Why wargaming can never grow

[SwampYankee68]

Originally posted by CCB
Ah come on guys! Don't give Les a hard time, he's a cool dude. He's just very passionate about his wargames.

Naw, CCB, he made a mistake, lock 'em up! :p

showthread.php?s=&postid=336692#post336692

Just teasing...

Les is entitled to his opinion, I think it's the "Grognard's Grognard" speaking for the masses that gets everyone's panties bunched up....

[MarkFroio]

This is the way I see it, not that anyone asked. There are people that play wargames already. They value game play above graphics. However, most of these people don't mind if the games are good to look at. In fact most of these people would prefer better looking games, but the will still play a good game even if it doesn't have great graphics. (Russo-German War is an example of a great game with not so great graphics, Uncommon Valor is an example of a great game with great graphics.)

Now in order to grow this hobby, we need new blood, customers, players, whatever you want to call them. Some of them will gravitate to wargames on their own. However, in order to get more people to play wargames, you have to give get them to notice these games. RGW is not going to get anyone to notice wargames. It's a great game, but you have to already have an interest in wargames and the Russian Front to be interested in this game.

My 14 year old nephew is just starting to get into wargames, but he is not ready to play RGW or UV. He likes Steel Panthers, but he plays a lot more Command and Conquer. This is how he, and hopefully a lot of kids like him are going to get hooked on wargames. They're going to start with the games the grab their attention and entertain them. They don't want to think a lot about it yet, because it's all new to them. But eventually curiosity will get the better of them. They're going to want to learn more and play a more challenging type game. However, they don't want the game to be hard to look at.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe Warhammer and C&C don't suck. Maybe they're the first step someone has to take to get interested in war games. Mabe these kids don't want to hear a bunch of old farts argue about penetration rates, armor slope or rate of fire. Maybe they just want to have a clickfest. This doesn't mean the games suck (not to them). Eventually these games won't do it for them anymore. These kids will grow up and demand more from their games. But maybe, and I think this is the intent of the original poster, you need to get and keep the new players interest until they can be happy arguing about the ammo load of a Sherman or the rate of climb of a Wildcat.

That's my two cents. Just another long post in a string of long posts.

PS. I want Matrix to succeed, and I want them to get rich while they're at it. The same with the guys a HPS and Schewrpunkt. Why the hell not? Because if they do there will be a lot more wargames to choose from. Some will be bad and some will be good. But having more choices and competition can only help this hobby.

[Brigz]

Originally posted by Max VonLoben

Now in order to grow this hobby, we need new blood, customers, players, whatever you want to call them. Some of them will gravitate to wargames on their own. However, in order to get more people to play wargames, you have to give get them to notice these games. RGW is not going to get anyone to notice wargames. It's a great game, but you have to already have an interest in wargames and the Russian Front to be interested in this game.

I'm not going to comment on the graphics issue, that is just a personal choice and most current, avid wargamers will play a game if it's a good game regardless of the graphics and regardles of whether it is board or computer. The thing I queston is this notion of getting more people ("new blood") into the hobby. That's an excellent quest, but...

I think if we all look at the wargame community you will see that almost all of us are sharing certain unique qualities. We are all interested in military history, we are all interested in challenging games, and we all have a certain drive that allows us to grasp the concept of simulation that makes wargaming possible. I also belive that wargamers collectively have much higher IQ's than the population as a whole. (I know, reading these forums makes you wonder sometimes about the IQ level here, but no one ever said a high IQ equates to wisdom.) The vast majortiy of game players will never be interested in wargames no matter how appealing you make them. Playing wargames just requires too much commitment and a good historical foundation is almost a prerequisite. Most poeple just don't want to put in that kind of effort to play a game even if it's the most simple wargame.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think the community of wargamers will always stay about the same size as it always has. There are only so many of us, and we are a very small percentage of all board and computer gamers. We always will be. It's just the nature of the hobby. I know. Over the last thirty plus years I've tried and tried to get people interested in wargames but it its just too much trouble or the concept is way over their heads. Only those very few who share the "drive" to play wargames will be interested.

Face it, guys. We are a band of unique brothers. Yeah, some of us are a little more "unique" than others, but basically we share the same game "virtues". So be glad that you are one of the select few and enjoy the hobby the way you like best, graphics aside.

