The End of IGYG is Nigh?

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 12:26 am

The new Opfire confirm is not usable in pbem. You just turn the button off in the pref menu and and Opfire occurs as before.

CM is indeed spectactular! I've gotton a lot of enjoyment out of it, but the time scale and control is tome best suited for "skirmish games" of not much bigger than battalion in scope. The 3D maps are awesome to give the at first person perspective as a platoon CO, but it becomes unmanagable for scores and scores of units on a side.

Like most miniatures rules that use 30 sec or 1 minute turns, the ability to do what you can theoretically do in a minute, EVERY MINUTE, scaled to Battalion or larger forces accelerates the pace of battle to the point you need to "scale time" or you have what really took several hours typically in real engagements occuring in 10s of minutes because the time spent making and coordination C2 issues is ignored.

I think further hybridization of turn sequencing and integration of C2 into the turn structure is required to get at the C2 issues of battalion and regimental sized battles. I see pbem becoming supplanted more and more by head to head online play. This is a problem for our "pay by the minute" friends overseas, the increasing ubiquity of broadband technologies will likely render that mute in the next 3-5 years - possibly sooner.

Ability to pbem will continue to be a requirement, but more and more as a "secondary play mode". As the size of the active online community grows, and more and more player's who wants to play can find several online opponants waiting, as in the online air combat community, "playing the AI" will become playing a human. The intensity of a fast paced timed online SP:WaW version 3 game has often left me totally drained! A completely different and more exhilerating experience than pbem...

CM is a "first of a new generation" that is sure, but because of that I think future games will evolve from it - not to it

BUt I completely agree that pure "realism" arguments are follish - as no GAME will EVER be close to "realistic". What most gamers mean by "realistic" is DETAILED. The names and nomenclatures of weapons are typically what gamers argue over, while REALISM is steeped in C2 and Logistics issues that would bore a cat to death.

FUN and DETAIL can join if a game designer is clever enough and a beliable world created where the player can 'buy into' the abstarctions made, while reveling in the details.

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited August 24, 2000).]

Windo von Paene · Post by **Windo von Paene** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 12:57 am

Agreed Paul, I wasn't suggesting that WEGO was always the right answer for every game, nor suggesting that SPWAW should be that way. As clearly there are issues of scale as you mention.

AS for PBEM becoming a "secondary" play mode. I think not. There are those of us, (several posters to this thread have mentioned this), who have busy lives, and can't spend the time required in an interrupted stretch to play online, (not even considering things such as online access fees and tying up the phone line..). There is also the issue of finding opponents. Now you all have dealt with that already, (or are at least in the process of doing so), but it can be hard. I'm trying to find an online opponent for some Internet Up Front, (days, ICQ# 86119515

), and it's not an easy task unless you are looking for AOE or Quake etc....

Dave R · Post by **Dave R** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:20 am

I think there'll always be a call for turn based games.
I'd like to bet that if you were to do a straw pole you'd find that players of SPWaW type games tend to be older gamers, many who have come here through the table top/board game route. I know that all the games that I enjoy the most have a stronger 'thought' element rather then 'reaction' ellement, and again I suspect that most of the people here are the same.
I think what draws people to turn based games, isn't the realism factor. It's the challenge of pitting your 'mental' wits against another. The fact that Matrix have given us such a fine means by which to do so is a wonderfull bonus. But nothing can beat that wonderfull feeling when you pull off a particularly devious ploy against another human player, or even that awful feeling of woe when the bugger does the same to you!
Until real time games can capture that spirit, then for me there'll always be a place for turn based games!

laurent Favre · Post by **laurent Favre** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:27 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

I think further hybridization of turn sequencing and integration of C2 into the turn structure is required to get at the C2 issues of battalion and regimental sized battles. I see pbem becoming supplanted more and more by head to head online play. This is a problem for our "pay by the minute" friends overseas, the increasing ubiquity of broadband technologies will likely render that mute in the next 3-5 years - possibly sooner.

Ability to pbem will continue to be a requirement, but more and more as a "secondary play mode". As the size of the active online community grows, and more and more player's who wants to play can find several online opponants waiting, as in the online air combat community, "playing the AI" will become playing a human.

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited August 24, 2000).]

Paul,

I partly disagree. PBEM will remain much more used than you think because online play requires large time period most players don't have( work, wife, children). Of course, online play can be cut in several sessions but the players will have to be free at the same time.
. I'm convinced Wego system can't be for now used in operational and strategical games because of the weakness of AI: when players will have given orders, units would be unable to change nicely their orders to face unpredictable events.

