The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

[Rosseau]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

Horse cavalry and elephants remind me of what a great job the Field of Glory II series does in that area. This one is an awesome board-to-computer wargame conversion of sorts from a brilliant developer who loves his topic, with an AI that rarely allows (me) to win.

So, with all my griping, I must say FoG II defines the concept of "progress," and is light-years ahead of the original FoG digital, although that was fun, too.

[Pvt_Grunt]

ORIGINAL: Big Ivan

I was not thinking that but it makes sense!

Its funny, I started playing board games in the early 70's and in the late 90's I moved on to Computer (Digital) wargames. One of the biggest reasons for me was convenience and I didn't need to have huge tables to enjoy my games!

I remember we had 2-3 ping-pong tables to setup GDW's Fire In The East. Today with Grigsby's game on the eastern from I have it on my computer screen and life is good!![;)]

I used to play AH Blitzkrieg with my brother on the floor! One time the dog wiped out our game - counters everywhere! The 1979 equivalent of a HD crash[:D]

[Pvt_Grunt]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

It also has Sid Meier's Gettysburg

That was a great game! Innovative, fun and difficult.

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

Would seem you do not have the power of persuasion. Ridicule probably is not the way to go, to change my mind. That and you ignored the bit about (and with guns), by which I meant that this is during any age where gunpowder was used in greater amounts. But please tell me about how elephants and concentrated horse cavalry did against well entrenched machine guns again Also, I noticed you sort of (once again) missed the point of the my answer and the thread. You are building up some track record there

[RyanCrierie]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Why are so many talented individuals working on their own sad projects instead of teaming up to impress us all with a relevant Tobruk or Festung Europe or Global War? It fucking sucks I'll tell you that much.

I think what we need is a good, scaleable computer wargame engine that can handle massive amounts of hexes and massive amounts of detail.

Look at what's happening in the wider PC gaming world -- nobody's creating their own custom 3D engine anymore, because we're long past that -- just pick one of the major solutions like Unreal or Unity and go from there.

We need that at the wargaming level -- PC technology has now advanced to make it feasible -- I found this old thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1080943

They were talking in 2006 regarding 10 vs 30 mile hexes:

most pcs today are running on 256-512MBs of memory with 128-256 for most VGA cards, so it's really beginning to eat into that seriously.

We're well past those technological limitations -- in 2017 the average PC was like 8 GB of RAM and had about 1 to 2 GB of VRAM.

We also have a lot of technically minded people here -- but unlike "mainstream" computer gaming such as Call of Duty or Battlefield, a lot of the technical solutions for computer wargaming (pathfinding across hexes, checking LOS rather quickly) etc aren't widely known, outside of maybe the Civilization fanbase (since that series added hexes).

That's why a Common Wargame Engine (CWE) is needed. I believe that Matrix/Slitherine were talking about making their own -- Archon, but there's not a lot of information about it.

[RyanCrierie]

With the above being said; Battlefront (BFC) needs to just abandon their CMx2 engine -- it may have been OK in 2004 or 2005 when Shock Force 1 came out; but in 2021, it's long since been eclipsed by every other 3D engine; and the sales figures aren't enough to support the kind of intensive effort that's needed to stay "in touch" with bleeding edge graphics, that Creative Assembly/SEGA can afford with Total War.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

It appears that you do not understand the power and maneuverability of concentrated horse cavalry. Nor what the various types did. Nor the shock and awe of elephants . . .

Would seem you do not have the power of persuasion. Ridicule probably is not the way to go, to change my mind. That and you ignored the bit about (and with guns), by which I meant that this is during any age where gunpowder was used in greater amounts. But please tell me about how elephants and concentrated horse cavalry did against well entrenched machine guns again Also, I noticed you sort of (once again) missed the point of the my answer and the thread. You are building up some track record there

This part ". . . I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns) . . . " meant to me that even WWI was out since the tanks did not lead to many breakthroughs with maneuvering unless it was very late in the War when the German military was falling apart. That also leaves out most of WWII in Asia since there was little to none of that except at the beginning of the Japanese expansion after 6 December 1941. It also leaves out the border skirmishes between the Soviet Far East Forces and the Japanese military. So that only leaves Europe in Poland, France, and in the East plus North Afrika. It does leave out Italy.

As far as horse cavalry, the Polish did charge German infantry with Cavalry where the infantry broke and ran. They even used their ceremonial lances to great effect. The Germans, after the Polish military moved along, did move some armoured units there and then took pictures for propaganda purposes.

