The comedy that is HEROES OF STALINGRAD ...

[Giftzwerg]

This page:

http://www.locknloadgame.com/Section_Cat_Content_Detail.asp?SID=33&SCAT=
74&ID=68

Is unintentionally hilarious. It contains the text:

"Mark H. Walker's Lock 'n Load: Heroes of Stalingrad for Windows PC will
soon be available for pre-order. Keep checking back for the demo. Out
soon!"

Out soon! Exclamation point! I'll race right home after work!

But the punchline is the line of text that directly follows the above:

"05/14/09 - New screens posted."

Out soon! Keep checking for the demo! Soon available for pre-order!

Golly, next Wednesday is the three-year anniversary of the "new
screens!" Raise a glass to the speedy development possible when you
start with a proven boardgame design!


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

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 mei, 11:45, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Golly, next Wednesday is the three-year anniversary of the "new
> screens!"  Raise a glass to the speedy development possible when you
> start with a proven boardgame design!

The key word here being "possible"

Compare that to the definite long development time if you're stupid/
pigheaded enough as a coder to design your own wargame as well as code
it. And that's even not taking into account the low odds that you just
happen to be good at both.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <8cb05eac-f14c-4c48-ad0b-277f36dd2759
@e15g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Golly, next Wednesday is the three-year anniversary of the "new
> > screens!"  Raise a glass to the speedy development possible when you
> > start with a proven boardgame design!
>
> The key word here being "possible"
>
> Compare that to the definite long development time if you're stupid/
> pigheaded enough as a coder to design your own wargame as well as code
> it. And that's even not taking into account the low odds that you just
> happen to be good at both.

But the "stupid" PC game designer at least ends up with a proper
computer game. The HOS PC game designers are taking just as long, and
they'll end up with Yet Another Boardgame Simulator.

If they end up with anything at all, that is.

And keep in mind that I don't really care what someone starts with -
boardgame or idea for computer game - I just care about what the end
result is. Indeed, I define "Proper Computer Game" only via the way I
interact with it; I could care less what goes on under the hood. In
fact, I don't even want to know anything about that.

If we look at a wargame from a systems perspective, there are really
only three components: (1) The how and what of information the player
receives, (2) The player's processing of that information, and (3) The
how and what of the player interacting with the game to produce his
desired result.

Consider STARFLEET COMMAND, which is a great example of a Proper PC
Wargame. I know it started with a boardgame - STAR FLEET BATTLES - and
an insanely gamey and fiendishly complex one. I played that boardgame
to tatters.

But I don't care about that, since the designers properly removed from
my PC gaming experience all the boardgaming conventions. The boardgame
made me *fill out a form* - a *form*, like an IRS 1040A! - to define
what I would do in the upcoming turn; "Move at speed 16, allocate 8
energy points to phasers, 8 to hold charged photon torpedoes, five
points to put five more boxes on shield one, discharge two additional
EP's from the batteries ... Let's see, I'm turn class 3, so enter course
as 4L6R6 ..."

Ugh.

The PC version sweeps all that under the rug. It might still be there,
but I don't care, because my interaction with the game is now:

Spock: "Sensors have detected an incoming vessel to port. Computer
identifies as Romulan warship, cruiser-class, configuration unknown."

Giftzwerg: "Red Alert. Mr. Spock, launch Type-II probe for positive ID.
Mr. Sulu, raise shields, go to warp 3, and come to course 132Mark10.
Ensign Checkov, charge phasers and arm photon torpedoes."

I don't care what they start with, just with what I end up with.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

This reminds me... is "Lil' orphan Susie" still in the game?

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 4/05/2012 9:33 PM, Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> This reminds me... is "Lil' orphan Susie" still in the game?

Wowsers, it has been a long time.

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

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 mei, 13:33, "Vincenzo Beretta" <vincenzo.bere...@fastwebnet.it>
wrote:

> This reminds me... is "Lil' orphan Susie" still in the game?

I believe she got shot :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 mei, 13:30, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <8cb05eac-f14c-4c48-ad0b-277f36dd2759

> @e15g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > Golly, next Wednesday is the three-year anniversary of the "new
> > > screens!"  Raise a glass to the speedy development possible when you
> > > start with a proven boardgame design!
>
> > The key word here being "possible"
>
> > Compare that to the definite long development time if you're stupid/
> > pigheaded enough as a coder to design your own wargame as well as code
> > it. And that's even not taking into account the low odds that you just
> > happen to be good at both.
>
> But the "stupid" PC game designer at least ends up with a proper
> computer game.

Really ?

From the 57 pc wargames released last year, how many did you buy ?

Can't be the money - you don't care about that - so what was it that
stopped you from buying more ? Was flawed design, awful interface,
crappy AI a (partial) reason ?

For me it was the main reason.

> And keep in mind that I don't really care what someone starts with -
> boardgame or idea for computer game

Do I detect a slight adjustment to your position ? :)

> - I just care about what the end
> result is.

Of course, now the question becomes what process will give you more
than 2-3 games a year you'd want to play

Plan 1 : continue as before, coders make perfect game designers you
know

Plan 2 : acknowledge as a coder that you're not a game designer and
code/convert someone else's proven design.

> If we look at a wargame from a systems perspective, there are really
> only three components:  (1)  The how and what of information the player
> receives, (2) The player's processing of that information, and (3) The
> how and what of the player interacting with the game to produce his
> desired result.

Yes, but isn't properly designing the above best left to a game
designer and not a programmer ? We both know how programmers are,
hell, I am one - they are the last guys you'd want to design a user
interface.

> I don't care what they start with, just with what I end up with.

Just saying that starting from a proven design augments the chances
we'll end up with a dozen games a year you'd want to play instead of
the 1 or 2.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Arjuna]

Well as much as I love you Eddy I do take issue with you on this one. Your argument rests on the premis that a "good design" for a board wargame will be a "good design" for a computer wargame. I just don't agree with that. There will be cases where it is true but there are probably many more where it is not the case.

I beleive that good design must take into account the features of the medium it is in. It must play to their strengths and avoid the impacts of its weaknesses.

I think that you are on safer ground when talking about designing a beer and pretzel game rather than a serious wargame. And I have it on good authority that you favour the "beer" over the "pretze"...but I digress. ;) The reason I say this is that in such a game the emphasis is on the fun factors rather than the simulation factors. There is more abstraction and less realism. This is where board games shine.

Where they don't is in anything which needs to track masses of data and convey complex instructions a la the order form Gifty talks about. BTW these were akin to the orders we had to write for War in the Pacific and I recall nearly falling to my death into the graving dock at Garden Island dockyard in 1979 because I was walking and not looking where I was going. Instead I was focussed on a clipboard on which I was writing up said orders for the War in the Pacific session later that night. I was saved by a very alert docker to whom I am eternally greatful.

Anyway computers are terrific at managing masses of data and so that's why they excel at the serious end of wargaming. The key thing then is first what type of wargame do you want to design. If its a lite beer and pretzel style then sure use the basic design of an equivalent boardgame. But please ditch those wretched hexes. They are so passe.

On the otherhand if you are minterested in a serious wargame then I would advise you start from tors. Trying to clone a boardgame design will probably end up badly.

"Shot over" Eddy! :)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 mei, 15:39, Arjuna <d...@panthergames.com> wrote:
>
> Well as much as I love you Eddy I do take issue with you on this one. Your argument rests on the premis that a "good design" for a board wargame will be a "good design" for a computer wargame. I just don't agree with that. There will be cases where it is true but there are probably many more where it is not the case.

Sure - I never said that *every* boardgame is a good candiate, but
I've listed many, many times those specific boardgames I'm pretty sure
would make excellent digital designs. And you know what ? A number of
those, including Manoeuvre, Paths of Glory and Engage, *are* now
getting ported to the various tablets.

> I beleive that good design must take into account the features of the medium it is in. It must play to their strengths and avoid the impacts of its weaknesses.

A key design feature for both a boardgame and a digital game is that a
game should be streamlined, so that the flow of user-actions should be
and become natural. What I see is that boardgames, by their nature,
are much, much more streamlined than digital wargames. Boardgames have
to be, to be somewhat playable, whereas the quick & dirty solution in
the pc wargaming world is to add another tab to the UI

> I think that you are on safer ground when talking about designing a beer and pretzel game rather than a serious wargame.

See, that's the common misconception here - that simple mechanics
equals a simple game. I know where it comes from : because that's what
we get in the pc wargame world : a simple mechanic game is always a
beer & pretzel game. Well, this just isn't the case in the boardgame
world.

> The reason I say this is that in such a game the emphasis is on the fun factors rather than the simulation factors. There is more abstraction and less realism. This is where board games shine.

Depends on what you call realism. If realism is counting every round
of ammo fired : yes, if realism is putting you in the shoes of the
commander : no. In the latter case abstraction is the correct way to
go.

> Where they don't is in anything which needs to track masses of data and convey complex instructions a la the order form Gifty talks about.

Sure - computer shine at that task, and that's why I like the Command
Ops series, though it has reams of data.

> Anyway computers are terrific at managing masses of data and so that's why they excel at the serious end of wargaming.

No, they excel at an accountant's dream of what a complex wargame
should be.

> The key thing then is first what type of wargame do you want to design. If its a lite beer and pretzel style then sure use the basic design of an equivalent boardgame. But please ditch those wretched hexes. They are so passe.

My last design had squares :)

> On the otherhand if you are minterested in a serious wargame then I would advise you start from tors. Trying to clone a boardgame design will probably end up badly.

We'll see what the iPad Bulge guys come up with. The design had some
elements of FAB Bulge, which is an excellent boardgame on the subject.

> "Shot over" Eddy! :)

Glad you enjoy it :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <672b91a6-278b-4ea2-a55e-
2615be...@z14g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...

> From the 57 pc wargames released last year, how many did you buy ?

Not many. I much prefer to devote more time to fewer games these days.

> Can't be the money - you don't care about that - so what was it that
> stopped you from buying more ? Was flawed design, awful interface,
> crappy AI a (partial) reason ?

Not interested in topic or it's been done-to-death? Nazi DRM? Game
seems not as serious as I'd like? I'd say those account for roughly
90% of my "no-buy" decisions.

