Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself?

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Ah!
An additional thought:
Nothing would please more than to see my son (now 2 years old) getting into wargames when he grows up. I make that extensive to teens and young people who are now into FPS and other genres. Well, without some attractive graphics, the genre will never atract them.

My son is 13 soon to be 14.

He has tried KP and HTTR and it was a no-go.

CC....yea.

Being how new wargamers or would be new gamers are younger and are USED to more bells and whistles means that dont be suprised if bells and whistles become the norm.

Cc is a good start for a 14 year old. When he´s really interested in WW2 or "the art of war" then he most probably also switch to the more abstract wargames like KP or HTTR. If not, well, then he might be like me and simply prefers "to be down there with the grunts" [;)]. Which simply ain´t happening for me with counters, sorry.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I say this and I say that, but truth is, I just don't know if wargaming with be an enduring past time.

My son is a contradiction.
He's in grade 4, and has been rated as reading at a grade 8 level. He isn't dumb.

But the second he gets any sort of difficulty in a console game, it's online for a cheat code. Life so many of his current era, to used to to much for to little effort in entertainment areas me thinks.

Wargames, if the software is made right, don't have cheat options. The game requires you actually know what you are doing (if the game is any good at all).
I am not sure he will every really care squat about wargames if the game requires you to master it or fail.

I like the challenge myself. When I win, it was because I was superior to the challenge. The last thing I want is a cheat code.
Pleasing to the eye is acceptible, as long as the designer didn't spend all his time on it.
If all the designer is good for is pleasing to the eye, then it is likely he should team up with a real wargamer to make sure it looks like a pleasing "wargame" when he is done.

People can say what they will, but I personally feel Strategic Command IS pleasing to the eye.

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck


Cc is a good start for a 14 year old. When he´s really interested in WW2 or "the art of war" then he most probably also switch to the more abstract wargames like KP or HTTR. If not, well, then he might be like me and simply prefers "to be down there with the grunts" [;)]. Which simply ain´t happening for me with counters, sorry.

Exactly.

I think a lot of gamers want to get "down and dirty" with the troops.

They think of playing wargames as kinda like "playing army" or whatever you called it as kid with plastic guns going "bang bang ...youre dead".

I can remember playing some really heated games of CC atthe zone.I was totaly into it,nothing else was going on in the world exept this battle Im fighting.Wow,that stuff was fun....let me stress that again..."WOW...THAT WAS FUN!!!"

To me CC was the best.I have yet to ever "get off" on a wargame like I did in the "glory days" of CC.

Maybe its me but I just cant get the same enjoyment out of it by moving around chits.

Not only do i like graphics but also sound...please bring back "the blood"...it was great.While being serious it also had some "tongue in cheek" sounds that made it kewl and FUN at the same time.

Not only was everthing there to see and hear but you also had to think...all the stuff great wargames are made of.

A lot of stress is put into AI,I will say straight up the SP AI in CC sucked.CC2 seemed the best as far as SP battles went.

I feel wargames shine in MP mode.Nothings funner than playing another human...win or lose..its a hoot.

When the majority of people think about war more than likely they think about death,bullets flying,explosions,screams and all the other "bells and whistles" that go along with it.

If it conjours up that image,a pretty accurate image at that,then,shouldnt the game represent these things.

I guess when some people think of war they think of the German high command sitting around a big map pushing around markers and making battle plans.....cool enough.

Some folks like playing the Field Marshall/General role and thats fine and dandy.

I prefer the role of a captain or somthing...A few squads or maybe a company or two with some support and THROW DOWN,IN YOURE FACE,LOUD,UGLY and TOTALY IMERSIVE war.

weres that darn CC disc[:D]

How many of you guys are still playing CC in these parts.

Ive been begging for some kind of tournament,wether it be CC,CM or SA.

Lets get some MP action going!

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Chelco

Hi riverbravo!
Nice to hear from you!
I have not doubts that, as he grows, he will be into those two. He is in the right path! He has seen the light!
Joke aside, do you two guys H2H in CC?

Im working on it.

Unfortunatly the shooter games like COD and Wolfenstien he will play to death.

He is coming around,maybe the civil war is more his thing since we have been to a battlefield or two.He can relate to it better since it happened on home turf so to speak.

I figure one day his interest in ww2 history and games will be pretty big.

I mostly let him decide,I mite give a little nudge in a certain direction and if he doesnt really dig it I dont push the subject on him.He will come around....I hope.

[Marc von Martial]

Ive been begging for some kind of tournament,wether it be CC,CM or SA.

Tournamenthouse.com is till doing big tournaments for all three of them.

[CCB]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The question I'm posing is, are the minimum PC requirements of new titles pushing you away?