I would like to see a turn based game with turn divided in impulses whose each would represent 25% of the movement allowance of each units. The player with initiative would get the first impulse then a good chance to play immediatly the second. The second player would then get one or 2 impulses depending of his initiative level. Then the first player would get one or two impulses. But the second player would get yet belonging to initiative level 0, 1 or 2 impulses to end the turn. last the first player would complete his turn.

This system isn't technologically brillant but it forces players to move units together, introduce enemy movement into your moves, alow PBEM at the expense of 2, 3, rarely 4 exchange by turns.

It could be interesting too to try a wego system with turn duration different for players belong to initiative level: one player would get 2 hours turn when his oppenent would get 4 hours one.

Tomanbeg · Post by **Tomanbeg** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 4:28 am

3 more years guys. Do a search on 'Raymond' and 'Cathedral' and 'Bazarre' (check spelling on bazzare. Mid eastern market?) This game system could be the first Linux OSS type game. Once Matrix makes their well earned bucks with the release of SPWaw:Modern a release of the source code will produce thousands of eager hackers. I want first crack at the reload logic for ammo trucks!

.
Release early, release often!
T.

------------------
Machines don't fight wars, people do,
abd they use their minds. Col J. Boyd

Tomanbeg · Post by **Tomanbeg** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 4:28 am

3 more years guys. Do a search on 'Raymond' and 'Cathedral' and 'Bazarre' (check spelling on bazzare. Mid eastern market?) This game system could be the first Linux OSS type game. Once Matrix makes their well earned bucks with the release of SPWaw:Modern a release of the source code will produce thousands of eager hackers. I want first crack at the reload logic for ammo trucks!

.
Release early, release often!
T.

------------------
Machines don't fight wars, people do,
abd they use their minds. Col J. Boyd

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 5:19 am

Unfortunately Matrix does not own the rights to the source code. Mattel will have to freeze over bofore it is likely to be released into the public domain.

Open source software development for general use items like operating systems is a good thing, but for games I think it has an uphill battle. Freeman Dyson has an excellent book "Imagined Worlds" were he uses Napolean and Tolstoy for "Cathedral and Bazaar" and points out the advantages of convergence, not divergence of the two models.

As to PBEM as the primary mode of play, look at the number of copies of SPWaW downloaded (with friendly distribution its likely at least 40,000 copies). Where are all the pbem'ers?

The VAST majority of people who play the game (probably over 90%) solo against the computer. They typically play in one sittingor for at least a couple hours at a crack.

PBEMers tend to be the most vocal, and as I said I consider it to be a requirement.

But the primary play mode right now is FAR AND AWAY "vs the AI" and its attracting that chunk of players to online play against an opponent vice playing the AI that will create a viable on-line community. A viable community has growth potential and attracts new blood. That creates a market that can sustain a creative talant pool that innovation in wargame design requires!!

I am also looking ahead 3-5 years when the broadband technology to make online gaming a very close surrogate for FTF boardgaming.

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited August 24, 2000).]

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 6:19 am

I agree. We are the noisy minority. Once there's an easy way to connect to people and play them directly there'll be a lot more people playing multi-player. It's the established norm on the internet. Look at games like AOE, Half-life, and Quake.. they get thousands of people playing all day. If you think about it PBEM wargaming has a lot of familiar faces... That's because its a small household.

Tomo

Graf Speer · Post by **Graf Speer** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 9:16 am

Paul wrote:

BUt I completely agree that pure "realism" arguments are follish - as no GAME will EVER be close to "realistic".

Sure, Paul, assuming there really is any "pure" argument short of actually taking up real arms and targeting your foe across the small deadly space . . . so, for all intents and purposes, I think we must inevitably all agree with you that the "pure realism" argument is a purely academic if rhetorical one.

So, while we should appreciate the rhetoric of the "pure realism argument" and its decided merits of reminding all of us to somehow never lose site (as if this could ever happen?

) that any game is still no better than a game - or simulation, it still seems to speer that the "pursuit" of realism is nonetheless the worthy goal for the purist and idealist at heart. And every compromise to attaining pure realism can hopefully be rationalised as a necessity to avoid the spilling of real blood!

It may therefore seem like folly to pursue "pure realism" in our war sims but it's the right direction to aim for. Which suggests why the IGYG system of purely step-based computer play will likely (and hopefully) see less attention from any modern / post boardgame designers and programmers.

