Wargames--Light vs Heavy
Patrick
of warfare. They're vehicles for getting imaginatively involved in
the drama of war while enjoying a game.
So, how detailed should a wargame be? How complex?
Often, lighter wargames (like "Memoir '44") are considered
introductory. They're for kids or newcomers to the hobby. And
heavier wargames (like "World in Flames") are for grognards--veteran
wargamers who crave the ultimate in realistic detail.
Having run that gamut, I find myself dissatisfied at both extremes,
and in the middle too. Anytime I'm playing a light wargame, I start
questioning the rules and wanting to devise house rules to correct
perceived flaws and make the game more realistic. But if I'm playing
a heavy wargame, I still question the rules; I bemoan the fact that
even at this level of complexity, the game fails to be a perfect
simulational model of the warfare it represents.
Since I can't have perfection (on my own terms, that is; I wouldn't
really want absolute perfection even if it were possible), I end up
considering mundane factors like available time. How much work do I
want to put into learning a complex game? How much time can I spend
playing it? Questions like those always point me to the lighter end
of the wargame spectrum.
Indeed, I don't want to play a game whose rules I can't commit to
memory. Or a game that takes more than a few minutes to set up and
start playing. Or a game that takes more than a couple hours to
finish. Those conditions alone rule out a lot of wargames.
My current challenge is changing my attitude to accommodate these
lighter games. I keep catching myself wanting to add rules and
improve the realism, so I rein myself in and remind myself that it's
just a game after all, and I need to relax and have fun with it. I'm
training myself to approach a game with childlike delight, making the
most of what it has to offer. To do that, I have to restrain my
restless mind every time it tries to point out how ludicrous a
particular rule is or how much better the game would be with other
rules.
The question for me is whether it'll turn out that I like playing
games, or whether I just like learning and tinkering with games.
How 'bout you? Do you play wargames? Do you have a preference for
light or heavy games? Or does it just depend on your mood?
Pelle Nilsson
(temporarily delurking :) )
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Patrick<p55ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wargames purport to simulate, or represent in game form, some aspects
> of warfare. They're vehicles for getting imaginatively involved in
> the drama of war while enjoying a game.
>
> So, how detailed should a wargame be? How complex?
I think the answer is right there: "to simulate ... some aspects".
To me it depends on what aspects are simulated and how well (as far as I
can tell) those aspects are simulated. Also the aspects that are not the focus
of the simluation should be sufficiently well designed to not get in
the way or to cause any too weird results.
It is also important that it is obvious what to expect from the game.
A highly detailed game can be good if it is also very good at
reproducing historic events down to that detail. The worst crime is
adding detail that is lost to other abstractions anyway, so that the
situation could have been better gamed by applying more abstractions
and remove detail.
I learned from a thread on BGG a few months ago that some wargamers
are blind to the greatest abstractions of the hobby: time and space.
To understand and be able to compare how abstract two games are, you
first need to undersand that the positions of units in space and time
are always abstract, and in most games very abstract. A unit moving
from A thru B to C in turn 1, and then move on to D and E in turn 2,
will at only a tiny part of the turn be located at C, even if it on
the board is represented by a counter in that location possibly for a
long time. Even a stationary unit might be moving about, or located
near the edge of a hex, or having a big part of it sent out into an
adjacent hex (or the other side of the map). What we see is only a
convenient representation of the center of gravity of a unit at some
unspecified time close to the time represented by the current turn,
quantized to fit the grid of the game board. Realising this is very
important before you start comparing how well different games handle
for instance terrain effects. Such a huge abstraction, that we somehow
manage to not think about much, really overshadows most other
abstractions, making many reality arguments quite pointless imo.
--
/Pelle
Sukunai
To simulate is to emulate, not completely copy and totally recreate.
Thus, for a game to be fun, it actually has to accomplish the goal of
simulating, and yet not lose the battle for the interest of the
participant.
Then there is the outright failure aspect of some games to suspend
disbelief.
I loathe real time strategy simply on the grounds that too many times
too many players have latched onto the term real time, and insisted it
meant the game actually was simulating reality which is most assuredly
is not.