[Charles2222]

Dave Briggs: Ask yourself this: If wargaming were as popular as FPS or RTS, would a lot of us be wargaming? Part of the attraction, for some of us, is derived from the niche effect of the genre. I've complained in the past about how RTS is invaded with grognards to RTS avocate's dismay, and how RTS advocates have dismayed at least this grognard's enjoyment of wargaming. In other words, the scenario where wargaming is vastly popular, will be when the people who like RTS/FPS are gunning for it because what they get out of their genre has transferred to wargaming. Such an eventuality would likely have a lot of us with our wargaming interests seriously diminished simply because it would become something of a balance pit.

Sort of like how quite a few years back when country music received a signifigant general population boost, and the people who were always country were saying: "I was country, when country wasn't cool." I used to think that was bragging, but I'm now a bit more inclined to see that as more a complaint. In other words they were saying, "Look what the masses have done to my genre; it's a shambles!!!"

[Marc von Martial]

I'm sorry to say this, but I think the community of wargamers will always stay about the same size as it always has. There are only so many of us, and we are a very small percentage of all board and computer gamers. We always will be. It's just the nature of the hobby. I know. Over the last thirty plus years I've tried and tried to get people interested in wargames but it its just too much trouble or the concept is way over their heads. Only those very few who share the "drive" to play wargames will be interested.

Still you would have to get new people in , since even wargamers don´t live eternal . A lot of wargamers also leave the hobby sometimes, since they just donm´t have the time anymore or reallife demands just to much to stay active.

The vast majortiy of game players will never be interested in wargames no matter how appealing you make them. Playing wargames just requires too much commitment and a good historical foundation is almost a prerequisite. Most poeple just don't want to put in that kind of effort to play a game even if it's the most simple wargame.

True to a degree, but I found that you can drag a lot of people into this by have a choice of "easy" wargamers. That´s for example how I got back into this. After a longer absence I got dragged back in by a game called Close Combat, which is (for alot of so called "grognards" ) an easy clickfest wargame.

Just speak to people about what you like to play, try to explain. I´m currently staying in Berlin and just yesterday (on a party) I "recruited" new, by just talking about my job. Some guys sayed "Hey, we play wargames too" but they never heard of Matrix or some other companies that produce PC wargames. So I gave them my business card, noted down a few links too and é voila, new blood. Needless to say that these guys asked about graphics and SFX, I´m not kidding.

[Veldor]

STRATEGY GAMES. You've all been using the wrong term. Command & Conquer/Warcraft and all the other RTS...yes they are sucky "Wargames", but they are decent "strategy games". There is resource management, fog of war, manevering to suprise or outsmart your enemy, units that are better for certain things or against certain units then others... Weak spots.. etc. One need only play online and be slaughtered right away to realize there is strategy in playing and being good as such games.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? It means RTS games are alot closer to "Wargames" than anyone here is willing to admit.. No not in looks, nah maybe not even in play... But in WHAT people like about them... The strategy...the resource management... the tanks and planes...the WAR.. After the 3rd version or so of Command & Conquer you realize you like those things and want something "MORE"...

AND "WARGAMES" would be that more.. Except that they are usually hard to learn, and "unfriendly" in appearance and interface. Better graphics would ease that. Great tutorials that walk you through everything would help that. Some RTS games have such great tutorials you do not even need to read the manual, ever.. Just because a game has good graphics, an easy interface, and a great tutorial doesn't mean it cannot have depth and be fun to play. Nothing much needs to be sacrificed to get these things and its when they are achieved that "WARGAMING" will become VERY popular.

Stop thinking we are all so special and unique to like Wargames. We are simply the ones that are overly dedicated and willing to make the extra effort. Those types exist in any hobby.

At its core though every little boy loves tanks, planes, STRATEGY & WAR! They are ALL potential wargamers... Every last one of them...

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Veldor
STRATEGY GAMES. Stop thinking we are all so special and unique to like Wargames. We are simply the ones that are overly dedicated and willing to make the extra effort. Those types exist in any hobby.

At its core though every little boy loves tanks, planes, STRATEGY & WAR! They are ALL potential wargamers... Every last one of them...

No, see, you just don't get it. This is like the new computer game the Army has produced in order to improve recruiting. "gee, we want them little kids what plays Sega and Nintendo, so let's throw together some lame-o interactive crapola to get 'em hooked on puttin' on the uni, grabbin' a 'sixteen, gettin' it up, and makin' some noise!"