> For me it was the main reason.

I generally don't find out about design or interface flaws or AI that
sucks until after I buy something. Witness DEFENDING THE REICH. I was
profoundly interested in the topic, it was DRM-free, and seemed to be a
serious effort. Bought it, and then learned the proper title was
DEFENDING YOUR PIXELS.

> > And keep in mind that I don't really care what someone starts with -
> > boardgame or idea for computer game
>
> Do I detect a slight adjustment to your position ? :)

Not at all. Consider STEAM AND IRON. For all I know (and I know
nothing about it...) Fredrik Wallin started with miniatures rules. Or
even the old BATTLEWAGON SSD/turn/hex game. I don't really care what he
started with, but what he ended up with was amazing.

> > - I just care about what the end
> > result is.
>
> Of course, now the question becomes what process will give you more
> than 2-3 games a year you'd want to play

Here's where we're going to differ. If the end result is a boardgame
simulator where I'm experiencing the game as turning over cards, rolling
dice, waiting for my opponent to finish a phase, or shuffling my action
deck then the question of process is moot; the designer has produced a
game I'm not that terribly interested in.

> Plan 1 : continue as before, coders make perfect game designers you
> know
>
> Plan 2 : acknowledge as a coder that you're not a game designer and
> code/convert someone else's proven design.

Plan 3: Work hand in glove with a designer who isn't mired in
boardgaming from the get-go, and produce a proper PC game.

> > If we look at a wargame from a systems perspective, there are really
> > only three components:  (1)  The how and what of information the player
> > receives, (2) The player's processing of that information, and (3) The
> > how and what of the player interacting with the game to produce his
> > desired result.
>
> Yes, but isn't properly designing the above best left to a game
> designer and not a programmer ? We both know how programmers are,
> hell, I am one - they are the last guys you'd want to design a user
> interface.

Again, though, what Magic Rule Of The Universe precludes a
collaboration? Heck, the "credits" screen for BFTB rolls on for 30
seconds.

> > I don't care what they start with, just with what I end up with.
>
> Just saying that starting from a proven design augments the chances
> we'll end up with a dozen games a year you'd want to play instead of
> the 1 or 2.

My experience has been that 99% of designs that start out as boardgames
end up as boardgame simulators - and I don't really want to play those
at all anymore.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <412574.267.1336138796709.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@pbcw8>, da...@panthergames.com says...

> I beleive that good design must take into account the features of the medium
> it is in. It must play to their strengths and avoid the impacts of its
> weaknesses.

This is why I think STARFLEET COMMAND is such a good example of the
board vs. PC design process.

When Taldren took over the license from Paramount / Amarillo to design
the PC version of SFB, their decisions were formed by *exactly* your
point here, and the challenge was to strip away all the trappings of the
boardgame while keeping alive the magic that made SFB such a tremendous
game.

Strengths of the boardgame? "Dammit, Jim, it's STAR TREK!" The
database - the races, the ships, the bases. The relationship between
the design philosophy each race applied to its warships. What went on
in the imagination of a Trekkie when the ships approached each other.

Weaknesses? Forms. Charts. Damage allocation cards. Hexes. Turns.
Impulses per turn. Turn mode. Energy allocation forms. A rulebook
that got larger each time new races, new ships, and new weapons were
added. The problem is that the game was really, really rich.

They swept away all the weaknesses and started from scratch with the
strengths, and the game was a fabulous hit.

But if they'd tried to *port* that monster, they would have failed. If
they'd tried to simplify and then port the thing, no one would have
bought it (subsequent STAR TREK games that dumbed things down failed as
badly as the STAR TREK films...).

Strengths of PC + Strength of boardgame - boardgamey bullshit = $$

[Pelle Nilsson]

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

> Sure - I never said that *every* boardgame is a good candiate, but
> I've listed many, many times those specific boardgames I'm pretty sure
> would make excellent digital designs. And you know what ? A number of
> those, including Manoeuvre, Paths of Glory and Engage, *are* now
> getting ported to the various tablets.

Paths of Glory is a good game (although I am not convinced by the
replayability of CDGs after I know the cards). But I don't see how it
would work well on a computer without being just a VASSAL module that
also tracks the rules (and AI?). Board Game Simulation would probably
describe it well.

>> I beleive that good design must take into account the features of the
>> medium it is in. It must play to their strengths and avoid the
>> impacts of its weaknesses.
>
> A key design feature for both a boardgame and a digital game is that a
> game should be streamlined, so that the flow of user-actions should be
> and become natural. What I see is that boardgames, by their nature,
> are much, much more streamlined than digital wargames. Boardgames have
> to be, to be somewhat playable, whereas the quick & dirty solution in
> the pc wargaming world is to add another tab to the UI

I agree with both of you. Boardgame designers in general spend a lot of
thought on how to abstract details to create a playable game, and
streamline for playability (and fun). I don't see a lot of that in
computer wargames. Some ideas might be worth porting, but others not.
It would be nice to see more innovation in computer games, and part of
that might be to steal mechanics from modern boardgames, but the sets of
mechanics that make great boardgames is different from the set of
mechanics that make great computer games (and how big the intersection
is...? I have no idea).

> See, that's the common misconception here - that simple mechanics
> equals a simple game. I know where it comes from : because that's what
> we get in the pc wargame world : a simple mechanic game is always a
> beer & pretzel game. Well, this just isn't the case in the boardgame
> world.

I think the main problem with the PC wargames I have tried is usually
not complex mechanics, but crappy user interfaces and drowning the user
in boring data and micro-management.

> No, they excel at an accountant's dream of what a complex wargame
> should be.

Speaking of Excel... Yes, THAT is what many wargames feel like. Like
some Windows 3.11 version of Excel, but with hexagons.

> My last design had squares :)

URL? :)

--
/Pelle

[Pelle Nilsson]

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

> I generally don't find out about design or interface flaws or AI that
> sucks until after I buy something.

Interface flaws are often so obvious I decide to not buy a game after
looking at a few screenshots.

> Here's where we're going to differ. If the end result is a boardgame
> simulator where I'm experiencing the game as turning over cards, rolling
> dice, waiting for my opponent to finish a phase, or shuffling my action
> deck then the question of process is moot; the designer has produced a
> game I'm not that terribly interested in.

If there is even a mention of dice or cards, I am not buying. Cards is a
boardgame implementation of giving a player a randomly selected list of
things to select. Computers implement that abstract mechanic too, but
they do not need cards, and there is no need to simulate what a
boardgame would have to do. Simulating dice is just as silly.

> Plan 3: Work hand in glove with a designer who isn't mired in
> boardgaming from the get-go, and produce a proper PC game.

Good plan. But PC (war)game designers can probably learn a lot from
playing some modern boardgames first.

--
/Pelle

[Giftzwerg]

In article <2paa1nv...@bacon.lysator.liu.se>, krig...@pelle-n.net
says...

> > Plan 3: Work hand in glove with a designer who isn't mired in
> > boardgaming from the get-go, and produce a proper PC game.
>
> Good plan. But PC (war)game designers can probably learn a lot from
> playing some modern boardgames first.

No argument from me. I would hope that prospective wargame designers
would learn from any and all designs. I flatter myself that 20+ years
of opinion on wargame design has mostly been informed by boardgaming.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 mei, 17:49, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I generally don't find out about design or interface flaws or AI that
> sucks until after I buy something.

I'd rather spend half an hour doing research before I buy something
than spend the money and get aggravated afterwards

> Witness DEFENDING THE REICH.  I was
> profoundly interested in the topic, it was DRM-free, and seemed to be a
> serious effort.  Bought it, and then learned the proper title was
> DEFENDING YOUR PIXELS.

Excellent example of a game that if they had tested it on paper first,
they'd have noticed that there's no game in there. You have no option
but to send out every bomber plane available every night, and against
the closest non-flattened target.

> Not at all.  Consider STEAM AND IRON.  For all I know (and I know
> nothing about it...) Fredrik Wallin started with miniatures rules.  Or
> even the old BATTLEWAGON SSD/turn/hex game.  I don't really care what he
> started with, but what he ended up with was amazing.

There's two possibilities here

Either he painstakenly created a set of rules himself, thereby
lengthening the design period by a year or took one of the dozens of
existing rulesets, took the things he liked, adapted the things he
didn't like and be done rule-wise in a week

I also don't care what he started with, but which guess which of the
possibilities above will give you a better game faster ?

> Here's where we're going to differ.  If the end result is a boardgame
> simulator where I'm experiencing the game as turning over cards, rolling
> dice, waiting for my opponent to finish a phase, or shuffling my action
> deck then the question of process is moot; the designer has produced a
> game I'm not that terribly interested in.

Spoken as someone who hasn't played a modern boardgame in decades.
Fair enough.

> > Plan 1 : continue as before, coders make perfect game designers you
> > know
>
> > Plan 2 : acknowledge as a coder that you're not a game designer and
> > code/convert someone else's proven design.
>
> Plan 3:  Work hand in glove with a designer who isn't mired in
> boardgaming from the get-go, and produce a proper PC game.

In other words : developer someone else's design ? How many pc wargame
developers do that ? I'll tell you : close to none. Just the SSG guys
work this way.

> Again, though, what Magic Rule Of The Universe precludes a
> collaboration?  Heck, the "credits" screen for BFTB rolls on for 30
> seconds.

Yeah, but the game's core functionality is entirely designed and
executed by 1 guy.

> My experience has been that 99% of designs that start out as boardgames
> end up as boardgame simulators -

Given the quality of what gets released these days that's a lofty goal
to aspire to.

For those interested in the numbers : 275 board wargames got released
in 2011 (up 40%) and the production quality also went up because DTP
designs went down 30%

Top titles included : A Few Acres of Snow, the No Retreat version from
GMT, Sekigahara, Band of Brothers - for me the final nail in the ASL
coffin - , Strike of the Eagle and the prime candidate for a digital
conversion : Field Commander : Napoleon.

Top pc wargame titles of 2011 : Panzer Corps and Combat Mission - both
games I already played over a decade ago.

> and I don't really want to play those
> at all anymore.

