Philosophical Question Regarding the Length of AA-Engine Titles

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Not too long ago, 06 Maestro and I had a go at a scenario that I created. The scenario itself was a three-day model played over a large map with forces numbering barely more than an anemic corps per side.

Anyway, we got online and the scenario played quite well. It ran very smoothly with no noticeable lag. It was hard fought, and I think that it's fair to say that we both found it a challenge.

The above points made, I have to note that it took a while. I didn't actually time the game which took place over three or four sittings, but I suspect that it lasted at least eight hours.

So here's the question...

In these, the early years of the third millennium, is that simply too long for people to invest in game?

In asking the question, please understand that I've spent tens of thousands of hours playing wargames, board and computer. Having acknowledged that, please accept that I'm asking a real question, not trying to undermine the relevance/value of "deeper" titles, ones that require a greater investment of time. What I'm curious about is the group's opinion regarding the degree to which the length of a game like CotA acts as a constraint on the willingness of the public to embrace it.

Thoughts?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

BTW: The Close Combat community has a shindig coming up soon and posted an announcement about it over in Matrix/GD. Could it be that a game that features scenarios that can be played in thirty minutes has an advantage over one that takes longer and has a much steeper learning curve?

[Arjuna]

And yet there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that people commit hundreds of hours playing games like Civ IV. [:)]

Good question. I'm interested to hear what others think.

[Renato]

I Think it depends on tastes.

As for me, while i play much Close Combat in theese days, my favourite games were EU2 and EU3, besides HTTR and COTA of course !

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

And yet there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that people commit hundreds of hours playing games like Civ IV. [:)]

Granted, and let's note that one of the most active forums/communities associated with Matrix (the publisher) is "War in the Pacific" and its offspring WitP/Admirals edition, both of which are bona fide "monster games."

I'm just curious as to how our readers think that the length of time that it takes to complete a scenario, on average, effects the public's willingness to go out and support a game, en masse, as was the case with the Close Combat games.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[JeffroK]

As a WITP/AE fanboy, IMHO there is still a large audience for long/monster games.

BUT, the game must be interesting for a majority of the game, both sides having chances of attack/defense and a hope to win the game (either historically or by VP) They must also have "mini-scenarios" where action levels increase and renew interest.

To me, Bombing the Reich isnt a great game because its a long hard slog for 700 turns, flash tactics only get you a small advantage, a solid, slogging strategy wins out. I've played about 100 days and its a chore.

A situation like the Bulge should be a perfect battle for a long campaign both sides can attack & defend and manouvre.

[Pergite!]

I strongly believe that a WEGO PBeM system for multi player would greatly increase the head to head player base for the series. The mechanism is present in the Combat Mission games where you each give orders to your units, then wait an watch for them to be executed. There the time frame is 1 minute. In the AA games a option between 30 minutes to 1 hour would probably suffice and the current gameplay would IMO work brilliantly with a WEGO concept.

We can already today chose to run the clock forward a set time without giving orders, then pausing, to simulate a turn based game when playing against an online opponent. What is missing is some kind of code to bake this into a PBeM mode.

WEGO would make monster game sessions more accessible and compatible with real life issues like glazing the christmas ham, decorating the christmas tree and drinking glögg.


Merry Christmas!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

WEGO would make monster game sessions more accessible and compatible with real life issues like glazing the christmas ham, decorating the christmas tree and drinking glögg.

Hi Pergite!,

Do you have any ideas as to what a suitable time increment might be, 10, 15 or 60 minutes, perhaps?

If so, couldn't the host simply stop CotA and save it accordingly?

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Hi Pergite!,

Do you have any ideas as to what a suitable time increment might be, 10, 15 or 60 minutes, perhaps?

If so, couldn't the host simply stop CotA and save it accordingly?

You can today play online in increments, dividing up a battle in several encounters. This however requires that both players are online at the same time. This means set time tables and timezone problems.

