted along the Chir River when
> > > > von Manstein's relief effort for the Stalingrad *kessel* failed?  I fear
> > > > for your historical knowledge. <g>
> >
> > > That you fail to see beyond a mechanic which forces players to focus
> > > and prioritize - just like happened IRL - is beyond me.
> >
> > How about a realistically-designed proper computer game where you don't
> > need a boardgamey "mechanic" to force players to focus and prioritize?
>
> You mean a system where the player can decide how much from a limited
> pool of resources he wants to invest in a particular endeavour ?

No. I mean a system where the player doesn't "invest resources" but
"gives orders to subordinate units" who then carry out the orders
autonomously.

> If only someone would invent a system like that. It would involve
> having a limited number of items and a means to select a number of
> them and put them towards a particular goal, preferably with some back-
> and-forth bluffing with your opponent.
>
> If only there was an easy to understand, real world example of a
> system like that. But you know what ? Maybe we can invent such a
> system - let's call it Better Indirect Decisions - or "bid" for short.

My point is that if I'm picking chits, or rolling dice, or turning over
cards, or moving little cardboard squares, or taking turns ... I'm
playing a boardgame.

[Holdit]

In article <MPG.2a1c69527...@news-east.giganews.com>,
giftzw...@hotmail.com says...
> In article <2pr4ulr...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
> says...
>
> > I suggest this simple method: If you want to simulate X, simulate X, do
> > not simulate a boardgame simulating X. Is that so difficult?
>
> From a previous post of mine:
>
> "Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
> reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
> blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."
>
>
Brilliant.

Quick hypothetical, new WW2 tactical infantry combat gets released (not
Combat Mission). Its WEGO or real time, no squares or hexes, you give
orders and let them be executed, not CRTs DRMs or other boardgame stuff
- you get to think about what the company or battalion commander would
have to think about. Buuttt...the engine is actually a port of ASL, with
all the ASL stuff hidden from the player, even though first fire, FPF,
To hit/To kill modifiers and all that other good stuff is still actually
happening out of sight.

Problem or not? Good game or bad?

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 13:22, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"

>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 15 mei, 01:57, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant.  It's how many of
> >> them you need to read to play that game that counts.
>
> >Well, for SAI a whole lot more than are actually in the manual, which
> >is why it's a fail,
>
> Huh? What did you even need a manual for in SAI?

Because I had no clue what I was doing in the demo and got frustrated.
Is this a trick question ?

Ok, you may find this funny, but I sure as hell ain't laughing and I
guess that I'm not the only one who ran the demo and then simply ran.
If they want to break out of their naval grog niche, they need to do
better than that.

See, I'd like to make SAI a better product, a game that wargamers like
me can appreciate, so the developer gets more money and I get another
game - win-win for all.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 14:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <af1b87d5-41f9-4b16-8070-362454353515

> @l5g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > > > Right there, though, your design is an epic FAIL.  Units out of contact
> > > > > with HQ don't just sit there; they take action on their own, and only a
> > > > > computer can do same-side AI without some gamey, Byzantine scheme
> > > > > involving random chance.
>
> > > > LOL - just check how this is beautifully handled in the game linked to
> > > > above.
>
> > > I thought we were talking about CONFLICT OF HEROES?
>
> > Your words : "Only a computer can do ..."  - while I can give a couple
> > of examples of boardgames which can do likewise.
>
> This boardgame moves out-of-contact units via an AI system that requires
> absolutely zero player interaction?  Like, a ghostly hand appears over
> the board and moves the counter?  Without some Byzantine system of
> rules, card-turning, dice-rolling, chit-picking?

I'll ignore the strawman part of the above paragraph and try to get
the idea behind the system acros.

In the "Battleground Warfare" system a unit is not a number of painted
figures but a card of which the footprint represents the unit itself -
this card moves in increments of the length or width of the card, so
no tape measuring is needed so movement is quick. On the card itself
you write your order in symbols - move to <location> etc. In your turn
this unit will do as you ordered it - just like in BFTB, and you have
to move it that way, until you spend action points to change the
order. But there are loads of other things you could spend those
points on so it's a constant internal battle of "I need to change that
unit's orders, but I also need to do this and that and <aaargh>" As
command challenges go, it's a pretty fun one, with constant decision
making.

> > > > Basically you give orders to units - advance and attack nearest
> > > > enemy, take that hill, defend this position, etc. and they'll keep
> > > > doing this until a counter-order reaches them. This is *exactly* the
> > > > way BFTB works btw.
>
> > > Pff.  I bet it's a totally seamless experience, too.
>
> > Pretty much - but again, how would you know ?
>
> I wouldn't.  The only contact I've had with it is the boardgamegeek.com
> page that shows a bunch of pictures.
>
> Perhaps you could post the relevant text from the rulebook where this
> AI-system is implemented?

Some videos which can explain it better than words

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/6037
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/2870
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/581

They're of the fantasy version of the game, but they're basically
comparable

> > > > Repeat : stop talking about things you obviously don't know anything
> > > > about - it damages your reputation.
>
> > > I don't care if it "damages my reputation."  I want computer games, not
> > > boardgame simulators.
>
> > Well, you've got 14 of them already this year - too bad most of them
> > are crappy designs - as predicted.
>
> Which ones?  We should be talking about concrete examples.

Just some examples :

Team Assault - Baptism of Fire - absolutely dreadful game, saw the
beta and hated it.
The Drift 1879 - not a game in sight in there
Soldiers of Empire 2 - micro-management hell with 1500 units a side
Naval War : Arctic Circle - again, no game there.
Napoleonic Battles: Campaign 1814 - just the same Tiller game I played
back in 1990

My point is that if a pc wargame gets released I take a look at it - a
good look - and that this year for me only Conflict of Heroes looked
good enough to spend some money and time on. The main reason is
because the developers of those other games forgot to design a
compelling wargame underneath the 1’s and 0’s – or they designed one
and it sucked because it wasn’t put to the test before they spend 3
months coding on it and then couldn't throw anything out.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[dougb]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:14:46 AM UTC-4, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On 12 mei, 21:19, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > And I'm definitely looking forward to the tactical version of Command Ops that Dave has indicated is in development.  I can play both board and pc wargames but where I have a pc game like SAI or Commmand Ops I usually won't bother with the board war games on the same subject.  So I have little or no interest in Bulge or Market Garden board games as Command Ops series is clearly superior to any of the board wargame variants on those battles.
>
> I love BFTB, but it doesn't give me the "Grand Campaign" game I also
> enjoy and I'm looking for a replacement for my 10-year old SSG Bulge
> game.
>
> Luckily that hole is getting filed by Battle of the Bulge
>
> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2102739237/battle-of-the-bulge-the-simulation-game-for-the-ip
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

I should have been a bit more specific on re: the Bulge and Market Garden Games - the board games I'm not interested in are the Grand Tactical ones such as MMP Games have put out. Command Ops has eliminated my need or desire for those.

