Is the Wargame Genre Killing Itself?

[EricGuitarJames]

It sounds a bit like you're all talking past each other at the mo'. [:)]

Didz, correct me if I'm wrong here. What you would like is a 'first-person real-time strategy role-playing game' whereby the player would be Rommel (or whoever but Rommel's as good an example as any!). As such you could choose where you would be either on the battlefield with the troops, in a forward hq or maybe back at some more permanent installation. You would receive action reports, requests for reinforcements or supplies, intel on enemy positions, troops movements or whatever, all the info that a battlefield general would receive and then issue the appropriate orders. This could be played solo or with a number of other players who would be functioning in subordinate roles in a similar manner.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
Didz, correct me if I'm wrong here. What you would like is a 'first-person real-time strategy role-playing game' whereby the player would be Rommel (or whoever but Rommel's as good an example as any!). As such you could choose where you would be either on the battlefield with the troops, in a forward hq or maybe back at some more permanent installation.

Not quite.

The design concept I produced was for a 'first person', 'command-constrained', 3D battle environment, whereby the player or players assumed the role of various commanders whose knowledge would be limited to what was visible to them at their present location but who would have access through their staff to all the resources their historical counterparts had at the time.

Recognising that this might prove frustrating to non-purists the design also allowed the player to change personality if they wished and view events from another characters location but clearly if the player was Napoleon and chose to switch temporarily to say D'Erlon to see how the attack was going. He would only have the command resources of a Corps Commander whilst in that role.

By 'command-constrained' what I mean is that each role would be limited in how much influence it could exercise by the historical constrains which existed at the time. For example a General of Brigade typically only had two ADC's therefore if he sent two orders, one with each ADC, he could not send anymore until one of his ADC's returned (if they did). He must therefore either deliver the next message himself or wait.

The speed and reliabilty of the command process would also be optionaly modified according to the historical rating of the actual commander. Thus hampering players in playing historically less successful generals.

The game itself would be playing in bounds allowing players to issue orders (subject to command constraints) before proceding to roll forward the 3D environment to play out the result of the next period of play. (Similar to the Combat Mission system). This is mainly to allow for PBEM as an option for multi-plyer gaming as I would envisage this game being played with most of the senior commanders played by human players.

During the roll-forward phase the game will be enacted in full 3D and the player will view the action from his characters perspective. E.g. If he is in a tent he will hear the action but not see anything. Also during this phase the player can change the location of his character moving freely about the battlefield and meeting other commanders to exchange verbal messages. They can even if desired accompany their troops into the attack though clearly this would affect their command ability and their grasp of events.

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
You would receive action reports, requests for reinforcements or supplies, intel on enemy positions, troops movements or whatever, all the info that a battlefield general would receive and then issue the appropriate orders. This could be played solo or with a number of other players who would be functioning in subordinate roles in a similar manner.

Yes. In effect, in tactical play the player would be mainly concerned with tactical command of his troops on the 3D battlefield. After the battle the player would return to their HQ where the days reports and intelligence will have been prepared for review by his chief of staff and he will be able to dispatch his orders for the next days march (again limited by command constraints) Sub-ordinate commanders would do likewise but their knowledge of events would reflect their own level of command as would their influence over the next days movements.

[Oh! I would just add that a player could decide to return his character to the HQ at any point during the battle. However, he would have to physically move his character there if he wanted to use the resources it contained (like his map table). Obviously whilst he was there is knowledge of other events would be reduced by what he could now see, hear and do. Typically, such an action would only be triggered by the arrival of a messenger from another commander informing him of critical events beyond the battlefield.]

Strategic movement would effectively be conducted in the background as having players spend hours travelling might work for 747 flight simulators but not for the invasion of Russia. Perhaps some cut scene of troops marching past or something just to give the impression of movement. The game would then pause when another encounter occurred to allow the players to react and revert to tactical mode before action ensued. Players not involved in a local tactical acction would be given the opportunity to select subordinate roles within the forces involved but would not be able to issue orders relating to the action unless their character would have been aware of the event.

Thus the player playing Napoleon might be informed that he can hear cannon fire to the south and be invited to respond but cannot issue any further orders if after responding he discovers D'Erlons Corps is heavily engaged just because he has chosen to play Gen de Div Donzelot and now knows the full extent of the threat.