The only way real time is in actuality real time, is if 1 second of
your life is spent simulating 1 second in game time ie it is 5 minutes
in your life, and only 5 minutes transpires in the games concept of
reality.
But nope, 5 minutes in my time could be 5 days, 5 weeks or whatever
depending on what speed setting I have currently being employed. That
is not 'real time'.
Thus, a game such as Hearts of Iron, now in it's third entirely buggy
unsatisfactory release has a following of players currently insisting
it is both fun and a great wargame, all while complaining about the
companies inability to market responsible software. I think they're
all losers to be honest. But hey, they say a fool and their money are
soon parted.
My only real complaint with Hearts of Iron (aside from the fact the
software is poorly crafted at the code level), is that it is a grand
strategy simulation, and in real time (or whatever term floats your
boat for non turn using).
It's a game where you the human operator are supposedly capable (well
that is clearly the expectation of the game designers) of running all
the myriad decisions of a government from politics down through
production right into military operations. And in real speeded up
time. Solo, all by yourself. No staff of subordinates Even if the
games weren't irresponsible buggy pieces of crap, the entire concept
of the game is pointless and fatally flawed thinking.
The fans can say what they want, but this game is not going to become
a time worn classic. It will be on the market if it is lucky, actively
6 months, just long enough for everyone to know it sucks, and next
year it won't mean squat to anyone. In 5 years time the game will have
zero shelf worth. Partly because it is buggy garbage, but partly
because it simply isn't a good idea of a design.
Some games come out and are great ideas, but they suffer from a few
unforeseen gaffes. Strategic Command is a good example. Great game,
but, being able to invade Ireland, yet permanently imprisoned there
never to return was a screw up. Having subs as actual counters, easy
to sink and then rarely if ever replaced, means the war in the
Atlantic never exceeds the attack on Poland. All because they were
counters, and not an abstraction effect.
Alas the designer went on to insist on designing SC2 by throwing out
SC1, and not doing the wise choice of making an SC1 version 2 with the
gaffes eliminated. SC2 COULD have been one of the great easy to learn
hard to win vs a skilled player choices. But nope, visually it is hard
on the eyes, and comically it was made with tiles all because the
graphics were easier to draw.
Panzer General series were great games, and not always easy too.
Simple to play, and yet often you had to really master it to beat it.
I still see people on forums asking about how to beat a certain
scenario. It has passed the challenge of how to last in players hearts
for more than a decade. And to it;s credit, there is a designer
releasing in short weeks from now, an essentially speaking clone of
the Panzer General look. I expect it to do very well. It's not
complicated, yet not likely to be easy. The best mix for a good
wargame. The challenge shouldn't be about learning the interface, the
challenge should be in mastering the game's strategies.
My ole favourite Squad Leader was so successful it went on to spawn 3
modules. Those modules were not totally cohesive though, and so they
released ASL Advanced Squad Leader. Alas along the way someone forgot
the reason Squad Leader is famous, was it was fast to learn, and fun
to play, because while detailed, it wasn't massively detailed. They
clearly forgot something along the way. The current manual is likely
the hobby's most intimidating read ever made for wargaming. It would
make even a copy right lawyer break out into sweating. It takes a
totally obsessive wargamer to call ASL fun.
And even as massively detailed as ASL is, it still has trouble with
some aspects of wargaming.
One of the single biggest successes in wargaming came with computer
wargaming when it gave us WEGO as a turn concept. I think WEGO has to
be the most under appreciated major break through in wargaming design
ever. Thanks to the computer's ability to process massive amounts of
data easily it can resolve two players turns worth of commands
simultaneously. Good luck enjoying that on a board game. yet
mysteriously, no one seems to be much interested WEGO. They worship
real time and for what, it's no better than turns, and equally as
fake, regardless of the moronic insistence of its supporters. WEGO is
also the ONLY design concept in wargaming that I think renders
cheating impossible if not actually impossible. Meanwhile, I can't
think of a single PBEM game design that isn't essentially simple to
cheat in. And frankly the second a game is obviously easy to cheat in
my interest ceases immediately. I refuse to lose all the time, and I
refuse to suffer accusations of cheating if I'm actually any good at
the game.
