Eventually it is a game and not real life

[DSWargamer]

I want to make the comment, that, eventually, the realism obsession can reach a point where it is only an anal level of obsession with simulating something that in real life is really impossible to model.

Battles were often fought and won or lost for reasons that make for interesting reading in a history book, but which are impossible to recreate in a game.

Why did Dunkirk happen?
In a wargame, the opponent is not going to let you escape, you get slaughtered wiped out totally destroyed, you lose utterly everything is lost.

Heroic missions that changed the war, they never happen in grand strategy as the actions of a few men are impossible to recreate when the game pieces are representing thousands of persons, not a small handful on a desperate risky mission. Commando raids DID happen in WW2, but they never occur in grand strategy games. Thus the game is missing the effects of wide swaths of real history, real history that actually changed the course of the war.

What if the Allies had NOT broken the Axis codes like they did? There were several very significant battles that would have gone substantially differently if the Allies had not known in advance. Try winning Midway without knowing it in advance eh.

There is a very finite limit on how accurate you can force a game to be, and yet still leave out the little things that were more important. You can't recreate the desperate fight for Guadalcanal in most grand strategy games, but that fight really happened, and it was significant.

So many marine assaults onto a puny spec of land in the Pacific. If the game can't do a marine assault, your design fails. So much of Overlord rested on the mulberries. So much of Overlord was affected by a general staff too afraid to wake up a dictator at a key moment. So much of the battle rested on effects hard to simulate with charts and tables. What might have happened if Rommel had been able to just 'wargame' the defense of Normandy without human restrictions?

There seems to be a lot of talk about systems, and little talk about recreating the event.
Little resistance to simulating military leaders as bonuses, but where are all the meddling influences of the politicians? Hitler was a lucky idiot for a few years before 39 and then a lucky idiot while he beat up some unprepared allies, but in the end, it was fairly clear, the man sucked as a general. Why should the game only recreate how brilliant Rommel was, when it was not always possible for Rommel's brilliance to be used fully.

And even though it might sound odd to the eyes, but the truth is, Patton wasn't so brilliant as he was fortunate to be in the right place at the right time.

[Scook_99]

Are you posting this in every game forum about every game? I am not seeing where this is going........

[DSWargamer]

I was not aware I had posted this in every game forum.

I am not sure what you are getting at asking what the relevance my post lacks.

[DSWargamer]

What do all grand strategy wargames of the second world war have in common?
They are all about the same war, and the same people using the same history.

Last night as I pondered the enigmatic complaint of the above poster, I was too tired to care about a reply. Today I am awake

A comment will hold true across a spectrum of game designs, and I might have commented in a consistent fashion while discussing WW2 and grand strategy simulation designs. That consistency though, simply represents that I don't waffle on some concepts, and some notions.

I have played the original SC, and I have played it's rival Commander Europe at War. I have played countless designs that were operational designs that were very near grand strategy simulations. I have played board games that were the source of the ideas for many computer wargames that were emulating a board game experience. I own for instance World in Flames, and I recall the pre Matrix Games software that cWiF will have grown out of. I am aware of the challenges all of the above will have had to face in order to be credible experiences.

And in the end, if the game is to be taken seriously, it can only deviate so far from what you will be watching if you watch a good documentary exploring the war years, before the game is no longer a historical what if simulation, and a complete flight of fantasy.

I don't for instance, have any interest or time for games that expect me to derive any thrill from running bit partners such as Hungary during the war. No offense to people in Hungary of course, but sorry, during WW2, you have no major impact on the global conduct of the conflict.

I am also aware that some objectives are simply illogical science fiction. There is no real worth to me, to participate in a game where Germany invades North America. I prefer to limit that to games such as Civilization V where there is no limit on the ahistorical. As such, some portions of a reasonable game design need to step back from some obsessions. I am not in dire need of a map that renders every portion of the planet to include for instance all of North America. It's a waste of the game designers time and effort (which would be better spent ensuring the portions of the map that do matter, stay the focal point).