My suggestion is that a player in his or her own leisure give their orders (the game is stopped) then saves the game and mail it to the opponent. He in turn gives the orders and then push play. This excellent game engine then executes both parties orders, simulating one hour of battle. The game is then sent to the first player that also gets the mayhem of battle played out before him. New orders are given and the whole process gets repeated.

A rule of thumb in the military life is that everything takes one hour, so I would guess that its a suitable time increment. The order delay could be simulated furthrer with even larger time increments.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

You can today play online in increments, dividing up a battle in several encounters. This however requires that both players are online at the same time. This means set time tables and timezone problems.

Okay, now I'm following you. I guess the WEGO thingy would afford you more flexibility and a broader choice of opponents given that so much of the world's population is chronometrically unsuitable for live gaming. Back in 1998, I played in a Sid Meier's Gettysburg online tourney and one of my opponents was a French researcher on Ascension Island, so I know where you're coming from.

Back to my original question, though...

Does a game that takes thirty minutes to play have an inherent advantage (with the wargaming public) over one that takes more than one sitting to complete?

My experience with boardgames was such that the probability of completing a game was inversely proportional to its length. I played many of the Avalon Hill "Classics" to conclusion in one sitting, FTF. Same thing with the "Series 120" games from GDW. Conversely, I witnessed multitudinous "Monster" games commence with great enthusiasm among the participants, only to languish and gather dust as one or more of the players lost interest. Obviously, there's an enormous middle-ground between the two extremes. And I'd note that the Airborne Assault games occupy a spot on the game-length continuum that's closer to a "short" game like Close Combat than the ordeal which can be a campaign in WitP.

Further up the thread, I made reference to the Close Combat series of games and a celebration of sorts that's being sponsored by its fans. Those guys are still crazy about their games after all these years. Could the fact that they could play a scenario in thirty minutes be part of the reason why? And could the relatively limited appeal of longer (or much, much longer) games be attributed in part to the difficulty of actually completing them?

[SeaMonkey]

This is in essence the one thing lacking in the present AA series, PBEM. Well...ok...maybe the desert, foxes, rats, and sand as someone so eloquently put it.

I do a lot of PBEM, a couple hundred turn scenarios, sometimes over the period of a year, with perhaps an hour or two per sitting. Sometimes I can only get a few, 2 or 3, turns done a week, sometimes that many in a day, but that's the beauty of PBEM, its at your leisure and that's what this is supposed to be......a leisurely activity![8D]

[WhiteOwl]

ORIGINAL: Pergite!

A rule of thumb in the military life is that everything takes one hour, so I would guess that its a suitable time increment. The order delay could be simulated furthrer with even larger time increments.

Ha ha, and I thought the rule was "Nothing takes more than five minutes" [:D]

[Llyranor]

I'm definitely up for longer games usually. However, as others have pointed out, it needs to be compelling throughout. There needs to be give and take, and players should be able to make longterm decisions that might significantly affect the outcome of the battle long before it becomes obvious (eg. too late). That's the appeal of the multi-day scenarios here; making decisions that matter, and that have longterm implications. If the scenario's too short (12 or 24 hrs, for example), then the game ends before you've had to chance to act those out. But that's why the choice is there; some last 1-2 days or less, while others last a week or more.

I'm guessing implementing PBEM (perhaps with selectable time segments agreed upon by both players beforehand) is a lot harder than it sounds. If they're going to implement major changes related to multiplayer, I'd rather they implement co-op (multiple users per side, AI or otherwise), which would also benefit singleplayer (eg. for scenarios where you are the subordinate of an AI HQ) as well as be a neat feature for the military (multiple users coordinating various tasks together)!

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

... Back to my original question, though...

Does a game that takes thirty minutes to play have an inherent advantage (with the wargaming public) over one that takes more than one sitting to complete?