You haven't played one designed this millenium, so how would you know
if you liked one or not ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 mei, 21:10, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Sure - I never said that *every* boardgame is a good candiate, but
> > I've listed many, many times those specific boardgames I'm pretty sure
> > would make excellent digital designs. And you know what ? A number of
> > those, including Manoeuvre, Paths of Glory and Engage, *are* now
> > getting ported to the various tablets.
>
> Paths of Glory is a good game (although I am not convinced by the
> replayability of CDGs after I know the cards). But I don't see how it
> would work well on a computer without being just a VASSAL module that
> also tracks the rules (and AI?).

Many people would love to "just" have a PoG implementation that tracks
the rules :)

> Board Game Simulation would probably
> describe it well.

Sure - it's not a game I'd put on top of the list of "just crying out
to be put on a tablet", but if I have to chose between a digital PoG
and the pc wargame crap that got released this year, I know which one
to pick.

> I agree with both of you. Boardgame designers in general spend a lot of
> thought on how to abstract details to create a playable game, and
> streamline for playability (and fun). I don't see a lot of that in
> computer wargames.

That's an understatement - I don't see that *at all*. Unless you
consider slapping more data on a game as "fun"

> Some ideas might be worth porting, but others not.

Absolutely - not every boardgame makes for an interesting digital
game, only a small minority does but it's not hard to spot which ones
would make killer digital ones.

> It would be nice to see more innovation in computer games, and part of
> that might be to steal mechanics from modern boardgames, but the sets of
> mechanics that make great boardgames is different from the set of
> mechanics that make great computer games (and how big the intersection
> is...? I have no idea).

How many pc wargames are there where you can interrupt your opponent's
move ? How many pc wargames are there where you can only move a
portion of your forces in a given turn ? How many pc wargames are
there which aren't IGOUGO or WEGO, but where units from both sides
activate randomly ? How many pc wargames use the excellent ABCD combat
mechanic of Columbia games ?

I could go on, but for me pc wargames are design-wise stuck in the
seventies.

> > See, that's the common misconception here - that simple mechanics
> > equals a simple game. I know where it comes from : because that's what
> > we get in the pc  wargame world : a simple mechanic game is always a
> > beer & pretzel game. Well, this just isn't the case in the boardgame
> > world.
>
> I think the main problem with the PC wargames I have tried is usually
> not complex mechanics, but crappy user interfaces and drowning the user
> in boring data and micro-management.

Exactly.

> > My last design had squares :)
>
> URL? :)

http://127.0.0.1 :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 4 mei, 21:23, Pelle Nilsson <krigss...@pelle-n.net> wrote:

> If there is even a mention of dice or cards, I am not buying. Cards is a
> boardgame implementation of giving a player a randomly selected list of
> things to select.
> Computers implement that abstract mechanic too, but
> they do not need cards, and there is no need to simulate what a
> boardgame would have to do.

So in essence this boils down to giving the gamer a list of options he
can either select or not. Usually with a bit of text to clarify the
prerequisites, the consequences and perhaps some flavour text too. And
they need to be easily selectable in the UI. Excuse me, but what's
wrong with implementing that as a hand of "cards" a user can click
through and select ? It's a paradigm everyone is familiar with.

> Simulating dice is just as silly.

Agreed here.

> > Plan 3:  Work hand in glove with a designer who isn't mired in
> > boardgaming from the get-go, and produce a proper PC game.
>
> Good plan. But PC (war)game designers can probably learn a lot from
> playing some modern boardgames first.

That'll be the day. Talk with any pc wargame developer and they'll say
that they don't have the time for that. They're too busy researching
what the 516th kitchen company was doing on March 25th, 1942

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Giftzwerg]

In article <90b813b2-f74d-457f-bf90-6572e2e0d326
@m10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > I generally don't find out about design or interface flaws or AI that
> > sucks until after I buy something.
>
> I'd rather spend half an hour doing research before I buy something
> than spend the money and get aggravated afterwards

The problem here is there are so few reviewers who feel the same way I
do about game design. Witness the folks who rave about WITE.

> > Witness DEFENDING THE REICH.  I was
> > profoundly interested in the topic, it was DRM-free, and seemed to be a
> > serious effort.  Bought it, and then learned the proper title was
> > DEFENDING YOUR PIXELS.
>
> Excellent example of a game that if they had tested it on paper first,
> they'd have noticed that there's no game in there. You have no option
> but to send out every bomber plane available every night, and against
> the closest non-flattened target.

Again; fine. I don't mind this. I just care about what ends up on my
panel.

> > Not at all.  Consider STEAM AND IRON.  For all I know (and I know
> > nothing about it...) Fredrik Wallin started with miniatures rules.  Or
> > even the old BATTLEWAGON SSD/turn/hex game.  I don't really care what he
> > started with, but what he ended up with was amazing.
>
> There's two possibilities here
>
> Either he painstakenly created a set of rules himself, thereby
> lengthening the design period by a year or took one of the dozens of
> existing rulesets, took the things he liked, adapted the things he
> didn't like and be done rule-wise in a week
>
> I also don't care what he started with, but which guess which of the
> possibilities above will give you a better game faster ?

Don't care. All I want is a *computer* game. No hexes, no phases, no
cards, no chits, no turns ... nothing but a realistic experience of
command.

I don't want games *fast*. I want them *right*.

> > Here's where we're going to differ.  If the end result is a boardgame
> > simulator where I'm experiencing the game as turning over cards, rolling
> > dice, waiting for my opponent to finish a phase, or shuffling my action
> > deck then the question of process is moot; the designer has produced a
> > game I'm not that terribly interested in.
>
> Spoken as someone who hasn't played a modern boardgame in decades.
> Fair enough.

<laughter>

You, yourself, introduced me to A FEW ACRES OF SNOW. All sorts of cards
in that puppy. And then there was that comical video we recently saw
where the hapless presenter was turning cards, placing chits, and
otherwise going tharn in boardgamey goodness.

See, I'm unapologetic on this point. I'm just not interested in
boardgames any more. I'm a computer game guy totally.

> > > Plan 1 : continue as before, coders make perfect game designers you
> > > know
> >
> > > Plan 2 : acknowledge as a coder that you're not a game designer and
> > > code/convert someone else's proven design.
> >
> > Plan 3:  Work hand in glove with a designer who isn't mired in
> > boardgaming from the get-go, and produce a proper PC game.
>
> In other words : developer someone else's design ? How many pc wargame
> developers do that ? I'll tell you : close to none. Just the SSG guys
> work this way.

In my words, develop a common design. Think Larry Niven & Jerry
Pournelle.

And ... "just" the SSG guys?

> > Again, though, what Magic Rule Of The Universe precludes a
> > collaboration?  Heck, the "credits" screen for BFTB rolls on for 30
> > seconds.
>
> Yeah, but the game's core functionality is entirely designed and
> executed by 1 guy.

Ping Arjuna. Did you do it all? Are these other guys just spear
carriers?

> > My experience has been that 99% of designs that start out as boardgames
> > end up as boardgame simulators -
>
> Given the quality of what gets released these days that's a lofty goal
> to aspire to.

No. It's not. There are some real computer games out there. STEAM AND
IRON - have you played that yet?, you who keeps telling me I need to
play some modern boardgames to keep it real? - is a shining example of a
game that could not possibly exist as a boardgame without stirring in
all the gamey batshit in the universe.

> > and I don't really want to play those
> > at all anymore.
>
> You haven't played one designed this millenium, so how would you know
> if you liked one or not ?

But I have played one designed this millennium. Indeed, the one we're
talking about in this thread.

[Frank E]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 07:25:40 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> I think that you are on safer ground when talking about designing a beer and pretzel game rather than a serious wargame.
>
>See, that's the common misconception here - that simple mechanics
>equals a simple game. I know where it comes from : because that's what
>we get in the pc wargame world : a simple mechanic game is always a
>beer & pretzel game. Well, this just isn't the case in the boardgame
>world.

Don't confuse the mechanics of a game with the rules that are driving
it. Lets take two computer wargames, Panzer General and Birth of
America. The mechanics of both are pretty simple in the overall scheme
of things but the underlying rules of the game couldn't be more
different. PzG could be a boardgame port, the rules driving the whole
thing are simple enough to write out on a page or two. BoA could never
have started life as a boardgame, there's just too much complexity
going on under-the-hood. The player never sees that complexity but the
fact that it's there (and that it works) makes for a much better game.


I've always been a proponent of fairly abstract systems in wargames
but not abstracted down to the boardgame level.

>> The reason I say this is that in such a game the emphasis is on the fun factors rather than the simulation factors. There is more abstraction and less realism. This is where board games shine.

The two don't have to be at odds with each other. If you do it right,
you can hide the complexity so that the player never has to deal with
it directly. I'm thinking of things like weather effects, ammo usage,
partial destruction of units or command and control.

Rgds, Frank

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 14:25, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've always been a proponent of fairly abstract systems in wargames
> but not abstracted down to the boardgame level.

I've always been a proponent of historically accurate wargames that
put the player in the commander's shoes.

Now, pray tell which one is the more historically accurate game on the
East Front, the one really puts you in the shoes of uncle Adolph &
Stalin : the "simple" and very much abstracted boardgame No Retreat or
the massively complex War in the East pc wargame ?

What I'm saying is that "abstract" and "simple" does not imply kid-
level a-historical crap game.

Panzer Corps could have been a beer & pretzel boardgame that was put
on the computer and there's nothing wrong with that, but the thing I'm
talking about is putting games like No Retreat on the computer and
that's a whole different kettle of fish.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 13:35, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> <laughter>
>
> You, yourself, introduced me to A FEW ACRES OF SNOW.  All sorts of cards
> in that puppy.

Yeah, a brilliant way to visualize and emulate the following
historically accurate concepts of this war :

- stockpiling of resources and reserves over time, with FoW
- campaigns with a steamroller start that peter out fast.
- switching your overall strategy takes time / command delay
- uncertainty of communication lines

But you just see "cards" and dismiss the game.

Me, I can't wait until someone takes these concepts and puts them in a
strategic level ACW game.

> See, I'm unapologetic on this point.  I'm just not interested in
> boardgames any more.  I'm a computer game guy totally.