D'Erlons action would then be played out in the same way whilst any troops marching to the guns will arrive as and when they can. So, if Napoleon had decided when he heard the cannon fire to ride over to see what it was he would eventually arrive and the Player would be invited to switch from Donzelot to Napoleon and assume overall command.

Anyway thats the sort of concept. Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Hmm walk into ANY and I do mean ANY gaming store in Canada and the US and use the term "role", "rolegame" or "rolegamer", and I can assure Didz they will NOT be talking about what he appears to think the words mean.

And this is regardless of how old Didz might be.

I'm 42 and find it funny Didz appears unable to actually relate to my comments. That's a fairly big rock you must have been under Didz

You can claim to be using the term in a "generic sense", but in North America a rolegamer is a person that plays rolegames. They come as paper and pencil, they come as computer adaptions, you can even spend a weekend in a park doing it live in person 24 hours a day dressed up in actual costum if you are obsessed enough.
I have a friend that has spent 800 bucks having a suit of genuine leather armour made for him actually.

But rolegames whatever they may be, are about rolegaming.

You say fantasy board game, but can you give me an example of one?

You say roleplaying existed long before Dungeons and Dragons, well in my experience, there was nothing previous to TRS's creations.

Fail to see a connection with rolegaming and miniatures? surely you have heard of TSR.

You make the UK sound like a truely odd place Didz removed from everything I know of actually.

But then again, I recently mailed a friend some common A4 paper in a gaming trade of all things. He wanted something he could print out ASL pages on, and have it properly match the pages of his manual. England is a weird place if you have trouble finding A4 paper if you ask me

I am not somehow surprised that you seem to think wargming is ONLY played with miniatures. But don't worry I get the same reaction when I try to tell people board games are better than computer games hehe.

I have Third Reich PC. Hmm I don't recall anyone calling it brilliant though. I seem to recall a lot of complaints about the AI in the first release.

"Perhaps, you aren't old enough to have been involved in mainstream wargaming before computer wargames started dominating the scene."

Well I am unsure of your age (ain't listed), but as I am 42. I was around when rolegaming began, I was also around when board gaming began as well.
But infortunately, I didn't do it in the UK where apparently no one ever played anything from Avalon Hill, SPI, TSR, GDW, I could list a lot of other titles but I hope I am making the point.

It does seem though, that you have a total bias against anything involving 20th century military operations.

"It is perfectly feasible to refight an entire war without touching a hexgrid"

I sure would love to see you fight out the whole of WWII using miniatures.

I know Europa is a big game, but I would like to see you fight out Barbarossa, all of it, within a week (assuming you play each day all day for 7 days).

I am actually contemplating writing up a rolegame design focusing on credible military operations of the past in a realistic real world setting ie no goofy fantasy scifi elements.
I doubt it would meet your needs though.
You seem to have an odd perception of what the term "role" means.

Either it means you are in command, be it in command of miniatures, card board counters representing military formations moving on a map with some manner of hex grid overlay, or plastic pieces ala Axis and Allies on a map with regional locations, or it means you are acting out the personality of a commander in a styylised recreation of the event through a roleplaying game.

In either case, the person doing the gaming, is functioning in the role of the person in command.
But I can't seem to get over the idea, that somehow you think if there are no miniatures involved, it isn't really a wargame?

Your three levels of wargaming are just three variations on using miniatures on a diorama.

Maybe I should respond with if you ain't in a uniform carrying a real weapon and actually firing live ammo on a real mlitary training exercise, you really are not in a real wargame.

[EricGuitarJames]

Cheers Didz, now I can see where you're coming from[:)]

Looking at it, imho it seems to be a system that would work best with 'Horse and Musket' or earlier period engagements where armies were relatively 'discrete' formations that operated within relatively small geographical areas. Therefore you could be Napoleon, Barclay de Tolly, Schwarzenberg, Frederick the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Henry V, Charlemagne or whoever since the scope of the conflict could just be within one persons grasp (and within the processing power of a single modern pc). I suspect anything more modern might be a bit much. I could see a battle like Jena/Auerstadt working very well under the system you describe though[:)]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

The design concept I produced was for a 'first person', 'command-constrained', 3D battle environment, whereby the player or players assumed the role of various commanders whose knowledge would be limited to what was visible to them at their present location but who would have access through their staff to all the resources their historical counterparts had at the time.

