HPS Simulations have just released a new game – Kursk ’43. Below is a link to a screen-shot from the game.
Please open the screen shot in a separate window as I wish to discuss some points.
http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/P ... rshot1.jpg
This game is a great example of why the wargaming can never grow.
I begin with the counters. Note that there are counters with barbed wire and others with the word “trench”. This is a computer game, why are these counters needed?
I can see at least 200 German counters. In the literature I see no reference to automation. I for one don’t have the time to issue orders to all 200 counters turn after turn.
And the map. In 1980, these map graphics would have been considered the best. As it is no longer 1980, I consider the map graphics horrible. As a reference please go to the Battlfields site here at Matrix.
I am a keen wargamer, but Kursk 43 is a throw back to 1980 and I cannot support HPS Simulations as much as I would love to.
I have left the most important point till last. My brother is a potential wargamer. He would love to join the wargaming community. He has played Rise and Decline of the Third Reich by Avalon Hill.
When he looks at this screen shot he shudders. He wants a game where he can give 10 or 20 orders and all 200 units then do what they are supposed to do. A game with lots of flexibility for movement (ergo no hexes) and a game with nice graphics, top down 2D, not that 3D garbage.
I am a keen wargamer and will unfortunately not get this game. My brother is a possible wargamer and finds the screen shot disgusting.
Whilst games such as this, and the recent Squad Battles series, continue, possible wargamers will never join the community.
Matrix is thinking the same as me. Uncommon Valour has gone part of the way to attract potential wargamer. But more work is needed in the field.
Why wargaming can never grow
Moderator: maddog986
A WORK OF ART
Joe, you must be joeking. That is a beautiful map! alright so you want the modern look. dont get discouraged. Have you tried Talonsofts "The Operational Art of War"? Im learning the "Europe Aflame" scenario and it is awesome! This is going to be a great year for wargaming and I will have several campaigns of various time periods in operation and everyones invited. So get out there and find me recruits!! VIVE L'EMPEROR!!!
SLAAKATTAK
SLAAKATTAK
Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.
— Winston Churchill
— Winston Churchill
I acknowledge that the graphics are not much different than those in 1990 (1980 had much worse grafics, believe me).
Nevertheless its not easy to do a map for wargaming without 3D
which is much different. I do admire UV but its nevetheless 2D and hex based. We still have to wait for something really NEW.
I don't think that something really different will happen the next few years.
You want nice maps in 2D - forget random ones - they have to be hand drawn.
Look at the old Talonsoft Battleground series (nice maps) and the new ones by the same coder (Tiller) just released (Wagram).
The old ones were hand drawn and couldn't support random maps. The new ones are not that nice but do allow them.
Nevertheless its not easy to do a map for wargaming without 3D
which is much different. I do admire UV but its nevetheless 2D and hex based. We still have to wait for something really NEW.
I don't think that something really different will happen the next few years.
You want nice maps in 2D - forget random ones - they have to be hand drawn.
Look at the old Talonsoft Battleground series (nice maps) and the new ones by the same coder (Tiller) just released (Wagram).
The old ones were hand drawn and couldn't support random maps. The new ones are not that nice but do allow them.
Joe98 -
I agree with you, BUT there are a lot of us who did a lot of pre-PC wargaming with cardboard counter and paper maps - yes I speak with reverence of the Great SPI. Avalon Hill had great boardgames as well.
When I see a screenshot like the one linked in your post it gives me a sense of nostalgia for when me and my friends (imaginary and real) would set around the table and play one of those great games.
So while HPS games probably won't attract a lot of new young wargamers that are used to a lot (LOT) better graphics, guys like me will continue to purchase such games.
I agree with you, BUT there are a lot of us who did a lot of pre-PC wargaming with cardboard counter and paper maps - yes I speak with reverence of the Great SPI. Avalon Hill had great boardgames as well.
When I see a screenshot like the one linked in your post it gives me a sense of nostalgia for when me and my friends (imaginary and real) would set around the table and play one of those great games.
So while HPS games probably won't attract a lot of new young wargamers that are used to a lot (LOT) better graphics, guys like me will continue to purchase such games.
Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
Re: Why wargaming can never grow
Originally posted by Joe 98
When he looks at this screen shot he shudders. He wants a game where he can give 10 or 20 orders and all 200 units then do what they are supposed to do.
While I think the graphics issue it silly (a game with good game mechanics WILL succeed with only mediocre graphics), you've hit upon something in regards to micromanagement. In monster games like this, game designers have yet to come with a truly effective AI to function as your subordinate commanders (although UV comes the closest yet).
Ideally one should be able to delegate authortity to lower level commanders, and then these lower level commanders should performl like there historical counterparsts. Unfortunately AI is not good enough to function as a suborindate commander and the player must then do everything (this is an issue in all of John Tiller's games). I await the day for a good AI subordinate to do my bidding - but I'm not holding my breath.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
200 counters or 2000 as long as the game is fun. ASL or Fire in the East, both are great (but I can't set up Fire in the East currently).
But miscellaneous counters on a computer game does sound odd.
I mean ASL used a lot of memory aid misc. counters for a reason, it was a board game, and the humans got to do all the work.
If a hex is subject to "barbed wire" I find it odd for it to be indicated with a "counter" image.
Not the end of the world, but it does strike me as ignoring the reason for making the game a computer game.
I thought computers were supposed to make the games easier?
Map graphics, hmmm if I want to suffer sexual arrousal, forget wasting your time on wargame graphics. I thought the map in the image looked great (but what would be the purpose of putting "more" in that image).
A good game might as well make use of the power of a computer to give us colourful maps, instead of those bleak dawn of computer wargaming views. But I only require the maps to look as stunning as the board game maps. 3 dimensional is possible, but so what it's possible, it doesn't contribute anything useful.
As far as the "future" of wargaming is concerned. I see the "future" like this.
Eventually the RTS crowd (RTS or Continous or RTT whatever, anything not turn based), and the Shooter mob, that want more and more and more, will in time progress so far away from our dull wargames (that look like board games), that they will eventually be no longer sufficiently similar enough looking to be mistaken for "wargamers.
To me a wargame will always be something that looks like a board game. A computer might allow me to play it sans other humans, or it might allow me to play it online against persons not physically present, but I require it to look like a board game.
A board game's worth is not measured in the cool looking counters. It is not measured by its graphically intense mapsheet/board. It is not determined by the size and or complexity of it's manual.
Afrika Korps is a great game. It has dull looking counters, a bland as hell map, and it has a rules pamphlet (it isn't really a manual, not enough pages for that term really).
ASL is a great game. The counters are legion, and possess incredible detailed images. The maps are stunning. And the manual, well I have a core rules binder, an optional rules binder (both 3 inch binders), a scenarios binder, a binder with my Annuals in it. But that doesn't mean the game has a problem, just that it requires a lot of shelf space hehe.
If the conditions were "you will pay me to play an RTS game, or, I can pay you to play a board game", can I get a price reduction if I stock your brand of beer in the fridge.
I will ALWAYS pick a board game experience over a computer game experience. A dull looking board game will always be better than the glitziest computer game to me.
No amount of simulation on my computer will ever rival actually playing you a game at my table. I have met numerous guys online here. I have numerous I am glad to call friend.
But nothing will ever replace having that person stare at me on the other side of the table.
There is something about playing my turn, while my oponent thumbs the manual looking for the thing he has missed that will give him an edge.
There is a special charm to watching him roll the dice knowing all my work depends on what happens next. Watching him either jump up and holler in triumph or curse his luck.
You just don't get that with online.
Getting to actually know the person, and get inside their head. To see them think out their move.
And all this is possible with a dull looking wargame.
And the people that like a game such as this will always be small in number. And that small number is here now. It was here 10 years ago. It was here during the golden age of wargaming. We have never been a large audience.
Our numbers look swelled artificially. it is thanks to the glitz and glamour of fancy looking games. Those that need that glitz will eventually want more, and more and more. In time they will scorn us grognards and are dull games.
And then the hybrids will die out, and once more we will be a distinct hobby, with small numbers.
None of all this really bothers me eh. I have a lot of interests that only interest a small audience.