I suggest that you read about the Polish/Lithuanian Hussars and Uhlans, and exactly how badly they performed during the 16th to the 18th centuries. You may not like it. If you want some examples, let me know.

But here are some clips from a movie set in the Middle East during WWI where Australian Light Horse, mounted infantry aka Dragoons, played Cavalry and charged entrenched Ottoman infantry supported by water cooled machine guns, light artillery, and even a light bomber.

(Halloween Special Beersheba 100th Anniversary ) We'll Take Beersheba music video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhT6ZPVnIFE

A different video of the charge and you can hear how the German advisors to the Ottomans gave some very poor advice . . .

Battle of Beersheba Part 2 10 31 1917

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6liLYcrlSBw

[DingBat]

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

With the above being said; Battlefront (BFC) needs to just abandon their CMx2 engine -- it may have been OK in 2004 or 2005 when Shock Force 1 came out; but in 2021, it's long since been eclipsed by every other 3D engine; and the sales figures aren't enough to support the kind of intensive effort that's needed to stay "in touch" with bleeding edge graphics, that Creative Assembly/SEGA can afford with Total War.

I think you just answered your own question as to why they may not have abandoned their engine.

[RyanCrierie]

ORIGINAL: DingBat
I think you just answered your own question as to why they may not have abandoned their engine.

I think you misread my entire question.

Let's look at EMPIRE: Total War, from 2009 by Creative Assembly.

Sega reported the game sold 810,000 units worldwide during their last fiscal year period of 2008

Also, checking MobyGames reveals 450~ people are credited in ETW credits; breaking down to:

40~ Programmers at Creative Assembly alone
30~ Artists/Animators at Creative Assembly Alone

If we assume 400~ people are being paid an average of $40K a year for 2 years of development; that works out to 400 * 2 = 800 man years * $40,000 = $32M game development costs.

If we assume that Empire sold 650K of those units at full price ($49), they'd have taken in $31.8M.

By contrast:

Battlefront's Shock Force (which gave us the basic CMx2 engine which has been evolved the last 15 years) had:

1 Programmer (Charles Moylan)
8~ artist/animators

If we assume the same two year development cycle; that's 18 man years @ $40,000 = $720,000 development costs for the Shock Force engine.

It made sense back in 1997-2006 for Battlefront to do their own custom engine (and Koiosworks with Panzer Command series), because nobody really was doing this kind of stuff back then -- first person shooters were still rather primitive, covering small areas, and flight simulator engines sacrificed a lot of detail to cover large areas.

Plus, 3D game technology was still "primitive" enough in that period that small teams could come up with innovative approaches, such as:

John Carmack = Early Wolf/Doom/Quake/ID engines
Ken Silverman = Build Engine
Tim Sweeney = Early Unreal Engine

Now?

If you're doing 3D anything, it may be simpler just to pay Epic Games 5% of gross revenues as royalties for Unreal Engine 5, rather than try to beat them; particularly now that Train Sim World (TSW) runs on Unreal 4; which is notable since Train Simulations require:

A.) a large expansive world of many km2

B.) unusually high level of detail since it's a ground level POV.

NOTE: Yes, I am aware of 1C Games (IL-2 Sturmovik Series) and Eagle Dynamics (DCS World) simulation games using their own custom engines in 2021 -- but they "get away" with it by being Russian developers, enabling low salary costs, while selling their products full price globally.

[gamer78]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

But historically commanders&leaders can have their ideals or madness that we also choose to play these wargames shouldn't be only about technology. Like Enver Pasha march with cavalry into Bolshevik machine gun.
Corto Maltese - La Maison Dorée de Samarkand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJva5xdoWg

Technology against chivalry.

[Tailspintommy]

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

As a modder, and someone who was offered a chance to make a game, once, I think I can explain what the first thought that goes through a creator of any mod or game is: Do I want to do it?

Much like players get a kick out of playing something that they love, a game designer also has feelings about the things they do. There has to be a drive. I think this drive will supersede any other thought to begin with. Then perhaps that person will look into, what can I do here that is unique, but also serves the subject well. Nobody wants to copy something that is already out there.

You can say all you want to a designer of games what you want. It won't change the way they feel about a subject. For instance, I feel that wargames made after the advent of the atomic bomb are impractical, and to me feel "funny" (in a bad sense) because the players always have the option of breaking the emergency glass (firing those nukes, and getting retaliated at) and then the game ends in a tie. That is just how I feel.

