Things we want in wargames

[CapnDarwin]

@ Ratzki and the other "simple editors" crowd. Some games already ship with the editors/tools used by the devs. Some have decent documentation some don't. To make "simple" or lets say user friendly highly validated editors, the developers would need to spend additional time and resources to remake these editors to that kind of level. Assuming for a wargame that includes map making, scenarios, campaigns (if applicable), and data/art/sound, you are looking at a package almost as complex to code up as the game. I guess the million dollar question is, would you pay for a "Simple" editor package after the game was released? Another factor to put in this is that many of the developer teams are small "free time" coders. There would be a loss of new game features, bug fixes, and content if the effort shifts to editor support. I guess you could also delay the release 6-12 months to have editors ready day one at an added cost if folks wanted to go that way.

Basically, not as easy at is sounds to make these kind of tools. Some games will be easier than other to do this as well. As a modder from day one back in the 80's I am all about having robust tools if I can get them, but if I have to do it the hard way that is okay too. [8D]

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Basically armor and infantry supported by massed close air support and artillery punch a narrow hole in the front lines. The infantry then holds the hole open and armored elements push through into the rear fanning out to the sides and penetrating deep into the rear to disrupt communication lines.

I thought british cruise tanks were supposed to do the pushing through and what comes after, but had little success at best... [&:]

The armor favored bypassing the enemy whenever possible to keep pushing on, so simulating that kind of tactic by giving a bonus to armor for its attack rolls makes no sense, the armor did not destroy the units and keep going, it bypassed them and later arriving infantry did the lion’s share of the destruction.

Wehrmacht did it right, Red Army did not. Operational-strategic wargames need something to make that difference.

[DanSez]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

@ Ratzki and the other "simple editors" crowd. Some games already ship with the editors/tools used by the devs. Some have decent documentation some don't. To make "simple" or lets say user friendly highly validated editors, the developers would need to spend additional time and resources to remake these editors to that kind of level. Assuming for a wargame that includes map making, scenarios, campaigns (if applicable), and data/art/sound, you are looking at a package almost as complex to code up as the game. I guess the million dollar question is, would you pay for a "Simple" editor package after the game was released? Another factor to put in this is that many of the developer teams are small "free time" coders. There would be a loss of new game features, bug fixes, and content if the effort shifts to editor support. I guess you could also delay the release 6-12 months to have editors ready day one at an added cost if folks wanted to go that way.

Basically, not as easy at is sounds to make these kind of tools. Some games will be easier than other to do this as well. As a modder from day one back in the 80's I am all about having robust tools if I can get them, but if I have to do it the hard way that is okay too. [8D]

That is a good and fair comment about modding tools. I guess from my perspective I would like the initial design of the game to allow LUA or some other scripting access to main factors of the game engine to allow modders easier ways to add new units/create new scenarios and setups.

And that would take some work up front planning and a bit of added work at the end for cleaning up and presenting documentation on flags/handles/routines that drill into the .exe game files.

As consumers, we want it all and want it now --- not very realistic some times. Good communication from the devs and beta testers helps me accept "work in progress" game design. (to take a safe non-Matrix example) I have been a long time fan of the Hearts or Iron series and accept that the game will be released without some promised features working fully and Know that I will be buying additional releases to support the dev team/company as it completes the game. I buy into this mostly because I like the game concept of HoI and the Dev Teams do try and answer questions -- sometimes not the answers I want to hear, but never the less, I still get answers.

You are 100% correct that smaller houses that Paradox can not afford to give away the effort beyond getting the basic game up and running, but the more up front planning and dedicated, communicative dev/beta tester teams do much to keep those games alive and improving. Maybe they make pennies on the hour in the final accounting and I wish the market would reward these people better.

[Rodwonder]

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer
But not everyone likes books I suppose as well. Especially dry boring books on history.

Well I like those dry boring books... That brought me to those dry boring wargames... [8D]

[Rosseau]

True, I would hate to wait or have more bugs. I would pay for an editor as later dlc, but I bet most would not. However, I rarely create new scenarios, just change existing. So any xml-type modding for slow people like me is always welcome. That's why I love some indie developers. They just leave the files right out there for you to mod.

[aaatoysandmore]

Ability to tweak or program our own AI's like Kohan II and Spartan. I made better games out of both of them being able to create or tweak the AI's.

[SeaMonkey]

Here's the game situation; I bring a force, could be an army, smaller scale, a battalion, perhaps an air group or a naval task force to a deployment co-ordinate(hex if you will). Now, I'm not exactly sure what I'll need for the task at hand, so I bring a mix of forces restricted by the deployment conditions. Deployment conditions could exempt certain types of units, like...no airfield, no air units. Mountainous terrain(no roads) no vehicles of a certain type. Logistics and weather will also exempt certain unit types from exercising a designated mission.