On the other hand I'm still looking for someone to do an Eastern Front wide game on the pc where you don't have to push every single god damned division, and where the game system actually puts out historically plausible results - so I still look to board war games for those.

Doug

[Giftzwerg]

In article <MPG.2a1dad12c...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

> > "Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
> > reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
> > blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."
> >
> >
> Brilliant.
>
> Quick hypothetical, new WW2 tactical infantry combat gets released (not
> Combat Mission). Its WEGO or real time, no squares or hexes, you give
> orders and let them be executed, not CRTs DRMs or other boardgame stuff
> - you get to think about what the company or battalion commander would
> have to think about. Buuttt...the engine is actually a port of ASL, with
> all the ASL stuff hidden from the player, even though first fire, FPF,
> To hit/To kill modifiers and all that other good stuff is still actually
> happening out of sight.
>
> Problem or not? Good game or bad?

I say it's all about the interface. So long as I receive information
from the system that's appropriate - IE, only what the real commander
would know - and give realistic orders to units currently in my command,
then I really don't care what happens under the hood.

If there's some massive boardgame at the heart of BFTB, that's OK with

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 14:16, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <f6c1a811-1f2c-412c-8953-
> f4008588d...@c8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com

Sure - and given the number of digital ports that are getting
announced left and right there soon will be lots of digital wargames
based on solid, proven mechanics - a big change from now. And I'm sure
that at least some of them will ditch the visible dice and cards, so
you'll be happy too.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 14:14, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> In article <f4357b56-2cb6-4761-b231-3f5fa945c036

> @dg7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...> On 12 mei, 17:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But once it was possible to build, say, a realistic flight simulator,
> > > the designers wisely based their design on a real airplane, allowed the
> > > gamer realistic information that a pilot would have, and let the game
> > > proceed by allowing the control over the simulation that a real pilot
> > > would have over the real airplane.
>
> > Yup - and then they made it so real they killed all the fun and flight
> > simulators disappeared from my radar. Luckily they still sell millions
> > of copies to other gamers - wait, what ?
>
> Hmmmm...what exactly did they do to take out the fun? The realism is
> there alright, but only if you want it. You can still fire up your
> Cessna 172 and depart from 13R at JFK without filing a flight plan or
> bothering to talk to air traffic control and with your flight dynamic
> settings on simple, with auto-rudder and auto-mixture enabled. I'm
> having a problem seeing where realism is killing the fun in this
> scenario.

Good question - maybe it was the forums where the elitists ruled,
maybe it was because gamers like me realized all coding efforts were
geared towards features we wouldn't see anyway and felt orphaned by
the developers. Fact is a lot of gamers like me, the non-uber-realism
guys, left flight simming over the years to the point that M$ was just
left with the elitist high-profile customer base which wasn't enough
to keep the franchise afloat. So they canned it in 2009.

> I reckon their effort to make more of a fun game with MS Flight is
> misguided, myself, because it seems to be more about creating a cash cow
> than it is about putting fun back into the game.

I didn't pick the word "fun" by accident - that's the word M$ used to
describe the changes. I guess they have a hunch of what went wrong.

> I doubt it'll be enough
> fun to distract "gamer" types from RPGs and FPS's in any meaningful way,
> and it certainly doesn't look like it'll be realistic enough to attract
> those who already own FSX.

Could be - trying to please everyone is hard.

> That baton now seems to have been passed to
> Lockheed Martin, who have released their own version of FSX, Prepar3D.
> If I had to put money on one of them being around a few years from now,
> I wouldn't be putting it on MS Flight.

Well, *I* didn't pick M$ Flight Sim as an example of a game that did
so well because they didn't inherit anything from boardgames.

Here's $50 for whoever puts Wings of War on a digital platform.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <MPG.2a1daa7ae...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

> > > But once it was possible to build, say, a realistic flight simulator,
> > > the designers wisely based their design on a real airplane, allowed the
> > > gamer realistic information that a pilot would have, and let the game
> > > proceed by allowing the control over the simulation that a real pilot
> > > would have over the real airplane.
> >
> > Yup - and then they made it so real they killed all the fun and flight
> > simulators disappeared from my radar. Luckily they still sell millions
> > of copies to other gamers - wait, what ?
> >
> Hmmmm...what exactly did they do to take out the fun? The realism is
> there alright, but only if you want it. You can still fire up your
> Cessna 172 and depart from 13R at JFK without filing a flight plan or
> bothering to talk to air traffic control and with your flight dynamic
> settings on simple, with auto-rudder and auto-mixture enabled. I'm
> having a problem seeing where realism is killing the fun in this
> scenario.
>
> I reckon their effort to make more of a fun game with MS Flight is
> misguided, myself, because it seems to be more about creating a cash cow
> than it is about putting fun back into the game. I doubt it'll be enough
> fun to distract "gamer" types from RPGs and FPS's in any meaningful way,
> and it certainly doesn't look like it'll be realistic enough to attract
> those who already own FSX. That baton now seems to have been passed to
> Lockheed Martin, who have released their own version of FSX, Prepar3D.
> If I had to put money on one of them being around a few years from now,
> I wouldn't be putting it on MS Flight.

Speaking for myself, the problem with MSFS was that flying an airplane
from point to point is kinda boring; the product always seemed more like
a chore than fun. But there are any number of *combat* flight
simulators, and these sell like hotcakes. I've got all of 'em, and
flight simulators aren't even the games I like best.

And this part of the thread is really missing the whole point - *all* of
the flight simulators out there design the experience around a real
airplane. Oh, they might abstract some things and offer the player a
less realistic, more fun-oriented game (I, myself, almost never play IL-
2 with the realism sliders on full...) - but that's *not* the same as
designing a paper boardgame and basing the PC version around something
that works using dice, a board, and a square of paper with an airplane
printed on it.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 16:24, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> On the other hand I'm still looking for someone to do an Eastern Front wide game on the pc where you don't have to push every single god damned division, and where the game system actually puts out historically plausible results - so I still look to board war games for those.

An iPad version of this game is in the works :

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/33003/the-caucasus-campaign-the-russo-german-war-in-the

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 14:25, Holdit <holditREM...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS> wrote:
> In article <MPG.2a1c69527ad02b74989...@news-east.giganews.com>,
> giftzwerg...@hotmail.com says...> In article <2pr4ulr2x8....@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krigss...@pelle-n.net

> > says...
>
> > > I suggest this simple method: If you want to simulate X, simulate X, do
> > > not simulate a boardgame simulating X. Is that so difficult?
>
> > From a previous post of mine:
>
> > "Designing a computer game around a paper boardgame instead of military
> > reality is like designing your holodeck sexual romp around Georgie's
> > blow-up rubber love doll instead of Counselor Troi."
>
> Brilliant.
>
> Quick hypothetical, new WW2 tactical infantry combat gets released (not
> Combat Mission). Its WEGO or real time, no squares or hexes, you give
> orders and let them be executed, not CRTs DRMs or other boardgame stuff
> - you get to think about what the company or battalion commander would
> have to think about.