In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

These views may be wrong or right, but it doesn't change my joy of doing one rather than another.

Often what a game maker, will need is a vision. A reason to do something. This will drive creativity much more than trying to sit down and solve the squaring of the circle, by inspiration (which is what it is to demand that games be innovative).

Anyway, those are my 3/4s of a crown.

A very interesting thread and a very interesting comment. [:)]

Wargaming is not my main hobby. My serious hobby is making flying model aircraft.. My point being that I agree 100% with the comment above that you have to want to do it. If I don't have any feeling for a particular aeroplane, then building a model of one would suck the life out of me, even if I was being paid well for it.

As for the main subject of the thread, my wargame areas of interest are specific to WWI and WWII. I prefer strategy games but don't want several covering the same campaign, so I'll pick the "daddy" from each area. WitP.AE and WitE.2 have those two covered for me. Rise of Flight is a flight sim, not a wargame as such but it covers WWI air war.. I'm tempted by WitW but haven't bought it yet.

I love the idea behind Command Ops.2 of leaving the hex and letting the ai follow my orders. That really grabs me.. I can certainly see the arguments about A. N. Other Battle of the Bulge release being a yawn but that's just my personal view and I know that many of you are counting the days until the next one is released. There's nothing wrong in that, we all have different tastes and views. Long may that continue. [8D]

[ernieschwitz]

ORIGINAL: gamer78

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


In the same way I don't want to make a game from a time before tanks (and with guns). My reasoning for this is that I don't see the joy in playing and thus making a game that will be static warfare, with very little chance of breakthroughs and rapid movement. That is just how I see these periods.

But historically commanders&leaders can have their ideals or madness that we also choose to play these wargames shouldn't be only about technology. Like Enver Pasha march with cavalry into Bolshevik machine gun.
Corto Maltese - La Maison Dorée de Samarkand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLJva5xdoWg

Technology against chivalry.

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I didn't say that nobody should make these games. What I said was that it just isn't going to be me

[Rosseau]

Not to change the topic, but I am confident many of us are going to like the upcoming Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive.

It has certainly brightened my personal outlook of The State of Digital Wargames Nov. 2021.

I hadn't watched any of the previews for the game until now. It is certainly evolutionary (and not revolutionary), but done oh so well.

[Michael T]

The only weakness in Vic's games are the OOB's. They tend to be inaccurate and not up to expectation. Has this aspect improved do you think?

[GloriousRuse]

As a thought:

One of the chief reasons for the perceived slower rate of advance in wargames is because they are fundamentally about simulating real world data and processes and then abstracting them into a game form. And they do require abstraction - even if a real world military achieved perfect awareness of where every one of it's soldiers was, at some point the guy looking at the map (digital or analog) would want to see unit icons.

Compare this to a flight sim, which is generally only deciding what it NEEDs to abstract due to resources, and what minor bits it's leaving out for playability. Making better flight sims is an incredibly hard, tool intensive, AI heavy, research driven, vastly complicate undertaking for sure. But the road map is pretty easy to see: make the models better, make the graphics better, make the flying more realistic, get the interplay of weapons centered around that plane right(er), make the MP servers more capable, make the campaigns more interactively interesting.

Now say you want to "do something new" in wargaming. You need to pick what it is you even want to do, how to represent that, what the bounds are going to be for your small slice of war, where to focus your efforts, and where to use existing conventions. And then you need to represent it the right way for this conflict, for this echelon, for this feel, for this level of playability, to stress these dynamics. You naturally probably use some starting points, and realize that even "small" changes in how you abstract things may result in huge engine changes - want to make WiTE2 WEGO? Better be prepared to either program extraordinary AI or face players demanding the control of IGOUGO back because it's not working well. Want physics-real armor penetration? Well, you need a physics engine. Don't want hexes? Great, but you better be ready to simulate everything else down to hexless granularity, which may be an impractical pain in the ass with no real changes for a game about corps and divisions.

And of course, you could get it wrong. Some people here may remember the first CMx2 series was meant to be played in real time, because it was going to show the vast advances in the engine and was "obviously" more realistic. Only the game still required you to be making decisions for every squad leader, every tank commander, and every FO...and it was a battalion level game. One of the very first things conceded was that it was going back to WEGO. How much time and effort ended up going right back to the basics?