So, picture yourself playing hmm Battlefield 1942, the Napoleonic mod. You have a battalion under your command. All of which is on the server at that time. And all you can see, is what you can see (which is currently the case).

You would have the ability to walk around as you can already now in that game.

And of course, if you were found by an any spy, shot dead, game ends for you, as you are now dead.

You have subordinates of course, who will have subordinates, etc etc etc.

So you tell your underlings, I wish to attack here, at this time.
Well that's your part done.
So you sit, and you sit and you sit.

And all you see is what you see, because of course, it's realistic, so you can't just scroll around the map in god mode, that's cheating.

So you sit some more. And 3 real actual hours later your attack goes in. You assume. You ain't there.

Well hell , you could always get on your horse and see the front.

But along the way you run into an ambush.

Shot dead.

Same result, game is over.

Nope, no respawn for you, everyone else is still playing, and you can't join this game in progress.

Maybe next game. Unless of course this one lasts a while. And who knows, it might eh.

Is sounding exciting yet?

[EricGuitarJames]

Well Les I would suspect that under the system Didz espouses you would respawn as another commander somewhat lower down the chain. So if you were a corps commander you'd respawn as a divisional commander, if they were all filled then down to brigade. Since there would be 'battlefield promotions' as there would be in real-life I don't see this as a problem.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Possibly Eric.

No reason it would not be possible.

But I get the idea from his posts, he could care less for anything not stuck back in the 18th or maybe 19 century.

He appears for instance, unwilling to contemplate being anything outside of a military commander who would only have forces that were within a few square miles of him.

His notion would just not really work for anything 20th century.

He almost seems a combination of military miniatures elitist and Napoleonics era only centered.

He also doesn't appear to have any knowledge of the commercial market outside of the UK.

The only time I have ever encountered his hobby, is the few cases where I have been inside of a large enough magazine shop, to sponsor a few publications that deal with military miniatures as a hobby.

It does exist, I know it exists, but he seems unaware of anything that is run of the mill outside of the UK.

The idea he was unsure of my knowledge of pre computer wargaming was stunningly comical (cosidering most here at Matrix Games think I am a stick in the mud grognard myself ).

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Hmm walk into ANY and I do mean ANY gaming store in Canada and the US and use the term "role", "rolegame" or "rolegamer", and I can assure Didz they will NOT be talking about what he appears to think the words mean.

And this is regardless of how old Didz might be.

I'm 42 and find it funny Didz appears unable to actually relate to my comments. That's a fairly big rock you must have been under Didz

Not really. I get the impression that you are deliberately interpreting the term in relation to its use as marketing label for computer games.

As I have said the term 'Roleplay' has a more generic meaning, just as gay does not necessarily mean homosexual.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
You can claim to be using the term in a "generic sense", but in North America a rolegamer is a person that plays rolegames. They come as paper and pencil, they come as computer adaptions, you can even spend a weekend in a park doing it live in person 24 hours a day dressed up in actual costum if you are obsessed enough.
I have a friend that has spent 800 bucks having a suit of genuine leather armour made for him actually.

Must be a US term then, after all in the US you wear your pants outside your trousers.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1You say fantasy board game, but can you give me an example of one?

Heroquest, Lord of the Rings, Horus Heresy, Mighty Empires, Doom of the Eldar, Final Liberation. Dungeon Master, Dungeoneer, The Hobbit, Willow etc. etc. etc.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
You say roleplaying existed long before Dungeons and Dragons, well in my experience, there was nothing previous to TRS's creations.

Thats because you are limiting your definition to Fantasy Roleplay. Prior to the launch of the TSR creations there was a whole raft of MUD games and a series based on cowboys the name of which escapes me.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1Fail to see a connection with rolegaming and miniatures? surely you have heard of TSR.