Takes about 10 man/year to develop but continue ...

> Buuttt...the engine is actually a port of ASL, with
> all the ASL stuff hidden from the player, even though first fire, FPF,
> To hit/To kill modifiers and all that other good stuff is still actually
> happening out of sight.
>
> Problem or not? Good game or bad?

Probably not such a good game - ASL is actually pretty outdated and
gamey compared to more modern tactical WW2 games like Band of
Brothers, Combat Commander or Lock 'n Load or even lighter wargames
like Conflict of Heroes or even ASLSK

If you're under 40 and interested in tactical WW2 but new to it all,
ASL is not at the top of the list of games you'll try.

Conflict of Heroes sold out at Essen - ASL was nowhere in sight.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[dougb]

I have that board game and have played it on vassal - very enjoyable. So yep that one is definitely on my radar. On the Eastern Front I was thinking more along the lines of corp or mixed corps level games - I'm currently playtesting Ted Raicer's The Dark Valley. Nothing on the PC now or event apparently in the pipeline that scratches that particular itch.

Doug

[Frank E]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 07:00:10 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 16 mei, 13:22, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 15 mei, 01:57, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant.  It's how many of
>> >> them you need to read to play that game that counts.
>>
>> >Well, for SAI a whole lot more than are actually in the manual, which
>> >is why it's a fail,
>>
>> Huh? What did you even need a manual for in SAI?
>
>Because I had no clue what I was doing in the demo and got frustrated.
>Is this a trick question ?

Trick question? Nah. I just found it kind of baffling. There are quite
a few things I could point at in SAI that are problematic but 'it's
too diffcult to play without a manual' wasn't anywhere on my radar.

I actually had the opposite reaction, I skimmed the manual to see if
there was anything that I was missing because it all felt too simple.

Rgds, Frank

[Giftzwerg]

In article <f262f963-72eb-4884-8ccf-b39ceed59cb3
@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > > > > > Right there, though, your design is an epic FAIL.  Units out of contact
> > > > > > with HQ don't just sit there; they take action on their own, and only a
> > > > > > computer can do same-side AI without some gamey, Byzantine scheme
> > > > > > involving random chance.
> >
> > > > > LOL - just check how this is beautifully handled in the game linked to
> > > > > above.
> >
> > > > I thought we were talking about CONFLICT OF HEROES?
> >
> > > Your words : "Only a computer can do ..."  - while I can give a couple
> > > of examples of boardgames which can do likewise.
> >
> > This boardgame moves out-of-contact units via an AI system that requires
> > absolutely zero player interaction?  Like, a ghostly hand appears over
> > the board and moves the counter?  Without some Byzantine system of
> > rules, card-turning, dice-rolling, chit-picking?
>
> I'll ignore the strawman part of the above paragraph and try to get
> the idea behind the system acros.

There's no "strawman" here; I'm simply pointing out that PC games come
with AI programming to run the opponent's units, so if the designer
wants, he gets same-side AI essentially "for free." Boardgames seldom
include an AI, so generally the only command & control limitation is
requiring some sort of "contact" be established to let the unit take
action.

If you have boardgames in mind that allow subordinates units to act
intelligently and independently when out of contact with the player, I'd
be highly interested to see the text of the rules that implement this.

> In the "Battleground Warfare" system a unit is not a number of painted
> figures but a card of which the footprint represents the unit itself -
> this card moves in increments of the length or width of the card, so
> no tape measuring is needed so movement is quick. On the card itself
> you write your order in symbols - move to <location> etc. In your turn
> this unit will do as you ordered it - just like in BFTB, and you have
> to move it that way, until you spend action points to change the
> order. But there are loads of other things you could spend those
> points on so it's a constant internal battle of "I need to change that
> unit's orders, but I also need to do this and that and <aaargh>" As
> command challenges go, it's a pretty fun one, with constant decision
> making.

But what happens if the situation changes? Can the unit change its own
orders as formations do in STEAM AND IRON?

> > Perhaps you could post the relevant text from the rulebook where this
> > AI-system is implemented?
>
> Some videos which can explain it better than words
>
> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/6037
> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/2870
> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/581

Totally rudimentary, though - a far cry from an AI routine that can
semi-intelligently command your own units for you if out of contact or
if your standing orders no longer make any sense.

> My point is that if a pc wargame gets released I take a look at it - a
> good look - and that this year for me only Conflict of Heroes looked
> good enough to spend some money and time on. The main reason is
> because the developers of those other games forgot to design a

> compelling wargame underneath the 1?s and 0?s ? or they designed one
> and it sucked because it wasn?t put to the test before they spend 3

> months coding on it and then couldn't throw anything out.

I'd rather have one BFTB every five years than a hundred shiny new
boardgame simulators.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <769a5e35-25d4-4c2b-ae32-72c89c7664a4
@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > My point is that if I'm picking chits, or rolling dice, or turning over
> > cards, or moving little cardboard squares, or taking turns ... I'm
> > playing a boardgame.
>
> Sure - and given the number of digital ports that are getting
> announced left and right there soon will be lots of digital wargames
> based on solid, proven mechanics - a big change from now. And I'm sure
> that at least some of them will ditch the visible dice and cards, so
> you'll be happy too.

But is this how we move forward? In any pursuit?

I mean, this discussion has been held in every human endeavor to date.
Propeller-driven aircraft were "solid, proven mechanics," and yet
visionaries realized the potential of jet turbines. Early jets were
unreliable, prone to fires and failures, and barely outperformed the
piston engines they replaced. Yet now, jets rule the world, and no one
seriously considers the piston and the propeller as real choices for
modern aircraft design.

Steam engines, telegraphy, oil lamps, gas-fired streetlights,
phonographs, carburetors, vacuum tubes, cathode ray tubes ...

... the list is literally endless of things that represented "solid,
proven mechanics" and were supplanted when technology advance. I argue
that the time has come in the PC wargame industry. Other computer game
genres have moved on from paper. It's time we did too.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <Ds2zT4sNr8az4l...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> >Because I had no clue what I was doing in the demo and got frustrated.
> >Is this a trick question ?
>
> Trick question? Nah. I just found it kind of baffling. There are quite
> a few things I could point at in SAI that are problematic but 'it's
> too diffcult to play without a manual' wasn't anywhere on my radar.
>
> I actually had the opposite reaction, I skimmed the manual to see if
> there was anything that I was missing because it all felt too simple.

Which is exactly right, design-wise. The *process* of naval command in
WW1 was bone-simple; Admiral Beatty looked at a map with plotted
positions on it, asked questions of his staff about this and that, and
then said something like, "Make signal to 5th Battle Squadron. Come to
course 135. Speed 24."