Naw. In the infinitely profound words sung by Sonny and Cher, "No, no, no, it ain't me, babe."

[Veldor]

Who says a game needs to be a buncha lame-o-crap for a kid to like it also? You don't think a game can appeal to both adults and younger people alike? That those rare few wargamers are so much more intelligent and advanced than the rest out there that any attempt to appeal to them also would have to spoil the whole product? Perhaps history thus far has proven that.. I certainly admit not many if any wargames have been put out that would appeal to a broad-range but that doesn't mean one can't be made. Wargaming can never grow because of this sort of "arrogant" attitude that wargamers have about themselves..

[pasternakski]

Let's not be calling people names outside AoW, okay? There is nothing arrogant about defending the integrity of your hobby against a suggestion that your interest is no more advanced than that of "kiddies," no matter what their age.

[Veldor]

Not refering to you specifically in any of this but..

"Kiddies" listen to much of the same music as say someone in their twenties, even thirties.. And even compared to those that dont the music they listen too is still the same as when they were kiddies.. Games aren't any different other than the pyschological and socialogical association that they are strickly for kids.

In your book an "Adult" who plays Everquest or C&C is being immature whereas someone playing a "respectable" wargame is merely engaging in an advanced historical simulation. Two words.. Pysch 101.. I'm not in denial about it, neither should anyone else be. We play games, and love them.. So what?

There are probably more 15yr olds that can beat me at Chess than those that are older. Yeah it sucks to look over and see some kid looking at the same game/cd/movie/clothes/whatever that you are.. But get a grip. If the games you like are really all that more "advanced in interest" than would it not be an EXCELLENT thing that more young people start to get interested in them and play them? Or would that suddenley make us all feel even more childish for playing the games..

All of the above is EXACTLY why wargamers have an "arrogant" aura about themselves... Most gamers play many different types of games.. Wargamers tend to stick STRICKLY to wargames and build this "elitism" around it exactly as you said.. as if its all so far beyond the "average" folk and kiddies...

[Nixuebrig]

Originally posted by Max VonLoben

Now in order to grow this hobby, we need new blood, customers, players, whatever you want to call them.

new blood, well, that is what we need.
To get new bood, wargames(or strategy games) must improve. But in which direction.? Is the way to make better graphics a way in the right direction? Of course without graphics up to todays standards you won`t get anything, but much more important is a change towards a challenging and competent Ai, and that is what all wargames are missing, and that is why I believe our community will be vanished once in a time. Without AI improvement there are few people willing to give their time to a game, which looks much more complicated than Age of Empires, but has less good looking graphics and basically the same AI. How will you lead the youth towards wargames this way?

Ülaying todays wargames,I don`t see a difference between the Ai nowadays and the Ai 10 years ago, it is still as stupid as it was, and how can you make our juniors a game willing to play, that isn`T challenging against the AI? as PBEM you can do one turn a day, if you are lucky, but is that what a game should be, a platform for PB(e)M ?

[Veldor]

You are telling me why some people might choose an RTS style game over a turn-based one... Not for any other reason than they can play the RTS right now "online" rather than send a turn and wait a day.. Now you can start multiple games... But at some point its gets too confusing and the "wait" causes some of the excitement and addiction to the game to fade... So I get the AI thing (even though I tend to always play games online, or PBEM in the case of UV and so on)..

But I guess that's the real reason why.. Cause the AI sucks.. Good enough for the beginning player but anyone who stays with the game long....

Hard to make demands in that arena though. It's not really a problem specific to computerised wargames... Probably just a bit more noticeable due to the lack of other options (No online play for instance).

I did hear they finally have a Chess program that can beat any grand master repeatedly.. But Chess ultimately has no randomness in it.. and a fairly fixed number of moves possible... A game like UV... you have to translate a million things into little algorithmns and make comparison calculations.. and hope you weighted everything correctly... And do all that while still throwing in randomness..

Which is the real problem.. Machines are repetative and predictable.. If you taught the AI to be really really good at UV then it would end up being too predictable and thus the "needs" would change and it would no longer be so good. Hard to build an AI that "adapts" like that. But I do think AI's have gotten better, given that games have gotten more complex.. Its only a matter of time before you'll be begging for more handicap options.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Veldor
Not refering to you specifically in any of this but..