You can please some of the people some of the time, and some of the people most of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
I am in the some of the people some of the time category. I am not drawn to RTS or Shooters. It has no charm for me. I am a dull turn based gamer, and I am part of a minority.
So there is little point trying to get rich off of me. I will only buy at best one computer game out of an entire years market potential.
But miscellaneous counters on a computer game does sound odd.
I mean ASL used a lot of memory aid misc. counters for a reason, it was a board game, and the humans got to do all the work.
If a hex is subject to "barbed wire" I find it odd for it to be indicated with a "counter" image.
Not the end of the world, but it does strike me as ignoring the reason for making the game a computer game.
I thought computers were supposed to make the games easier?
Map graphics, hmmm if I want to suffer sexual arrousal, forget wasting your time on wargame graphics. I thought the map in the image looked great (but what would be the purpose of putting "more" in that image).
A good game might as well make use of the power of a computer to give us colourful maps, instead of those bleak dawn of computer wargaming views. But I only require the maps to look as stunning as the board game maps. 3 dimensional is possible, but so what it's possible, it doesn't contribute anything useful.
As far as the "future" of wargaming is concerned. I see the "future" like this.
Eventually the RTS crowd (RTS or Continous or RTT whatever, anything not turn based), and the Shooter mob, that want more and more and more, will in time progress so far away from our dull wargames (that look like board games), that they will eventually be no longer sufficiently similar enough looking to be mistaken for "wargamers.
To me a wargame will always be something that looks like a board game. A computer might allow me to play it sans other humans, or it might allow me to play it online against persons not physically present, but I require it to look like a board game.
A board game's worth is not measured in the cool looking counters. It is not measured by its graphically intense mapsheet/board. It is not determined by the size and or complexity of it's manual.
Afrika Korps is a great game. It has dull looking counters, a bland as hell map, and it has a rules pamphlet (it isn't really a manual, not enough pages for that term really).
ASL is a great game. The counters are legion, and possess incredible detailed images. The maps are stunning. And the manual, well I have a core rules binder, an optional rules binder (both 3 inch binders), a scenarios binder, a binder with my Annuals in it. But that doesn't mean the game has a problem, just that it requires a lot of shelf space hehe.
If the conditions were "you will pay me to play an RTS game, or, I can pay you to play a board game", can I get a price reduction if I stock your brand of beer in the fridge.
I will ALWAYS pick a board game experience over a computer game experience. A dull looking board game will always be better than the glitziest computer game to me.
No amount of simulation on my computer will ever rival actually playing you a game at my table. I have met numerous guys online here. I have numerous I am glad to call friend.
But nothing will ever replace having that person stare at me on the other side of the table.
There is something about playing my turn, while my oponent thumbs the manual looking for the thing he has missed that will give him an edge.
There is a special charm to watching him roll the dice knowing all my work depends on what happens next. Watching him either jump up and holler in triumph or curse his luck.
You just don't get that with online.
Getting to actually know the person, and get inside their head. To see them think out their move.
And all this is possible with a dull looking wargame.
And the people that like a game such as this will always be small in number. And that small number is here now. It was here 10 years ago. It was here during the golden age of wargaming. We have never been a large audience.
Our numbers look swelled artificially. it is thanks to the glitz and glamour of fancy looking games. Those that need that glitz will eventually want more, and more and more. In time they will scorn us grognards and are dull games.
And then the hybrids will die out, and once more we will be a distinct hobby, with small numbers.
None of all this really bothers me eh. I have a lot of interests that only interest a small audience.
You can please some of the people some of the time, and some of the people most of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
I am in the some of the people some of the time category. I am not drawn to RTS or Shooters. It has no charm for me. I am a dull turn based gamer, and I am part of a minority.
So there is little point trying to get rich off of me. I will only buy at best one computer game out of an entire years market potential.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
BrubakerII
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Adelaide Australia
Hi Joe
Couple of points about this. Firstly I agree graphically the game looks a little dated, but truth is it has been a successful formula till now so I can understand why HPS (for example) would be hesitant to change it? Essentially this game is some new counters overlaying an updated engine so what you have is a new product for least (as opposed to little) work effort. This may draw criticism in itself but again if successful why change it?