Heck, eleventy-zillion books have been written about chess, but the
rules can fit on an 8x11 sheet of paper. Even that *en passante*
business.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <6a277817-d941-4622-9273-
889a38...@p1g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> > Huh? What did you even need a manual for in SAI?
>
> Because I had no clue what I was doing in the demo and got frustrated.
> Is this a trick question ?
>
> Ok, you may find this funny, but I sure as hell ain't laughing and I
> guess that I'm not the only one who ran the demo and then simply ran.
> If they want to break out of their naval grog niche, they need to do
> better than that.
>
> See, I'd like to make SAI a better product, a game that wargamers like
> me can appreciate, so the developer gets more money and I get another
> game - win-win for all.

<shrug>

So write a manual for it. A zillion games have third-party manuals.

Doubt you'd find many buyers, though. Game's too simple and efficient.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <fb085ff2-231c-4ca4-8bb9-aab2914d5b36@
3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Quick hypothetical, new WW2 tactical infantry combat gets released (not
> > Combat Mission). Its WEGO or real time, no squares or hexes, you give
> > orders and let them be executed, not CRTs DRMs or other boardgame stuff
> > - you get to think about what the company or battalion commander would
> > have to think about.
>
> Takes about 10 man/year to develop but continue ...

I read this as:

"If you want a crappy boardgame simulator quickly, a paper design is
your friend."

[Jeff Urs]

<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f6c1a811-1f2c-412c...@c8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

> On 16 mei, 12:45, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> How about a realistically-designed proper computer game where you don't
>> need a boardgamey "mechanic" to force players to focus and prioritize?
>
> You mean a system where the player can decide how much from a limited
> pool of resources he wants to invest in a particular endeavour ?
>
> If only someone would invent a system like that. It would involve
> having a limited number of items and a means to select a number of
> them and put them towards a particular goal, preferably with some back-
> and-forth bluffing with your opponent.

Don't you earn the initiative in real life by maneuvering your forces in
such a way that your opponent must defer executing his own plans while
he fends off yours? I'd hope that that could be managed through the
maneuver rules of a game, without resorting to a Eurogame-style game
mechanic with a theme pasted on.

--
Jeff

[Pelle Nilsson]

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

> Here's $50 for whoever puts Wings of War on a digital platform.

Someone did a few years ago. It's called SteamBirds, and they did away
with all the cards:

http://www.steambirds.com/

Unfortunately steampunk rather than historic aircraft.

--
/Pelle

[Pelle Nilsson]

Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Here's an example. COH faces the counters to a certain hexside, right?
> Just like you have to do in a paper boardgame? So you have counters all
> over the map that are pretty much upside down and very difficult to
> read.
>
> On a PC? Stupid. Fucking brain-dead stupid. Why not face the counters
> all upright, and just have a facing indicator pointing to the hexside
> the unit faces? For that matter, why not make the counters *hexagonal*
> instead of square, and light up the facing in a contrasting color?

This was something that impressed me first time I saw ASL in VASSAL
(VASL) many years ago, that when you rotated a tank/gun it only rotated
the image of the tank/gun not the entire counter. Seeing someone fail to
do something like that in 2012 is very unimpressive.

--
/Pelle

[Pelle Nilsson]

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

> The problem is that there's simply not enough money (and talent) in
> the business to AND design a realistic WW2 tactical wargame AND
> program it.

You keep saying this, but I don't see why

1. It would be impossible to form a team of TWO (designer+programmer).

2. A game designer could not learn to program. A few years ought to be
enough to figure it out. This is the same problem faced by hobby/indie
designers in other genres, and many of them pick up programming once
they realize that is the only way they will make their game ideas
become reality.

3. A programmer could not learn to design games. Maybe to make the most
fantastic games you need some magic talent only a few are born with,
but I do not think we need the Mozart of game design here.

> Yeah, those are the things I would have streamlined - but it is a
> first attempt by this boardgame publisher to port his designs and I
> can see why he's reluctant to take it too far given his boardgame
> audience and background.

I can see why there is a rush to cash in on apps by doing direct ports
of boardgames, and I think it will work well for euros. You don't play
Argicola (or whatever the name is) to simulate farming, you play for
that particular set of mechanics, so a direct port makes sense. I do not
think that is true for 99 % of wargamers. Make a digital game on the
same theme but less boardgamey and most of us would be very happy to
play that instead of a port of our favorite boardgame on the same
subject.

--
/Pelle

[Giftzwerg]

In article <2pd363q...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
says...

Particularly since it's probably more difficult, programming-wise, to
rotate the whole counter rather than just a facing indicator; how much
time did that pointless exercise in slavish fealty to paper boardgames
cost?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <2p8vgrq...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
says...

> > The problem is that there's simply not enough money (and talent) in
> > the business to AND design a realistic WW2 tactical wargame AND
> > program it.
>
> You keep saying this, but I don't see why

Me, neither, given my recent acquisition of STEAM AND IRON. Kinda looks
like NWS had enough money to build a realistic WW1 tactical wargame AND
program it.

Not a hex, turn, chit, or playing card anywhere in sight.

[Holdit]

In article <fb085ff2-231c-4ca4-8bb9-aab2914d5b36@
3g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

Perhaps so, but my point was that it's ASL *under the bonnet*, The only
gets information in real-world terms.

Or substitute ASL with the current tactical WW2 boardgame of your
choice...the point is still the same. What I was trying to get at was
Giftzwerg's fundamental objection, that something is a boardgame design
ported to PC, or that he as the player *can see* that something is a
boardgame design ported to PC.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <MPG.2a1efb205...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
holdit...@indigoTHE.ieCAPS says...

> Or substitute ASL with the current tactical WW2 boardgame of your
> choice...the point is still the same. What I was trying to get at was
> Giftzwerg's fundamental objection, that something is a boardgame design
> ported to PC, or that he as the player *can see* that something is a
> boardgame design ported to PC.

What I really mean is that CONFLICT OF HEROES - and virtually every
other boardgame - keeps clubbing the player over the head with
boardgamey conventions coming between the player and the reality
ostensibly being simulated.

But I suppose I should outline the main features of what I'm calling a
"proper computer game" as opposed to a "boardgame simulator."

- Game system must be PCT, RTS, or WEGO. None of this IGO-YUGO nonsense
where one player sits there as the other one moves, attacks, etc.

- Orders must be given to headquarters units, for execution in a manner
realistically precluding micromanagement by the player. Micromanagement
should be an option for players who wish a more chesslike game.

- Subordinate units should react independently when the situation calls
for it. If I order a straight battleline course for a battle squadron -
and they run into enemy torpedo boats, they should maneuver
independently and only after the threat is passed reform per orders.

- FOW should be realistically implemented, with a player only having the
information a real commander had - to include same-side FOW in
situations where reality requires it. Again, make this optional for
those desiring a more set-piece experience.

- No "phases." At all. Ever.