No. I have more PC wargames now than I could ever hope to finish playing if I lived to be a million. (see Talonsoft's Campaign series [:'(]) 3d games just don't interest me that much. I prefer PC wargames that look and play like my favorite old board games. (see HPS sims Panzer campaigns and Squad Battles series.)

Also, if you got Steel Panthers, you shouldn't need another wargame. [;)]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Looking at past threads and comments both here and abroad, I have to only conclude one thing.

I have seen plenty of wargames I don't yet own, that use older system specs than newer system specs.

I have my eye set on picking up cheap CC4 and CC5 through CDAccess.com for instance.
I can say there are a dozen John Tiller titles I likely would like to have if I had the cash.

I have also seen in recent years a growing number of board games I would like to buy.

Sure those titles are either being sold by after market venders not helping the designer any, or the titles are not mainstream titles.
Is that my fault? nope.

I am not now mainstream, and frankly, I have no interest in being mainstream.

Mainstream wants the sexy looking games, so fine make them if you can.

But, what I would like, is to see companies that want to sell to me, mr I don't want those sexy pretty games realising the sort of games I want, will NEVER be mainstream if done the way I want them done.

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to ever gush over games based solely on their visual appeal.
I for instance, think "visually" Strategic Command is quite pleasing to the eye.
I like the sound effects in John Tiller games eh.
But I also like how you can't escape the reality you actually ARE playing a wargame while playing one.
They bear no similarity with a console game, and that is ok.

Want to get rich, sell to mainstream. Want to get famous, sell to those that will give that credit

[KG Erwin]

Many good points raised here, so perhaps my fears of wargaming "spec"-ing itself out of existence are unfounded. Perhaps my concerns are more geared to the aging of the wargamer demographic. I was born in the middle of the baby-boom generation, and we're the ones that embraced board wargames in the 60s & 70s and then made the transition to computer games from the late 80s to today.

I'm encouraged by the steady growth of the Matrix membership, which implies that the following generations are still being attracted to the wargame genre, though maybe not in the same numbers. Les touched upon this, but in reality, this could be a good thing, if new games based on new wars slowly die out for lack of subject matter. Once again, the baby-boomer game designers had a wealth of material to draw upon from "The Century of War" we were born in.

So, if in 50 years time, there wouldn't be any major wars to "game", then I should be happy if the genre no longer had any reason to exist.

[EricGuitarJames]

Having read through the thread I'll stick my 'two-pennorth' in.

None of my wargames stretch the 2 year old system I use. Looking to the future I can't see anything coming up that will over the next two years. 'Fancy graphics' almost certainly won't feature in upcoming games from 'Panther', '2by3' or 'SSG', indeed their graphics aren't a big leap forward over TOAW. However, they will require greater pc processing power as they aim for ever more realistic (and complex) combat modelling. This is largely why wargames are taking longer to develop (that's Grigsby's excuse anyway[:D]). At the moment it seems we could have quality graphics or realistic combat modelling but we can't have both. Yet!

[mavraam]

So, if in 50 years time, there wouldn't be any major wars to "game", then I should be happy if the genre no longer had any reason to exist.

Don't hold your breath.

We all like to think that the world has finally put war behind us, but as long as there are oppressive regimes in the world, there will be war. And we are a long way from a free world.

The best we can hope for is that the only wars will be wars of liberation, not conquest.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Man I sooooo wish war and warfare and conflict gaming could become boring and dull due to it no longer being part of what it is to be part of this race.

Not expecting that to happen any time soon. But it is not like I believe WW2 to hold infinite charm, it might one day become "dull" to the point no one cares much any more.

We will be pondering these matters though for another 40 ish years at least yet though.
After that I suppose the last of the board gaming age group will be worm food mostly

[Rainbow7]

I have several WW2 wargames, but really that's not why I play them. It's the thoughtful strategy that gets me. I'd just as soon (and do) play sci-fi turn-based economic/empire games. Lots of detail, big manuals, complex processes to manage and master, and a good group of people on a forum to discuss stuff with.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I think the reason I like WW2, is because it was a big war, invloved the whole planet, many nations and wasn't mired in questionable politics.

It was cut and dried, us vs them, actual declarations of war, large sums of forces, major tech advances.

The sort of things you can build countless simulations out of.

Modern stuff, well it is sometimes to depressing.

I still recall the break up of Yugoslavia, and the predominant thought being, we humans just never learn a bloody thing no matter how many die trying to teach us.

[New York Jets]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

The question I'm posing is, are the minimum PC requirements of new titles pushing you away? Is the PC wargame genre advancing itself into extinction? This is an important question, as the best new games require top-notch PCs. Do you really want to buy a new PC just to play a game? SPWaW can be played on most older PCs. Combat Leader and Close Assault will require higher-end machines. Is this the problem? Should new wargames retro-fit to our obsolete PCs, or should the gamers cough up the cash to upgrade?

