The End of IGYG is Nigh?

[Graf Speer]

IGYG vs Simultaneous Plot vs Realtime.

Real Time - they won't be getting my hard earned. --Nik

Although if it really is 3D and real-time, then I'm not interested anyway. --Ed Cogburn

From: Steel Panthers 4?

So, I really burned out on Tiller's Battleground (BG) series way back in 1997 - that rather dumbed down step/hex based boardgame engine treatment of 'theoretical' acw tactical 'warfare', with some of the most beautiful maps I have ever played on.

And then there was Sid Meier's humble classic little entry into 'continuous time' with his Gettysburg tactical modelling - an often credibly atmospheric 'realtime' experience in spite of sundry "step-based" fan critics (but clearly Sid's engine design proved wholly inadequate for simulating full scale engagements).

Finally, I still recall fondly my Atomic games - like Operation Crusader and Stalingrad - which employed the simply outstanding Simultaneous Plot routine.

My Question: Why is there such a 'continuous' step-based aversion to the exploration into something more believable like Atomic's Simultaneous Plot

. . . or how about a "Hybrid - continuous/real time" engine which could conceivably integrate a 'step-based' orders phase followed by the realtime execution of orders for any given incremental (step-based) turn?

I therefore am want to conclude that the IGYG 'board game' engine should well be given a reverent but speedier new millenium burial right next to the guy who invented the six-sided hex . . . because, let's face it: while more than good enough for boardgaming, the hex-step-based I Go, then U Go system simply doesn't capture the 'aesthetic' of war let alone critically reflect the volatility of any war fought over the ages.

I love SPWAW's excellent Opportunity Fire routine - it clearly remains a viable and essential part of any projected SPWAW version 4.0 routine <g>!

But sooner than later, we will want and need to explore a routine that nixes that venerable but dated "IGYG" routine for something more telling.

Albert

[This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited August 23, 2000).]

[Wild Bill]

Being able to control your op fire in version 3.0 does allow you a minimal input into the computer turn. A long way from real time, but at least you don't just sit and watch

..WB


------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Graf Speer]

. . . taunt speer once too often . . . speer now demand version 3.0 by 0300 hours or else . . . or else there be serious opportunity fires afoot!

peerless speer is me,
Albert

[Nikademus]

Why the aversion to Real Time? I'll try to summerize without writing a book

Because SP is'nt just about simulating Tactical armored confict with a high level of realism (not that that is'nt important!)

Its about having a front row seat to the action, seeing every nuance on the interaction not only of tactics, but on the preformance of man and machine.

I find it to no surprise that most (if not all) 'Real Time' wargames have to have some form of 'pause' function that allows the player to acess and 'see' whats going on. The most recent example i personally was involved in was 'Fighting Steel' which simulated tactical naval combat in "real Time". Needless to say the pause key was often invoked so that i could get status reports on what was happening.

I found the experience somewhat clumsy as well as fatiguing. Pace can be as important a facet to a good wargame as historical accuracy and a sense of "you are there".

[Paul Vebber]

This has always been a Gordian knot in gaming - very difficult to unravel!

I will leave out "real" real time becasue I don't think that continuous movement is viable for an engagement of any size. AI implementation is about an order of magnitude from being able to support that, and I'm not sure the C3 to make such a thing "realistic" would be a lot of fun.

A breakthrough in AI and interface is possible in the future...just not yet...

So the choice comes down to the debate between IGO-UGO and some form of plotted si-move. Now I've argued before that this is really two diametrically opposed views of how teh battlefield works.

IGO-UGO is completely Asychronous - ie every unit gets to perform its turn in a vaccuum from what other units do. Each has the the capability to do a complete turn, then the next does, etc. Obvious problems there because a game player can use the complete freedom from synchronicity to do some pretty strange things.

Now plotted si-move is the other end of the extreme, completely sychronous! ie you have essentially complete control over the precise timing of your units movements and the battlefield becomes a Newtonian Machine that allows a game player to this ability for near absolute battlefield synchronization to do some pretty strange things...

Now the reality of a battlefield lies in between. Synchronization of force and the minimalization of combat friction is the "Holy Grail" of the new "network centric". PLotted si-move hands this to you ona silver platter and is at its root no more "realistic" than IGO-UGO.

In reality combat units are NOT synchronized very well. And the timeframes over which this lack or synchronization manifests itself is typically not seconds, but minutes to 10s of minutes. So your assertion that a "hybrid" between pure IGO-UGO and pure plotted si move is seemingly the place where the future of tactical gaming needs to go.

[Von Rom]

The debate on Real-Time vs Turn-Based games is a never ending one. Obviously, there are people who like both types of games; therefore, both types of games should continue to be made.

