2 Polls over at VRDesigns

[Vic]

Hi all,

The Developer Posts of Interest thread might be a bit hidden. So I also post it as a fresh thread.

Read the latest developer blog over here: http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=1313 and share your thoughts with me and Cameron on whats important in wargames.

You'll find two poll questions a the end of the blog.

Looking forward to your responses.

Best wishes,
Vic

[devoncop]

OK Vic

You have distressed me !!!

I voted in both polls and for the first time in 50 years I am in the majority on both polls ......... I have become a conformist [:(]

It is only a short step here to the world of 1984 ..........

[nukkxx5058]

Same, for once I'm in the majority on the two votes

Regarding replayability:

Chess is probably the most replayable game in history. Zillions of games already played and not two the same, and always a challenge and fun. And at the same time the rules are extremely simple but offer infinite flexibility in the way to win and the number of "counters" is minimal.

I really think you did a great job in this direction with DC:B
A long term community success (or not) of PBEM will eventually tell about relayability.

But keep in the same direction with the same philosophy !

[zakblood]

posted[&o]

45 have done so, so far[&o][&o][&o]

[Tac2i]

Marjorities are not always the best thing: bring us Advanced Tactics Platinum! Pretty please...

[Falke]

Regarding the sliders, it does get more complex since you often do not have a Point but a range.

Considering the Replayability Poll - Delivering an Option Historical or Free set-up would be feasable thereby satisfying more
of the market.Trying to do all 3 within a single game would not be realisitic.

What is very important is communicating exactly what sort of a game is being delivered, which has been well done with DC:B

[AZKGungHo]

I took the poll, But what I'd like in the D-Day game is to wade ashore with everything historical as possible in a reasonably complex game AND also have the opportunity to invade other beaches, some not in Normandy. I'd really, really, really love to see this in a Sicily game where you could take Patton's original plan and run it to see what might happen.

[RandomAttack]

I took the poll, and what I look for is simply a game that truly executes what it SAYS it will (and this is not a shot at any particular game). I can actually live with any of the choices if it actually works-- but that is never a foregone conclusion. There have been several well-publicized wargames over the last few years that simply didn't deliver: flaws in the mechanics, "features" that didn't work, etc. I don't think I'm talking about game design goals here, but the failure to IMPLEMENT them as advertised. That bugs me to no end, and I wind up feeling ripped off. Then I become very skeptical of anything that publisher puts out--ever. I'm not talking about minor stuff that good developers go to great pains to fix. And complexity isn't always better--it's often a "fig leaf" that covers up flaws. EX: One game touted about 20 modifiers/factors that went into combat odds calculation. After about a YEAR it was discovered several of the key ones weren't being used at all due to a game engine issue. So all the players that complained "this just doesn't seem right" were correct. FYI, it was never fixed but an enterprising player found a work-around.

So I don't care if it's Pong with the paddles replaced with tanks. Tell me what is, how it will work, and ensure that it does so. Then, even if I buy it and don't like it I'll just shrug and move on.

DC:B really hits the sweet spot for me, even though I haven't gone beyond about 4 turns yet as I'm still learning (and learning to TRUST) the system. Guess I can't help it, my experiences have made me leery of very complex systems. At least that's what the voices in your heads tell me. [:'(] I'm slow, but I'll get there... [:)]

[Philippeatbay]

The D-day question is a bit of an extreme case.

When the V for Victory series came out with its Normandy game they deliberately left D-day out of the game because the real-life invasion had been so heavily scripted by advanced planning that it left almost no room for the Allied player to exercise any kind of tactics. When the Panzer Campaigns Normandy game came out the big surprise was that they included the bombardment and the actual landing, which wasn't the most exciting thing to play but was interesting because it showed (in very graphic fashion) how the start line for the Normandy fighting was created.

So if this question were really about Normandy it's a bit slanted, because though I wouldn't buy a Normandy invasion game that didn't have an historical and accurate invasion scenario included in it, that's probably not the scenario that I would want to play. I'd want to hit every beach from Pas de Calais to the Spanish border to see if one worked better, but those invasions would be meaningless to me if I couldn't ascertain the difference between how they played out and how the historical version played out.

Having an absolutely accurate historical scenario as the starting point for everything else is absolutely crucial because it tells you if the game model is any good or not. If I start having doubts about the model, I stop playing the game.

History isn't balanced. A well-designed game will reproduce something resembling the historical outcome approximately as often as that outcome was likely. Once you've got an historically accurate game establishing the base-line for what happened (or was likely to happen), you can then proceed to start adding what-if's that are either there for exploring unanswered historical questions, or are needed for game balance. Some games focus on making an accurate model of the situation (think Bagration and the destruction of Army Group Center in 1944) but adjust victory depending on your victory point score. You have to do that with Bagration because it will always turn out to be a German disaster, but you can't do that with Barbarossa because of the way it defines victory. But for game purposes you always have to remember to distinguish between actual victory and relative victory. You should be able to play the battle of Cannae as the Romans, lose the battle, but win some kind of a victory because the outcome was better (not as bad) as the historical one.

I play wargames because of what they tell me about history. If the model isn't historically accurate, the wargame tells me nothing. There is always a design tension between the 'game' and the 'simulation' elements in a wargame, but they aren't incompatible. You load in as much simulation as the game will bear and still be accessible and fun to play. Then you line up a bunch of optional rules for balancing.

But when adding optional rules it is absolutely crucial to make it perfectly clear what they are or are not departures from.

[Tweedledumb]

Cross-posted from the VRdesign blog:

Excellent post – I think I see what you’re thinking about – how to keep the grognards and yet increase the purchaser base.

One thing which might help A LOT is to have Vic’s wonderful AI usable by the player.

Let’s take DC3 as an example. Somebody might be intrigued by being Halder and overseeing the invasion of the Soviet Union but when they realize they have to push dozens/hundreds of divisions around in complex, number-filled dances to get the job done – they quit.

Why not let them set their armies to AI control as an option?

For a grognard, like me, that would not be an option I would EVER choose! No insult to Vic, but no AI is ever as perceptive as a human (even me!). For a more casual player they might enjoy giving the big picture orders, a measure of combat priorities and watching how the computer generals (AI) get things done.

This could increase the player base by a factor of two (maybe more) without really overhauling the basic DC engine and system (which is much admired and loved by anyone who has played it).

Just my two cents worth – you guys are at the cutting edge of where computer wargames are going and I appreciate the ability to see the ideas you are brainstorming.

All the best.

[Tac2i]

Cross-posted from VRDesigns blog:

The age old tension between ‘historical accuracy’ and “fun and replayable” just continues on and on. Obviously there are, speaking rather broadly, two camps here. Those who like high historical accuracy and those who like a game loosely based on a historical time (WW2) with very high replayability. I would put DC:B in the high historical camp and Advanced Tactics Gold (ATG) in the fun and replayable camp. That is not to say DC:B isn’t fun as I’m sure that it is. Since I don’t have access to sales data I can’t state which game type is more prosperous for those who sell them. My hope is that the market is large enough to support both. I do know that I have been playing and still play Advanced Tactics, since about 2008. ATG has a random game engine that just keeps me coming back for more. It sure would be nice to see ATG updated and expanded at least one more time.