Most if not all strategic games have that same cartoony presentation to them - what would be a better way of doing them? (That is a genuine question).
On being stuck with the hexes, the recent Battlefront Airborne Assault series was a good move away from hex based games. It worked well I think although because we are so used to hexes it was a little disconcerting in its gameplay - but a great effort to move the genre forward none the less.
On the group movement I have an HPS game that is an earlier incarnation of this engine and there is a function to 'group' units together both historically and/or at your leisure. This greatly aids gameplay when moving many units.
My only real criticism of the Kursk game is its location. Although the battle captures the imagination of wargamers in reality it was a difficult slowpaced slugfest that was highlighted by its lack of highlights - no lightening breaks in the line here folks. For this reason it is perhaps not suited to a battle in a game (in my opinion anyway).
Overall I think this is a case where NOT having a demo hurts the game. The game engine is actually a very good one and fun to play but needs some time spent with it to truly experience all its benefits.
Brubaker
Couple of points about this. Firstly I agree graphically the game looks a little dated, but truth is it has been a successful formula till now so I can understand why HPS (for example) would be hesitant to change it? Essentially this game is some new counters overlaying an updated engine so what you have is a new product for least (as opposed to little) work effort. This may draw criticism in itself but again if successful why change it?
Most if not all strategic games have that same cartoony presentation to them - what would be a better way of doing them? (That is a genuine question).
On being stuck with the hexes, the recent Battlefront Airborne Assault series was a good move away from hex based games. It worked well I think although because we are so used to hexes it was a little disconcerting in its gameplay - but a great effort to move the genre forward none the less.
On the group movement I have an HPS game that is an earlier incarnation of this engine and there is a function to 'group' units together both historically and/or at your leisure. This greatly aids gameplay when moving many units.
My only real criticism of the Kursk game is its location. Although the battle captures the imagination of wargamers in reality it was a difficult slowpaced slugfest that was highlighted by its lack of highlights - no lightening breaks in the line here folks. For this reason it is perhaps not suited to a battle in a game (in my opinion anyway).
Overall I think this is a case where NOT having a demo hurts the game. The game engine is actually a very good one and fun to play but needs some time spent with it to truly experience all its benefits.
Brubaker
[8D] SSG Beta Tester [8D]
-
Muzrub
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
- Contact:
Eye candy never hurts the feel of a game and face it if younger players are not attracted to the wargaming scene then very soon there will be no more war games and it'll be back to the map and counters.
I for one would not like to go back to that. I would rather sit here at my computer which uses less room and calculates the odds for me than to spend a day around a table achieving a fraction of what I could have with a PC.
For example re-worked WIR (War in Russia) with a beautiful new map, exciting new graphic icons coupled with a greater sophisticated AI + playing options (even inbuilt movies displaying mud effects, Panzer drives, Stuka attacks) would wipe any map/counter game off the table!
Its time to move on lads.............
I dont see why game tech has to stop when it comes to wargaming, Joe has valid, the map rocked in 1980 (on a table) on a PC its a dinosaur.
I dont buy wargamings to help someone relive their youth playing board games, I buy wargames for excitment, graphical content, easier playing system and I buy wargames so I dont have move about little card board counters anymore!!!!!
I moved on and so should some of you.
I for one would not like to go back to that. I would rather sit here at my computer which uses less room and calculates the odds for me than to spend a day around a table achieving a fraction of what I could have with a PC.
For example re-worked WIR (War in Russia) with a beautiful new map, exciting new graphic icons coupled with a greater sophisticated AI + playing options (even inbuilt movies displaying mud effects, Panzer drives, Stuka attacks) would wipe any map/counter game off the table!
Its time to move on lads.............
I dont see why game tech has to stop when it comes to wargaming, Joe has valid, the map rocked in 1980 (on a table) on a PC its a dinosaur.
I dont buy wargamings to help someone relive their youth playing board games, I buy wargames for excitment, graphical content, easier playing system and I buy wargames so I dont have move about little card board counters anymore!!!!!
I moved on and so should some of you.
