The Future Of Complex Wargames Looks Bleak

[MrsWargamer]

The future of wargames will be decided by whether you get new players of old school wargames or not. I'm 54, and I recall Tactics II. I actually played it. I miss it.

My son couldn't be paid to play a single one of my war games digital of physical. They are not made the way the games of his generation are made.

When I played Tactics II I was 13. It was neat then. It's barely adequate today. The market would demand a colourful map that had puzzle pieces that could be re arranged and nifty plastic pieces.

I recall playing board games like FitE and if you can't figure out that acronym, you are not old enough It's why I bought WitE. It will likely be played as often as FitE. And even though I am sympathetic.

I thought Battle Academy was inspired. I'm unsure we can even really make the next iteration of the Steel Panthers work as a product. It's not 1997 any more.

I wish they had stuck to Squad Leader and just released more counters more boards and more scenarios and left the rules alone. We didn't. ASL is a doddering old fart that insists he wants to die in the family home. He likely will.

If we don't unlock how to make war games 'neat' to a 13 year old, it will die with me. And there's really nothing you can do about it.

[Franciscus]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar


PS. Oh as long as I'm making a list, 3) stop spending 10 years writing a special snowflake game engine by yourself that will inevitably look terrible and run badly. I think this applies to literally everyone. There's just no reason not to use Unity.

I agree 100%. There are many reasons to stop using "proprietary", single-man made engines, for each niche game out there. One of those is that Unity makes it easy to make games that are playable on any platform. Microsoft-dependency of PC games must end, even more because I believe stream-gaming, without even needing a full-fledged PC on our house will be a reality in the near future.

And yes, I personally do not know anyone younger than me that is interested in PC wargames...

Regards

[Alchenar]

Capn Darwin - I was a bit flippant. Unity wouldn't be appropriate for everything, in particular 2D board-game-likes (invented composite word there) such as FPC. But on the other hand FPC is a prime example of a game that's almost perfect but for the large black marks of running suspiciously slowly and having a UI that would have been best practice in 1995 (you are still a few leaps and bounds ahead of Grigsby or CMANO).

Hearts of Iron 4 is going to be absolutely massive. Total War: Warhammer is absolutely massive and the one thing everyone has complained for every release since Rome 1 is that the strategy game is insufficient. There's totally a big group of younger gamers out there who are buying games that in aggregate have all the elements of wargames.

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
My son couldn't be paid to play a single one of my war games digital of physical. They are not made the way the games of his generation are made.
...
If we don't unlock how to make war games 'neat' to a 13 year old, it will die with me. And there's really nothing you can do about it.

And that's the thing. The wargames genre has been trying hard to pretend that it's a special niche genre that doesn't have to pay attention to what the rest of the video game world is doing for the last 20 years that devs are having to play catch up on what's considered minimally acceptable, much less best practice. Even something as basic as customisable keybindings is something that just isn't there in a lot of games.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

If we don't unlock how to make war games 'neat' to a 13 year old, it will die with me. And there's really nothing you can do about it.

I don't think that is really the market. I didn't start wargaming till my senior year in college. And I still think the best marketing scheme for wargames is to do so in the college bookstore. You've got to know who Napoleon and Rommel were before you start wanting to fill their shoes.

[MrsWargamer]

Anything between 13 and 23 looks the same when you're 54

[CapnDarwin]

Alchenar, no problem, this topic just hits a nerve with me when I here folks say "it need to get rid of the 90's UI", but then they don't close the loop and say how. What is a better UI for displaying the level of information for a high end wargame/simulation. People say the game NEEDS a modern UI, but to steal from the Princess Bride, I don't think the people know what that means. Are 200 icons and glyphs all over the place the answer. Fly out panels, wheel menus, telepathic/holographic images, etc. What works great in a Doom like FPS is woefully inadequate for a wargame. Most RTS games have a small amount of info to display. To me, this becomes how do we make a functional spreadsheet program without those pesky rows and columns. That was tried once by the way by Lotus. Anyone remember its name?