Even massive campaign games like AE always have shorter scenarios the player can complete in one sitting.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

I think it's a loser's game to even think about mass appeal for these sorts of games. Wargames are a niche market, and always have been. Always will be, if you define "wargame' as the type of games with historical fidelity, serious combat and combat-support modeling, and attention to detail. Best you can do is focus on making your core audience happy, and maybe gently expanding that to include people who like the idea of wargames but have been put off by crappy interfaces and clunky functionality. Beyond that though, I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that we'll never see a true wargame with a fraction of the mass appeal of even something like Civ IV.

[Chad Harrison]

Okay, I will bite.

I for one have a taste for two types of games:

1. Monster Games: WitP:AE being the perfect example. I enjoy long games. I enjoy having a unit win a hard battle, pull off the line, refit, and go at it again months down the road. I enjoy seeing the fruits of my previous labors months down the road.

2. Beer and Pretzel Games: Combat Mission. Halo. I play for an hour to unwind. I mess around. I dont take the game seriously. Little thought is provided on my part - and Combat Mission punishes you accordingly [:D]

For me, the HttR doesnt fit either of these molds. It is most definately not a beer and pretzel game as it takes a lot of thought and planning. But, the longest scenarios are still only measured in a couple of days and covers individual battles, not campaigns or theatres. So to answer the original question, I really do enjoy the longer battles and am more than willing to invest quite a few hours in a single scenario - as long as there is a steady flow of fresh units so that the first day doesnt decide the rest of the battle. I actually dont play the smaller scenarios for this reason - the longer the better in my book.

On another note, I just wanted to throw in my opinion on something brought up above: PBEM. I have not, and probably never will play a game from this series online. I just dont have the time. And anyone with small kids at home knows that even if I try to plan a time with someone else, it will be interupted numerous times. For me, PBEM is the one and only way that I can play a wargame against another human opponent.

While I have no doubt that it would take a huge amount of coding, I think that playing this game series in 60 minute 'turns' would be great fun. For anyone who has played the original Combat Mission series, it would play out in a very similar fassion. With reaction times being as long as they are in the series, I dont see a problem with the delay in turns anyways. If there was anyway to get this feature into this game series, it would triple the value of the game in my book. Obviously all this is personal opinion, but PBEM makes or breaks games for me. 99.9% of the immense draw that I have to the WitP series is the PBEM. Its fun against the AI (especially in AE), but it can only entertain for awhile. Theres just something about playing against another human with a game so big.

I think that this game series could really, really benefit from a time incremental (I think 60 minutes would work best) PBEM system. I know that would probably require huge amounts of coding, but if possible, I think it would pay off in a big way.

Chad

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

I think it's a loser's game to even think about mass appeal for these sorts of games. Wargames are a niche market, and always have been. Always will be, if you define "wargame' as the type of games with historical fidelity, serious combat and combat-support modeling, and attention to detail. Best you can do is focus on making your core audience happy, and maybe gently expanding that to include people who like the idea of wargames but have been put off by crappy interfaces and clunky functionality.

Do you consider Close Combat a wargame?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

Okay, I will bite.

I for one have a taste for two types of games:

1. Monster Games: WitP:AE being the perfect example. I enjoy long games. I enjoy having a unit win a hard battle, pull off the line, refit, and go at it again months down the road. I enjoy seeing the fruits of my previous labors months down the road.

Hmm, WitP and AE keep coming up. The latter is installed on my hard-drive. I opened it up today to remind myself of what's included in the way of scenarios. Only one of them, Coral Sea, is what I'd consider a moderate length game. I've never played its Aleutians scenario, so I can't comment on it, length wise. I have played several 1942-43 Solomons campaigns with the original version. But even played solo, they took me a month, or more to complete. For me, the problem with doing anything much more ambitious than what I describe above with WitP/WitP:AE is that it would simply take over my life. Regardless of how compelling that I might find the subject matter, I wouldn't have time for other stuff that I enjoy, like playing other games. Conversely, I can play pretty much all the Airborne Assault that I want (so long as I don't fail in my obligations to others).