Course but TSR never had any involvement in miniature wargaming. The closest they came was in producing miniatures to supplement their roleplaying and board games. I don't think they even produced a range of Fantasy Wargame figures.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
You make the UK sound like a truely odd place Didz removed from everything I know of actually.

Yes. You make the US sound really confused too.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
But then again, I recently mailed a friend some common A4 paper in a gaming trade of all things. He wanted something he could print out ASL pages on, and have it properly match the pages of his manual. England is a weird place if you have trouble finding A4 paper if you ask me

Sounds like another misunderstanding to me A4 is the standard paper size for printers over here.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I am not somehow surprised that you seem to think wargming is ONLY played with miniatures. But don't worry I get the same reaction when I try to tell people board games are better than computer games hehe.

You must have missed my earlier post when I explained this. The fact is that now days just about anything which involves simulating combat gets labelled a wargame. The point is that todays computer designers have concentrated nearly all their efforts on producing computerised boardgames and little on the other forms of historical simulation.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I have Third Reich PC. Hmm I don't recall anyone calling it brilliant though. I seem to recall a lot of complaints about the AI in the first release.

Oh! I really like it. I always played Italian and took great pleasure in clobbering the British Fleet and 8th Army.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
But infortunately, I didn't do it in the UK where apparently no one ever played anything from Avalon Hill, SPI, TSR, GDW, I could list a lot of other titles but I hope I am making the point.

Yep! of course we did. Our club also had its own subscrition to Strategy & Tactic's magazine. I'm 48. Never heard that called RoleGaming before though. We just called it boardgaming.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
It does seem though, that you have a total bias against anything involving 20th century military operations.

[&:] Where'd that come from?

My main interest is in Napoleonic History and the 1815 Campaign in particular but I've dabbled in most periods.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I sure would love to see you fight out the whole of WWII using miniatures.

It would certainly be possible but it would take a long time. I assume your not imagining that this would somehow require all the figures for all the worlds armies to be arrayed on a single table at once are you?[:)]

That would be difficult.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I know Europa is a big game, but I would like to see you fight out Barbarossa, all of it, within a week (assuming you play each day all day for 7 days).

Europa[&:]

Why would I have to complete Barbarossa within a week?

Most wargame campaigns take months to complete.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
In either case, the person doing the gaming, is functioning in the role of the person in command. But I can't seem to get over the idea, that somehow you think if there are no miniatures involved, it isn't really a wargame?

I never said that. What I said was, that before the advent of computer wargames, there was a clear distinction between boardgaming and wargaming. That is a statement of fact at least as far as the UK is concerned.

The importance of making that distinction was to highlight that whilst the boardgaming hobby has been well serviced by the computer industry since the 70's the wargaming hobby ( or what was the wargaming hobby in those days) has hardly been catered for at all.

And the reason I was making that point was not (as you seem to be assuming, to deride boardgaming as not proper wargaming) but to make the distinction between the needs of boardgamers for high quality graphic's and high spec PC's and the needs of wargamers. Which is directly relevant to the topic of this thread.

I think it is importnat that the computer industry recognises that there are two distinct wargaming hobbies in existence with different expectations and needs and that they are currently only tapping into one of those markets.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Your three levels of wargaming are just three variations on using miniatures on a diorama.

Maybe I should respond with if you ain't in a uniform carrying a real weapon and actually firing live ammo on a real mlitary training exercise, you really are not in a real wargame.

Thats a rather odd comment.

Are you suggesting that boardgames don't attempt to recreate actual historical events and simulate the capabilities of the troops and weapons involved?

And can't be used to consider 'what if' scenario's, or used to simulate fictious combat situations.

Or are you just determined to place negative interpretations on everything I write.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

Cheers Didz, now I can see where you're coming from[:)]

Looking at it, imho it seems to be a system that would work best with 'Horse and Musket' or earlier period engagements where armies were relatively 'discrete' formations that operated within relatively small geographical areas. Therefore you could be Napoleon, Barclay de Tolly, Schwarzenberg, Frederick the Great, Gustavus Adolphus, Henry V, Charlemagne or whoever since the scope of the conflict could just be within one persons grasp (and within the processing power of a single modern pc). I suspect anything more modern might be a bit much. I could see a battle like Jena/Auerstadt working very well under the system you describe though[:)]

Well I have to admit I'm more interested in Napoleonic but I think the same system would work for any earlier period, say Ancients or Rennaisance.