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
Matrix Axis of Evil
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
Matrix Axis of Evil
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
-
BrubakerII
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Adelaide Australia
Muz you have a valid point about 'eyecandy' particularly where it relates to attracting young players and providing value for money. But I am not sure that is reason enough to say some current wargames are crap. The blandish anal style appeals to some (older?) players and indeed may be necessary to gain the sale. In the same way that a die hard chess player would only ever play with the simplist of pieces whereas you or I might have fun with the more elaborate medieval or fanatsy style. I think it is down to choice and opinion really.
Having said that I cannot agree enough with the idea that having sh*t graphics is in any way acceptable and that some games should not be made to utilise some of the newer fatures available with current gfx crads and processes.
Instead of criticising maybe we should start a thread incorporating ideas that we would like to see included in a game?
Just my 2 cents.
Brubaker
Having said that I cannot agree enough with the idea that having sh*t graphics is in any way acceptable and that some games should not be made to utilise some of the newer fatures available with current gfx crads and processes.
Instead of criticising maybe we should start a thread incorporating ideas that we would like to see included in a game?
Just my 2 cents.
Brubaker
[8D] SSG Beta Tester [8D]
-
Muzrub
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
- Contact:
But I am not sure that is reason enough to say some current wargames are crap. The blandish anal style appeals to some (older?) players and indeed may be necessary to gain the sale.
I'm not saying they're crap, I'm saying they could be better. Some people eat meat and three veg everyday for dinner, its good food, nothing wrong with it but by god it gets boring. Its time to leave the blandness behind.
Instead of criticising maybe we should start a thread incorporating ideas that we would like to see included in a game?
Hmmm
Better graphics........You dont need a brand new computer to run a turn-based wargame with good graphics.
But the fact remains new games are made that take advantage of the jump in technology, why shouldnt war games take advantage of this instead of continuing to create graphics that could have been made on a commodore 64!
I find it frustrating that game development in wargaming is restricted by the slowest machine becuase some spend-thrift wont update!
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
Matrix Axis of Evil
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
Matrix Axis of Evil
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
-
BrubakerII
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Adelaide Australia
Muz you are right. I too like nice graphics, I think I have been worn down by grogs who consider gameplay is the only consideration and is worth sacrificing all else for.
I wonder if some of the reason the games are the way they are is because their very nature and small following mans only small developers produce them and simply do not have the resources (or skill?) to produce what we would like to see?
@ Pasternakski - this is a good question, and one that has really got me thinking. In Australia (you are not Australian I presume) it is quite commonplace to use the word anal when describing something mind numbingly dull or uninteresting. It is only now that you ask that I realise this may be an Australian collequial expression derived from 'banal'? I am going to go and ask a lot more people about this now.
I wonder if some of the reason the games are the way they are is because their very nature and small following mans only small developers produce them and simply do not have the resources (or skill?) to produce what we would like to see?
@ Pasternakski - this is a good question, and one that has really got me thinking. In Australia (you are not Australian I presume) it is quite commonplace to use the word anal when describing something mind numbingly dull or uninteresting. It is only now that you ask that I realise this may be an Australian collequial expression derived from 'banal'? I am going to go and ask a lot more people about this now.
[8D] SSG Beta Tester [8D]
-
Muzrub
- Posts: 717
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
- Contact:
Muz you are right. I too like nice graphics, I think I have been worn down by grogs who consider gameplay is the only consideration and is worth sacrificing all else for.
Seriously though how much can a decent map and icons effect the quality of a game? I find that in many wargames they dont even really try to improve graphics.
I wonder if some of the reason the games are the way they are is because their very nature and small following mans only small developers produce them and simply do not have the resources (or skill?) to produce what we would like to see?
Maybe. But you must admit some of those Close Combat Mods made by people in their own time are quite exceptional when it comes to map graphics and icons.
The fact is its a business, you have to update, move with the times. Just because your limited in funds it does not mean that you cant push it to the limit instead of just being satisfied with mediocre graphics from the start.
Like I said its business, get with the times if its not improved then soon there will be no more games away, why drag it out with cheap graphics? At least go out with dignity.
Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
Matrix Axis of Evil
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.