Basically, there are chess players, and there are checker players; there are those who enjoy watching the movie "Men In Black", and there are those who enjoy watching the movies "Gettysburg" and "Das Boot". It's all a matter of taste and inclination.

Personally, I have played both types of games. When it comes down to actual gameplay and sheer enjoyment - I prefer turn-based games.

In a well-designed game, whether turn-based or not, the player will need strategy to win. Unfortunately, many new Real-Time games rely less on strategy, and more on reflexes (or busy activities). Anyone who has played the Sudden Strike demo will know what I mean (arrgghh). Even the makers of the up-coming Red Alert 2 game have stated that they intend to make the game move EVEN FASTER IN REAL TIME. Why? To make internet games go faster! So the game developers don't even have to develop or program a smart AI - just let the players whale at each other for 30 minutes over the internet... Fun for the kiddies, anyway...

This is a sad, sad trend. Back in the day, a true strategy game demanded real thinking. But real-time - demands just faster reflexes (no thinking, please).

If Real-Time games included smart AI subordinates, then these types of games might be more enjoyable. But since the player has the job of controlling every single unit under his command - then real-time in a wargame (or any game) is absolutely ludicrous. I want deep strategy - not frustration - when I play a wargame.

Often, the argument is given that in a real conflict commanders don't have time to think, to react to every problem, etc, therefore real-time is the way to go. Like I said previously, if I could rely on smart sub-commanders all the way down to individual tanks, then fine - that might be workable. But the player must not only plan a grand strategy, but also command the individual tank - this simply is unworkable in real-time (unless all you're looking for is a click-fest). Imagine General Eisenhower planning the D-Day invasion, and then having to worry about how to use EVERY SINGLE SOLDIER AND TANK UNDER HIS COMMAND for the invasion.

Turn-based games demands a smart AI. This means a lot of programming and testing, etc. Obviously, this takes time. Many companies seem to be by-passing this for the real-time format - ie - survive the initial rush, try to build, survive more rushes, etc - no thinking strategy involved...

Also, turn-based games need less computer power, while real-time games demand constant up-grades. So I can see why computer companies, video card companies, etc would want us to move away from turn-based games. Real-time games add nothing to strategy, but continues to drain our pocket book.

Finally, turn-based games allow time for the player to plan his strategy, make his moves, and actually enjoy the game. I do not play a game to become frustrated with the interface, or to get upset because I have no control over how the units face, or that I am being attacked on one part of the battlefield, while I am trying to move units on another part of the battlefield. The AI is simply too dum to be left on its own in real-time games. Hence player frustration.

Many of the real-time games have great graphics (Age of Empires comes to mind). I don't see why turn-based games can't also have great graphics - in fact they can - again it all depends on the size of the company, and the money they are willing to spend to put great graphics into the game.

Frankly, I thought the turn-based wargame was dead, until I found Matrix Games. This company is like a breath of fresh air. I still cannot believe the games that they are developing... They have renewed my interest and love of turn-based wargames again. And the support and level of communication is phenomenal. Other companies can only watch and weep... And just think: no computer up-grade needed


------------------
A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...

[This message has been edited by Von Rom (edited August 23, 2000).]

[Larry Holt]

This is a little off topic but... With the increasing development of desktop computing power I hope that we may see more complex games that allow both real time and turn-base. Intell has just demonstrated a 2GHz CPU with a 400 MHz bus for desktops. I can forsee that a gamer is presented with a high level turn-based map. IRL, at division and above (& maybe even brigade) the order process is based on written orders issued on daily cycles. Major Generals and above fight in a IGYG manner. So you move your units and the AI or human player does also. Then as units come into contact and fight, you can drill down to their level and fight a more real time, lower scale battle. If you don't want to fight each lower-level battle, you can use AI rules or policies to tell a subordinate AIP how to fight. There may even be an adaptive AIP that is trained by your combat style at the low level then fights as you do.

Ah so many CPU cycles and so little time to game with them.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Larry Holt:
This is a little off topic but... With the increasing development of desktop computing power I hope that we may see more complex games that allow both real time and turn-base.

Don't hold your breath. The commercial gaming industry, with perhaps Matrix, HPS and similar excepted, is obsessed with the eye candy. They build games with average or poor gameplay, then let the eye candy sell it. Real-time allows them to avoid spending much time on the AI because they can rely on the computer being able to give 100 units mediocre orders winning out over a human player who can only handle 30-40 or so units even if the orders given are good. As long as people keep buying this crap, nothing will change.

PS: I don't think we can put plotted simultaneous movement in the same category as real-time or turn-based. To me it looks like the best combination of both. Its not true real-time because the player(s) are not time restricted, but since both sides in war are executing their own plans simutaneously, the "collision" of coordinated moves is very realistic. Plotted simultaneous movement works *very* well in WiR for example.