2. Beer and Pretzel Games: Combat Mission. Halo. I play for an hour to unwind. I mess around. I dont take the game seriously. Little thought is provided on my part - and Combat Mission punishes you accordingly [:D]

One of the great things about CM is that you can play it both ways. You can do it for fun with someone else who's likewise focused on recreation, or you can play it "gunslinger-style," for blood. In terms of the length of time that it takes to complete a scenario, I've found that IP play lends itself not only to expediting completion of the game, but also taking some of the bite out of the dog. I've presupposed for a great while now that folks who play it best, competitively, do so almost exclusively PBEM. If I'm wrong in that belief, it's a simple misconception on my part and is, in no way, meant to be evaluative of the individuals involved.

For me, the HttR doesnt fit either of these molds. It is most definately not a beer and pretzel game as it takes a lot of thought and planning. But, the longest scenarios are still only measured in a couple of days and covers individual battles, not campaigns or theatres. So to answer the original question, I really do enjoy the longer battles and am more than willing to invest quite a few hours in a single scenario - as long as there is a steady flow of fresh units so that the first day doesnt decide the rest of the battle. I actually dont play the smaller scenarios for this reason - the longer the better in my book.

I agree that the Airborne Assault games don't fall into either category. And I don't have a problem with devoting six, eight or ten hours to completing a scenario (although playtesting to conclusion for results is something of a task). What gives me pause, is a concern that the segment of humanity which is as enamored as myself with the terrain and the situation is so small as to be darn near undetectable. [:(]

BTW, a developer called Histwar appears to be on the verge of self-publishing a Napoleonic battlefield game called Les Grognards. I mention LG because it appears to put a heavy emphasis on corps-level planning and orders. Regimental orders are available, but they strike me primarily as a means of reorganizing the corps. Players plan, issue orders to their various corps, and turn the game loose. It's possible to intervene in an attempt to adjust to developments on the battlefield, but my experience with the demo suggests that it's not terribly easy to do so effectively. It's important to get things right on the front end, rather than try and play the game on the fly.

On another note, I just wanted to throw in my opinion on something brought up above: PBEM. I have not, and probably never will play a game from this series online. I just dont have the time. And anyone with small kids at home knows that even if I try to plan a time with someone else, it will be interupted numerous times. For me, PBEM is the one and only way that I can play a wargame against another human opponent.

While I have no doubt that it would take a huge amount of coding, I think that playing this game series in 60 minute 'turns' would be great fun. For anyone who has played the original Combat Mission series, it would play out in a very similar fassion. With reaction times being as long as they are in the series, I dont see a problem with the delay in turns anyways. If there was anyway to get this feature into this game series, it would triple the value of the game in my book. Obviously all this is personal opinion, but PBEM makes or breaks games for me. 99.9% of the immense draw that I have to the WitP series is the PBEM. Its fun against the AI (especially in AE), but it can only entertain for awhile. Theres just something about playing against another human with a game so big.

I think that this game series could really, really benefit from a time incremental (I think 60 minutes would work best) PBEM system. I know that would probably require huge amounts of coding, but if possible, I think it would pay off in a big way.

Chad

Normally, I'm kind of dismissive of folks "whining" about PBEM when a stable IP module has been developed for a game (as is the case with AA). For instance, I can't imagine playing Close Combat or Sid Meier's Gettysburg PBEM. However, in the case of the games from PG, I have to acknowledge that the absence of PBEM likely has a negative impact on the number of human vs human encounters. Simply too many people sound the same refrain, "it's just too hard for me to get together with other players. I'd love to give it a go, but it's not doable, at least not for me."

BTW, I'm part of a minority here on the Matrix forums in that I would far rather play a game against a human than a computer. While the Airborne Assault games are known for their excellent AI, I consider the quality of their IP implementation to be just as important.