"Kiddies" listen to much of the same music as say someone in their twenties, even thirties.. And even compared to those that dont the music they listen too is still the same as when they were kiddies.. Games aren't any different other than the pyschological and socialogical association that they are strickly for kids.

In your book an "Adult" who plays Everquest or C&C is being immature whereas someone playing a "respectable" wargame is merely engaging in an advanced historical simulation. Two words.. Pysch 101.. I'm not in denial about it, neither should anyone else be. We play games, and love them.. So what?

There are probably more 15yr olds that can beat me at Chess than those that are older. Yeah it sucks to look over and see some kid looking at the same game/cd/movie/clothes/whatever that you are.. But get a grip. If the games you like are really all that more "advanced in interest" than would it not be an EXCELLENT thing that more young people start to get interested in them and play them? Or would that suddenley make us all feel even more childish for playing the games..

All of the above is EXACTLY why wargamers have an "arrogant" aura about themselves... Most gamers play many different types of games.. Wargamers tend to stick STRICKLY to wargames and build this "elitism" around it exactly as you said.. as if its all so far beyond the "average" folk and kiddies...

I don't know where you get all this. If teenagers want to mess with the same stuff when they get to be adults, that's how teenagers have always been, myself included. I take some measure of pride, however, in my ability to have grown and refined my tastes and abilities.

I don't "have a book," and offered no comment about Everquest et al. or the maturity level of those who play it. I merely said,
"There is nothing arrogant about defending the integrity of your hobby against a suggestion that your interest is no more advanced than that of 'kiddies.'" The games I play are different from these, and I want them to remain so on the basis of their sophistication and subjects.

I don't care how many 15-year-olds can beat you at chess. There are not 10 in the world who can beat me, and I honor those who can - not because they are 15-year-olds, but because of their understanding of, and dedication to, chess. When you take it seriously, it means something. And the possibility of honing your skills to the sharp point of excellence is a large part of what makes it fun for you - again, if you take it seriously.

You need not trot out "Psych 101" to me. I left that course behind a long time ago at the very beginning of my journey through academia into a fully developed professional career.

I heartily hope that excellent young people get interested in excellent games. I am sure they will. The masses? I could care.

So y'all go ahead. I'll "stick STRICKLY" to what interests me. I said nothing about "elitism" or building any such thing "around" anything else. Only you can feel childish.

Yes, complex simulations are, and always have been, outside the interest range of "average" folk and kiddies. Becoming good at playing them is an endeavor only those who understand excellence undertake. As Dylan said, "Most likely you'll go your way and I'll go mine."

[Veldor]

You seemed to glance right past the part about me not referring to you specifically. This is after all a thread that many people have contributed too, many more will read, and on a forum of many similar discussions.

But I do have one thing for you I'd like you to consider please. I certainly do not know if you are the championship chess player that you say you are. But lets just go with that. Even if you are, there are others that aren't that still play wargames. Kids enjoy Chess, play it.. and many are quite good. Better in many cases than adults, even ones that play wargames. The fact that they are kids makes no difference in their ratings.

So I fail to see how wargames are any different. That its so inconceivable for teens to like them or play them nearly as well. That in anyway changing wargames to add additional appeal to such a group "demeans" a wargamers great intellect.

Every statement you make seems to only confirms what I've been saying.. That wargamers tend to "fear" any and all association with gaming for any other reason than an "intellectual" one. Forget making it "more fun", just give me accurate numbers...

I realize I'm being a bit brash in my wording... but given that its aimed more at wargamers as a whole and not necessarily yourself, do you not agree at all with what I'm saying?

