WEGO games, what happened to them?

[z1812]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: z1812

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e




Very hard to answer, indeed.

I had to smile at the original answer from Curtis Lemay. The visual it conjured up for me was Allied and Axis Generals writing notes to one another asking "Is it my turn or yours?".

So...you have HARD EVIDENCE for WEGO working better than IGOYGO? Or are you just one of the priests of WEGO?

WEGO replaces the shortcomings of IGOYGO with different - possibly worse - shortcomings of its own.

Plenty of theories sound really good on paper. But how they actually model reality ought to be what matters.

Where's the evidence for it?

I simply enjoy wego and feel it is a more enjoyable way to game. I don't feel any need to provide evidence to you for what I like, or think to be better. I also play turn base and enjoy that too. It seems to me you have an axe to grind, and are looking for someone to grind it with. That someone won't be me. I prefer to spend my time not waste it.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: z1812

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e




Very hard to answer, indeed.

I had to smile at the original answer from Curtis Lemay. The visual it conjured up for me was Allied and Axis Generals writing notes to one another asking "Is it my turn or yours?".

So...you have HARD EVIDENCE for WEGO working better than IGOYGO? Or are you just one of the priests of WEGO?

WEGO replaces the shortcomings of IGOYGO with different - possibly worse - shortcomings of its own.

Plenty of theories sound really good on paper. But how they actually model reality ought to be what matters.

Where's the evidence for it?

och,

Its situational, some games work well with a WEGO design, others don't, Broadly pre-modern games can fit well into a WEGO design due to limited movement capacity and the nature of the logistics systems (that constrain options). So most of the AGEOD catalogue and gems like Campaigns on the Danube all fit this.

There are some interesting exceptions, Flash Point is a brilliant WEGO system despite having high potential mobility and no conventional game constraints like ZoC.

The advantage of WEGO is they all key off some order system. That adds a massive degree of realism usually lacking in IGOUGO.

In turn, and this is closely linked, they tend to give better vs AI experiences as the player can't micro-manage their way to victory.

Or ... its situational.

Both design frameworks can produce excellent games. But WEGO gives a much more realistic flavour - check out Campaigns on the Danube and play it with the worst FOW setting. Not only are you issuing orders to engage with an enemy who might not be there when you arrive, you don't even know for sure where you own formations are exactly. There is no way can you recreate that experience in an IGOUGO design but it captures the core of Napoleonic operational level warfare as a result.

Because, in that game units can't just wander the maps, they need to stick to the main roads can get strung out over many miles and rely on horse drawn supply trains. And in turn, using your light cavalry to screen and scout all get their proper role.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: loki100

The advantage of WEGO is they all key off some order system. That adds a massive degree of realism usually lacking in IGOUGO.

Why? What prevents IGOUGO from having a courier/aide-de-camp system?

In turn, and this is closely linked, they tend to give better vs AI experiences as the player can't micro-manage their way to victory.

Or do any kind of detailed exploitation.

Both design frameworks can produce excellent games. But WEGO gives a much more realistic flavour - check out Campaigns on the Danube and play it with the worst FOW setting. Not only are you issuing orders to engage with an enemy who might not be there when you arrive, you don't even know for sure where you own formations are exactly. There is no way can you recreate that experience in an IGOUGO design but it captures the core of Napoleonic operational level warfare as a result.

IGOUGO can't have FOW?

Because, in that game units can't just wander the maps, they need to stick to the main roads can get strung out over many miles and rely on horse drawn supply trains. And in turn, using your light cavalry to screen and scout all get their proper role.

?? Can't IGOUGO have the same sort of movement restrictions and recon needs?

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I so want ST to be THE one which it should have a chance of being the one IF it takes Steel Panthers as the foundation then use the power of modern PC's to enhance and expand it's depth and obviously graphics, maybe drop IGOUGO for WEGO, new urban combat features etc it in the perfect world will be the one, but for some reason I'm not confident, it's Grigsby and Billings being involved that is the spark for my hope.