Thanks for biting! [;)]

[Ron]

I think the thread title is at odds with what you are really asking - which is the commitment required to play COTA online/multi-player. I have only played RDOA/HTTR and now more recently COTA single-player, and I like longer for the most part; I'm pretty positive I will never play it multiplayer because of the format and time commitment required with your opponent. I have played numerous games and wargames pbem, hundreds of times, but only a handful of times tcp/ip(Combat Mission). It is one thing to sit down for an hour or less or more to do your turns at your leisure, something else entirely to arrange a block of time necessary to play tcp/ip. The length of the battle isn't an issue for me, though I may not be the norm. I recall I loved playing CM operations pbem, and some were very long to commit to, yet only a few opponents were also willing. The vast majority preferred 'medium' sized battles that could be finished in a 'reasonable' amount of time; I think the vast majority preferred pbem over tcp/ip as well - which is probably due to demographics. Not being elitist or anything, but I believe the typical person willing/able to play tcp/ip generally likes and plays a different kind of game than AA the wargame. Going back to CM, the release of ShockForce a couple years ago as a pauseable/continuous time tactical wargame brought a whole new set of players with the typical wargame aspect being of secondary concern initially. AA doesn't have that hook, it is pure grognard and that type for the most part prefers pbem format in my experience.

[Llyranor]

PBEM would also make it a very different game. AA is continuous real-time precisely because it wants to avoid segmenting the gameplay into preset turns, choosing instead to allow the player to intervene when s/he thinks it wisest to do so (but with order delays, the player has to be very careful because s/he commits to issuing a new command), rather than doing so because it's a new turn and thus s/he should issue more orders. Turn-based (and I absolutely love turn-based; I'll always choose TB over RT for any sort of game requiring a good amount of strategy/tactics - AA being the sole exception where I find the continuous real-time system being more conducive to it) is fine when the system actually is designed around it, but 'imposing' it upon a system for which it is not could be considered a pretty significant compromise.

I can understand the PBEM demands, though, given the time/scheduling requirements for TCP/IP. What I've done is coerce one of my usual co-op buddies into getting the games during the Matrix sale. Since we can usually devote a few hours at a time for gaming, we can set that aside for semi-regular sessions of this. I think the few important things to have to organize such are 1) if you don't have the spare time usually, then schedule a preset time agreed upon by both players, 2) your opponent should have as much patience as you when it comes to gaming, since this isn't a fast-paced action game, and both should know what to expect in the TCP/IP session, 3) also be ready for real-life interruptions; but the nice thing is, you can just pause the game, and the other player can still analyze the map and think up a plan in the meantime! I guess one of the main differences for me and my gaming buddy is that we use voice chat at the same time to talk about all kinds of various stuff, so TCP/IP is a lot more engaging than PBEM would be. We're still reserving our PBEM games for when our schedules really start to conflict and we can't get regular gaming hours together anymore.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Irrelevant, as it hardly has a mass following by video game standards. But to answer your question, it's been a long time since I played the Close Combat games, back when they were first rolled out, so I can only go by that experience. Based on that, yes, I'd call them a wargame, but then again, so was Panzer General.

My point isn't that there's not a need for shorter more accessible wargames--I like those as well. My point is merely that we should keep in mind that a strong selling or popular wargame is going to be far, far less popular and sell far, far fewer units than, say, a Grand Theft Auto, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Gran Tourismo, or FIFA type of game no matter how "accessible."

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

I think it's a loser's game to even think about mass appeal for these sorts of games. Wargames are a niche market, and always have been. Always will be, if you define "wargame' as the type of games with historical fidelity, serious combat and combat-support modeling, and attention to detail. Best you can do is focus on making your core audience happy, and maybe gently expanding that to include people who like the idea of wargames but have been put off by crappy interfaces and clunky functionality.

Do you consider Close Combat a wargame?