- No boardgamey "cards" or "chits" or "tracks" or "dice" in the sight of
the player - only information presented in a realistic manner, and
orders given based on this.

Beyond these, I'm indifferent to what goes on under the hood. Indeed,
as I've said many time, I don't even want to know, the better to not be
thinking about gaming the system - just processing information and
issuing orders.

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

[Holdit]

In article <f262f963-72eb-4884-8ccf-b39ceed59cb3
@b26g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> Napoleonic Battles: Campaign 1814 - just the same Tiller game I played
> back in 1990
>

Just a quick and only slightly OT interjection...Mr Tiller deserves at
least some credit relative to this discussion. The unit information
provided (in his Napoleonic and ACW games at least) is given in terms of
numbers of men and guns per unit, not fire or combat factors. It's much
less boardgamey than, say, Matrix's Battlefront games and what
boardgamey bits do exist aren't so in-your-face. Sure there are CRTs and
modifers and dice rolls but most of it happens out of sight of the
player. In fact, if the game was a bit more realistic, I could live with
the hexes happily enough.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned TOAW yet. Just to muddy the waters,
isn't that a built-from-scratch computer game presented like a
boardgame? ;-) Did Norm Koger balls up a good design by presenting it
as counters on a hex grid? (Giftzwerg) Or did he waste his time
designing a game from scratch when he could have adapted an existing set
of rules and had a completed game in a fraction of the time? (Eddy) Or
is his creation so bloody good that it transcends the argument you're
having?

Holdit


--
"The British always say we Germans have no sense of humour. I don't
think that's funny."
(Henning Wehn)

[DirkG]

It's a big thread, so forgive me if it's mentioned somewhere else. I
think a critical flaw in games (especially those that purport to be a
real-life simulation) is that there is no risk to the player by losing
or losing units (men). A real life commander is likely to be much more
conservative with their orders than a game player will be. If a US
Colonel in Afghanistan wipes out 2000 Taliban, but it costs 150 US dead,
he's toast. In a game world, it's a major victory. I doubt you can
attempt to account for unrealistic aggressiveness just by weighting
victory conditions for losses.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jp429n$fl0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, a...@a.com says...

> It's a big thread, so forgive me if it's mentioned somewhere else. I
> think a critical flaw in games (especially those that purport to be a
> real-life simulation) is that there is no risk to the player by losing
> or losing units (men). A real life commander is likely to be much more
> conservative with their orders than a game player will be. If a US
> Colonel in Afghanistan wipes out 2000 Taliban, but it costs 150 US dead,
> he's toast. In a game world, it's a major victory. I doubt you can
> attempt to account for unrealistic aggressiveness just by weighting
> victory conditions for losses.

Absolutely agree. But this seems more an issue for the end-game Victory
Conditions estimation, and pretty much apart from the system and
mechanics of the game itself.

But sure, given the standards of the day, a 24-hour period of WW2
casualty lists might even get The First Gay President - Obungle himself!
- in Dutch with the media for the terrifying magnitude of carnage.

Heck, even killing that many ragheads in a day would have put W. in
danger of another "study" by The Lancet.

[Mike Kreuzer]

Seems I'm going to be reduced to the role of saying 'Exactly right' a
lot, but: Exactly right. <g>

It's only because the boardgame designs can't simulate these things
that they reduce themselves to these stupid "initiative" auctions.
Wanting a computer game & starting with a boardgame design is seeming
dumber by the minute.

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

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 17/05/2012 6:36 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<2p8vgrq...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
> says...
>
>>> The problem is that there's simply not enough money (and talent) in
>>> the business to AND design a realistic WW2 tactical wargame AND
>>> program it.
>>
>> You keep saying this, but I don't see why
>
> Me, neither, given my recent acquisition of STEAM AND IRON. Kinda looks
> like NWS had enough money to build a realistic WW1 tactical wargame AND
> program it.
>
> Not a hex, turn, chit, or playing card anywhere in sight.
>
>
>

I'm not expecting anything but the same dull repetition of the a
priori fallacy that a "proven" boardgame design is better than a
bespoke computer game design, but that's just me. <g>

[Mike Kreuzer]

As fine a manifesto as I can think of.

Why simulate all the complicated dreck that's there purely because of
the limitations of sitting face to face moving pieces of cardboard
when you get most of what that sort a design's trying to achieve, but
better, for free, just by virtue of not sitting face to face pushing
pieces of cardboard?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jp4u5p$ahg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> It's only because the boardgame designs can't simulate these things
> that they reduce themselves to these stupid "initiative" auctions.
> Wanting a computer game & starting with a boardgame design is seeming
> dumber by the minute.

I think it's more a matter of wanting to sell more boardgames, charging
the same money, but losing the manufacturing costs of all that paper and
printing.

The costs seem minimal. CONFLICT OF HEROES has little in the way of
graphics, which aren't difficult in any event. The AI is bone-stupid,
and mills opponent counters about pretty randomly. Everything else is a
slavish port of the boardgame rules.

The way I look at things, I didn't want to play CONFLICT OF HEROES
against another human player; given that, I sure as shit don't want to
play exactly the same boardgame against a dumb, bad AI.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jp4u64$ahg$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
says...

> > Me, neither, given my recent acquisition of STEAM AND IRON. Kinda looks
> > like NWS had enough money to build a realistic WW1 tactical wargame AND
> > program it.
> >
> > Not a hex, turn, chit, or playing card anywhere in sight.

> I'm not expecting anything but the same dull repetition of the a
> priori fallacy that a "proven" boardgame design is better than a
> bespoke computer game design, but that's just me. <g>

Human history itself is the story of innovators who said, "This isn't
good enough; I need to design something better - and I bet people will
buy something better."

Fantasy & roleplaying games had been around as boardgames or miniatures
games for some time when PCs appeared. The first RPGs for computers
were text adventures; remember ZORK? But someone said, "This isn't good
enough." So rudimentary graphics were introduced, at first just flatly
illustrating, "Outside of house," but soon incorporated into the story
in an interactive way.

It still wasn't good enough. Computers got larger, and innovators made
use of the power by making more elaborate worlds and longer stories.
Graphics and AI got better, so NPCs became more rich and useful to the
story - AI controlled creatures no longer just attacked mindlessly, but
interacted with players in a meaningful way.

It still wasn't good enough, but the pace at which boardgaming
conventions were being sloughed off accelerated. There were probably
some dice rolls involved in combat, but they were no longer visible to
the player.

And then the boardgame disappeared entirely, gone forever. Thus SKYRIM
et al, a fusion of RPG and FPS *computer games* in which a player moves
free-form through a virtual world, interacting with seemingly
intelligent characters - friends and enemies alike - completing quests
and stories.

No more dice. No more "+12 Saving Throws." No more DM holding sway
over arcane rules. No more of what Cecil Adams called, "a game that
combines the charm of a Pentagon briefing with the excitement of double-
entry bookkeeping."