Same here. Hoping they will do a good C2 simulation. And I hope to have all countries from 1939 to 1945 day one and not in 5 x DLCs.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...

Both design frameworks can produce excellent games. But WEGO gives a much more realistic flavour - check out Campaigns on the Danube and play it with the worst FOW setting. Not only are you issuing orders to engage with an enemy who might not be there when you arrive, you don't even know for sure where you own formations are exactly. There is no way can you recreate that experience in an IGOUGO design but it captures the core of Napoleonic operational level warfare as a result.

IGOUGO can't have FOW?

Because, in that game units can't just wander the maps, they need to stick to the main roads can get strung out over many miles and rely on horse drawn supply trains. And in turn, using your light cavalry to screen and scout all get their proper role.

?? Can't IGOUGO have the same sort of movement restrictions and recon needs?

ok, now accepting you are probably arguing for the simple reason of ...

tell me which IGO designs have those features, indeed how would you embed a proper order based system into an IGO game?

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

...

Both design frameworks can produce excellent games. But WEGO gives a much more realistic flavour - check out Campaigns on the Danube and play it with the worst FOW setting. Not only are you issuing orders to engage with an enemy who might not be there when you arrive, you don't even know for sure where you own formations are exactly. There is no way can you recreate that experience in an IGOUGO design but it captures the core of Napoleonic operational level warfare as a result.

IGOUGO can't have FOW?

Because, in that game units can't just wander the maps, they need to stick to the main roads can get strung out over many miles and rely on horse drawn supply trains. And in turn, using your light cavalry to screen and scout all get their proper role.

?? Can't IGOUGO have the same sort of movement restrictions and recon needs?

ok, now accepting you are probably arguing for the simple reason of ...

tell me which IGO designs have those features, indeed how would you embed a proper order based system into an IGO game

What prevents an IGOUGO game from having some part of the players forces moved by PO once orders are delivered via courier? They could even move blind to the player.

That no such game may exist is irrelevant. What matters is that nothing prevents it. These aren't real differences between IGOYGO and WEGO.

The difference between IGOYGO and WEGO is that under WEGO forces move simultaneously but mindlessly. In IGOYGO they move consecutively but sentiently. I would contend that sentience is more important than simultaneousness.

[altipueri]

WEGO has the great advantage of allowing you to see the consequences of your own folly unfold in front of your eyes.

e.g. - Crimean War:

"Where the fcuk are they going? I told them to save our guns, not charge the Russian guns."

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

What prevents an IGOUGO game from having some part of the players forces moved by PO once orders are delivered via courier? They could even move blind to the player.

That no such game may exist is irrelevant. What matters is that nothing prevents it. These aren't real differences between IGOYGO and WEGO.

The difference between IGOYGO and WEGO is that under WEGO forces move simultaneously but mindlessly. In IGOYGO they move consecutively but sentiently. I would contend that sentience is more important than simultaneousness.

Interesting point. [:)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

WEGO has the great advantage of allowing you to see the consequences of your own folly unfold in front of your eyes.

e.g. - Crimean War:

"Where the fcuk are they going? I told them to save our guns, not charge the Russian guns."

That can happen in a IGOUGO system as well. You can give your order, but the unit commander then interprets the order and acts as it find best.

[DeepBlack]

I miss games like Crawford's East Front. You had to plot all
your unit moves in advance and then ran the turn.
All movement and combat was based on your plotted
moves. You could not control units directly.

It is not really WEGO but is not how most turn games
work either. The DOS version of Grigsby's War in Russia
used something similar. Remember all those little arrows
on the map which showed where your units were plotted to
move, if everything went well.


Some may not like that style but I thought it was great.

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: altipueri

WEGO has the great advantage of allowing you to see the consequences of your own folly unfold in front of your eyes.

e.g. - Crimean War:

"Where the fcuk are they going? I told them to save our guns, not charge the Russian guns."

