Wargame designs that don't have much to do with wargaming

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:07 pm

Be careful Marc anything is possible.

About a year back, there was quite a lot of flack over the copywriting of the hex center dot in games like ASL.

Does anyone else remember this insanity?

Not sure of where it went though, but it sure was a lively point of discussion in the venues I encountered it on.

Anything is possible, I could probably do just that eh, copywrite something as fundemental to the game as a term or a design feature.

Fortunately while I have the time, I am not nearly that anal heheh.

CCB · Post by **CCB** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:10 pm

I enjoy turn based games, but in real life one side just doesn't sit around while the other side completes their turn. Everything happens simultaneously in reality.

Maybe its just a myth, but didn't some of the Avalon Hill Squad Leader designers also work on the original Close Combat game to produce a RTS version of Squad Leader?

I like the Close Combat games. You should try them if you haven't already Les. At most you only have to worry about 15 units. Its fast and fun to play.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:56 pm

I have yet to ever encounter a Close Combat title on sale actually CCB.

I have seen a couple of screen shots before and will admit I didn't mind looking at them.

I think Combat Mission is to much detail on the screen though, and perhaps Sudden Strike was to little somewhere (the images are about hmmm 65% of a Steel Panthers image in size to me at least).

As for the comment about Squad Leader RTS never heard even a rumour about that creature though.
Unless you refer to that obscenity that Hasbro released which pleasantly vanished from the shelves without anyone saying boo.

As for their connection with Close Combat, I have no input there, I wasn't on the scene when they released Close Combat.

As for real life, well there isn't a game out there that really simulates real life (thank god).

But who wants to game standing in a foxhole with frozen feet, or trying to endure the insides of a sweltering fly infested tank.
And the long patrols where you see nothing for days, but get to enjoy the stress of worrying each second of it.

Then the wonders of being shelled. The screams of the guy shot in the gut. The smell of burned bodies. Looking in the face of the guy you just knifed as he pleads to be spared.

No, turns is ok with me.

Although a notion I have seen in some board games would be nice and easy to implement I would think and make RTS and turn based disappear as genres altogether.

Some games allow you to chose actions which are interlaced with the oposition, you move a unit, I move a unit. I think there is a catchy term used for this actually.
Moving all my units then you moving yours is not really necessary.
It's convenient, but not necessary.

Although I see no realism in just forcing the player to constantly scramble after units madly constantly.
As I said, there is no real time in real time games. Just a lot of real fast clicking.

Raindog101 · Post by **Raindog101** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:41 am

The “Sarge’s” attitude that everyone is a moron that doesn’t like the same games he does, is repugnant to most Americans. In America we can buy and play any games we want, which apparently is not the case in The People’s Republic of Canada. In Canada the “Game Police” must be making “Sarge” (security guard?) buy and play games he doesn’t like. Forcing him to go into EB and look at RTS and FPS game boxes. A word of advice “Sarge” you should stop hanging around video game stores playing with little kids. You might get arrested. Well, maybe not in the People’s Republic of Canada. Such liberal free thinkers up there.... Also "Sarge" I'm 55 years old, just retired and am looking at wargames as a hobby. I was a rifleman with the 101st Abn in Nam for a year and a half. Been shot 3 times, so I know a little about war. I promise you if they made a 100% realistic wargame, players would be falling asleep in droves. And also FYI turn based games are the MOST un-realistic of all. I never once waited for Charlie to stop shooting before I started, nor him I. FPS are more realistic in that respect. As I see it, a game should be fun and interesting, more than realistic. Just my opinion.

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:51 am

Les,

If you go to the website of Electronic Boutique, you can probably find Close Combat and buy it online.

I have bought a Matrix game online and everything went smoothly.

I suggest you get Close Combat 5 as it is the last in and the best of the series.

Once you have it go the fan site below and get the 5.01a patch

http://www.closecombat.org/indexa.htm

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 3:52 am

to CCB:

Like me, you are a fan of Close Combat and Star Trek; if only you were a woman

Culiacan Mexico · Post by **Culiacan Mexico** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:01 am

Originally posted by Old Eagle101
... And also FYI turn based games are the MOST un-realistic of all. I never once waited for Charlie to stop shooting before I started, nor him I. FPS are more realistic in that respect. As I see it, a game should be fun and interesting, more than realistic. Just my opinion.

I can agree with this.

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:08 am

Quote: “Also "Sarge" I'm 55 years old, just retired “

I hope I can retire at a young age too.

Quote: and am looking at wargames as a hobby…… As I see it, a game should be fun and interesting, more than realistic. Just my opinion.”

Yes, mine too. Welcome to the hobby.

Quote: “I promise you if they made a 100% realistic wargame, players would be falling asleep in droves.”