I'll give our dev team some credit. We are very open to player inputs and if someone has a better way we think works for the majority of folks we are all over it. We have learned from Red Storm and we will be doing more to make the UI more of a custom setup by allowing the player to move windows, set detail levels, close flyouts and such. Another UI hurdle missed by most players is the crazy variation of hardware. What looks great at 1024 x 768 looks like a flaming dung heap when it gets stretched or zoomed to fit a 2550 x 1920 display or spanned over multiple monitors. Let toss n the constant OS changes and MS messing with setting that blow up "windows" standard controls in software. I'm looking at you win8.1 and win10.

When you start talking key binding and other UX items this is even a deeper puzzle for devs to piece together. How many players rebind keys in a wargame? 10 keys in a FPS where time matters. I get that. 20-30 functions in a wargame, run with the defaults. There is also a cost in time on the dev side to due some of these actions as well. Will we sell another 1000 copies if keybinding is a feature? My educated guess is for every two guys that want it, 200 don't know it a thing or are fine with the manual info.

This is a very large topic with many layers. We are actively looking at these UI/UX elements because we want a good interface the Grogs understand and we also want an easier transition for non-grogs testing out the grog waters to be able to get some intuitive feel from what's in front of them. //end rantish post - got a meeting call soon. [;)]

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Anything between 13 and 23 looks the same when you're 54

Try telling that to the judge! [:-]

[MrsWargamer]

This is the attention span era. If your war game's turn takes longer than 5 minutes, try again.

I can play a turn of Battle Academy and send it off in 5 minutes. That makes it a playable game.

War in the East is an awesome simulation, but it fails big and hard for getting someone to actually play it (well in numbers that make it worth the effort to have made it). Now of course, if it was a labour of love, yeah that is always a great reason I suppose. Why not just give the game away then, grab the fame, because it won't be paying off the cost spent to make it anyway.

Panzer Corps has a fast turn. Might explain why it is still producing new product.

War in the West is proof that War in the East didn't make the makers poor enough. But, are they actually making enough money to give up their day job?
I bought the durned games. But I'm an idiot. Yeah I called myself an idiot, so it leaves me open to call anyone else one. Hey it's not like I'm pretending I'm smarter than them.

Just because we can do a thing, and just because the computer can run the thing, doesn't mean we needed the thing.

We need games that we simple to understand, and simple to play to hook the player into wanting a little more. How many simple easy to play war games have you seen recently? How many. When I was a kid, they were ALL simple and easy. Heck even Third Reich wasn't really a 9 or 10 on the rating scale of the time. But then back then most war gamers were fairly literate persons who could read a printed manual of the then size with no effort.

I wouldn't try a manual like ASL or War in the East these days on today's market.

You just won't keep their attention.

[Jagdtiger14]

Mrs. Wargamer: I pretty much agree with what you write. I'm 52 and from time to time for a fun weekend we pull out Tactics II (with the squares), Blitzkrieg, Third Reich, Caesar at Alesia (awesome 3 player game) and some others.

I'm really down on the Millennials (X,Y,Z gens...my wife is one) for various reasons, but two of the main ones is as you say the attention span and literacy. These people make up a significant part of the population and will drive the game market for years to come.

Perhaps the future is virtual reality where you get into a Tiger tank, wear a body suit (feel some of the pain of injury). Maybe as the new DC Barb game you have to deal with personalities but actually sit down with them (imagine being in the Wolf's lair with Hitler, or Napy on a campaign, or Nelson on the Victory). You actually put yourself into the game and meet your opponent (AI or human) face to face. Now that would be neat!

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

This is the attention span era. If your war game's turn takes longer than 5 minutes, try again.

I can play a turn of Battle Academy and send it off in 5 minutes. That makes it a playable game.

War in the East is an awesome simulation, but it fails big and hard for getting someone to actually play it (well in numbers that make it worth the effort to have made it).
***
We need games that we simple to understand, and simple to play to hook the player into wanting a little more. How many simple easy to play war games have you seen recently?

But not everyone wants games that are simple to understand and simple to play (or rather, everyone would like simple games, but the other features that they also claim to want do not allow games to be very simple); so if you create that kind of game, you'll gain some players, but lose others.