That can happen in a IGOUGO system as well. You can give your order, but the unit commander then interprets the order and acts as it find best.

The disadvantage of IGOUGO is that the light brigade is probably split into many squadrons\troops. When the first troop gets moved and destroyed the player then moves the rest of the brigade differently, whereas in WEGO all the units of the brigade move together.

More generally, WEGO means the player cannot use information gained within a turn to guide the movements of other units in the same turn. IGOUGO allows a player to move one unit through the time period of a turn, then give orders to the next unit at the start of that turn's time period with knowledge gained during the period.

[wodin]

I think WEGO works the best at the tactical scale and the higher the scale the less impact it has. To me it's obvious that at the tactical scale WEGO represents realism far better than IGOUGO. I believe that if the first type of wargame developed was digital and not board we'd have never seen the IGOUGO mechanic. Like abstract squads as it would have been way to fiddly to try and do 1 man casualties in a boardgame which means to my frustration tactical wargames carry over this boardgame limitation to the PC on the whole. SO many tactical wargames out on the PC have these boardgame restrictions holding them back sadly.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

The disadvantage of IGOUGO is that the light brigade is probably split into many squadrons\troops. When the first troop gets moved and destroyed the player then moves the rest of the brigade differently, whereas in WEGO all the units of the brigade move together.

More generally, WEGO means the player cannot use information gained within a turn to guide the movements of other units in the same turn. IGOUGO allows a player to move one unit through the time period of a turn, then give orders to the next unit at the start of that turn's time period with knowledge gained during the period.

The disadvantage of WEGO is that NOBODY gets to make use of info gained - even units that realistically could have done so.

So...you order your merchant fleets to sail through a supposedly quiet sector of the seas. What you didn't count on was that the enemy was poaching on that sector with his carriers! Boom! One fleet gets mauled by the carriers. Realistically, that ought to be the end of it - everybody else would turn around. But, under WEGO, each fleet obeys its orders and sails right into the teeth of that death trap one after the other - an ambush turns into total annihilation.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I think WEGO works the best at the tactical scale and the higher the scale the less impact it has. To me it's obvious that at the tactical scale WEGO represents realism far better than IGOUGO. I believe that if the first type of wargame developed was digital and not board we'd have never seen the IGOUGO mechanic. Like abstract squads as it would have been way to fiddly to try and do 1 man casualties in a boardgame which means to my frustration tactical wargames carry over this boardgame limitation to the PC on the whole. SO many tactical wargames out on the PC have these boardgame restrictions holding them back sadly.

Doesn't seem obvious to me. Imagine a naval battle in which both sides are oblivous to the movements of the other side - possibly even ramming into each other.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
... But, under WEGO, each fleet obeys its orders and sails right into the teeth of that death trap one after the other - an ambush turns into total annihilation.

Was sitting this one out but someone has to say it. Sorry to say, if you think that's what an WEGO game is, then you have no idea what it is. This concept of units blindly following orders just because is not what WEGO is all about, if it was then it would be dead, yet, it's not and there's a reason for it. WEGO is not for all games, nor all scales, neither it's better or worse than IGOUGO in certain situations, but there's clearly a place for it, there's a reason it's used, there is a way in which it's used and it's not units blindly moving around. To anyone reading this, please try a WEGO game, heck, go for the old W@W / V4V if you must, don't be put off by these inaccuracies and misinterpretations of what WEGO games are or how they operate.

[Mobeer]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

The disadvantage of IGOUGO is that the light brigade is probably split into many squadrons\troops. When the first troop gets moved and destroyed the player then moves the rest of the brigade differently, whereas in WEGO all the units of the brigade move together.

More generally, WEGO means the player cannot use information gained within a turn to guide the movements of other units in the same turn. IGOUGO allows a player to move one unit through the time period of a turn, then give orders to the next unit at the start of that turn's time period with knowledge gained during the period.