Well, at least you didn't state that in plural, because "game" is what
you'll get each year - if you're lucky. Maybe you're happy to play
just one good game each year, but I'm not.

> > Given the quality of what gets released these days that's a lofty goal
> > to aspire to.
>
> No.  It's not.

Again, how would you know ?

> There are some real computer games out there.  STEAM AND
> IRON - have you played that yet?,

Yup. I downloaded the demo, took one look at it and ran away
screaming. I'm not a aval nut, so if you want me to try your naval
warfare design don't put CGA colors in there and if you write a
manual, try to get at least one picture or graphic in there to make
things a bit more clear for a landlubber.

WotY 1985 if you ask me.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Frank E]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 05:47:50 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7 mei, 14:25, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've always been a proponent of fairly abstract systems in wargames
>> but not abstracted down to the boardgame level.
>
>I've always been a proponent of historically accurate wargames that
>put the player in the commander's shoes.
>
>Now, pray tell which one is the more historically accurate game on the
>East Front, the one really puts you in the shoes of uncle Adolph &
>Stalin : the "simple" and very much abstracted boardgame No Retreat or
>the massively complex War in the East pc wargame ?
>

That's a false choice though. Lets take your mythical eastern front
game where I'm playing the role of Hitler and/or OKH. I don't care
about allocating reinforcements to specific units or how supplies flow
but that doesn't mean those systems shouldn't be there (automated,
running in the background). If my tank replacement rate is 100 Pz IIIs
and 100 Pz IVs a month and I run my panzer divisions into the ground
during the first winter, then I want the game to reflect the fact that
I can't magically get my units back up to strength in time for a
spring offensive. If I outrun my supply lines during an offensive, I
want to see a gradual deterioration of combat effectiveness until I
can rest my units.

Those are the types of things that just aren't handled well in board
games because they can't handle the granularity of those systems
without getting bogged down in minuta. A well designed PC game handles
that well without ever bothering the player with it.

Gifty mentioned Star Fleet Battles, which is also a good example. It
doesn't work particularly well as a board game because it becomes too
bogged down in the details of allocating power systems and plotting
moves but transfer that system to a PC where the details can be hidden
in the background and it suddenly works much better.

Rgds, Frank

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 16:04, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012 05:47:50 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"

>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 7 mei, 14:25, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I've always been a proponent of fairly abstract systems in wargames
> >> but not abstracted down to the boardgame level.
>
> >I've always been a proponent of historically accurate wargames that
> >put the player in the commander's shoes.
>
> >Now, pray tell which one is the more historically accurate game on the
> >East Front, the one really puts you in the shoes of uncle Adolph &
> >Stalin : the "simple" and very much abstracted boardgame No Retreat or
> >the massively complex War in the East pc wargame ?
>
> That's a false choice though.

No, it's a perfect example to show that the equation more data = more
realism is total bs and that abstract wargames can easily outperform
their micro-manage monster cousins on the historical accuracy front.

Given the a-historical staggered lines I saw in WitE screens, I don't
think anyone can dispute this point.

> Lets take your mythical eastern front
> game where I'm playing the role of Hitler and/or OKH. I don't care
> about allocating reinforcements to specific units or how supplies flow
> but that doesn't mean those systems shouldn't be there
> (automated,
> running in the background).

How about abstracted in the background ?

> If my tank replacement rate is 100 Pz IIIs
> and 100 Pz IVs a month and I run my panzer divisions into the ground
> during the first winter, then I want the game to reflect the fact that
> I can't magically get my units back up to strength in time for a
> spring offensive.

I think you're confusing No Retreat with The Russian Campaign. That
game indeed had this bs mechanic where SS units got magically rebuild
each year so they became totally expendable.

> If I outrun my supply lines during an offensive, I
> want to see a gradual deterioration of combat effectiveness until I
> can rest my units.

What's wrong with von Paulus 6th army getting flipped after a turn out
of supply ?

>   Those are the types of things that just aren't handled well in board
> games because they can't handle the granularity of those systems
> without getting bogged down in minuta.

Ok, granted - pc wargames are able to handle the granularity better -
up to a ridiculous level even. The point then becomes a matter of
taste : do you like this granularity because I know where it leads to
in pc wargame design : having to move the 516th Kitchen Company due
East every turn.

> A well designed PC game handles
> that well without ever bothering the player with it.

Great. And apart from a couple of notable exceptions like the Command
Ops engine, where can I find those fabled designs ? Because all I see
is engines becoming *more* unmanageable. Just one example : I like
Viktor Reijkersz very much, he's fun to hang out with and so on but
his designs went from simple beer & pretzel stuff I liked - "People's
Tactics" - to games I won't even touch if you paid me. People into
historical sims will just love his new Decisive Campaign - Case Blue
game but moving 700-800 units per side each turn is just not something
I do in my spare time.

> Gifty mentioned Star Fleet Battles, which is also a good example. It
> doesn't work particularly well as a board game because it becomes too
> bogged down in the details of allocating power systems and plotting
> moves but transfer that system to a PC where the details can be hidden
> in the background and it suddenly works much better.

Why does everyone think a boardgame port must be a 1-1 port where the
gamer moves stacks of fuel markers ? Of course I want the digital
version to take care of the bookkeeping stuff and even do this behind
the scenes. I just want the digital developer to start with a working
game, instead of waste his time reinventing the wheel and come up with
a square one as happens all too often in the pc wargame world.

And of course there's no point in porting a bog-standard hex & CRT-
based boardgame to the digital world. We have Tiller for that. No, I'd
like to see that half dozen games each year that are *really* good and
novel get ported.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[dougb]

Eddy,

You should give SAI another go - yes the graphics are very mid 80ish but the game underneath is wonderful. Only thing it is really missing now is the ability to play against another player rather than just against the AI.

Playing on Vassal I can't understate how important the social aspect of gaming is to me. That's one area where alot of PC wargames fall down quite badly unfortunately. I really enjoyed playing Command Ops with Skype but the issue where I couldn't continue a saved game kind of put a halt to that unfortunately.

Doug

[Giftzwerg]

In article <da67eead-ba9c-49d0-af4c-1008d489b836
@m10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > You, yourself, introduced me to A FEW ACRES OF SNOW.  All sorts of cards
> > in that puppy.
>
> Yeah, a brilliant way to visualize and emulate the following
> historically accurate concepts of this war :
>
> - stockpiling of resources and reserves over time, with FoW
> - campaigns with a steamroller start that peter out fast.
> - switching your overall strategy takes time / command delay
> - uncertainty of communication lines
>
> But you just see "cards" and dismiss the game.

Correct. I do not recall Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, Marquis de
Saint-Veran poring over a deck of cards to determine his next move.

> > See, I'm unapologetic on this point.  I'm just not interested in
> > boardgames any more.  I'm a computer game guy totally.
>
> Well, at least you didn't state that in plural, because "game" is what
> you'll get each year - if you're lucky. Maybe you're happy to play
> just one good game each year, but I'm not.

But that's just it; I don't consider these boardgame simulators to be
"good," so I fundamentally reject the idea that an inundation of these
games is something to pine away for.

> > > Given the quality of what gets released these days that's a lofty goal
> > > to aspire to.
> >
> > No.  It's not.
>
> Again, how would you know ?

Because I know I don't want any more boardgame simulators?

> > There are some real computer games out there.  STEAM AND
> > IRON - have you played that yet?,
>
> Yup. I downloaded the demo, took one look at it and ran away
> screaming. I'm not a aval nut, so if you want me to try your naval
> warfare design don't put CGA colors in there and if you write a
> manual, try to get at least one picture or graphic in there to make
> things a bit more clear for a landlubber.

<boggle>

You're taking me to task for rejecting games because they're just
boardgame simulators - and you reject a very serious PC wargame that
incorporates FOW, command uncertainty, and realistic limits on control
because you don't like the *colors*!?!?!

PS: There are only two colors on the map, and you can change them both.
I, myself went with olive drab for land and deep blue for sea.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <A7WnT4iqEXd70+...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> >> The reason I say this is that in such a game the emphasis is on the fun factors rather than the simulation factors. There is more abstraction and less realism. This is where board games shine.
>
> The two don't have to be at odds with each other. If you do it right,
> you can hide the complexity so that the player never has to deal with
> it directly. I'm thinking of things like weather effects, ammo usage,
> partial destruction of units or command and control.

Exactly.

My suspicion is that when I order Polish 3rd parachute battalion to
capture the south end of the ferry at Driel in HTTR - maneuvering in V
formation, expending any ammo necessary, and ignoring losses - there's
really a lot going on inside the game.

I don't care. That's Arjuna's problem, to make a game that translates
very simple orders - "Sobocinski, form up your command and punch through
to the ferry landing - at all costs!" - into game terms so that I can
get on with the business of the overall battle.

Indeed, the only brush I've had with what goes on inside HTTR is via
discussions with Arjuna in this newsgroup, as he explains why or why not
something I suggest be added to the game is possible.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <c34849a8-a3c7-4ec9-895e-ca7426bc3d6d@
18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > I've always been a proponent of fairly abstract systems in wargames
> > but not abstracted down to the boardgame level.
>
> I've always been a proponent of historically accurate wargames that
> put the player in the commander's shoes.
>
> Now, pray tell which one is the more historically accurate game on the
> East Front, the one really puts you in the shoes of uncle Adolph &
> Stalin : the "simple" and very much abstracted boardgame No Retreat or
> the massively complex War in the East pc wargame ?

To do the "simple" one right, you need a computer.

Imagine WITE translated to a Panther-engine design. Sure, the 156th
Kitchen Company is in there somewhere, but I don't care about that.
Absolutely, as Adolf Hitler, I *could* have Zossen patch me though to
the leutnant commanding that formation, and issue orders directly - but
I'd much rather just issue orders to XLVIII PanzerKorps as a group, and
let Kempf and his staff worry about where the turnips would be stewed.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <XdKnTw+ZnU5DVW...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> Gifty mentioned Star Fleet Battles, which is also a good example. It
> doesn't work particularly well as a board game because it becomes too
> bogged down in the details of allocating power systems and plotting
> moves but transfer that system to a PC where the details can be hidden
> in the background and it suddenly works much better.