Yes, which means to increase the fun the quiet times need to be eliminated from a game. It also means that people like play as general Rommel rather than as general of supplies.

Quote: "And also FYI turn based games are the MOST un-realistic of all. I never once waited for Charlie to stop shooting before I started, nor him I."

Yes, I have made this point a few times. My view is that a game at the operational or strategic level can be turn based but at the tactical level needs to be continuos time.

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:11 am

To CCB: Avalon Hill and Atomic worked together for a while to produce a computer version of ASL which morphed into Close Combat 1 – the most fun game of the series yet it has the worst artwork and least realism.

Avalon Hill backed out and the rest is history

The Bunny could tell us more – I’ll ask him

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:22 am

Eagle 101 have you not noticed a massive sparcity of support for your views or is my browser somehow unable to detect your supporters (assuming you have any).

What does the real world combatant have to do with any of the argument over which is a superior game mechanic in a wargame?

A turn in ASL is a systematic recreation of 5 minutes of actual time. That it takes longer than 5 minutes is no shock.

That a single turn of Advanced Third Reich is a systematic recreation of 3 months of actual time is just that, a recreation of 3 months of actual time.

I can play a 6 year spanning game of A3R, in a week under dedicated conditions.

In a shooter game, all you get to do is run around shooting at things. I know, I have seen every single one of them on anothers machine.
I also know that you can spawn endlessly in a single location. I know that you can shoot your own side if it amuses you. I know you can cop out and play sniper to the annoyance of your side as well.
Personally I would rather join a gun club, shoot real weapons and play splat ball with the members.

In an RTS game you get no recreation of anything at all. You can click on this or click on that. If you do nothing you get nothing. If you don't command everything, you get a lop sided innaccurate simulation. But you can't click on everything, so you can't recreate everything.
If your design is not accurately recreating anything, then it might as well not bother trying at all.

Oh and please stop speaking for your fellow Americans, I am sure they would rather state their opinions, than have you do it for them.
Interesting eh, how you are the only one arguing your points here eh, can this be an accident?
Maybe CSIS is knocking them off hehe.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:26 am

Joe thanks for demonstrating how to intelligently support a case, I hope your technique is infectuous, the other style is like last weeks donuts.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:30 am

Is obtaining Close Combat 1, 2, 3, 4 pointless if you have Close Combat 5?

Just wondering if there is evolutionary parts of the system missing.

For Example in ASL if you didn't by Squad Leader, you never bought all the earlier mapboards.

What comprises the Close combat genesis, can you give me a run down (can anyone) of what the versions looked like as it evolved.

I can for instance look at Steel Panthers and see where it went along the way.
Some parts you want, some are just extensions, and some are spin offs and unrelated to the core of the game.

If I check into Close Combat 5, do I have a complete package basically (not including whatever patches might be wandering around).

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:34 am

For those interested, I have found access to darned near every game you might want at my favourite online game retail site for oldies (accept Close Combat, annoying the way that happens eh).

http://www.cdaccess.com/index.htm

Got a game ya want and missed your chance at it on the shelf, this site likely has an original retail copy (that's jargon for manual etc in the way it was sold in the first place).

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:36 am

Close Combat 5 is a full game.

Each of the other 4 are also full games. There is no progression except to the extent that we fans of the series saw the improvements as we went from one game to the other in sequence.

Raindog101 · Post by **Raindog101** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:47 am

Well “Sarge” I’m not looking for support, I’m not a Canadian, I’m an American, I can go it alone. Unlike people in the PRC, us Yankee's do it all the time. I am just pointing out that your attitude sucks. People that enjoy a different type of game than you are not morons. They just like different games. Simple, eh?You come across as a person who thinks he is superior to all others on earth and that raises my hackles big time. I never played ASL, but I've read enough to know that it’s the Holy Grail of squad based tactical wargames. Unfortunately if it’s turn based it’s nothing more than a glorified derivative of Chess or Checkers, as any turn based wargame is. Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with that, just don’t tell me how realistic it is, when it is not even close. If your good at Chess, you’ll be a wiz at turn based wargames. As far as realism goes, “Ghost Recon” is much more realistic than ASL, if ASL is turn-based. The “Close Combat” games are a lot of fun. I just don’t like the idea that I can’t save anytime I want. That just kills them for me. Try (Don’t laugh) X-Com Apocalypse in the real-time mode. It’s a great squad level wargame where each individual squaddie can be programmed and equipped. It’s much like the Close Combat games except each individual can be controlled by himself or if you want the whole squad can act together. But you have to play it in real time mode. By being in control of each individual, you can set up some very realistic ambushes, and see in real time just how brutal a military style ambush can be. When you catch them in crossfire, they’re all yours. If this game were in a WW2 setting instead of space it would be a wargaming favorite. Thanks Joe98, retirement is sweet, but 55 ain’t so young…

Ludovic Coval · Post by **Ludovic Coval** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 6:08 am

Old Eagle101 ,

If your good at Chess, you’ll be a wiz at turn based wargames.