The disadvantage of WEGO is that NOBODY gets to make use of info gained - even units that realistically could have done so.

So...you order your merchant fleets to sail through a supposedly quiet sector of the seas. What you didn't count on was that the enemy was poaching on that sector with his carriers! Boom! One fleet gets mauled by the carriers. Realistically, that ought to be the end of it - everybody else would turn around. But, under WEGO, each fleet obeys its orders and sails right into the teeth of that death trap one after the other - an ambush turns into total annihilation.

It really depends on the timescales. Use 1 turn = 1 day with a 60 mile hex and it is reasonable that two convoys saling in the same hex in the same turn can both be sunk by a carrier group, whereas another convoy 4 hexes away (240 miles) has a chance to escape the following day when new orders can be given. In this case WEGO fits better.
... (and this is why I think eveyone plays War in the Pacific using 1 day turns)

Change the scales to 1 month turns and big chunks of ocean and then it makes more sense that a second convoy should be able to react to the first one being sunk, hence IGOUGO is better.

[wodin]

Curtis I could say lets take a WW1 flight combat game. In real life everything is happening all at the same time, a plane doesn't move first so the plane following knows exactly which way he is going to turn etc. How would the plane being followed ever shake his follower off if the follower knows which way he is going to go first.

As I said I think WEGO shines at the tactical scale. Things are happening all at the same time very quickly. Unlike say the strategic scale where time scales fit OK with IGOUGO.

Also talking of naval warfare check Steam and Iron. This uses a kind of WEGO system and it works fantastically with no ramming etc. Oh that's another thing with WEGO it needs to be pretty short turn length and not run that long that it effects decision making. It needs to run at a length of time that ends up not effecting the gameplay. CM games running for 1 minute is great. Flashpoint Campaigns have a excellent system that fits into the era superbly.

Another reason I find WEGO more of an obvious chose is that real life doesn't run IGOUGO it runs simultaneously i.e more WEGO like.

I'm not a WEGO priest what ever that maybe I just find I've had some real nail-biting times playing games using WEGO that wouldn't have been intense etc if they had been IGOUGO. I would love there to be a tactical wargame that you can play IGOUGO or WEGO and that way I could really evaluate the mechanics.

Aslong as we are all catered for that surely is the main thing? I would like to see more tactical WEGO games developed however there are higher priority wants in a tac wargame than WEGO mechanic, to me WEGO is the icing on the cake but not totally required.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC

Well I don't have a huge preference either way - my preference is a well designed war game that portrays the campaign being simulated in a proper manner (I leave this vague for a reason). Either system can work well when the other elements of the game are designed well.

This debate about WEGO or IGOUGO needs to address scale and sequence of play. They are not stand alone styles but are integrated into other game core elements which make a whole game a good one or a dog.

Is the game turn minutes, hours days weeks or months long? Makes a huge difference in how to simulate the flow of information.
What does the turn sequence look like? Does the non-phasing player get any reaction move/shoot or opportunity fire? Makes for big differences between game types.

My personal opinion (which won't buy coffee) is a good game is up to the designer to not mess it up. It can be either type of game as both have produced award winning titles.

Well said

[MrRoadrunner]

There were good "wego" board war games in the late seventies/early eighties. Wooden Ships and Iron Men, Ironclads, and the WWI air combat game Wings along with the WWII Air Force and Dauntless.
Players would plot movement on a chart and the turn would be played "movement by movement". Yes, planes in Wings, AF&D and Ships in Ironclads and WS&IM would collide if that was plotted. During the turn rules would "judge" if a collision occurred, unless it was at the end of the turn, when you are in a space and time that the enemy occupied.
Normally fire was done at the end of the turn. What I've seen in computer WEGO is that fire can occur at first sighting.

I am an old board war gamer and find IGOUGO is just something I like. Though, all five of the above were in my favorites to play. Sadly, those who like them and play them are no longer around. [:(]

RR