Computer game.

[Pelle Nilsson]

Giftzwerg <giftzw...@hotmail.com> writes:

> Fantasy & roleplaying games had been around as boardgames or miniatures
> games for some time when PCs appeared. The first RPGs for computers
> were text adventures; remember ZORK?

> ...

> And then the boardgame disappeared entirely, gone forever. Thus SKYRIM
> et al, a fusion of RPG and FPS *computer games*

While pen-and-paper RPGs were certainly a huge inspiration for Zork (and
earlier text adventure), I think a better example would have been the
first SSI AD&D CRPGs like Pools of Radiance (there were some earlier
unofficial AD&D games IIRC?), that were quite extreme in how much they
tried to simulate playing a pen-and-paper RPG (die rolls everywhere, and
digital character sheets).

AFAIK there was never a mention of dice in Zork. It was very much a
computer game. It is not in graphics the important evolution has been
really imo (in fact gameplay-wise the text-only adventure games still
have advantages, and the brain, as a classic Infocom commercial put it,
is still the best graphics card anyway).

I don't think going real-time 3D super-realistic (super-high-budget) is
the only way to make fun computer (war)games, and certainly not the
easiest. As a player I can definitely enjoy both good RTS and good
non-RTS games, and I think both can be equally valid simulations as
well. As a hobby developer the former type of game is simply not an
option.

Even in the CRPG world there is still room for many quite successful
niche games that are simpler, turn-based 2D games. Those have still
since the 1980's moved on from being simulations of pen-and-paper RPGs
to be like real computer games, without having to go big-budget
3D-realtime. Look for instance on some modern roguelikes. Not everyone
prefers Skyrim, or maybe they do but also buy and play the simpler
games.

--
/Pelle

[Giftzwerg]

In article <2phavdp...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
says...

> > Fantasy & roleplaying games had been around as boardgames or miniatures
> > games for some time when PCs appeared. The first RPGs for computers
> > were text adventures; remember ZORK?
> > ...
> > And then the boardgame disappeared entirely, gone forever. Thus SKYRIM
> > et al, a fusion of RPG and FPS *computer games*
>
> While pen-and-paper RPGs were certainly a huge inspiration for Zork (and
> earlier text adventure), I think a better example would have been the
> first SSI AD&D CRPGs like Pools of Radiance (there were some earlier
> unofficial AD&D games IIRC?), that were quite extreme in how much they
> tried to simulate playing a pen-and-paper RPG (die rolls everywhere, and
> digital character sheets).
>
> AFAIK there was never a mention of dice in Zork. It was very much a
> computer game. It is not in graphics the important evolution has been
> really imo (in fact gameplay-wise the text-only adventure games still
> have advantages, and the brain, as a classic Infocom commercial put it,
> is still the best graphics card anyway).

Perfectly true, but I mention it not because they were porting
boardgames - far from it - but because it was a fledgling attempt to
build a game that could not exist as a boardgame. In other words, even
back then, with the rudimentary computers they had to work with,
innovators were trying to push the envelope.

It wasn't much, but my point is that in gaming genres outside of
wargames, designers were *trying*, at least, to transcend boards and
dice using the power of the computer.

> I don't think going real-time 3D super-realistic (super-high-budget) is
> the only way to make fun computer (war)games, and certainly not the
> easiest. As a player I can definitely enjoy both good RTS and good
> non-RTS games, and I think both can be equally valid simulations as
> well. As a hobby developer the former type of game is simply not an
> option.

I'm not suggesting wargames go "3D super-realistic." STEAM AND IRON
features graphics that could have been produced on a Sinclair Z-80 in
1980. Again, it's the system and interface that makes it a computer
game.

> Even in the CRPG world there is still room for many quite successful
> niche games that are simpler, turn-based 2D games. Those have still
> since the 1980's moved on from being simulations of pen-and-paper RPGs
> to be like real computer games, without having to go big-budget
> 3D-realtime. Look for instance on some modern roguelikes. Not everyone
> prefers Skyrim, or maybe they do but also buy and play the simpler
> games.

OK, but this is my point; from the perspective of the player, in terms
of interface and how one interacts with the game, it could not be more
simple. Want to see what's to your right? Turn right. Want to explore
a room? Enter it and look around. Want to find out if Glabius knows
anything about the castle on the hill? Ask him.

Turn things around; suppose you wanted to make a SKYRIM boardgame.
Let's see, first we'll need a system to control movement. Hexes?
Squares? Lay out a pattern of terrain cards?

Already, the rusty tools start falling out of the dusty closet where
such things belong.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1004856723359042156.2...@news.aioe.org>,
ade...@inbox.com says...

> > Even in the CRPG world there is still room for many quite successful
> > niche games that are simpler, turn-based 2D games. Those have still
> > since the 1980's moved on from being simulations of pen-and-paper RPGs
> > to be like real computer games, without having to go big-budget
> > 3D-realtime. Look for instance on some modern roguelikes. Not everyone
> > prefers Skyrim, or maybe they do but also buy and play the simpler
> > games.
>

> Having never played Dungeons and Dragons offically face to face, are the
> Goldbox SSI CRPGs or Skyrim/Oblivion more similar to real D&D?

I would say no - exactly the opposite; D&D (and is...) was heavily
copyrighted, and my recollection is that companies producing competing
games were rightfully wary of making them similar in any meaningful way.

And the ELDER SCROLLS series was always first-person based,
incorporating RPG elements - a proper computer game from the get-go.
The descendants have grown to whole worlds of enormous complexity and
richness, but I think the original motto - something like, "be who you
want to be, do what you want to do" is still operative.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <MPG.2a1f8dfd4...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
holdit...@THEindigoCAPS.ie says...

> I'm surprised nobody has mentioned TOAW yet. Just to muddy the waters,
> isn't that a built-from-scratch computer game presented like a
> boardgame? ;-) Did Norm Koger balls up a good design by presenting it
> as counters on a hex grid? (Giftzwerg) Or did he waste his time
> designing a game from scratch when he could have adapted an existing set
> of rules and had a completed game in a fraction of the time? (Eddy) Or
> is his creation so bloody good that it transcends the argument you're
> having?

Just a moment, though. TOAW originally appeared in 1998. 14 years ago
- an *eternity* in terms of computer development - and into a world
dominated by the Intel Pentium II.

In my case, that was a 333 MHz MMX single-core chip. I forget how much
RAM was onboard in that system, but it was measured in MB. My current
*laptop* (my desktop is much more pugnacious...) has a core i7 quad with
8GB RAM.

In other words, Koger didn't have much to work with.

And I would call TOAW a boardgame simulator. A very elaborate one, with
a database component that allowed users to construct a very, very wide
latitude of scenarios. It had a pretty good AI (although it wasn't
until TOAW III that I realized how good it could actually be).