Matrix Axis of Evil
-
Raindog101
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:10 pm
- Location: Hole-in-the-Wall
-
Marc von Martial
- Posts: 5292
- Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Bonn, Germany
- Contact:
You want nice maps in 2D - forget random ones - they have to be hand drawn.
Wrong, wait for Combat Leader
. It´s a matter of what the engine is capable of .Fact is with graphics like in the screenshot posted it´s very hard to attract new people for the game. With "new" I mean people that are potentional wargamers, everybody that is allready a hardcore wargamer knows HPS and that they produce pretty good games. These hardcore wargamers will forgive the lack of "new and nice" graphics, people that are potentional wargamers need something to be attracted or persuaded to actually spend their bucks on something that they consider the "might" like to play. That is in a lot of cases screenshots, wether on a box on on the website.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Muzrub makes a common point here.
Eye candy never hurts the feel of a game and face it if younger players are not attracted to the wargaming scene then very soon there will be no more war games and it'll be back to the map and counters.
Specifically.
if younger players are not attracted to the wargaming scene then very soon there will be no more war games
This is a dangerous myth.
Wargames will be here today, they will be here tomorrow. Some day I will be doing my best to imitate fertilzer in some over manicured waste of land, and the hobby will still be here.
Alas, this is because I doubt mankind will have stopped the art of warring on himself. And as a result, we as a race will still have numerous examples of it to study. Resulting in a continuation of opportunities to game it out.
Some hobbies have been around for years, while others are not really that old. Wargaming did not exactly begin in the 60's, but it did finally become visible as a board game option.
The PC has greatly increased the potential in some cases, but it has hardly re invented the wheel in a lot of instances.
I also like models. I can remember back when Tamiya first became "the company of choice". It can be likened to the period of time when models had their golden age. Interestingly, it was about the same time wargaming had its golden age too.
Now when I walk into Kieth's Hobbies in Toronto (which for non Ontario Residents who would not know, is the only store worth comment for a few hundred miles in any direction), I can see some fairly awesome hobbie add ons.
But just like with Computers making the world of wargames incredibly "neat" looking to a lot, the world of plastic models has since the early 90's experienced a massive growth in super detailing after market add ons for ordinary models.
Now me, I like convenience of a computer for wargames just as much as the next guy, but it has a distinct price. Those super detailing options for models do too. A person can now spend a couple of hundred extra bucks on their tank model in addition to just buying the tank model.
In neither case though, has the original version, board game, or just the plain ole basic tank model, lost any of it's value.
I am still buying board game version of wargames for a simple reason, they are still perfectly good wargames. I also am quite happy with just buying a tank kit, and enjoying building it completely sans add ons. Same reason, the basic kit is still 100% fun to assemble.
Saying the hobby of wargaming must move forward, is pointless paranoia. I could delete every computer wargame I own, and never touch one again, and still achieve 100% satisfaction with my wargaming hobby.
Computer wargames, are NOT required to sustain the hobby for the reasons stated by those that hate board games. They add to the hobby as much as they detract from it.
Eye candy never hurts the feel of a game and face it if younger players are not attracted to the wargaming scene then very soon there will be no more war games and it'll be back to the map and counters.
Specifically.
if younger players are not attracted to the wargaming scene then very soon there will be no more war games
This is a dangerous myth.
Wargames will be here today, they will be here tomorrow. Some day I will be doing my best to imitate fertilzer in some over manicured waste of land, and the hobby will still be here.
Alas, this is because I doubt mankind will have stopped the art of warring on himself. And as a result, we as a race will still have numerous examples of it to study. Resulting in a continuation of opportunities to game it out.
Some hobbies have been around for years, while others are not really that old. Wargaming did not exactly begin in the 60's, but it did finally become visible as a board game option.
The PC has greatly increased the potential in some cases, but it has hardly re invented the wheel in a lot of instances.
I also like models. I can remember back when Tamiya first became "the company of choice". It can be likened to the period of time when models had their golden age. Interestingly, it was about the same time wargaming had its golden age too.
Now when I walk into Kieth's Hobbies in Toronto (which for non Ontario Residents who would not know, is the only store worth comment for a few hundred miles in any direction), I can see some fairly awesome hobbie add ons.