Now it's my turn and I examine my force in the deployment location and the surrounding enemy conditions and I decide on a mission and at that time I assemble a battle group from my forces that are availble and designate them to move, attack, defend, recon, whatever. Doesn't have to be all my forces in that deployment, perhaps my indirect fire weapons are low on ammo and I want them for defense only, could be the weather won't allow my aircraft to support the mission, could be I want a larger defense force to remain in prepared conditions. Point being, I decide what my force make up is from the available forces in the deployment location at the time it is my turn.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Not everyone likes people either. [:)] Especially dry boring historians on the internet. [:D]

After your comments in the Civil war thread I suggest you read a little history.

Wouldn't do any good. I don't "believe" everything I read like some nuts do.

Actually what you said in the other thread was you don't believe ANY history books. Which is just plain stupid. One reads multiple sources for history and one can determine what might have been fudged if anything. But assuming all history is lies and misinformation is just crazy.

In the Civil war thread you claimed that the North basically lied because they won the war. Then made comments about how you did not know if the generals and politicians of the South survived or not after the war. When in fact they did and any history book would have told you that. Further in the case of the Civil war, WW1, WW2, and every war since there are multiple sources of information from all sides. Any obvious lie or misinformation will be outed by the writers and historians from the other side.

Few wars or historical events only had one side survive so through out history you have views from more then one side. Willfully ignoring the facts and information available makes one ill informed on Historical facts and history in general.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: Twotribes



After your comments in the Civil war thread I suggest you read a little history.

Wouldn't do any good. I don't "believe" everything I read like some nuts do.

Actually what you said in the other thread was you don't believe ANY history books. Which is just plain stupid. One reads multiple sources for history and one can determine what might have been fudged if anything. But assuming all history is lies and misinformation is just crazy.

In the Civil war thread you claimed that the North basically lied because they won the war. Then made comments about how you did not know if the generals and politicians of the South survived or not after the war. When in fact they did and any history book would have told you that. Further in the case of the Civil war, WW1, WW2, and every war since there are multiple sources of information from all sides. Any obvious lie or misinformation will be outed by the writers and historians from the other side.

Few wars or historical events only had one side survive so through out history you have views from more then one side. Willfully ignoring the facts and information available makes one ill informed on Historical facts and history in general.

(sigh) keep on being brainwashed I told you I didn't care. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. When it comes down to it it doesn't matter what you or I believe the truth is in "being there" nothing more nothing less. [:D]

Just show me "tangible" proof that you were there and your historians were there on that exact day and time with a newspaper clipping and pictures and I might believe. Otherwise it's all made by maybeso's and possibilities...These are not Proofs. These are speculations and mighthavebeens.

[Twotribes]

So we can not know that the North did not try and put to death all surviving Officers from the Civil War? We can not know that the North did not try and put to death all the politicians and CSA Government officials after the war? We can not know that?

And knowing that we can not know that if the North presented a lie as fact that those surviving Officers politicians and Government officials would not object and set the record straight?

You CHOOSE to be ignorant. Do us all a favor and refrain from commenting in threads about history in the future.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So we can not know that the North did not try and put to death all surviving Officers from the Civil War? We can not know that the North did not try and put to death all the politicians and CSA Government officials after the war? We can not know that?

And knowing that we can not know that if the North presented a lie as fact that those surviving Officers politicians and Government officials would not object and set the record straight?

You CHOOSE to be ignorant. Do us all a favor and refrain from commenting in threads about history in the future.

Umm I don't "believe" you sir have the "authority" to tell me what to do in the future. Do you have any proof of that? [:D] You're just jealous I know the truth and you only know speculation and what might have been. But, that's ok I feel sorry for you anyway. [:'(]

Goodday sir!

One thing I will ask you as I discontinue my discussion with you is this: Do you honestly believe all non-fiction has no fiction in it at all? I was a journalist in my youth and my editor told me to be a good reporter that if there was no story to makeup one that the public would be interested in. Do you not think some historian wouldn't do the same to make his published title more interesting and sellable? Just think about that.

Goodday now sir!

[Kuokkanen]

aaatoysandmore & Twotribes, your bickering contributes NOTHING useful to this thread. PLEASE, take it elsewhere, like to private messages [:@]

[TigerTC]

Here’s what I’m looking for in some new games…



-A good 1980s-era WWIII Cold War operational-level game in Germany (division or brigade level).



-A worldwide resource-based game, think Civilization but focused on the military (resource-gathering, not building). I don’t like RTSs, but I would love something that’s more of a wargame (like the old CommandHQ, but modernized drastically) – and not a 4X.



-A good, but playable, War in the Pacific game. I don’t have time in my life for micro-managing Grigsby-type games.



-I hope Strategic Command 3 is a success. I loved the first one.