And the point that cries out to be made here is that Taldren could have
made a boardgame simulator of STAR FLEET BATTLES instead of a proper
computer game. They could have kept in (but automated) all the
boardgaming conventions - hexes, turns, impulses, SSDs, energy
allocation dialog boxes, plotted movement - but they wisely decided to
toss all that gamey bullshit - which was *only* necessary in a paper
world - into the nearest dumpster.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <1038aa35-5290-4c74-888c-e6d0c4171797
@o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > A well designed PC game handles
> > that well without ever bothering the player with it.
>
> Great. And apart from a couple of notable exceptions like the Command
> Ops engine, where can I find those fabled designs ?

Well, there is that sea-game you won't buy because the colors don't
please you. <g>

[Frank E]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7 mei, 16:04, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 05:47:50 -0700 (PDT), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>>
>> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 7 mei, 14:25, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I've always been a proponent of fairly abstract systems in wargames
>> >> but not abstracted down to the boardgame level.
>>
>> >I've always been a proponent of historically accurate wargames that
>> >put the player in the commander's shoes.
>>
>> >Now, pray tell which one is the more historically accurate game on the
>> >East Front, the one really puts you in the shoes of uncle Adolph &
>> >Stalin : the "simple" and very much abstracted boardgame No Retreat or
>> >the massively complex War in the East pc wargame ?
>>
>> That's a false choice though.
>
>No, it's a perfect example to show that the equation more data = more
>realism is total bs and that abstract wargames can easily outperform
>their micro-manage monster cousins on the historical accuracy front.
>
>Given the a-historical staggered lines I saw in WitE screens, I don't
>think anyone can dispute this point.

You're acting like there's no middle ground here. It's not a binary
choice between the relatively simplistic rules of a board game and a
monster like WitP or WitE.

>
>> If my tank replacement rate is 100 Pz IIIs
>> and 100 Pz IVs a month and I run my panzer divisions into the ground
>> during the first winter, then I want the game to reflect the fact that
>> I can't magically get my units back up to strength in time for a
>> spring offensive.
>
>I think you're confusing No Retreat with The Russian Campaign. That
>game indeed had this bs mechanic where SS units got magically rebuild
>each year so they became totally expendable.

Any board game has to have some system to magically rebuild units. It
would be a bookkeeping nightmare to do it gradually. And that's
something that's trivially done if the game is built for a PC.

>> If I outrun my supply lines during an offensive, I
>> want to see a gradual deterioration of combat effectiveness until I
>> can rest my units.
>
>What's wrong with von Paulus 6th army getting flipped after a turn out
>of supply ?

Because it shouldn't be an either-or proposition. Because the units
should be gradually losing combat effectiveness not when some magic
flip is switched.

>>   Those are the types of things that just aren't handled well in board
>> games because they can't handle the granularity of those systems
>> without getting bogged down in minuta.
>
>Ok, granted - pc wargames are able to handle the granularity better -
>up to a ridiculous level even. The point then becomes a matter of
>taste : do you like this granularity because I know where it leads to
>in pc wargame design : having to move the 516th Kitchen Company due
>East every turn.

Come now, that's like me saying 'the rules of chess are too simplistic
for my tastes therefore I hate all boardgames.'

>> A well designed PC game handles
>> that well without ever bothering the player with it.
>
>Great. And apart from a couple of notable exceptions like the Command
>Ops engine, where can I find those fabled designs ?

Command Ops, Steam and Iron, Birth of America and the old Close Combat
games are all examples of what I'm talking about. They're all pretty
simple to play but have a lot going on under the hood that could never
be simulated in a board game.

Granted that there aren't many wargame developers that get this, my
list would be a lot longer if I included simulations and strategy
games, but the solution (for me at least) isn't to simplify things
down to a boardgame level. That doesn't mean that I want everything
turned into a monster game.

Rgds, Frank

[Vincenzo Beretta]

> The problem here is there are so few reviewers who feel the
> same way I do about game design. Witness the folks who
> rave about WITE.

Design philosophy aside for a moment, I have no problems with WitP AE or
WitE as game systems: I have fun with both and I like both very much - which
is what matters when I do invest my time/money in a game.

The problem is the - criminal - underlying mindest re: scenarios. WitE has,
more or less, the same scale of Schwerkpunkt' "The Russo-German War". Now,
look at this list:

RUSSO-GERMAN WAR SCENARIO LIST

1. Blitzkrieg 41
2. Approach to Leningrad
3. Minsk Pocket
4. Smolensk/Yelnya
5. Operation Typhoon
6. Uman Pocket
7. Kiev Pocket
8. Crimea Break-in
9. Repulsed at Rostov
-------------------------------------------------
10. Winter Offensive 41-42
11. Tikhvin Supply Route
12. Saving Moscow
13. Izyum Bulge
14. Recapturing Kerch
-------------------------------------------------
15. Blitzkrieg 42
16. 2nd Kharkov Battle
17. To the Don River
18. To the Caucausus
19. Battle for Stalingrad
20. Capturing Crimea
-------------------------------------------------
21. Winter Offensive 42-43
22. Operation Uranus
23. Operation Little Saturn/Ring
24. Gallop/Star/Manstein Miracle
25. Operation Mars
26. Liberating the Caucausus
27. Operation Buffalo
28. Leningrad Corridor
29. Summer/Fall Offensives 43
30. Operation Zitadelle
31. Crushing the Orel Salient
32. Battle for Belgorod-Kharkov
33. Race to the Dnepr South
34. Liberating Smolensk
35. Dnepr River Battles South
36. Gomel Breakthrough
37. Nevel Breakthrough
-------------------------------------------------
38. Winter Offensive 43-44
39. Zhitomir-Berdichev-Korsun
40. Nikopol Bridgehead
41. Race to the Dnestr
42. Liberating Crimea
43. Ending the Leningrad Siege
44. Blows to the Center
-------------------------------------------------
45. Summer/Fall Offensive 44
46. Karelian Isthmus
47. Operation Bagration
48. Lwow-Sandomierz-Brest
49. Breakthrough to Romania
50. Breakthrough to the Baltic
51. Russo-German War 41-44

...And try to ask for a similar list on WitE forum. I did back in the day on
the WitP AE one. They patronizingly explained me that "With the included
editor it will be only a matter of time" (*). Last time I checked, PoA 2 had
more user made scenarios. It is a fact of life: the opportunity is right
there, but it is worthless in face of fanatism.

(*) The other objection being "if you don't like it you can do the scenerios
(sic) by yourself!!!!111". Something I fully embrace, as long as I can pay
with money made by me too.

[Frank E]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 12:23:59 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <A7WnT4iqEXd70+...@4ax.com>,
>fakea...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> >> The reason I say this is that in such a game the emphasis is on the fun factors rather than the simulation factors. There is more abstraction and less realism. This is where board games shine.
>>
>> The two don't have to be at odds with each other. If you do it right,
>> you can hide the complexity so that the player never has to deal with
>> it directly. I'm thinking of things like weather effects, ammo usage,
>> partial destruction of units or command and control.

Let me add one more obvious thing to that list, Fog of War. Something
that I've never seen done well in a board game but is trivial to
implement on a PC. And I can't think of any wargame that isn't
improved if you add FoW to it.

>Exactly.
>
>My suspicion is that when I order Polish 3rd parachute battalion to
>capture the south end of the ferry at Driel in HTTR - maneuvering in V
>formation, expending any ammo necessary, and ignoring losses - there's
>really a lot going on inside the game.
>
>I don't care. That's Arjuna's problem, to make a game that translates
>very simple orders - "Sobocinski, form up your command and punch through
>to the ferry landing - at all costs!" - into game terms so that I can
>get on with the business of the overall battle.
>
>Indeed, the only brush I've had with what goes on inside HTTR is via
>discussions with Arjuna in this newsgroup, as he explains why or why not
>something I suggest be added to the game is possible.

I will agree with Eddie that there aren't many PC wargames that do
this right but the solution isn't to simplify things down to a
boardgame level. If games BftB, BoA and SAI can do it, there's not
reason that other developers can't.

Rgds, Frank

[Frank E]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 12:50:12 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <XdKnTw+ZnU5DVW...@4ax.com>,
>fakea...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> Gifty mentioned Star Fleet Battles, which is also a good example. It
>> doesn't work particularly well as a board game because it becomes too
>> bogged down in the details of allocating power systems and plotting
>> moves but transfer that system to a PC where the details can be hidden
>> in the background and it suddenly works much better.
>
>And the point that cries out to be made here is that Taldren could have
>made a boardgame simulator of STAR FLEET BATTLES instead of a proper
>computer game. They could have kept in (but automated) all the
>boardgaming conventions - hexes, turns, impulses, SSDs, energy
>allocation dialog boxes, plotted movement - but they wisely decided to
>toss all that gamey bullshit - which was *only* necessary in a paper
>world - into the nearest dumpster.

Another good example of this would be MechWarrior.

All this talk of SFB is making me want to dig out my old disks. Any
clue whether any of the old titles work under Win7?

Rgds, Frank

[Giftzwerg]

In article <jv2nT+p5JO0eRy...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> >Great. And apart from a couple of notable exceptions like the Command
> >Ops engine, where can I find those fabled designs ?
>
> Command Ops, Steam and Iron, Birth of America and the old Close Combat
> games are all examples of what I'm talking about. They're all pretty
> simple to play but have a lot going on under the hood that could never
> be simulated in a board game.

The right thought-experiment, to my mind, is to ask, "Suppose we wanted
to implement STEAM AND IRON as a boardgame - would this be possible?
How - exactly - could we do this while implementing the FOW, limited
command, and vast uncertainty?"