I've played games that were inherently simple, and yet reflected the
conditions of the simulated event accurately. I've played horribly
complex games, that still managed to only end up being horribly
complex and not any more accurate.
Random aspects don't mean a game is not good because you have no say
in the decision making process. Being able to control every decision
won't mean the game is incapable of being totally unrealistic.
Some design elements simply can't be overly controlled. In Advanced
Third Reich the sub campaign in the Atlantic is impact vs response.
The Germans build subs, and you better be matching it with ASW.
Because the more subs there are, the more devastating the result. But
there are no subs running around on the board. The Strategic Bombing
campaign is done the same way, and it surprises me to no end, that
computer wargame designers seem totally unwilling to just steal the
notion from A3R. You end up with specific Bomber counters, that can
only hit one place or not, unlike in the real war where often missions
were varied sums or aircraft based on the needs of the mission.
The Up Front game is based off of totally random draws of cards. It's
random but so what. It is also likely one of the best simulations of
the unpredictable nature of squad level warfare ever made. Just a
shame no one has ever thought to use this process to market a card
based wargame for computer or console. It CAN be done. They did it for
the Yu-Gi-Oh card game.
I don't think one can claim that simple games are automatically just
simple and beginner, any more than complex games are automatically
complex and grognard friendly. They just usually are.
But being simple doesn't ensure it will be easy, and being complex
doesn't ensure it will be accurate.
Every last game has to stand on the skill, and the thinking of the guy
that made it. In the end, a game is either great or it is not. And
it's all about the designers choices, and whether they are any good at
making games, or simply should get work doing something else.
Pelle Nilsson
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Sukunai<sukunai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Then there is the outright failure aspect of some games to suspend
> disbelief.
This might be the key. Suspension of belief is what matters really,
complex game or not. One thing that makes me hate many computer games
is the use of standard computer GUI widgets inside of the game. The
moment I see a menu or popup dialog or something that reminds me I'm
just in front of my old computer playing a game, that's when that game
lost me. The UI has to be worked into the theme and style of the
gameworld being simulated. Most basic thing that some designers of
non-mainstream games don't do is run the game in fullscreen so that I
won't have to see a window title bar all the time.
> I loathe real time strategy simply on the grounds that too many times
> too many players have latched onto the term real time, and insisted it
> meant the game actually was simulating reality which is most assuredly
> is not.
Hm. I don't think I agree with all your talk about "real time". To me
it has always been related to what real time means in computer
science, which means the actual speed does not matter, only that it
ticks along at some minumum rate. I always assumed that the computer
geeks behind the first "real time strategy" game had that version of
the expression in mind.
> Thus, a game such as Hearts of Iron, now in it's third entirely buggy
> unsatisfactory release
> It will be on the market if it is lucky, actively
> 6 months, just long enough for everyone to know it sucks, and next
> year it won't mean squat to anyone. In 5 years time the game will have
> zero shelf worth.
HoI has been around for 7 years already (counting HoI2 as only an
upgraded version of the original HoI, and HoI2 was on the shelf of the
computer game store I visited a couple of weeks ago).
I really liked the game Europa Universalis from the same developers.
Never played HoI because of the less interesting theme. Maybe it is
buggy and bad. I don't know. Anyway you shouldn't assume that they are
bad coders even if you find the game buggy. So many other things go
into making bugfree software that is outside of the control of coders.
> Panzer General series were great games, and not always easy too.
> Simple to play, and yet often you had to really master it to beat it.
Only played the first game. Very good campaign game that I keep coming
back to. My only problem is having to bring up a dialog window with
lots of stats for each unit, compared to most boardgames that can do
with just attack-defense-move printed on the counter. My biggest
complaint with all computer wargames actually. Just becauser it is
easy for a computer to handle lots of data, and easy for a programmer
to make algorithms to handle all that data, my brain isn't better at
handling data when playing on a computer compared to on board. In fact
since computer screens are so small compared to most boards I think
computer games in general should strive to be much simpler and contain
LESS data than baordgames.
> One of the single biggest successes in wargaming came with computer
> wargaming when it gave us WEGO as a turn concept. I think WEGO has to
> be the most under appreciated major break through in wargaming design
> ever.