. . . then Tombstone wrote:

Once there's an easy way to connect to people and play them directly there'll be a lot more people playing multi-player. It's the established norm on the internet

ABsolutely! The key being: easy way to connect to people.

As for "norm," I can only call upon my own somewhat limited and less than stellar online wargaming experiences with Sid Meier's Gettysburg and the somewhat disheartening little 1999 follow-up, somewhat disingenuously called "sid meier's" Antietam in which we playtesters were all obliged to conclude that the Antietam online play was even slooooooooow-er - to the point of being unplayable! - than the original 1997 version of Gettysburg. So, obviously, some companies (notice how I 'spared' Talonsoft's old Battleground series for its seriously slug-like online performance

) appear to make this net play look more like the "norm" while others make it appear like some kind of eye-drooping endurance contest as to who can stay awake long enough waiting for a few yanks to find safe passage across a little creek and then through a few cornfields . . . . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Bottom line: I will look forward to trying SPWAW's online routine, but thus far, I have much preferred the speed, reliability, and basically hassle-free convenience of pbem with my brother and few friends over the repeated trials of connecting in 'realtime' with a group of cohorts at some previously appointed time only to find half of us mia . . . or somehow disconnected in midgame all the while waiting and waiting and waiting some more for the enemy to appear from out of the treacherous corn . . . .

I hope the "norm" is a reality in the next couple years! Maybe tossing out our 56K Modems and finding some pure digital path to and from each other's computers would help net gaming more than any other single enhancement at this time?

Albert

[This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited August 25, 2000).]

laurent Favre · Post by **laurent Favre** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 4:58 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

As to PBEM as the primary mode of play, look at the number of copies of SPWaW downloaded (with friendly distribution its likely at least 40,000 copies). Where are all the pbem'ers?

The VAST majority of people who play the game (probably over 90%) solo against the computer. They typically play in one sittingor for at least a couple hours at a crack.

How many of the downloaded copies are yet played? Not a critic but all games are less and less played with time, as new games are released. I agree play against AI is the most practiced by far. But it would really be interesting to know how long play sessions are with no interruption. All online games ( excepting RPG systems, very different because of multiplayer aspect) are generally tailored for short sessions.

Wargame online will certainly have a place in the future but until now wargames with only online mode don't seem to have really succeded in creating such a community. I don't think it's a bandwith issue ( or cost outside US) but a consequence of the small size of wargame market ( difficult to find an opponent at the same time) and the older age of the wargamers.

That's not to say this way will led to a failure. Innovation is necessary and I feel pretty confident Matrixgames can find a solution. I simply don't think future of wargame is limited to 3D, simultaneous move and online play. Such games can be really succesful for some subjects, but not for all. And the old boardgame legacy can yet satisfy a sufficient part of the market.

Dave R · Post by **Dave R** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 7:26 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by laurent Favre:
How many of the downloaded copies are yet played? Not a critic but all games are less and less played with time, as new games are released.

Well! If you view SPWaW as a natural progression from SP1 then it's been on my computer 4 years. I can in all honesty say that Steel Panthers has been on my machine in one form or another since I first came across it in 96. Yes, there's been times that it's been neglected for a few weeks, but I've always come back to it! To date there has been no other wargame to match it, be it both real time or turn based.
Oh I'm not saying that I'll never abandon SP, but todate there's nothing on the horizon that threatens to take it's crown!

BA Evans · Post by **BA Evans** » Fri Aug 25, 2000 9:41 pm

Originally posted by Dave R:

Originally posted by laurent Favre:
Well! If you view SPWaW as a natural progression from SP1 then it's been on my computer 4 years. I can in all honesty say that Steel Panthers has been on my machine in one form or another since I first came across it in 96. Yes, there's been times that it's been neglected for a few weeks, but I've always come back to it! To date there has been no other wargame to match it, be it both real time or turn based.
Oh I'm not saying that I'll never abandon SP, but todate there's nothing on the horizon that threatens to take it's crown!

AGREED!!

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sat Aug 26, 2000 12:54 am

Me too. I've had it on my computer the whole time, and it gets played regularly. I'm also a mainstream game player and play first person shooters and real-time strat games so its not like all I play are these good old wargames. The other kinds of games fall by wayside to the newer and better eventually. But wargames are judged by the play more than the technology, thats why they have longer lifetimes... but fewer users unfortunately.