Maybe a deck of cards? A cup full of chits? A room full of umpires?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <FwGoT2A=nvj5yXQVk2...@4ax.com>,
fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> >My suspicion is that when I order Polish 3rd parachute battalion to
> >capture the south end of the ferry at Driel in HTTR - maneuvering in V
> >formation, expending any ammo necessary, and ignoring losses - there's
> >really a lot going on inside the game.
> >
> >I don't care. That's Arjuna's problem, to make a game that translates
> >very simple orders - "Sobocinski, form up your command and punch through
> >to the ferry landing - at all costs!" - into game terms so that I can
> >get on with the business of the overall battle.
> >
> >Indeed, the only brush I've had with what goes on inside HTTR is via
> >discussions with Arjuna in this newsgroup, as he explains why or why not
> >something I suggest be added to the game is possible.
>
> I will agree with Eddie that there aren't many PC wargames that do
> this right but the solution isn't to simplify things down to a
> boardgame level. If games BftB, BoA and SAI can do it, there's not
> reason that other developers can't.

The question of how many PC wargames "do this right" is irrelevant, to
my mind. My position is simply that if you begin with a paper
boardgame, you'll end up with a computerized paper boardgame. It may be
that Eddy's right, and if all developers start out with paper boardgames
we'll end up with more computerized paper boardgames ... but I don't
want this. I want more games like STEAM AND IRON. I want more BATTLES
FROM THE BULGE.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <dwOoT4ZMsERYUni+1I=2hui...@4ax.com>,

fakea...@hotmail.com says...

> >> Gifty mentioned Star Fleet Battles, which is also a good example. It
> >> doesn't work particularly well as a board game because it becomes too
> >> bogged down in the details of allocating power systems and plotting
> >> moves but transfer that system to a PC where the details can be hidden
> >> in the background and it suddenly works much better.
> >
> >And the point that cries out to be made here is that Taldren could have
> >made a boardgame simulator of STAR FLEET BATTLES instead of a proper
> >computer game. They could have kept in (but automated) all the
> >boardgaming conventions - hexes, turns, impulses, SSDs, energy
> >allocation dialog boxes, plotted movement - but they wisely decided to
> >toss all that gamey bullshit - which was *only* necessary in a paper
> >world - into the nearest dumpster.
>
> Another good example of this would be MechWarrior.
>
> All this talk of SFB is making me want to dig out my old disks. Any
> clue whether any of the old titles work under Win7?

I haven't been able to make them go on Vista or Win7, regardless of my
wriggling, struggling, or whining. That's not to say it can't be done,
but the path of least resistance on my part was to drag an XP laptop off
the shelf at $ork and prop it next to my easy chair.

I have a pile of legacy games on it, but I eagerly await GOG getting
hold of a license for STARFLEET COMMAND.

[David]

I'm really enjoying the debate. Nice to see Eddy and Gifty disagree on something without the off topic political garbage.

I side with Eddy on this one. I've been trying to get into PC wargames for years now. I believe the last one that I played to any extent was Operational Art of War. I've tried many others since then, and to me they are boring, with few interesting decisions, often making me feel like an accountant. The only thing they've done is make me yearn to play and find more opponents for Advanced Squad Leader (my favorite), and other board wargames. Thank god for VASSAL, since I would not be able to play much without it. PC wargames just don't engage me like tabletop wargames do.

I'm definitely interested in the Conflict of Heroes port coming out tomorrow. Give me an elegant and proven board game design over yet another detail and micromanagement nightmare PC wargame any day of the week.

[Giftzwerg]

In article <16829740.1599.1336427757891.JavaMail.geo-discussion-
forums@ynjj16>, singl...@hotmail.com says...

>
> I'm really enjoying the debate. Nice to see Eddy and Gifty disagree on something without the off topic political garbage.

We've been disagreeing about stuff since time immemorial. Except the
off-topic political garbage. The only on-topic things we agree on
probably surround He Who May Not Be Named and JR.

> I side with Eddy on this one. I've been trying to get into PC wargames for years now. I believe the last one that I played to any extent was Operational Art of War. I've tried many others since then, and to me they are boring, with few interesting decisions, often making me feel like an accountant. The only thing they've done is make me yearn to play and find more opponents for Advanced Squad Leader (my favorite), and other board wargames. Thank god for VASSAL, since I
would not be able to play much without it. PC wargames just don't engage me like tabletop wargames do.

TOAW is a boardgame simulator. A very good one, to be sure, but still a
boardgame simulator.

> I'm definitely interested in the Conflict of Heroes port coming out tomorrow. Give me an elegant and proven board game design over yet another detail and micromanagement nightmare PC wargame any day of the week.

Link?

[David]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=1040&p=1&tmode=1&smode=1

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 17:24, dougb <douglasbrun...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Eddy,
>
> You should give SAI another go - yes the graphics are very mid 80ish but the game underneath is wonderful.  Only thing it is really missing now is the ability to play against another player rather than just against the AI.

The only thing that could get me to pick it up again is better
production values - graphics & manual - and MP.

> Playing on Vassal I can't understate how important the social aspect of gaming is to me.  That's one area where alot of PC wargames fall down quite badly unfortunately.

That's another reason I'm not willing to spend time on the current
crop of pc wargames. I play a lot of MP face-to-face games - a hell of
a lot actually - got another Napoleonic 1809 campaign battle lined up
for tonight - so whenever I do play against an AI it better be a good
one or it'll get tossed aside.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 18:13, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <da67eead-ba9c-49d0-af4c-1008d489b836

> @m10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > You, yourself, introduced me to A FEW ACRES OF SNOW.  All sorts of cards
> > > in that puppy.
>
> > Yeah, a brilliant way to visualize and emulate the following
> > historically accurate concepts of this war :
>
> > - stockpiling of resources and reserves over time, with FoW
> > - campaigns with a steamroller start that peter out fast.
> > - switching your overall strategy takes time / command delay
> > - uncertainty of communication lines
>
> > But you just see "cards" and dismiss the game.
>
> Correct.  I do not recall Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, Marquis de
> Saint-Veran poring over a deck of cards to determine his next move.

Maybe you need to see it as him thinking about the various options
available to him and setting things in motion for the one he picked.
And then wait.

This is totally unlike most pc wargames where armies can wheel 180
degrees on a whim and strike out wherever they like.

The funny thing is that the hardcore chit-movers don't like this type
of game either. Not being able to control each and every unit each
turn is horror to those guys.

> > > See, I'm unapologetic on this point.  I'm just not interested in
> > > boardgames any more.  I'm a computer game guy totally.
>
> > Well, at least you didn't state that in plural, because "game" is what
> > you'll get each year - if you're lucky. Maybe you're happy to play
> > just one good game each year, but I'm not.
>
> But that's just it; I don't consider these boardgame simulators to be
> "good," so I fundamentally reject the idea that an inundation of these
> games is something to pine away for.

If this consideration was based on a vast knowledge of new boardgame
designs I'd drop the point right here and now :)

Anyway, those "boardgame simulators" are coming - once they're here,
maybe you'll come around.

> > > There are some real computer games out there.  STEAM AND
> > > IRON - have you played that yet?,
>
> > Yup. I downloaded the demo, took one look at it and ran away
> > screaming. I'm not a aval nut, so if you want me to try your naval
> > warfare design don't put CGA colors in there and if you write a
> > manual, try to get at least one picture or graphic in there to make
> > things a bit more clear for a landlubber.
>
> <boggle>
>
> You're taking me to task for rejecting games because they're just
> boardgame simulators - and you reject a very serious PC wargame that
> incorporates FOW, command uncertainty, and realistic limits on control
> because you don't like the *colors*!?!?!

My reasons in order of importance

1) I'm not a naval wargamer, so I'll need some convincing to even try
this. I never bothered with Harpoon or other naval wargames in the
past.
2) Previous NWS naval wargames got gushing praise in here too and I've
yet to get some value out of them.
3) My dog has a better colour sense, making the game unattractive to
me.
4) The manual is crap.
5) Whenever I'm in the mood for naval warfare, I can always get a game
of Trafalgar or Uncharted Seas set up.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 18:34, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <c34849a8-a3c7-4ec9-895e-ca7426bc3d6d@

> 18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > I've always been a proponent of fairly abstract systems in wargames
> > > but not abstracted down to the boardgame level.
>
> > I've always been a proponent of historically accurate wargames that
> > put the player in the commander's shoes.
>
> > Now, pray tell which one is the more historically accurate game on the
> > East Front, the one really puts you in the shoes of uncle Adolph &
> > Stalin : the "simple" and very much abstracted boardgame No Retreat or
> > the massively complex War in the East pc wargame ?
>
> To do the "simple" one right, you need a computer.
>
> Imagine WITE translated to a Panther-engine design.  Sure, the 156th
> Kitchen Company is in there somewhere, but I don't care about that.
> Absolutely, as Adolf Hitler, I *could* have Zossen patch me though to
> the leutnant commanding that formation, and issue orders directly - but
> I'd much rather just issue orders to XLVIII PanzerKorps as a group, and
> let Kempf and his staff worry about where the turnips would be stewed.

So your answer as to which game, the monster or the abstract one, is
the more historically accurate and realistic from a gamer pov is a non-
existing game we all dream about ?

Talk about trying to divert the focal point of the discussion ... it
nearly worked :)

Yeah, sure, absolutely, no doubt about it - the Command Ops engine
beats any boardgame simulation. But given that nobody has cloned
Arjuna yet, where will that type of game be coming from ?

The answer is simple : every 2 years we'll get one from Panther Games
and that's it.

In the meantime I'd then rather play the "boardgame simulator" No
Retreat then the monster WitE.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 18:51, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1038aa35-5290-4c74-888c-e6d0c4171797

> @o6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > A well designed PC game handles
> > > that well without ever bothering the player with it.
>
> > Great. And apart from a couple of notable exceptions like the Command
> > Ops engine, where can I find those fabled designs ?
>
> Well, there is that sea-game you won't buy because the colors don't
> please you.  <g>

Even if the production values on that game exceeded the home-work
quality of a third grader that would still leave us with a staggering
one (1) game this year that's worth my time.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Arjuna]

On Tuesday, 8 May 2012 17:31:13 UTC+10, eddys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The answer is simple : every 2 years we'll get one from Panther Games
> and that's it.
>
> In the meantime I'd then rather play the "boardgame simulator" No
> Retreat then the monster WitE.

Surely the answer is for you guys to chip in two "nice" salaries so Paul and I can work on these full time. ;)

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 19:04, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You're acting like there's no middle ground here. It's not a binary
> choice between the relatively simplistic rules of a board game and a
> monster like WitP or WitE.