At the time, just because something is complicated (ala Wite), doesn't mean that it is an "awesome simulation". In fact, I think that WitE is a prime example of complexity degrading a simulation, rather than facilitating it.

I also think that FPC is a a good, complex game with a relatively simple interface--there is lots going on under the hood, which is good. I haven't played very many Unity games, but generally I really dislike the interfaces--all of them I've played have been rather cartoony and simplistic.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Alchenar, no problem, this topic just hits a nerve with me when I here folks say "it need to get rid of the 90's UI", but then they don't close the loop and say how. What is a better UI for displaying the level of information for a high end wargame/simulation. People say the game NEEDS a modern UI, but to steal from the Princess Bride, I don't think the people know what that means. Are 200 icons and glyphs all over the place the answer. Fly out panels, wheel menus, telepathic/holographic images, etc. What works great in a Doom like FPS is woefully inadequate for a wargame. Most RTS games have a small amount of info to display.

I think TOAW series has the right idea. There are handful of details immediately at present, like unit's attack & defense values, % of supply, morale, and strength (colour coded too), and detailed info are available under separate windows. I would've liked to have Special Abilities and indirect attack strength available on the right margin too. If done right, handful of details on the map screen and few basic commands should be enough to play the game, but minutia details and micromanagement are available to those who want it.

In Battle Isle 3 game map itself is a window that can be resized and zoomed. Unit info screen comes in 2 different sizes and some other windows are available if player care about them. That works well for variety of resolutions.

[aaatoysandmore]

One of my favorite games of the Avalon hill days (and my ex-wife's) was FEUDAL. Can you make that for the PC Slitherine/Matrixgames? [:'(] Yeah, I know a lil offtopic but seemed appropriate for this thread. We need more games like it than another iteration of Normandy Invasion, War in the East or West, Battle of the Bulge an on an on. After 40 years nearly of wargaming I'm pretty tired of those theaters and battles. I'm like Hawkeye in MASH "we want something new, (bashing food trays) We want something new. I've played an ocean of WWII and a river of Napoleonics and Civil War, We want something NEW!!

[zakblood]

Victory and Glory, Last Days of Old Earth, Heroes of Normandie etc etc, all new takes and directions tbh

without even mentioning Tigers on the Hunt, Star Hammer, Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa (for design choices etc) and even Polaris Sector for it's different take on the subject matter, their not all the same old rehash, so plenty to choose from imo.

any missed out newer releases are either already mentioned above or in the same theaters and battles comments above...

[aaatoysandmore]

Tigers on the Hunt- World War II, Heroes of Normandie- World War II, Decisive Campaigns: Bargarossa - WWII, see the similarity there? Maybe a new twist on how they are played but all 3 of them in the same catatgory - World War II. Been done to death for years. Same with civil war era and napoleonic. Just done slap dab to death.

Pike n Shot was a breath of fresh air. Polaris I don't think is a wargame? We need more war games of different era's beside Civil War, Napoleon and WW I and WW II, except some new plane warfare of WWI hasn't been done to death on the turn based level, sure has on the simulated level though.

More ancient warfare games are needed. Turn based not Total War RTS type and better than Field of Glory at least the AI. I found EU:Rome refreshing as well even if Paradox made it. I just wish someone could make a grand campaign game turn based of Ancient Times/Roman Times like Total War but without all the RTS. Spartan came very close for me if only the battles had of been some kind of turn based tactical game.

Field of Glory even with the bad AI is near close to what is needed. Now just build a campaign map around the armies and let us play that.

Oh there is one more game I found enjoyable and NEW even though it's years old now is Mount & Blade Warband. Combat is 3D real time yes, but I don't have to participate. I field my army and let them go at it while I watch. No twitch game for me. [:D] (Ocassionally when we outnumber them 3 to 1 I will charge in an participate a lil. Not much though. [:D] It's funny the 9 companions I have can defeat armies of sizes to 75. It's like having an army of Conan's. I've faced armies 475-525 and won with an army size of 135. It's fun to get up on a hill and watch like a real leader would, cept maybe Caesar, Hannibal and Alexander who had to be showoff's.[:'(] Did you ever see Patton in a tank? Napoleon charging with his Lancers? (when he was emperor not when he was a reg soldier) Rommel? Did he drive a tank? Charge at the head of an Italian Division he was commander of? [:D] Some leaders were meant to lead and others meant to fight....I'm one of those meant to lead-leaders. [:'(]

[MrsWargamer]

Jagdtiger likely is correct. We need something massively different.