-And I want to see all of these (plus others) using a Command Ops-type system. I see real value in the modern wargaming like CO where I issue orders and control the big picture, but the computer works out the details. That way I can focus on the big picture, the way a real commander does, and only delve deep into the micromanagement and details when I want to.



I would love CO on an operational level to fight the entire Eastern Front in WWII, Germany in WWIII Cold War, or the Pacific theater in WWII.

[Jafele]

What I want is almost impossible to see because it´s costly in time and money.

1-Dynamic AI (non-scripted)
2-Replayability (balanced scenarios, random maps and battles). Replayability is financially incorrect since most companies are interested to sell short life games. After all it´s business...
3-Fun
4-Nice graphics (not neccesarily spectacular).

In other words: Quality.

[InuharikoMu]

That Dev's in the Slitherine / Matrix Universe agree on a Standard:

No more fixed 1024*768 Resolution Games - EVER
Resolution up to 1920*1080 and TFT Monitor Support out of the Box.

No more Games without Sound Effects - EVER

Better Documentation! No more XBox / PS3 Joke Manuals - EVER
Printable Maps! Printable Key Command Chart!
Modding Support!
Support Successful Mods into a Premium DLC *see ART / Coder Department*

Build up a Cheap STEAMline *HAHAHA* For Games that not hold the 2014 Standard.
A Brand like STEAMTactician (Copyright by Richtschnur)and put Things like "Drums of War" into that.


@ the Big Kahunas @ Sli/Mat
Build up an ART Department that support your Freelance Dev's and your Inhouse Dev's
Maybe with Talented People from the Modding Scene *like Darthmod*
Build up an Coder Department to Support Freelance Dev's

Support the Games YOU STILL SELL!

Meaning *Example -> Across the Dnepr 2nd Edition Husky Fix* tm.asp?m=2428891

Therefore:
Build up an Coder Department that works together with Dev's to fix the Older Games in your Portfolio.

Taking Premium Prices means in my Eyes Taking Premium Responsibility (Beat me up Scotty -> My Personal Opinion)

Best Regards from 30 Degree, sunny Germany

[nicwb]

One thing I find very useful is with down loaded games and electronic rule books - having the ability mid game to minimise the game screen and access the electronic rule book mid game and without closing out of the fame.With larger or complex games this is a must. Command Ops games and WITE have this but it does not yet seem to be a common feature on other games.

[aaatoysandmore]

I'd like to see a 3d first person shooter in the image of Oblivion or Skyrim. Where there is no certain set path and missions and things to do abound. But, the catch is I would like this in a Squad format. Like Combat the tv show. Where there are several of us that take on different missions. Nothing scriped or linear. No telling where the enemy will popup or if we get tossed behind enemy lines. Also, being able to give them commands an orders although simple ones at least say you go left and you go right an so n so. You defend, you attack. You get a message to the commander (like in Norbsofts civilwar engine with messengers).

I know there are scripted ones and linear ones out there but that's not what I want. I want the Oblivion/Skyrim world to adventure in and more than 16 square miles too. More like the 150,000 square miles of Daggerfall. [:'(] I think this would be an awesome idea and game. It'd be like an mmo only solo play. But, I guess it could be an MMO as well. Having others play under MYII command would be awesome as well. I hope I get Warsprite (I'll make him point man [:D]) No wait maybe TwoTribes for point. [:D]

[Twotribes]

Shooters in my opinion are not war games.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Shooters in my opinion are not war games.

they are if they are based on a war or battle. Just a different way of playing war. Not everyone thinks a game has to have nato chits and turn based to be a wargame. If we want to get real technical real wargames are played 1st peron real time by the army, marines, navy and airforce. [:D]

A wargame (also war game) is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional. Wargaming is the hobby dedicated to the play of such games, which can also be called conflict simulations, or consims for short. When used professionally by the military to study warfare, "war game" may refer to a simple theoretical study or a full-scale military exercise. Hobby wargamers have traditionally used "wargame", while the military has generally used "war game"; this is not a hard and fast rule. Although there may be disagreements as to whether a particular game qualifies as a wargame or not, a general consensus exists that all such games must explore and represent some feature or aspect of human behaviour directly bearing on the conduct of war, even if the game subject itself does not concern organized violent conflict or warfare.[

Wargames are generally categorized as historical, hypothetical, fantasy, or science fiction. Historical games by far form the largest group. These games are based upon real events and attempt to represent a reasonable approximation of the actual forces, terrain, and other material factors faced by the actual participants. Hypothetical games are games grounded in historical fact but concern battles or conflicts that did not (or have yet to) actually happen

and the creme della cream:

http://www.unity-games.org/play-all-bes ... ooter.html

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Not everyone thinks a game has to have nato chits and turn based to be a wargame.

Certainly not. Close Combat, Conquest of Aegean, and Total War are war games without turns and NATO symbols. Command & Conquer and Doom are not.