But just like with Computers making the world of wargames incredibly "neat" looking to a lot, the world of plastic models has since the early 90's experienced a massive growth in super detailing after market add ons for ordinary models.
Now me, I like convenience of a computer for wargames just as much as the next guy, but it has a distinct price. Those super detailing options for models do too. A person can now spend a couple of hundred extra bucks on their tank model in addition to just buying the tank model.
In neither case though, has the original version, board game, or just the plain ole basic tank model, lost any of it's value.
I am still buying board game version of wargames for a simple reason, they are still perfectly good wargames. I also am quite happy with just buying a tank kit, and enjoying building it completely sans add ons. Same reason, the basic kit is still 100% fun to assemble.
Saying the hobby of wargaming must move forward, is pointless paranoia. I could delete every computer wargame I own, and never touch one again, and still achieve 100% satisfaction with my wargaming hobby.
Computer wargames, are NOT required to sustain the hobby for the reasons stated by those that hate board games. They add to the hobby as much as they detract from it.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Originally posted by Marc Schwanebeck
people that are potentional wargamers need something to be attracted or persuaded to actually spend their bucks on something that they consider the "might" like to play. That is in a lot of cases screenshots, wether on a box on on the website.
Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Why has ASL never been brought to the PC?
Actually it has been, it's called VASL.
http://www.vasl.org/vassal/Download.html
Not just a "version of ASL", it actually IS ASL.
But any ASLer like me will just say, it might just as well be the ASL logo on a copy of Steel Panthers.
When you look at ASL and you look at Steel Panthers, there isn't enough difference to merit the effort to make yet another game that will have to mirror Steel Panthers.
Wait a second, someone is indeed doing that, hehe Its going to be called Combat Leader.
All that ASL is, and with luck it will leap out of WW2 successfully.
Actually it has been, it's called VASL.
http://www.vasl.org/vassal/Download.html
Not just a "version of ASL", it actually IS ASL.
But any ASLer like me will just say, it might just as well be the ASL logo on a copy of Steel Panthers.
When you look at ASL and you look at Steel Panthers, there isn't enough difference to merit the effort to make yet another game that will have to mirror Steel Panthers.
Wait a second, someone is indeed doing that, hehe Its going to be called Combat Leader.
All that ASL is, and with luck it will leap out of WW2 successfully.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
Frank W.
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
- Contact:
The original poster is correct IMHO.
I have played wargames since the C64
over the Amiga to the PC. We have now
since 2-3 years the power in modern PC´s
to get REALY good graphics.
For me the gameplay + AI is very important
user interface of course,too. But graphics ARE
important, too since the above metioned points
are not left alone...
I bought "Fulda Gap" from HPS and was not
so impressed with it, i thought it should be
a better version of the old SSI game "red lightning"
but it falls short, no sea war, no politics, no events,
not a whole map of west + east germany, parts of
the surounding countries like belgium,danmark,
netherlands,france e.t.c. missing the biggest drawback
IMHO you have single tank OR infantry units, but no
combined (spelling??) forces, the air war is also
not so good modelled.
in short: this series of games felt not only short
on graphics, but lacked important gameplay issues,too.
the only game i own that uses my hardware is
MOHAA, but no single wargame that makes
use of my ATI 8500 and 1,4 gig proc.
I have played wargames since the C64
over the Amiga to the PC. We have now
since 2-3 years the power in modern PC´s
to get REALY good graphics.
For me the gameplay + AI is very important
user interface of course,too. But graphics ARE
important, too since the above metioned points
are not left alone...
I bought "Fulda Gap" from HPS and was not
so impressed with it, i thought it should be
a better version of the old SSI game "red lightning"
but it falls short, no sea war, no politics, no events,
not a whole map of west + east germany, parts of
the surounding countries like belgium,danmark,
netherlands,france e.t.c. missing the biggest drawback
IMHO you have single tank OR infantry units, but no
combined (spelling??) forces, the air war is also
not so good modelled.
in short: this series of games felt not only short
on graphics, but lacked important gameplay issues,too.
the only game i own that uses my hardware is
MOHAA, but no single wargame that makes
use of my ATI 8500 and 1,4 gig proc.