I always hated WEGO games. My computer is good at handling that, but
it is just too many things to consider to be able to come up with good
plans, and you need to understand all the rules behind it to make good
decisions. A simple move phase then combat phase user interface is a
lot easier to work with. Besides it is FUN to plan and execute
attacks one at a time, planning clever ways to order attacks to
exploit as far as possible and/or surround enemy units.
>Thanks to the computer's ability to process massive amounts of
> data easily
Ah, there it is. The way of reasoning that has ruined so many computer
wargames. I wish designers could think of the processing power of the
player's brain rather than what is possible to handle behind the
scenes in the computer.
> The Up Front game is based off of totally random draws of cards. It's
> random but so what. It is also likely one of the best simulations of
> the unpredictable nature of squad level warfare ever made. Just a
> shame no one has ever thought to use this process to market a card
> based wargame for computer or console. It CAN be done. They did it for
> the Yu-Gi-Oh card game.
Up Front would be really good on a computer probably. So would Fields
of Fire for instance. But when converting a game to the computer it is
a good thing to get rid of the cards imo. Cards is a really good way
to break "suspension of belief". I would rather pretend leading a
squad in combat than pretend playing a cardgame about leading a squad
in combat. For instance they could do Up Front as a turn-based 3D game
with a limited set of orders to chose from each turn. It could be
functionally equivalent to the card game, but presenting the action to
the player in a less cardgamey way.
--
/Pelle
Patrick
> Up Front would be really good on a computer probably. So would Fields
> of Fire for instance. But when converting a game to the computer it is
> a good thing to get rid of the cards imo. Cards is a really good way
> to break "suspension of belief". I would rather pretend leading a
> squad in combat than pretend playing a cardgame about leading a squad
> in combat. For instance they could do Up Front as a turn-based 3D game
> with a limited set of orders to chose from each turn. It could be
> functionally equivalent to the card game, but presenting the action to
> the player in a less cardgamey way.
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/298/details/Tin.Soldiers:.Alexander.the.Great.
Have you seen them? They're supposed to be miniatures wargames, a la
DBA, but the designer went so far as to make the units look like toy
soldiers; and there's even an animated human hand that periodically
reaches onto the "tabletop" and picks up one of the figures. And
there are cards in the game too. So, the game really gives the player
something of the feel of a physical miniatures game.
Only, why would someone want that? Isn't the whole idea of a
miniatures game to represent a real-life battefield? The last thing a
miniatures gamer would want is something to emphasize that his men are
just toy soldiers and his whole tabletop array is just a game.
And yet, I myself am torn. I've never been able to get into
miniatures because I don't care for even that level of realism. I
value the abstraction of wargames. Yes, I want them to be accurate,
and I want some detail to stir my imagination and show what's being
represented. But if the look of the game becomes too realistic, I
start to feel I'm just playing with toy soldiers in a sandbox--and
that makes me a little uncomfortable. There's something classier or
more mature about playing chess or poker than playing with toy
soldiers. And I'm enough of a stuffed shirt to want to maintain some
decorum. In truth, I may be sneaking off to play with my toys--but I
don't want to let on, and I don't like even admitting it to myself.
I think that may be why computer games are often more appealing to me
than board games, card games, or miniatures games. I've got the
impression that a computer is a sophisticated, high-tech gadget and
anyone who uses one is an intelligent, responsible, successful
fellow. So, even if I'm really just playing Mario Kart on my DS,
something about the medium itself makes it seem respectable.
Of course, I may be the only person in the world who cares about
looking respectable when he's off playing a game.
--pc
Sukunai
You support real time in HoI, and then you slag off a game that places
workload excesses on the human brain in WEGO.
You like HoI, and yet failed to realize why I hated it. Then went on
to support games that wish to exceed logical amounts of workload, but
dislike games that feature menus to organize the tasks..
You want the power of a computer, and then appear to dislike that the
computer can do all the mental muscle workload.
You want simple and elegant, then inexplicably turf it if it uses a
simple medium like cards. The cards are what MAKE Up Front so
incredible simply because it is not rigid and inflexible.
I'm not sure you thought out your argument :)
Pelle Nilsson
On 8/22/09, Sukunai <sukunai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pelle your comments are at war with each other.