[Paul Vebber]

I agree, that the higher up the chain of command you go, the better "plotted simove" works. But it needs to account for "friction" in a realistic way - introducing coordination difficulties in the "coordinated moves".

As to harnessing the power of desktops in the pipeline, software technolgy has always been a generation behind hardware. And in the realm of game AI, the effort is tremendous. Years of development is needed to get just to "good" and that is very difficult to justify given that "poor but passable" AI is an order of magnitude less effort, and the payoff of investing the extra time marginal.

We at matrix have plans to get to some much improved AI techniques. We hope to have an AI that will repond to your play habits in Wars of Napolean. Other innovations will follow, but will take time (years) to mature fully.

[Tombstone]

Real-time strategy games are still pretty immature as a game genre. They'll become something good... maybe soon, maybe later. Turn based games are easier to control, and have a long history of development. There's a lot of room to improve. Eventually, I believe that we'll have some awesome games developed, only time needs to pass.

I've always had this dream of a game that has a significant planning phase and more units than could possibly be controlled in a real-time environment. After which an interactive real-time phase executes the orders from before. You have control of units, but given the scope of the game you can only hope to control a small area of the battle. That way a person's quick thinking as well as planning ability is challenged. Blah blah blah... I could go on and on, gotta go to lunch.

Tomo

[Pack Rat]

Computer games are still a new thing. As time goes on and the buying public gets older and their reflexes slow down, new ways will have to be found. I also suspect that many of the real time big hits will not appeal to an older buyer. Wargamers as a whole have been lucky in the sense that most of our turn based games run on lower end machines. These days are very numbered, but with good things going to come I'm sure and worth the upgrades.

------------------

Good hunting,
Pack Rat

[Graf Speer]

I find it to no surprise that most (if not all) 'Real Time' wargames have to have some form of 'pause' function --Nikademus

Bullseye! . . . yes, for example, the "pause" function in Sid Meier's Gettysburg is an egregious (my dad loves this word ) contradiction in terms; perhaps even a complete refutation of what it really means to be playing in 'real-time', yes?

. . . a "hybrid" between pure IGO-UGO and pure plotted si move is seemingly the place where the future of tactical gaming needs to go. --Paul Vebber

Yes, sounds good to me, Paul. Maybe, I missed it somewhere under this thread, but a key reason I love SP / SPWAW (and its excellent opportunity fire routine) is that it still permits the convenience and satisfaction of PBEM gaming. This is why I favor some form of hybrid platform - it would solve the oxymoronic "pause" feature in realtime gaming, while at the same time allow for thoughtful (hence, usually more filling n' satisfying ) strategic planning & plotting, while possibly affording time or luxury to consult with girl friend, wife, dog, and refrigerator

Albert


[This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited August 24, 2000).]

[Greg McCarty]

I don't think one can talk about battalion
level scale, (which is what we have in SPWAW)
and real-time in the same paragraph. When we
get to enough units, terrain, logistics, etc. to encompass a battalion level formation, real-time no longer lends itself well to control of play. Where I could see real-time used would be in something that emulates the "SQUAD LEADER" model; with a more limited unit number, and an up close and in your face environment. Personally, I have never been entirely comfortable with games that require (and encourage) a lavish amount of planning and personal involvement in a beautiful environment, but then frustrate the heck out of you by rushing events around one like a flood --leaving you more as a witness than a participant. (The otherwise beautiful "Homeworld" comes to mind) So when we talk about real-time with a
game like SPWAW, we have to remind ourselves, that although it is a tactical
simulation, the scale we are attempting to control is still quite large. I can't imagine enjoying the level of detail we have in our current game without some ability to
pause and reflect.

[Desert Fox]

Personally, I think the best real time game out there is Close Combat 2. The pace is excellent, allowing you to check a hotspot, get your situational awareness, manage your units, and then move to the next hotspot. Its perfectly timed so that you can give the orders when you need to, but there is not a large amount of hurry up and wait.
Of course, the AI leaves much to be desired, and there are numerous bugs which definitely should have been fixed.
Its too bad they did not realize how good the game was, because everything sped up by Close Combat 4 that any time you take to move from one end of the battlefield to the next, your AT guns could have shot off every round they had at the front hull of a panther. And there are so many other problems with the game, its really not worth buying.
I also like the pace of the Command and Conquer series by Westwood. There again, its a good mix of being able to issue orders, without a lot of boring down time. And of course, those games also have a very excellent story and plot.
What I do not like are the Age of Empires games. They are too fast paced, and involve a ridiculous amount of micromanagement from doing research, to constantly ordering the planting of farms, and if you are lucky, you will be able to order your troops before they wander into a deadly hail of something.
To me a real time game has to be paced well so that you are not wasting time sitting around waiting for something to happen, while at the same time, you have the time to give all the necessary orders to your units. It also has to have very capable AI to allow your units to survive on their own.
But few games can get this mix right, and instead focus on pretty graphics to make you buy them.