Now, if the above seems to have been stated in more than one place........ well the validity yet still remains all the same.

If SC3 has no interest in retaining the credible, then, I suppose my counter comment must be, I would fail to see the point of Hubert making the same game over and over with minor tweaks and yet nothing new actually offered. Aside from getting rid of those shitty tiles, one needs to ask, why exactly will I 'need' an SC3?

Commander Europe at War IS a good game design.
If a person wants mega detail, a person would be correct in asking, why not just wait to play Gary's game as a unified design instead.
Or potentially, why not just play a proven board game via a computer intermediary program such as the well known vassal.

I often ask myself why I am not doing that already actually.
Given a choice of SC3 or Advanced Third Reich, I'd rather be playing A3R to be honest.

[Magpius]

Quite a reflective and philosophical post DSW, it reads a little like a letter of resignation.
But I'm inclined to agree a little with Sccok as well. Why this forum, and not the general? Was it prompted by the bigger question of why SC3? Hence the post here?
I agree with you re CEAW, and am looking forward to the update 3.0, but equally looking forward to recapturing the SC1 experience with an improved SC3.
Personally I keep questing for the game that captures that nostalgic feeling of getting a new S&T magazine or Avalon Hill game and punching out counters and unfolding maps. But it's somewhat of a lost cause, as staring at pixels and reading pdfs doesn't quite cut it for me.

[DSWargamer]

When Hubert started on SC2, I recall a lot of people really just wanting him to fix the few minor gaffes of SC1 instead.

SC1 was not a broken design, it just had a few gaffes in it.

I am not sure how long it will take, and how much effort will be involved with SC3, but, I have seen so many times in the past, where a game was already great, and yet the developer insisted on totally redoing the experience all over again, and in the process fixing something that wasn't broken.

I still have SC1 on the system, and fire it up occasionally for a bit of nostalgic gaming. Few games since SC1 have really done the job as well of giving the gamer a program with such a good interface and a basically enjoyable program.

[pzgndr]

If SC3 has no interest in retaining the credible, then, I suppose my counter comment must be, I would fail to see the point of Hubert making the same game over and over with minor tweaks and yet nothing new actually offered. Aside from getting rid of those ****ty tiles, one needs to ask, why exactly will I 'need' an SC3?

If anything, the SC series has continued to mature into a very credible grand strategy game engine for WWI and WWII campaigns. The event scripts provide very powerful and flexible scripting of events, both historical and what-if, to keep players guessing. And the AI is also very powerful and flexible, producing a challenging and competent computer opponent, if properly scripted of course.

This evolution of a game engine didn't happen overnight, and could not have happened via minor tweak patches to the original SC2 game. WAW, PDE, Global Conflict, etc. all made more than minor tweaks and justified a new product. And of course it has kept Hubert Cater in business, and the SC series in business, otherwise it would have floundered and died like so many other promising game ideas. Have you seen a CEAW-2??

Besides hexes in SC3, all of the current under-the-hood stuff should port over plus new features can be expected. It just keeps getting better. [8D]

[Magpius]

Have you seen a CEAW-2??

No, but I'm looking forward to CEAW 3.0 any day now.

[TheGreatRadish]

Well, CEAW is a great game but I don't think I could play it now with CTGW around. GS Mod - let's make that clear, it's not CEAW 3.0, is very good indeed, brilliant even for MP, but for SP it's really rather tame.

I arrived late at the SC party (despite purchasing SC2 in 2008 and neglecting to actually try it until this year - idiot [8|]), but it's development has been nothing short of astonishing.

On this topic though, I was wondering what happens here - SC3 is now a Slitherine title, yet the Commander Series is also and every indication points towards a CEAW 2.0. Now, I undertand they are different, but they cover roughly the same ground (heck, look at the CTGW vs SC:WW1 debate). I've got a feeling I'll buy both [;)] I can't help thinking, however, that some kind of conflict of interest will emerge.

[DSWargamer]

A reasonable muse, but keep in mind, Slitherine Group has several wargame developers they publish for that have commonality of design.