I don't think so no.
> You support real time in HoI, and then you slag off a game that places
> workload excesses on the human brain in WEGO.
I do not support anything in HoI as I have not even played it, as I
said. I can enjoy slow realtime games without too much information to
handle, and preferably a pause button. Never tried to play a big
nation in Europa Universalis though, and never tried any of the
sequels in that series that might be more complex. WEGO is annoying
when there is too much going on in a small area and it is impossible
to guess in what order attacks/moves will be resolved. I don't see any
big benefit either and it makes the user interface more complex and
crowded. Not knowing exactly the state of the game when a specific
action is resolved also means it is even more important that I know
every detail of the rules of the game, meaning that there is even more
reason to not go wild adding data and details in a WEGO game.
> to support games that wish to exceed logical amounts of workload, but
> dislike games that feature menus to organize the tasks..
I don't mind menus. Menus are fine. As long as they are not the
standard operating system GUI toolkit kind of menus that reminds me of
sitting in front of a computer. Those things don't exactly do wonders
for the suspension of belief... On the other hand if there is so much
information that it has to be organized into menus rather than shown
onscreen at all times then I don't see how it can not have a too high
workload.
> You want the power of a computer, and then appear to dislike that the
> computer can do all the mental muscle workload.
The power of a computer can be used to make a nice user interface, a
good AI etc. But to use it to add more data and more rules is not what
I want, no, since there is no way to play a game well without knowing
all the rules and being able to predict the outcome of [future]
actions.
When moving chess from a board to a computer is it good use of the
computer power to add 100 new types of pieces all with special moves
and increase the board size to 100x100? Surely since the computer can
help you say which moves are legal each turn the computer is handling
all the mental muscle workload? No? And while at it why not add a lot
of data to each piece so that you need to bring up a series of dialog
windows to see exactly what each piece is capable of, rather than just
seeing the piece on the board, and also put hidden information in each
square that requires more player interaction to figure out (maybe need
to click each square to find out or switching between different
overlays). The computer can handle all the complex calculations
involved, so why not.
> You want simple and elegant, then inexplicably turf it if it uses a
> simple medium like cards. The cards are what MAKE Up Front so
> incredible simply because it is not rigid and inflexible.
Cards, dice, miniatures etc are things you use to simulate war on a
board. There is no use to bring those metaphores to the computer
screen. I would very much prefer if a computer version of Up Front
instead called them "available actions" or something and went a long
way to not display them in a way reminding me of playing cards.
Patricks post about that tin soldiers game was a good explanation of
why cards are also bad. Besides I bet that on a computer there are
better ways to do squad level combat than what is the best way on a
board.
--
/Pelle
Patrick
> On 8/22/09, Sukunai <sukunai.ni.y...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You want simple and elegant, then inexplicably turf it if it uses a
> > simple medium like cards. The cards are what MAKE Up Front so
> > incredible simply because it is not rigid and inflexible.
>
> Cards, dice, miniatures etc are things you use to simulate war on a
> board. There is no use to bring those metaphores to the computer
> screen. I would very much prefer if a computer version of Up Front
> instead called them "available actions" or something and went a long
> way to not display them in a way reminding me of playing cards.
> Patricks post about that tin soldiers game was a good explanation of
> why cards are also bad. Besides I bet that on a computer there are
> better ways to do squad level combat than what is the best way on a
> board.
>
> --
> /Pelle
general, though--and maybe it's just because of my age or background;
I don't know.
Nowadays, computers are ubiquitous. They've crept into cars,
appliances, traffic lights, and everything without my having even been
aware of it, and now there's no getting away from them. I'm using one
right now, and I'd feel lost if I suddenly lost access to all the
computers in my life. But my mindset is still back in the early
1980s, when computers were optional: few people had them at home, and
not everybody at the office used one.
Computers are very intricate, complicated electronic devices. And
it's hard for me to accept that they're suitable for something as
trivial as game playing. To my old-fashioned mind, computers are for
tracking spacecraft, handling corporate payrolls, or assisting with
scientific research. To play a game on a computer seems like a joke--
something a computer programmer might do just for fun in his spare
time. Certainly not something that everyday people would do.