[John T_MatrixForum]

I Need IGYG,
got wife and three kids and PBEM is the only way to play anything for more than an hour.

BUT:

Originally posted by Tombstone:

<Snip>
I've always had this dream of a game that has a significant planning phase and more units than could possibly be controlled in a real-time environment. After which an interactive real-time phase executes the orders from before. You have control of units, but given the scope of the game you can only hope to control a small area of the battle. That way a person's quick thinking as well as planning ability is challenged. Blah blah blah... I could go on and on, gotta go to lunch.

Tomo

LOVELY Idea!
This is the way to model Rommel in the desert. First a broad outline for major formations, they do have commanders themself managing the details.
And then jump into my personal halftrack and go to the Schwerpunkt.

More ordinary staff officers whould have a boring game just giving the outlines and then spend rest of the day waiting.

/John T.

[GI Seve]

Well to all my own view on this matter I would like to say there are allso some great real time strategy games existing without going to such level of shit like C&C(Read Command&Conguer) Siberian Fun or my personal hatred Earth 2150(or something like that).Well as I think of only Close Combat's for some small bits(Didn't like CC4 either) and awesome games called Myth: The Fallen Lords and its follower Myth: Soulblighter have been good real time strategy games.(Myth: SB even has it's own simple WW2 plugin added).One common thing for all those games were that amount of controlled units is not very big thus allowing some more tactical thinking and time to do all what is intended to be done for sucsessfull tactical maneuvers.(See more bout Myth on [url="http://www.bungie.net)"]www.bungie.net)[/url] So final conclusion is Real time games will work only if amount of troops is small and you don't need to bother building some darn factories to get units. And that before there will be invented really good AI those games will be at their best only when played against other humans.(Wich I think will arise more bigger factor in future as single playing possibilities get fewer wich I think is bad thing = curses game makers!! .. Ofcourse some are nice like Matrix fellas )

[Tombstone]

Something we all have to remember is that many real time strategy games aren't about war simulation. Games like C&C and Age of Empires really revolve around resource management. Its not fair to say that they are bad, they just aren't built to service the needs of the wargamer. In my opinion Age of Empires is one of the deepest and most balanced multi-player games ever made. The single player game kinda sucks, but the multi-player dynamic is crafted like a swiss watch, but its primarily resource management. The combat in the game is just an expression of the resource war. There's very little you can do to increase the tactical value of units in these games, and battles usually go to the army that's worth the most resources. The games like Close Combat and Myth are a different matter (has anyone played Ground Control? -Its GOOD-) they dwell only on the tactics of the units, and are all about fighting. The fact that a game is in a real-time environment doesn't make that the primary characteristic of the game. Resource management games challenge your efficiency and judgement, the real-time tactical games challenge organization and adaptation. We need to think about what the real-time environment can give to wargames, and not which real-time games aren't any good as wargames.

Tomo

[Windo von Paene]

A comment and a question.

Although I don't have the PC horsepower to play it, everything I have heard about the WEGO system employed by Combat Mission suggests that this is an excellent "hybrid" or the TB vs. RT debate. In addition it still allows for PBEM.

Speaking of PBEM, how will the new op fire routines impact PBEM? It would seem that they will not be usable in PBEM, or PBEM will not be usable. Unless there's some other wrinkle in this that we haven't been told about.

[Mark_Ezra]

The WeGo system as used in Combat Mission is excellent. I expect it to be the bench mark for war games for a long while. I love SPWAW and respect all the efforts of the Matrix team. It'll stay on my hard drive for a whole bunch of reasons....But CM is the next step in the evolution in wargaming

[Schrubbery]

"The End of IGYG" is not very probable. Just think of it: there's TOAW, there's SPWAW, there's CM, there's CC2, there's JA2, there's all kinds of more or less detailed strategy games that will devour 100 % of my allocated brain cycles, YET I still often end up playing such (literally) antique board game as Chess is!

The reason is simple: I don't necessarily want to play the most realistic game available. I just want some mental arm-wrestling, and chess is very good at this. I don't play any of those games I mentioned just because of the superb realism they supposedly offer. "Realism for realisms sake" is bullshit. I never wanted to be a real commander on a real battle field. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't want games to be realistic, but there has to be some sorts of concessions in realism of the game for the realities of playability, because it's not reality, it's a game, and people are supposed to be playing it.

If someone made a totally new kind of game in which you are a commander of a company in a 3d-environment and you wouldn't necessarily know anything about how your troops are doing (something Major Frost experienced in Marked Garden), I would gladly add it to my list of favourite wargames. But I wouldn't end playing the others, because I'd still want to play less realistic games in which you magically give orders to units via a tactical map.

I hope someone understood my point...