Anyhow, long story short, I suspect the perceived slowness of advance is basically tied to this: for other games to advance they mostly just need to improve the execution of their given convention, and if they break convention they can often make the world fit the game they want. Every real advance in a wargame usually represents a new convention, and it has to use what the real world has provided.

[Rosseau]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

The only weakness in Vic's games are the OOB's. They tend to be inaccurate and not up to expectation. Has this aspect improved do you think?

Vic made the wise decision of recruiting Davide Gambina to handle the OOBs, scenario design, etc.

I am not in a position to judge the accuracy, but hope knowledgeable players like yourself will chime in on the OOBs and scenario design once the game is released!

[Rosseau]

ORIGINAL: GloriousRuse

As a thought:

One of the chief reasons for the perceived slower rate of advance in wargames is because they are fundamentally about simulating real world data and processes and then abstracting them into a game form. And they do require abstraction - even if a real world military achieved perfect awareness of where every one of it's soldiers was, at some point the guy looking at the map (digital or analog) would want to see unit icons.

Compare this to a flight sim, which is generally only deciding what it NEEDs to abstract due to resources, and what minor bits it's leaving out for playability. Making better flight sims is an incredibly hard, tool intensive, AI heavy, research driven, vastly complicate undertaking for sure. But the road map is pretty easy to see: make the models better, make the graphics better, make the flying more realistic, get the interplay of weapons centered around that plane right(er), make the MP servers more capable, make the campaigns more interactively interesting.

Now say you want to "do something new" in wargaming. You need to pick what it is you even want to do, how to represent that, what the bounds are going to be for your small slice of war, where to focus your efforts, and where to use existing conventions. And then you need to represent it the right way for this conflict, for this echelon, for this feel, for this level of playability, to stress these dynamics. You naturally probably use some starting points, and realize that even "small" changes in how you abstract things may result in huge engine changes - want to make WiTE2 WEGO? Better be prepared to either program extraordinary AI or face players demanding the control of IGOUGO back because it's not working well. Want physics-real armor penetration? Well, you need a physics engine. Don't want hexes? Great, but you better be ready to simulate everything else down to hexless granularity, which may be an impractical pain in the ass with no real changes for a game about corps and divisions.

And of course, you could get it wrong. Some people here may remember the first CMx2 series was meant to be played in real time, because it was going to show the vast advances in the engine and was "obviously" more realistic. Only the game still required you to be making decisions for every squad leader, every tank commander, and every FO...and it was a battalion level game. One of the very first things conceded was that it was going back to WEGO. How much time and effort ended up going right back to the basics?

Anyhow, long story short, I suspect the perceived slowness of advance is basically tied to this: for other games to advance they mostly just need to improve the execution of their given convention, and if they break convention they can often make the world fit the game they want. Every real advance in a wargame usually represents a new convention, and it has to use what the real world has provided.

This is a bit deep (for me), but I think I understand the gist of it. Thanks for your observations. Interesting also on CMx2. Making decisions for every squad leader, etc., makes the game a bit cumbersome for me, but I still have enough strength to play them once in a while. [;)]

[Fred98]

I will not touch any wargame that uses the isometric view. Top down 2D is best.

I will not touch any wargame that uses toy tanks and toy soldiers on the map.
.

[Fred98]

The Command Ops series by Panther games.

In traditioanl wargaming, you might have 100 counters on the map.

The main feature of the game is that, instead of giving orders to every unit on the map, you give orders to a HQ unit and that unit issues orders to the subordinate units. Great idea!

I have every game in the series. With every game, I have said, "This game has great potential but its still not there yet".

Problems not fixed since the first game 19 years ago:

Germany used horse drawn supply. Therefore the movement types need to be:
Horse
Foot
Wheeled
Tracked
For 19 years the game series used Foot and Wheeled. (no tracked vehicles??)

Terrain: In traditional wargaming, we will place units in rough terrain looking out over clear terrain. If the enemy moves over the clear terrain we will fire on them. Try that in this series and the L.O.S is blocked by the rough terrain that we are currently occupying.

A company might have a frontage of 100 meters. Zoom out of the map and the unit does not shrink. Instead the unit now covers 10,000 meters! In the last version he corrected this so now the units shrink. Not all the units, the HQ units do not shrink. They cover 10,000 meters. Why is that?

If you wish mount multiple attacks at once, it is usually best that the attacks are coordinated to start at the same time. Another player came up with the idea of "Attack at" meaning a given time. This has never been implemented after 10 years.

After 19 years, this series has great potential but it is not there yet