I personally think we need something that is as different as Tactics II is to Call of Duty.

Our hardware can do incredible things, it's time our software makers think incredibly out of the blue.

We have devices that can actually track our motion. It's used in making videos. We have computational power we could barely imagine 10 years ago. TB storage is so far from MB. I'd like to see a game where it 'feels' like I'm in a movie that reacts to my decisions. I might be a private in a squad or A general discussing plans with my staff.

Pushing counters is very yesterday. All the talk of clunky interfaces is not saying anything. Board game looking has been done to death. I've stopped even looking at new designs. They're not really new at all. No one has actually done anything 'new' much in 20 years. 3d RTS is as new as anything using a turn and a hex grid. It's all been done. I've stopped playing all my Civ looking stuff. I've stopped playing all the Heroes of Might and Magic looking stuff.

The only reason I play Hearthstone, is the game is fast, easy, balanced, I get a quick easy reward. And it is played against a human opponent. The graphics are fun, the sound effects amusing and the game evolves over time (expansions). It's free to play and the only time cash is involved is if I am impatient. It's installed, but I can play it on all the current machines although a PC beats a tablet and is not battery powered. The game addresses several aspects of gaming that matters. Price, playability, cross platform, not age specific, not gender specific, quick return on time invested, and you can actually play it 'Pro' if you're good.

If war gaming wants to be there in 20 years, it better learn there is more than one way to enjoy 'playing at war'.

[aaatoysandmore]

Yeah, lime green plastic soldiers and fire crackers in the backyard sandbox. [:D]

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer
If we don't unlock how to make war games 'neat' to a 13 year old, it will die with me. And there's really nothing you can do about it.

I´m not so sure complex wargames have been popular among 13yr olds at *any* time.

Maybe you were the only 13yr old girl owning Tactics II in a 300km radius? [8D]

I am pretty much sure I was the only 14yr old owning "Rise and Decline of the 3rd Reich" in my city, and it´s a reasonably large city.

[sIg3b]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

And I still think the best marketing scheme for wargames is to do so in the college bookstore. You've got to know who Napoleon and Rommel were before you start wanting to fill their shoes.

Agree in principle. I mean there *are* 12yr olds who know who Napoleon and Rommel were. They are just too rare to pay the rent for Wargame designers.

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin
Alchenar, no problem, this topic just hits a nerve with me when I here folks say "it need to get rid of the 90's UI", but then they don't close the loop and say how.

If people say they "don't want 90's UI", then the question to ask would be "why not?". Looking back at old wargames (especially SSG and SSI), the main problem with them seems to there being far too many steps involved to carry out routine actions.

I mean, I absolutely love Carrier Strike, but just on the aircraft ready page alone:
http://www.allvideo.org/pictures/carrier_strike/carrier_strike_screenshot2.jpg
- can't unfuel one aircraft because there is no arrow for this
- for Zuikaku to fuel 12 fighters and 6 attack planes requires 18 mouse clicks
- the clock faces that count up to 36 operations per turn are pretty, but hard to read
- can't see what planes are available on some other ship
- can't see how many damaged planes there are (useful in the afternoon)
- can't tell how long until aircraft are scheduled to land


I have to say that whenever I have been involved in demo'ing software, "new and shiny" has been more attractive than "useable and useful". I might spend most of my time getting software to work correctly, but that is just taken for granted; customer's want pretty stuff.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

More ancient warfare games are needed. Turn based not Total War RTS type and better than Field of Glory at least the AI. I found EU:Rome refreshing as well even if Paradox made it. I just wish someone could make a grand campaign game turn based of Ancient Times/Roman Times like Total War but without all the RTS. Spartan came very close for me if only the battles had of been some kind of turn based tactical game.

Do you know about Alea Jacta Est series?