Tomo

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sat Aug 26, 2000 2:57 am

I would love to play as a company commander in a real-time wargame where I could say "Carruthers, take your squad and clear that house. Kemp, Your squad will support. Masters, your machineguns will suppress that Jerry foxhole." And they would do it without me having to move each man and fire each shot. Or not do it and we'd have to live with the consequences. Until then, I'll take IGYG

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

jsaurman · Post by **jsaurman** » Sat Aug 26, 2000 3:47 am

The coolest wargame of all, would be one that "promotes" you based on experience and performance into different types of games. For example:
1. Level One, you are a green second lieutenant in his first tank. This would be an eyewitness view like Combat Mission. You fight just your tank to achieve an objective with your squad or platoon.
2. If you do well you get promoted to Captain, and fight a company to its objective. You would command each tank, but you would not control each tank, sort of like Panzer General 3D Assault.
3. If you do well you get promoted again, and would command batallion and then brigade groups of units, sort of like SPWAW.
4. If you still do well, you get promoted to command a Corps or Army Group, sort of like Empire Deluxe, where you are commanding forces engaging multiple battles in farflung parts of the country or even the entire world!

Wouldn't that just be the best game? Whichever style of game you like you could continue by refusing your promotion to the next level.

JIM

[This message has been edited by jsaurman (edited August 25, 2000).]

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sat Aug 26, 2000 4:48 am

Actually, there was a helo sim like that. Gunship2000. You started in training, got your wings and became a WO1. You flew one bird. If you survived long enough and accomplished enough of your objectives you could become a 2nd Lt. and commanded a flight of 5. As you moved up you could get more advanced helos and better pilots as replacements. When you finished 50 missions or got promoted to Brigadier your combat days were over and you got to fly a desk.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

B52g · Post by **B52g** » Sat Aug 26, 2000 11:42 am

I have been, and still play the original Steel Panthers. Why? It has an enormous amount of scenerios to choose from. I have everything Novastar ever released for it before they went under. I can be anyone, anywhere, in any theatre, at any time. I have never played against another person in all these years, just the AI. But I think when SPWAW version 3.0 is done, I am going to venture out and find out how good I REALLY am.
I dont like most real time games. After playing Sid Meyers Antietam, it took the fun out of it. The game is great (graphics), but it was obviuos to me that the game was programmed to stess the human player by simply giving him to much to do at once. No real strategy, just spread out, run around, and see if the human can controll a couple hundred units all at the same time. No more money for them.

I have a foot in two worlds, I love games like SPWAW, but I also like to go online and get fragged a million times by some 14 year old kid playing Unreal Tournament.
I dont understand a lot of things that go on in the gaming world anymore. It seems like more and more games have no substance to them at all. I have played games like Axis&Allies on my computer that were so buggy that they are almost un-playable. Any fool who played the game for an hour could find the bugs, and yet they shipped it. I played that game when I was a kid with my friends for countless hours, and after playing the pc version, I feel like Hasbro stole from me. Then there are other games that just seem to stick up their middle finger at you as you play them. I just sit there and think " why did they put this in here?", dont they relize that they are losing costomers? So, they dont care about putting out a quality product, and I dont care if they go under.
BUT, then I run into the likes of this place, where a super product is put out, where people actually listen to their costomers (Wild Bill), and people seem to care.

And its free! I feel guilty comming in here and taking these guys hard work. I will be watching for when these guys decide to make a game of their own and sell it, because I know its going to be good.

Polrbear · Post by **Polrbear** » Sat Aug 26, 2000 3:14 pm

Remember Computer Ambush's WG-WL-YVIV system. WOW! (We go - we listen - you view, I view). Simple but effective.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Sat Aug 26, 2000 3:21 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

...
Open source software development for general use items like operating systems is a good thing, but for games I think it has an uphill battle.

Don't be too quick to shrug off Open Source games. The FreeCiv project is going *very* well. It all depends on the game. When you have something like a Civilization clone or the latest version/variant of the roguelike games, you've got something that crosses enough categories to gain a useful, substantial community.

What Open Source can't do, really, is truly innovate when it comes to games. The available energy is devoted purely to implementing clones of popular games (like Civ) because thats what the coders want to play, rather than creating brand new games. FreeCiv is following CivI/II and the roguelike communities are sticking to a basic game design originated in, well, Rogue. Despite the lack of innovation all these projects have major followings.

An Open Source project for an RTS game ala WarCraft/C&C is possible, I think there is one already, but, are we going to see an Open Source "Metal Tigers"? I doubt it.