It depends on what type of 'wargame' you're talking about. Medal of Honor? BAAAHH! Tiller's Battleground Series or Panzer Campaigns (or most HPS titles) or Uncommon Valor/SPWaW? Now you're talking!

As someone who has spent a large portion of the last 30 yrs standing over/looking at hex maps all O have to say is, it's not about the graphics, it's about the game play.

[miclogic]

Nice thoughts all around. One challenge presented by the genre in and of itself is the learning curve, period. Good interface or not, beautiful graphics or not, without some level of understanding on the part of the player most wargames simply will never make it past an initial, cursory glance.

To further make my point, I present myself and my 4 brothers. I am in my mid-30's and I've been playing war games from back in the Ancient Art of War days on something like a TRS-80 or something like that. Having been instilled with an initial love from this simplified game, I've gone on to read many books on military history, biographies of military personnel, watch movies about war, visit battle sites whenever I get the chance, and of course, play just about every war game I could get my hands on since then. (It didn't hurt that I became a programmer and thus had a constant need to upgrade my computer hardware, allowing me to keep pace with technological improvements). My 4 brothers, on the other hand, range from in ages from 19-34 and never had these influences working for them. They only recently acquired computers of their own (within the last 5 years) and my efforts to get them interested in war games has fizzled on every front with very few exceptions, ie., Call of Duty, Blitzkrieg, and of course the online games like Vietnam or Road to Rome, etc.) I love Highway to the Reich, for example, but trying to help them come to love the game simply doesn't work because the manual doesn't provide them with enough information to play it well. Yes, it explains the interface and how to make things happen the right way, but how can they WIN? (Well, they could invest another $20 in the strategy guide, of couse, but GOOD LUCK trying to get another $20 from someone who doesn't like the game yet anyway!) Without some background into what type of units work with other units, what their roles are, how they operate properly and coordinate with each other, and a background in the history of the battles, they have little if any hope of winning and that is simply NO FUN. When you boil it all down, games have to be FUN or why will we play them? If I want to learn, I have several options, I can read a book or watch a movie, etc, both of which would probably help me learn faster and better, or at least be more enjoyable, why would I try to hack my way through 50 hours of gametime trial and error before I can play properly? Pick up one of the above mentioned games, however, and you can play at an acceptable level in no time at all, in part due to their simplistic nature.

My point is, wargames can be fun and immersive, most of us have experienced that, but not without the right kind of understanding on the player's part. If publishers want to open up a larger market with new players, they might want to consider making wonderful tools like the strategy guide for HTTR a part of the game package to begin with, because that is what this newer market of players NEED in order to enjoy the game at the level they want. They want to WIN, and they have a chance right from the get go, not be required to invest weeks of their lives before they have a prayer at playing head-to-head with another player.

Anyway, I doubt I've made any kind of point, much less the point I am intending to make, but it's my 2 cents anyway. Enjoy! [&o]

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Want to get rich, sell to mainstream. Want to get famous, sell to those that will give that credit

koo-koo[8|]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Nice imitation of a clock Riverbravo

But were you trying to say something?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Miclogic, are you the same Miclogic from Warfare HQ?

I only ask, because you seem to have abandoned your thread there asking for sales (if it is the same person that is).

[New York Jets]

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

The above quote is why wargames are dieing.

Wargames are not dying. I don't mean to be rude or picayune but this is the second time I've seen you spell the word this way, so I don't believe it to be a typo.

<snip>

Why is there an unwritten rule that wargames must have crappy graphics and only use minimal requirements?

You can make good wargames without the bells and whistles but.....why?Just to please "old timers" who cant see the advantages of a graphicaly superior game.Who wants to read charts or strain there eyes to see if a unit is destroyed?If its possible to represent this on the screen then do it.

Wargames don't have to have crappy graphics to be good. I'll settle for a good AI. As one of those 'old timers' you decry so much I'd be interested to have you give me one example where the 'bells & whistles' have compelled you to continue playing an otherwise piece of crap war game? Us 'old timers' prefer historically accurate and well developed games. Great, flashy graphics are 'gravy'.


<snip>

I would think "dumbing down" games for 5% of the wargaming crowd who is more than likely cry about it anyway is damaging to designers and all involved.

Keep on pushing it as far as you go and dont sweat the "bored game" crowd.

Whats next?....Lets make models with less pieces and parts so we dont have to pay an extra 2 bucks.

Actually, 'dumbing down' is what the 'great graphics over great game play' crowd have done to war gaming. Great graphics are fine. First I want to see a great game with a great interface and one that is historically accurate and compelling to play. If you can't do that, then screw great graphics.

[miclogic]

Yes, Les, it is in fact me. Back in town only today and haven't made all of my rounds. Apologies to all.