[SwampYankee68]

Some of the comments made by the "Grogs" confuse me. In the 9 + pages of this thread, where exactly did you come to believe that anyone was advocating "dumbing down" the wargames compainies like MATRIX or HPS produce to sell to more people? I can't find one post that says "forget the gameplay, give me great looks". What I see is that many people are saying is that "In this age of superfast AMD and Intel processors, we'd prefer a solid game engine, decent AI, and attractive maps and counters". Likewise, I have yet to see a MATRIX designer saying that they are stealing from the game engine "Peter" to pay the graphics Paul" Thyey are saying that the company will do better if they take their solid and realistic game engines and present them in attractive maps and game graphics. What is so wrong with either statement? How does it hurt "the integrity of your hobby"? Give me a break. Wargamers are a breed apart. I've found them more honorable in terms of sportsmanship, smarter, better read, and just plain more interesting than the folks I meet playing other genres of games. But, since when does than mean that wargamers can't like a spiffy looking or sounding game? Just like good graphics won't make a bad game engine good, good graphics won't make a good engine bad, and it won't hurt "the integrity of the hobby", not with companies like MATRIX and HPS and others working to make good games. If more folks buy games because they look good, that helps the wargame company, and they can then produce more good wargames, so what, exactly, is the problem? They may stay for the gameplay, or they may put the game on the shelf if they don't like it, but it is another game sold. If the self proclaimed "Grogs" want to wear a hair shirt of crappy graphics to convince themselves of their purity, I respectfully submit they just being silly, and stubborn. But in the end, neither the "Grogs" opinion nor the more - dare I say - casual wargamer opinion will matter. The decision will be made in true capitalist fashion. The company(s) that best meet the varied wants of the marketplace will succeed, and the others will stop producing anything because they failed to adapt. "Pure" or "tainted", they won't produce anything. I've seen posts on this thread by many people I see posting on topics in Uncommon Valor, a great game that also happens to look good. I know they play it, I know they'd play it if it looked crappy, but the fact it looks great doesn't hurt the game, does it? So, again, what is the problem here?

[AlBW]

Well put S_Y.

[Veldor]

Can't you see? We need DOS based computer wargames, without mouse support... Otherwise all those mouse-wielding teenagers might take up our hobby and make us all feel less special about our greater intellect, our better education, and our overall superiority above others. So STOP the windows games.. A good DOS game doesnt need to be prettied up with windows for all the kiddies. Keep it hard so only the smartest can even attempt to play.

C'mon Wargamers need this so they have something to tell themselves when they are alone at night. Wargamers don't want the rest of the world to join them... They are above them all.

This is all the same crap I've dealt with since I was a 12yr old in the hobby. Does no one realize how arrogant wargamers are? Even those that agree about graphics improvements are the same ones saying they think wargamers are all smarter than other gamers..

No one wanted me in the hobby when I was young, especially when I started winning.. Sure there were a select few... Don Greenwood of Avalon Hill for instance who let me playtest... but mostly our hobby HATES any youth that even TRY to join it. Its **** insulting to all our egos to even suggest that a teen could be even a moderately difficult or challenging opponent....

I won and won alot.. Even if I were a "prodigy" and I wasn't.. I recruited friends easily for everything up to and including ASL. Surely we all couldn't have been "prodigies"...we were good because we made ourselves good by playing often. I didnt need to read a bunch of books to learn strategy in ASL.. Playing even each other and studying the rules was plenty enough. We cleaned up pretty good at tournaments... Whenever we could manage not being accused of cheating, or anything else someone could use as their excuse for loosing.. Beyond those forums it was hard to even get invited to play... Alot of PBM opponents would drop games when they found out.. Face-2-Face wouldnt even give you a chance... There were always exceptions, like i stated earlier, but generally attitudes were poor

Almost 20yrs later it looks like attitudes towards younger players in our hobby haven't changed a bit...

[pasternakski]

"There is nothing arrogant about defending the integrity of your hobby against a suggestion that your interest is no more advanced than that of 'kiddies,' no matter what their age."

Over and out, kiddies.

[Veldor]

So is your interest in movies more advanced than that of a younger person? Your reason for seeing Lord of the Rings is somehow more intellectual than someone elses? Is your interests in music all more intellectual?

Your interest is gaming is no more sophisticated than anyone else's. And even if it were, the fact that you need to tell yourself that to feel okay about playing games, seems pretty absurd.

To think that if more of the younger generation were to join the hobby, that the "integrity" would be altered unfavorably.. is equally absurd.

[SwampYankee68]

Well put, Veldor.

Pasternakski, so we, too are now kiddies for disagreeing? Nicxe way to bolster one's argument.... In reading your posts in other forums, I had come to respect your opinions.

It doesn't appear that anyone's opinion going in to this one has been swayed by other side's argument, huh?

Time to stop feeding this beast, I think.

I'm off to argue elswhere!