My point is that "proper computer game" is a phrase that needs to be
keyed to the era of computing that serves as the context. In 1984, I
was happy with NATO COMMANDER. Now I'm not.

So I think we need to confine our discussion to "the now." Nobody could
have built BFTB in 1998, so it would have been ridiculous to scoff at
TOAW because it wasn't that. But times change. In 2012, I'd laugh at
someone who came up with TOAW.

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 18/05/2012 6:33 PM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<jp4u5p$ahg$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
> says...
>
>> It's only because the boardgame designs can't simulate these things
>> that they reduce themselves to these stupid "initiative" auctions.

>> Wanting a computer game& starting with a boardgame design is seeming

>> dumber by the minute.
>
>
> I think it's more a matter of wanting to sell more boardgames, charging
> the same money, but losing the manufacturing costs of all that paper and
> printing.
>
> The costs seem minimal. CONFLICT OF HEROES has little in the way of
> graphics, which aren't difficult in any event. The AI is bone-stupid,
> and mills opponent counters about pretty randomly. Everything else is a
> slavish port of the boardgame rules.
>

I can imagine any boardgame license-holder rubbing their hands with
glee every time a I-need-a-proven-boardgame-design shmuck walks
through their door - money for jam.

> The way I look at things, I didn't want to play CONFLICT OF HEROES
> against another human player; given that, I sure as shit don't want to
> play exactly the same boardgame against a dumb, bad AI.
>

Which is how it seems a majority of PC wargamers seem to be feeling
now. And given that what seems like a similar majority of rusted on
board wargamers aren't playing PC games the market for boardgame
conversions, one of the fabled crossover markets (generalist gamers
being the other one), seems like it's just another niche within a niche.

[dougb]

On Saturday, May 19, 2012 12:54:00 AM UTC-4, ade...@inbox.com wrote:

> I guess there isn't really much harm allowing developers to port boardgame
> designs over as computer wargames. It isn't as if these developers will
> suddenly acquire the expertise in game design and coding to do an Arjuna
> instead of a Tiller...
>
> Although I do wonder what a Grisby and Arjuna collaboration will play like?

I don't see Arunja and Grigsby as being compatible at all. Grigsby's games are the ultimate in micromanagement - Arunja looks to realistically simulate command level decisions. From what I've read Grigby's new design War in the West will look to increase the amount of detail and control over air missions, so the player will be weighed down by even more detailed decision making. I wouldn't be surprised if players have the ability to rotate air crews down to the pilots.

I've been playing RGW by Dockal the past few days. It's a board war game simulator and pretty old at this point but a hell of a lot more fun to play than Kitchen Battalions in the East. There are a lot of neat little FOW and Command and Control nuances that are easy to overlook - like units sometimes not being able to attack or move.

Doug

[Giftzwerg]

In article <007614ad-4a30-4f92...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...

> > Although I do wonder what a Grisby and Arjuna collaboration will play like?
>
> I don't see Arunja and Grigsby as being compatible at all. Grigsby's games are the ultimate in micromanagement - Arunja looks to realistically simulate command level decisions. From what I've read Grigby's new design War in the West will look to increase the amount of detail and control over air missions, so the player will be weighed down by even more detailed decision making. I wouldn't be surprised if players have the ability to rotate air crews down to the
pilots.

What would be awesome would be to marry Grigsby's research and data and
attention to detail with Arjuna's skill at putting all that data under
the hood and allowing the player to not-micromanage (or micromanage, if
this is what's wanted) the eastern front.

I'd go ape for an eastern front simulation where I could give orders at
the front / army corps level, only going deeper in situations where the
events called for it.

> I've been playing RGW by Dockal the past few days. It's a board war game simulator and pretty old at this point but a hell of a lot more fun to play than Kitchen Battalions in the East. There are a lot of neat little FOW and Command and Control nuances that are easy to overlook - like units sometimes not being able to attack or move.

I always call this, "the game I most wanted to like, but ended up
scuppered by the interface."

All those phases. Ugh.

[DirkG]

On 5/16/2012 7:22 AM, Frank E wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15 mei, 01:57, Giftzwerg<giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> WRT the number of manual pages, that's irrelevant. It's how many of
>>> them you need to read to play that game that counts.
>>
>> Well, for SAI a whole lot more than are actually in the manual, which
>> is why it's a fail,
>
> Huh? What did you even need a manual for in SAI?
>
> Rgds, Frank
>
>
One of the easiest demos I've played. I'm not a naval warfare guy, but
all the talk got my interest. Never cracked the manual, just loaded a
scenario with two Germans and five or so Brits. Worked just fine. With
practice I might win rather than just draw. But, I know I'll never
really be that interested in naval warfare, so I'll pass on purchasing
the real deal.

[DirkG]

On 5/17/2012 4:30 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<2pd363q...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
> says...
>
>>> Here's an example. COH faces the counters to a certain hexside, right?
>>> Just like you have to do in a paper boardgame? So you have counters all
>>> over the map that are pretty much upside down and very difficult to
>>> read.
>>>
>>> On a PC? Stupid. Fucking brain-dead stupid. Why not face the counters
>>> all upright, and just have a facing indicator pointing to the hexside
>>> the unit faces? For that matter, why not make the counters *hexagonal*
>>> instead of square, and light up the facing in a contrasting color?
>>
>> This was something that impressed me first time I saw ASL in VASSAL
>> (VASL) many years ago, that when you rotated a tank/gun it only rotated
>> the image of the tank/gun not the entire counter. Seeing someone fail to
>> do something like that in 2012 is very unimpressive.
>
> Particularly since it's probably more difficult, programming-wise, to
> rotate the whole counter rather than just a facing indicator; how much
> time did that pointless exercise in slavish fealty to paper boardgames
> cost?
>

Making counters hexagonal would waste virtual cardboard producing the
game, and therefore reduce profit.

[dougb]

Yep that Eastern Front sim is the one I dream of as well - who knows, maybe someone is making it and it'll be sprung on us like the surprise SAI was? Call it Road to Moscow Perfected LOL! Until then I'll just have to live with hexes, phases and IGOUGO for my operational eastern front action.

Doug

[Giftzwerg]

In article <4f46a64a-1515-41d5...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...

> Yep that Eastern Front sim is the one I dream of as well - who knows, maybe someone is making it and it'll be sprung on us like the surprise SAI was? Call it Road to Moscow Perfected LOL! Until then I'll just have to live with hexes, phases and IGOUGO for my operational eastern front action.

I almost hate to admit this, but the best eastern front game, IMO, was a
boardgame; Avalon Hill's RUSSIAN FRONT, circa 1985 or so.

German corps, Russian armies - a *playable* game. And it had an
innovative rules-set, IIRC. Highly abstracted, but with railroad rules
and a supply net that I thought captured things fairly well.

We played that game to tatters. One of the few games I kept in my
attic.