Ok, let me rephraze that : where are those in-the-middle games ?

Let's have a look at what got published this year already

Beer & Pretzel :

Battle Academy - Operation Sealion
Panzer Corps - Grand Campaign '42
Battle Academy iPad
Achtung Panzer - Operation Star
Combat Mission : Touch (iPad)
Panzer Corps - Grand Campaign '44

Monster :

Crusader Kings 2
Soldiers of Empire 2
Napoleonic Battles: Campaign 1814

Crap :

Naval War : Arctic Circle
Team Assault - Baptism of Fire
The Drift 1879

Please tell me what a wargamer who likes games like No Retreat or A
Few Acres of Snow is going to play on his computer given the choices
above ? I'll tell you what : none of them. If I lacked human opponents
I'd play those boardgames over Vassal and Skype.

> Any board game has to have some system to magically rebuild units. It
> would be a bookkeeping nightmare to do it gradually. And that's
> something that's trivially done if the game is built for a PC.

Again I think your main objection is granularity-based. It's not that
partial rebuilding of units is any less "magical" than reconstituting
units as a whole. Both simply are a system whereby losses can be
replaced by production in the home country. If that production is
simulated realistically, I can deal with some abstract manner in which
the replacements are entered into the ongoing battle.

> >> If I outrun my supply lines during an offensive, I
> >> want to see a gradual deterioration of combat effectiveness until I
> >> can rest my units.
>
> >What's wrong with von Paulus 6th army getting flipped after a turn out
> >of supply ?
>
> Because it shouldn't be an either-or proposition. Because the units
> should be gradually losing combat effectiveness not when some magic
> flip is switched.

Granularity again. You do realize that a more abstract East Front game
will have 2-month turns, not 2-day turns, so flipping or even
eliminating 6th Army after a 2 month period is Big Picture correct ?

> >Ok, granted - pc wargames are able to handle the granularity better -
> >up to a ridiculous level even. The point then becomes a matter of
> >taste : do you like this granularity because I know where it leads to
> >in pc wargame design : having to move the 516th Kitchen Company due
> >East every turn.
>
> Come now, that's like me saying 'the rules of chess are too simplistic
> for my tastes therefore I hate all boardgames.'

No, that's observing that with more detail comes more micro-management
- that's simply the way things are done in the pc wargame world.

> >> A well designed PC game handles
> >> that well without ever bothering the player with it.
>
> >Great. And apart from a couple of notable exceptions like the Command
> >Ops engine, where can I find those fabled designs ?
>
> Command Ops, Steam and Iron, Birth of America and the old Close Combat
> games are all examples of what I'm talking about.

About a single game each year - that's what I refered to when I said
"notable exceptions", because that's what they are : exceptions to the
norm.

> Granted that there aren't many wargame developers that get this, my
> list would be a lot longer if I included simulations and strategy
> games, but the solution (for me at least) isn't to simplify things
> down to a boardgame level.

The only problem is that for the other solution - an extensive
development team working on the design - there simply aren't enough
resources in the pc wargame world. All I'm saying is that the
available manpower can be better used implementing a working design of
the shelf, rather than trying to design one yourself.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 19:13, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me add one more obvious thing to that list, Fog of War. Something
> that I've never seen done well in a board game but is trivial to
> implement on a PC. And I can't think of any wargame that isn't
> improved if you add FoW to it.

Correct.

But what's wrong with the FoW as implemented by the Columbia block
games ?

and BTW : ever seen own-side FoW implemented in a computer wargame ?
Me neither, though PanzerGruppe Guderian had that 30 years ago.

and oh, ever seen dummy units, ghost units, seen implemented in a
computer wargame ? Me neither, though Rommel in the Desert had that 20
years ago.

My point : if even for features where the computer is clearly in the
advantage, like FoW, I can give boardgame examples where it's done
*better* than any computer wargame ever, I think computer wargames
have a problem ...

> I will agree with Eddie that there aren't many PC wargames that do
> this right but the solution isn't to simplify things down to a
> boardgame level. If games BftB, BoA and SAI can do it, there's not
> reason that other developers can't.

Yeah, there is : game-design is a rare talent. The chances that a
great coder also happens to be a great game designer is pretty small.

The number of boardgames published is about 5-6 times that of computer
wargames and even in the boardgame world there are only maybe a dozen
great games each year. Purely statistical we'd be lucky to get 1 or 2
great games each year, and that's exactly what we get. Now, some are
happy with those 1-2 games and don't need anything more, and that's
fine, but if you're like me and like to have a bit more choice - what
are your options ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 23:55, David <singlem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm really enjoying the debate.  Nice to see Eddy and Gifty disagree on something without the off topic political garbage.

uh, I think we disagree on a lot of things - if not most things - we
just happen to agree on a couple (not all) political issues :)

> PC wargames just don't engage me like tabletop wargames do.

Likewise - and this is something pc wargame publishers have to be wary
of : with technology & communication improving all the time they have
to produce stuff that's *better* than what technology manages to give
gamers willing to play a boardgame over the 'net.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

Nah, I know you, that won't work - you'll just use the extra money to
put more features in there and still only release after 2 years :)

Greetz,,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 7 mei, 22:39, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The question of how many PC wargames "do this right" is irrelevant, to
> my mind.

Well, if you're happy to with 1-2 games each year that manage to be
neither crud, nor stuff we already played a decade ago that's
certainly fine.

> My position is simply that if you begin with a paper
> boardgame, you'll end up with a computerized paper boardgame.

Have you taken a look at the screenshots and specs of that iPad Bulge
game currently on Kickstarter ?

Can you honestly say that the current crop of pc wargames is *better*
than this computerized paper boardgame ?

>.. but I don't
> want this.  I want more games like STEAM AND IRON.  I want more BATTLES
> FROM THE BULGE.

Yeah, and I want a massage from Claudia Schiffer because my back is
hurting from re-aligning a stone pathway @home - I guess our chances
of getting what we want are about even.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Jeff Urs]

<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3488eca-d551-4d87...@bh8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> and oh, ever seen dummy units, ghost units, seen implemented in a
> computer wargame ? Me neither, though Rommel in the Desert had that 20
> years ago.

Pardon my digression; SPI's Franco-Prussian War had them 40 years ago.

--
Jeff

[Giftzwerg]

In article <04a303be-0992-4877-970a-81a5be350b16
@l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Imagine WITE translated to a Panther-engine design.  Sure, the 156th
> > Kitchen Company is in there somewhere, but I don't care about that.
> > Absolutely, as Adolf Hitler, I *could* have Zossen patch me though to
> > the leutnant commanding that formation, and issue orders directly - but
> > I'd much rather just issue orders to XLVIII PanzerKorps as a group, and
> > let Kempf and his staff worry about where the turnips would be stewed.
>
> So your answer as to which game, the monster or the abstract one, is
> the more historically accurate and realistic from a gamer pov is a non-
> existing game we all dream about ?

Yes. Exactly. HIGHWAY TO THE REICH didn't exist until some bloke built
the thing - without thinking he could short-circuit the design process
with cards, chits, or bits of paper.

May all our dreams come true.

> Talk about trying to divert the focal point of the discussion ... it
> nearly worked :)
>
> Yeah, sure, absolutely, no doubt about it - the Command Ops engine
> beats any boardgame simulation. But given that nobody has cloned
> Arjuna yet, where will that type of game be coming from ?

Some other guy who says, "Hey, this Arjuna dude has style. I'm gonna
rip off his command systems - only I'm gonna get it right."

> The answer is simple : every 2 years we'll get one from Panther Games
> and that's it.

But your answer is worse; every week another title shows up that has us
giving orders to panzer divisions by card-sorting, or chit-picking, or
pin-bowling, or slo-pitch softball, or knitting - and calls it "modern
boardgaming."

> In the meantime I'd then rather play the "boardgame simulator" No
> Retreat then the monster WitE.

So would I. Link?

[Giftzwerg]

In article <b24bc309-8109-4f98-b495-e752deb0d5f8
@cl4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> > Well, there is that sea-game you won't buy because the colors don't
> > please you.  <g>
>
> Even if the production values on that game exceeded the home-work
> quality of a third grader that would still leave us with a staggering
> one (1) game this year that's worth my time.

Yeah, but you've got me and Vinnie and Mike K. agreeing that SAI is good
stuff.

When do we ever agree on *anything*?!?

[Frank E]

I can't comment on most of the games on your list, the only one that I
own is Crusader Kings 2, which I wouldn't call a monster game. ... but
I also wouldn't call it a wargame.

Based on the previous game, I'd classify Achtung Panzer as an 'in the
middle' game. Did SAI come out this year? I didn't pick it up until a
few weeks ago but it would certainly fit into that category.

>> Any board game has to have some system to magically rebuild units. It
>> would be a bookkeeping nightmare to do it gradually. And that's
>> something that's trivially done if the game is built for a PC.
>
>Again I think your main objection is granularity-based.

Lets call that one of my two main objections, the other being no Fog
of War.

>It's not that
>partial rebuilding of units is any less "magical" than reconstituting
>units as a whole.

Maybe it's no less 'magical' but it's certainly less realistic. That
goes for the other direction too, damage models. If you're lucky you
might be able to flip a counter for a half-strength unit but board
games usually have a binary damage model, you're either dead or you
aren't.

> Both simply are a system whereby losses can be
>replaced by production in the home country. If that production is
>simulated realistically, I can deal with some abstract manner in which
>the replacements are entered into the ongoing battle.

The question here isn't whether you can deal with it or not, there's
always some level of abstraction. I'm just saying that this is one
area where board games fail in comparison to computer games. And by
extension, where a direct port of a board game fails in relation to a
game designed for computers.

>> >> If I outrun my supply lines during an offensive, I
>> >> want to see a gradual deterioration of combat effectiveness until I
>> >> can rest my units.
>>
>> >What's wrong with von Paulus 6th army getting flipped after a turn out
>> >of supply ?
>>
>> Because it shouldn't be an either-or proposition. Because the units
>> should be gradually losing combat effectiveness not when some magic
>> flip is switched.
>
>Granularity again. You do realize that a more abstract East Front game
>will have 2-month turns, not 2-day turns, so flipping or even
>eliminating 6th Army after a 2 month period is Big Picture correct ?