Alas, Kasparov would probably beat me at every match if we were playing chess, but I knew some trick that would have him sweated in SL scenario #2 (Tractor's work ?)

But you have to play it in real time mode.

Dont always believe those marketing guys...In fact so called 'real time' game *are* turn based with two differences to real turn :

1) Turn time is very short (below 1s)
2) Computer decide when turn is over.

Finally note that some wargame dont intend to portray squad level engagment but higher level. In such games, interest for quick reaction decrease greatly.

LC.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 · Post by **Les_the_Sarge_9_1** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 6:11 am

Eagle 13 posts indicates nothing beyond that you have only actually posted 13 times.

So I will ask you straight out, how long have you been on the Matrix forums and actively reading.

The reason being, I have been here a long time and seen the forum evolve. Heck I am responsible for a large chunk of that evolution.
I am not saying I am even deserving to occupy the shadow of someone like Wild Bill. But I can stand here in plain sight of the forum, and say I AM one of the old timers.

Yes you are an American (and likely you are disgusting many of them right now). Yes YOU can go it alone, which might explain why you currently are.

If you can debate my concepts then do so. But get some good taste a dash of manners, and stop pretending you are getting anywhere by insulting a large swath of society.

Each time you attack Canada, you are not attacking just me but a large portion of this forum. And they might not appreciate it. Not to mention, you are making your fellow Americans look bad. Or least you are sure making yourself look bad.

I could use the tired expression, if you havent played it you can't comment. But that argument doesn't aaaaaalways work.
But I have played the shooters the RTS games the continuous time games the Baywatch games as well as all the boring turn based games you haven't played.

I was playing wargames when they first started to be something other than miniatures. I have played every genre of wargame in existence (including the type where you get shot at).

Unfortunately Canada doesn't spend much time doing anything but Peacekeeping, so I have no war record to offer.

Kuniworth · Post by **Kuniworth** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 6:51 am

Man you american-canadians seem to hate eachother more than we swedes-norweigans do. Well thats life.

Play a game, chill out.

Oh, Old Eagle do you like hockey btw?

Brigz · Post by **Brigz** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 8:19 am

Originally posted by Kuniworth
Man you american-canadians seem to hate eachother more than we swedes-norweigans do. Well thats life.

Play a game, chill out.

Well, this American likes to think of it as more like family squabbling. I like to think of Canada as the unofficial 51st state. A very impressive compliment on this side of the border and most likely a very big insult on the other, but that's how I feel. A lot of Canadians will deny this (and Americans too), but Americans and Canadians are more like relatives than neighbors. And you know how relatives get along. We're born of the same roots, cherish independence above all else, and most of all, and most traumatic to me, it was almost ten years before I found out Captain Kirk was a Canadian, and I had absolutely no idea. AAy?

Originally posted by Kuniworth

Play a game, chill out.

We do play games together... baseball, football, and ice hockey.

tohoku · Post by **tohoku** » Thu Dec 05, 2002 8:57 am

Originally posted by Kraut

I think that the AI can have its proper place in (some) computer wargames. It can never replace a smart and resourceful opponent, but many historical warlords and Field Marshals etc weren't all that smart and resourceful to begin with. So assume a starting scenario for a campaign where you lead a relatively small and flexible force against a much larger but pretty clumsy opponent, who might be further hindered by a rigid fighting doctrine (say the Red Army at the start of WW II). Provided all this is laid out in a transparent manner to the gamer before he starts to play, without any bogus claims about what the AI is supposed to be capable of it should be acceptable to even the most descerning grognard.

The problem with AIs is that most of the people designing them don't know what they're doing and have never been taught how to build them. You can't hope to build a good AI if you don't understand anything beyond first order logic!

It's entirely possible to build an AI for tactical or strategic levels that will kick the arse of most humans, all other things being equal. Strategic AIs are particulalrly easy. Operational level AIs are tricky unless you have some *serious* computing power available to you to implement the routines needed.

An AI should *not* be written to mimic a human. It can't and trying to do so is a recipe for failure. An AI should be written to play *within the game structure* towards the goals you give it: "how do I abstract the game most powerfully so the goals can be achieved through a mechanical decision process?".

The hardest part is getting out of the 'how would a human do it' mindset when designing the AI. People playing the game will interpret the AI actions in human terms anyway and good construction of the game interface/presentation will aid this.

Obviously, some situation lend themselves well to this process better than others, but humans are *good* at abstracting things: modern logic and computers are more than adequete for the levels of realism demanded in commercial wargames.

tohoku
YMMV