[dougb]

LOL! I have the game upstairs as well. I never understand why pc war games on this subject have eschewed the corps level - to me the most logical level for the Eastern Front unless you're employing the command ops engine approach.

On the board game front I prefer Dave's Trial of Strength - the fow enabled by the HQ approach and the combined movement combat system really do create a fantastic sim and game. But Russian Front was also a terrific game and sim - interestingly both feature what I feel is an overly detailed naval system. Trial of Strength, before the revised supply rules, had river supply for goodness sakes!

There's a vassal module for Russian Front that someone has created an extra map section into the Caucasus oil fields. There is still alot of activity on the Consim forum for the game.

Doug

Doug

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 19/05/2012 2:54 PM, ade...@inbox.com wrote:
> Mike Kreuzer<mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com> wrote:

> I guess there isn't really much harm allowing developers to port boardgame
> designs over as computer wargames. It isn't as if these developers will
> suddenly acquire the expertise in game design and coding to do an Arjuna
> instead of a Tiller...
>

No harm to me, they just join the many, many games released each year
I have no real interest in. But I'm guessing 'ho hum, no sale' was not
the reaction the publisher was hoping for.

> Although I do wonder what a Grisby and Arjuna collaboration will play like?

Much like custard & fish fingers I expect.

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 17/05/2012 7:28 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<769a5e35-25d4-4c2b-ae32-72c89c7664a4
> @eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
>>> My point is that if I'm picking chits, or rolling dice, or turning over
>>> cards, or moving little cardboard squares, or taking turns ... I'm
>>> playing a boardgame.
>>
>> Sure - and given the number of digital ports that are getting
>> announced left and right there soon will be lots of digital wargames
>> based on solid, proven mechanics - a big change from now. And I'm sure
>> that at least some of them will ditch the visible dice and cards, so
>> you'll be happy too.
>
> But is this how we move forward? In any pursuit?
>
> I mean, this discussion has been held in every human endeavor to date.
> Propeller-driven aircraft [etc, snip]

I just had my socks knocked off by a *javascript* demo with a whole
bunch of techniques that could go towards making a quite nice wargame.
Incredible stuff, have been too snooty about that front for too long.
Time & technology marches on.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 17:45, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
>  On the Eastern Front I was thinking more along the lines of corp or mixed corps level games - I'm currently playtesting Ted Raicer's The Dark Valley.  Nothing on the PC now or event apparently in the pipeline that scratches that particular itch.

I really can't understand why that is - there are half a dozen board
wargames on this very scale that were both a critical and commercial
success so there must be a market out there for this type of games.

Just to throw out some names : Russian Front, The Russian Campaign, No
Retreat, Sturm nach Osten, Columbia's East Front block game, ...

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 16 mei, 19:50, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you have boardgames in mind that allow subordinates units to act
> intelligently and independently when out of contact with the player, I'd
> be highly interested to see the text of the rules that implement this.

http://www.yourmovegames.com/userfiles/file/3_5x5%20Battleground%20Rulebook%20v2_4.pdf

> > In the "Battleground Warfare" system a unit is not a number of painted
> > figures but a card of which the footprint represents the unit itself -
> > this card moves in increments of the length or width of the card, so
> > no tape measuring is needed so movement is quick. On the card itself
> > you write your order in symbols - move to <location> etc. In your turn
> > this unit will do as you ordered it - just like in BFTB, and you have
> > to move it that way, until you spend action points to change the
> > order. But there are loads of other things you could spend those
> > points on so it's a constant internal battle of "I need to change that
> > unit's orders, but I also need to do this and that and <aaargh>" As
> > command challenges go, it's a pretty fun one, with constant decision
> > making.
>
> But what happens if the situation changes?  Can the unit change its own
> orders as formations do in STEAM AND IRON?

Under certain circumstances they do - see the pdf I linked to. Of
course if your benchmark is BFTB intelligence I again say "strawman".

I'm just saying that it's a bit telling that I can point to boardgames
which are *better* at this C&C thing than 90% of the pc wargames that
got released this year.

> > Some videos which can explain it better than words
>
> >http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/6037
> >http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/2870
> >http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/581
>
> Totally rudimentary, though - a far cry from an AI routine that can
> semi-intelligently command your own units for you if out of contact or
> if your standing orders no longer make any sense.

Again, what are we comparing this to ? BFTB ? Yeah, you're correct
then, but compared to anything HPS put out this millenium this
boardgame beats it.

> > My point is that if a pc wargame gets released I take a look at it - a
> > good look - and that this year for me only Conflict of Heroes looked
> > good enough to spend some money and time on. The main reason is
> > because the developers of those other games forgot to design a
> > compelling wargame underneath the 1?s and 0?s ? or they designed one
> > and it sucked because it wasn?t put to the test before they spend 3
> > months coding on it and then couldn't throw anything out.
>
> I'd rather have one BFTB every five years than a hundred shiny new
> boardgame simulators.

Well, you're going to get a new BFTB every 2 years and I'll get a
couple of shiny new boardgame simulators every year - everybody happy

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Holdit]

In article <78b24637-4e2c-4283...@googlegroups.com>,
douglas...@rogers.com says...

> On Saturday, May 19, 2012 3:43:12 PM UTC-4, Giftzwerg wrote:
> > In article <4f46a64a-1515-41d5...@googlegroups.com>,
> > douglas...@rogers.com says...
> >
> > > Yep that Eastern Front sim is the one I dream of as well - who knows, maybe someone is making it and it'll be sprung on us like the surprise SAI was? Call it Road to Moscow Perfected LOL! Until then I'll just have to live with hexes, phases and IGOUGO for my operational eastern front action.
> >
> > I almost hate to admit this, but the best eastern front game, IMO, was a
> > boardgame; Avalon Hill's RUSSIAN FRONT, circa 1985 or so.
> >
> > German corps, Russian armies - a *playable* game. And it had an
> > innovative rules-set, IIRC. Highly abstracted, but with railroad rules
> > and a supply net that I thought captured things fairly well.
> >
> > We played that game to tatters. One of the few games I kept in my
> > attic.

>

> LOL! I have the game upstairs as well. I never understand why pc war games on this subject have eschewed the corps level - to me the most logical level for the Eastern Front unless you're employing the command ops engine approach.
>
> On the board game front I prefer Dave's Trial of Strength - the fow enabled by the HQ approach and the combined movement combat system really do create a fantastic sim and game. But Russian Front was also a terrific game and sim - interestingly both feature what I feel is an overly detailed naval system. Trial of Strength, before the revised supply rules, had river supply for goodness sakes!
>
> There's a vassal module for Russian Front that someone has created an extra map section into the Caucasus oil fields. There is still alot of activity on the Consim forum for the game.
>

+1 It might even be somewhere in the house. I've downloaded a Vassal
module for it, but never did anything with it.

Holdit

--
"The army works like this: if you hang a man and he dies, then keep on hanging him until he gets used to it."
(Spike Milligan)