Who the fuck wants to play a EF game with 2 month turns? <g>

We're back to granularity. Only a board game would ever consider 2
month turns and only because the player has to do all the number
crunching.

>
>> >> A well designed PC game handles
>> >> that well without ever bothering the player with it.
>>
>> >Great. And apart from a couple of notable exceptions like the Command
>> >Ops engine, where can I find those fabled designs ?
>>
>> Command Ops, Steam and Iron, Birth of America and the old Close Combat
>> games are all examples of what I'm talking about.
>
>About a single game each year - that's what I refered to when I said
>"notable exceptions", because that's what they are : exceptions to the
>norm.

So? PC game designers that get this are out there, there aren't many
granted, but they do exist. I think much of it is due to the fact that
it's a lot easier to design a good boardgame. It's an iterative
process and it's a lot easier and faster to iterate when designing a
boardgame.

Thing is, most of those boardgame designers don't know what it takes
to make a good computer game either. There's a trick to making a good
computer game out of a good board game, and it doesn't involve doing a
direct port. It involves figuring out what makes a board game fun, and
then deciding how you can make it better on a computer. Civilization,
Birth of America, Mech Warrior and Star Fleet Battles are some good
examples of this. They took the 'fun' parts of board games and made
them better on a computer.

Rgds, Frank

[Frank E]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 16:39:33 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzw...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <FwGoT2A=nvj5yXQVk2...@4ax.com>,
>fakea...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> >My suspicion is that when I order Polish 3rd parachute battalion to
>> >capture the south end of the ferry at Driel in HTTR - maneuvering in V
>> >formation, expending any ammo necessary, and ignoring losses - there's
>> >really a lot going on inside the game.
>> >
>> >I don't care. That's Arjuna's problem, to make a game that translates
>> >very simple orders - "Sobocinski, form up your command and punch through
>> >to the ferry landing - at all costs!" - into game terms so that I can
>> >get on with the business of the overall battle.
>> >
>> >Indeed, the only brush I've had with what goes on inside HTTR is via
>> >discussions with Arjuna in this newsgroup, as he explains why or why not
>> >something I suggest be added to the game is possible.
>>
>> I will agree with Eddie that there aren't many PC wargames that do
>> this right but the solution isn't to simplify things down to a
>> boardgame level. If games BftB, BoA and SAI can do it, there's not
>> reason that other developers can't.
>
>The question of how many PC wargames "do this right" is irrelevant, to
>my mind. My position is simply that if you begin with a paper
>boardgame, you'll end up with a computerized paper boardgame.

Not necessarily. A lot of good computer games are based on board
games. It's just that none of those are direct ports of board games.
They all manage to leverage the advantages of the computer make a
better game instead of slavishly following the board game design.

Rgds, Frank

[Giftzwerg]

In article <af192cbe-fab8-4f33-9711-a28d6d050413
@a3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...

> >.. but I don't
> > want this.  I want more games like STEAM AND IRON.  I want more BATTLES
> > FROM THE BULGE.
>
> Yeah, and I want a massage from Claudia Schiffer because my back is
> hurting from re-aligning a stone pathway @home - I guess our chances
> of getting what we want are about even.

Claudia Schiffer? She's old enough to be a *grandmother*!!! Hang
around the supermarket long enough and you're sure to bag her.

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 mei, 17:57, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <af192cbe-fab8-4f33-9711-a28d6d050413

> @a3g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > >.. but I don't
> > > want this.  I want more games like STEAM AND IRON.  I want more BATTLES
> > > FROM THE BULGE.
>
> > Yeah, and I want a massage from Claudia Schiffer because my back is
> > hurting from re-aligning a stone pathway @home - I guess our chances
> > of getting what we want are about even.
>
> Claudia Schiffer?  She's old enough to be a *grandmother*!!!  Hang
> around the supermarket long enough and you're sure to bag her.

She's 4 years younger than me :)

Once while channel surfing I came across a German talk-show where they
interviewed her. She was intelligent, witty, had an easy laugh and was
the total opposite of the stereotypical dumb blonde. I like girls like
that, no matter their age :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 mei, 12:10, "Jeff Urs" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote:
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

I happily stand corrected :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 mei, 13:23, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <04a303be-0992-4877-970a-81a5be350b16

> @l7g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, eddyster...@hotmail.com says...

Exactly - a dream come true.

> > In the meantime I'd then rather play the "boardgame simulator" No
> > Retreat then the monster WitE.
>
> So would I.  Link?

Same URL as that guy who's ripping of Arjuna's design. I'll tell you
why this won't happen : because it takes 10 man/years of work to
create such an engine and only fools - in the nicest sense of the word
- would ever walk that path.

But I can tell you why No Retreat in a digital format could happen :
it's about a year's work, so economically viable, the underlying
design is an award winning game of the most popular campaign of the
most popular historical era and Carl Paradis - the developer - has
already posted about thinking about doing it.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[eddys...@hotmail.com]

On 8 mei, 14:21, Frank E <fakeaddr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Based on the previous game, I'd classify Achtung Panzer as an 'in the
> middle' game.

For me tactical wargames aren't really thinky, they're more like
puzzles you've got to solve. YMMV

> Did SAI come out this year? I didn't pick it up until a
> few weeks ago but it would certainly fit into that category.

2012 game, and it's probably in that medium sweet spot, but I really
don't care about that game.

> Maybe it's no less 'magical' but it's certainly less realistic. That
> goes for the other direction too, damage models. If you're lucky you
> might be able to flip a counter for a half-strength unit but board
> games usually have a binary damage model, you're either dead or you
> aren't.

Again : Columbia block games : 5 different states.

> >Granularity again. You do realize that a more abstract East Front game
> >will have 2-month turns, not 2-day turns, so flipping or even
> >eliminating 6th Army after a 2 month period is Big Picture correct ?
>
> Who the fuck wants to play a EF game with 2 month turns? <g>

I do :)

When I start an EF game I want to get to Stalingrad by 23:00, not by
2013.

> We're back to granularity. Only a board game would ever consider 2
> month turns and only because the player has to do all the number
> crunching.

More like : with 2 month turns thinking about your overall strategy
down to the individual unit becomes more important than your ability
to shuffle 1500 units to the right each turn.

But, yeah, I'm a boardgame player at heart.

> Thing is,  most of those boardgame designers don't know what it takes
> to make a good computer game either. There's a trick to making a good
> computer game out of a good board game, and it doesn't involve doing a
> direct port. It involves figuring out what makes a board game fun, and
> then deciding how you can make it better on a computer. Civilization,
> Birth of America, Mech Warrior and Star Fleet Battles are some good
> examples of this. They took the 'fun' parts of board games and made
> them better on a computer.

I have no problem with that, at least they started from a proven
design.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Mark Garnett]

I have no troubles getting both Orion Pirtes and SFC II running on Windows 7 64. Just make sure you have them competely patched up.

Cheers

Mark

[Mike Kreuzer]

On 8/05/2012 6:39 AM, Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article<FwGoT2A=nvj5yXQVk2...@4ax.com>,
> fakea...@hotmail.com says...
>

[snip]

>
> The question of how many PC wargames "do this right" is irrelevant, to
> my mind. My position is simply that if you begin with a paper

> boardgame, you'll end up with a computerized paper boardgame. It may be
> that Eddy's right, and if all developers start out with paper boardgames
> we'll end up with more computerized paper boardgames ... but I don't

> want this. I want more games like STEAM AND IRON. I want more BATTLES
> FROM THE BULGE.
>
>
>

Exactly.

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

[Frank E]

I'll have to dig out the CDs and give it a try this weekend then.
Thanks for the info.

Rgds, Frank

[Arjuna]

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 07:29:47 UTC+10, Mike Kreuzer wrote:
> I want more BATTLES FROM THE BULGE.

We're working on it Mike. Paul VanDoren has been making good progress on his Knock On All Doors (KOAD) Ex Pack. This covers the German Staff plans originally presented to Hitler for the Ardennes offensive in late 44. Hitler rejected these plans as being not ambitious enough but they probably had a much better chance of success.

There will be twelve scenarios in all and eight have already been drafted. Paul is working on the last of the mapping and hopes to finish the remaining four by end of June. We'll need some time to test and refine but hope to release this later this year.

Pavel and Guillaum have made good progress on the East Front game. The Estabs have largely been drafted. They have already prepared a huge 50 x 30 km map of the Kamensk sector along the Chir River and are working right now on the first master scenario with the complete OBs. Probably the critical path on this one is down to me doing the Mounted Ops code which I hope to start soon. With a bit of luck this could be ready by year's end.

Pieter and Huib have started their Ex Pack covering battles along the West Wall between Market Garden and the Bulge. It's early days yet. So I'm not making any predictions on this one but at least its underway.

Bil and Warren are well into their Legends of the Blitzkrieg (LOTB) game which will be based on the Command Ops engine but focus on a more tactical scale where line units are platoons with squad sized support units. The Estabs and OBs are well underway. We've encountered the need for mods to the mapping to cater for a 50m grid. Paul Scobell had addressed these and these are bing tested as I type. This will most likely see the light of day next year.

On top of all that Paul and I have been busy writing code to handle the automatic conversion of data from previous versions. I finally got the code to compile yesterday and the initial test today went fine. I have still to test this on some older scenarios but if all goes well I should be able to convert all of the COTA scenarios. If that works out we'' release a COTA Ex Pack for BFTB as well. That could be in a few months time.

One of the real benefits of this new conversion code is that user generated scenarios should be able to be kept up to date with each new iteration of the engine. This should mean that we can build an ever expanding base of data content.

In any event there will be a further patch released for BFTB once we have the conversion code tested. This will include fixes to a few of the niggling issues identified since the last patch and there maybe a few little surprise enhancements to boot.

[Jaz]

Arjuna <da...@panthergames.com> wrote in
news:1485448.1101.1336654278467.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbuy6:

I'm hyperventilating.

[Mike Kreuzer]

Sigh, another message swallowed by Google. Worthy of a re-post:
http://wargamedispatches.com/?p=312