So, with regard to computers, I guess I've got an Amish streak in me.
I want to turn back the clock and live in a more low-tech age. It
just feels more natural.
So, a game like Up Front appeals to me when it's played with cards--
because cards are an old tradition; they've been used for game playing
for centuries. They're relatively simple; it's easy to mentally grasp
what they are and how they work (though I imagine it'd be amazing to
learn what all goes into the manufacture of cards, because it's
probably a lot more complex and high-tech than I'd ever stop and
realize).
If Up Front were ported to the PC, it would have two effects on me:
(1) I'd be uncomfortable with it and insist that it's a better game
when played with real cards, and (2) I'd start playing it again and
perhaps play it a lot, just because it'd be so much more convenient
and solo-friendly.
But if the PC version looked and sounded just like the card game, I'd
probably find that strange. I'd wonder why. I'd guess that it was
designed to appeal to people who've played the card game and want to
simulate that exact experience--but the desire to do that would also
seem odd to me. There's no need for actual cards in a PC version of
the game; no need for range chits and such either. If the PC game had
those card-game features, I'd see it as an inferior design. I'd
rather see something *better* than relative-range chits on the PC (I
always hated them in the card game anyway); maybe a little map off in
a corner that gives a diagram showing the various groups and their
relation to each other. Also, if I'm thinking of having group A fire
at enemy group C, I'd like to be able to just move the cursor over
group C and automatically see a reading of how much firepower my group
can bring to bear; that'd save me from having to do the tedious job of
counting up firepower points and adjusting for range and such.
So, I agree that a PC version of Up Front should have a different
"user interface" than the card-game version.
But at the same time, I'm torn--because there's that "Amish" part of
me that believes games should only be played with implements like
cards, dice, and dominoes.
--Patrick
Peter Clinch
> Computers are very intricate, complicated electronic devices. And
> it's hard for me to accept that they're suitable for something as
> trivial as game playing.
Brains are even more intricate, more complicated devices, and yet you
use those for playing games...
> To my old-fashioned mind, computers are for
> tracking spacecraft, handling corporate payrolls, or assisting with
> scientific research.
What all the above require is an ability to do reliable and accurate
book-keeping, often of voluminous data. So if you have a game that is
aided by reliable and accurate book-keeping, often of voluminous data,
then they make perfect sense as games platforms.
> So, with regard to computers, I guess I've got an Amish streak in me.
> I want to turn back the clock and live in a more low-tech age. It
> just feels more natural.
But if you try and play something which requires huge logistical and
bureaucratic input from the players you'll probably end up abandoning it
as too much work and play something else.
Personally I prefer games where there is an elegant simplicity these
days, and that doesn't really need computers to do well, but there's
plenty of avenues where computers open up possibilities that just don't
work with boards and cards.
> So, a game like Up Front appeals to me when it's played with cards--
> because cards are an old tradition; they've been used for game playing
> for centuries.
I remember when Up Front was released, and there were a lot of people
who wouldn't touch it with a barge pole because cards had no tradition
in complex wargames. No board, no hexes, etc.
Sid Meier's Civilization has vastly more detail than Francis Tresham's,
because it's using what the computer does so much better than cardboard.
But the boardgame isn't an inferior game for that, it has its own
strengths where it trumps the computer one.
> But at the same time, I'm torn--because there's that "Amish" part of
> me that believes games should only be played with implements like
> cards, dice, and dominoes.
I can see why you might prefer such tactile things, but "only played
with" is a bit odd IMHO...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Patrick
> > But at the same time, I'm torn--because there's that "Amish" part of
> > me that believes games should only be played with implements like
> > cards, dice, and dominoes.
>
> I can see why you might prefer such tactile things, but "only played
> with" is a bit odd IMHO...
>
> Pete.
everything personally and that we're also prone to hyperbole.
When I say, "should only be played with," to me it means exactly the
same thing as "tend to be completely satisfying to me only when played
with."
But I also often make the mistake of assuming that if something is
important to me, it's universally important. (In fact, if I didn't
see it that way, I'd have to revise my own personal values--and I
guess I do, constantly.)
--Patrick