But at the same time I wouldn't dismiss the modern era. If a players really wanted to play the role of Rommel, for example, the same principles could be applied its just that obvoiusly there would be much less reliances on visual references from the 3D environment and much more on simulated radio traffic. But the map boards, command constraints and commander quality ratings could all be applied along the same lines.

In a way Combat Mission has broken the ground already in the modern era and has stolen a march in the other periods but to get the full effect it would have to be expanded considerably in terms of area and numbers included and graphic's quality so that the visual expereince was much closed to MOH

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Didz

Imagine the same game when after checking the maps and radioing your orders through you can step out of the tent jump in your jeep and speed off to check out the situation at the front. Or where repports are delivered by frantic messengers fresh from the face of battle and desperate for orders.

Actually I have already pushed this point.

I was a keen Close Combat player. The follow up game was Squad Assault is meant to be Close Combat in 3D.

Unfortunately it does not work because you have a god like camera giving information all over the place that you actually would not know.

You mentioned “issuing orders then jumping in a jeep and speeding of the parts of the battlefield”. I have mentioned that elsewhere it would work somthing like this:

A platoon commander receives messages from his squads and from time to time rushes, on foot, from one squad commander to another issuing amendments to his original orders

A company commander would rush on foot from one platoon HQ to another giving amendment orders.

A battalion commander would rush on foot ( or in a jeep) from one company HQ to another giving amendment orders.

A divisional commander would, from time to time, slowly and in a professional manner, go from one battalion HQ to another issuing amendment orders.

Each commander, would receive reports from subordinates and send reports to superiors. He would also have a map and see the situation with his own eyes. Of course your eyes could be deceiving if you are winning the battle but you see one of your squads wiped out.

And so it is such a commander needs to make a decision based on reports and on what he can see. He does not have god like vision.
-

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
But I get the idea from his posts, he could care less for anything not stuck back in the 18th or maybe 19 century.

Thats the trouble though isn't it. You read into my posts whatever suits your own argument.

Yes! The examples I tend to use are based upon my area of historical interest. Because I happen to understand that period and know what needs to be modelled to recreate it. I'm really, really, sorry that I don't share your interest in 20th Century Wargaming.

But I also fail to see why every discussion on this board needs to focus on your area of interest to be acceptable to you.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
He appears for instance, unwilling to contemplate being anything outside of a military commander who would only have forces that were within a few square miles of him.

HEE happens to be quite keen to see a decent Napoleonic Wargame appear on the market. God knows there are enough modern period games already. But as I already explained the same system could be modified to cater for any period.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
His notion would just not really work for anything 20th century.

You seem to have a very limited vision for the future of 20th Century wargames. Perhaps, what I am proposing has no interest to you, which is fair enough as I said right at the beginning we have two seperate hobbies in existence and you clearly prefer the boardgame approach to wargaming.

But just because you have no interest in an alternative form of wargame doesn't mean its impractical nor does it mean other people can't discuss it.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
He almost seems a combination of military miniatures elitist and Napoleonics era only centered.

Very funny. Coming from a guy who's attitude seems to be if it doesn't have hexes it won't work.

For you information I play all forms of wargame from Yuri's Revenge to Pacific War. I also have a large Napoleonic Miniatures collection, a Warhammer Goblin Army, I GM an international Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game called Fragile Alliances which has been running for nearly three years, I play moderated Napoleonic Campaigns, I own and used to be an agent for SSI boardgames, I also play MOH, Delta Force, Renegade and Freelancer. So, please don't try and pidgeon hole me into one of your limited little slots.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
He also doesn't appear to have any knowledge of the commercial market outside of the UK.

I happen to be a Freelance Management Consultant by profession, admittedly my business is mostly involved in the UK. But nobody can survive without at least a basic understanding of the US commercial market.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
The only time I have ever encountered his hobby, is the few cases where I have been inside of a large enough magazine shop, to sponsor a few publications that deal with military miniatures as a hobby.

Ah! well that probably explains why you have know understanding of what I'm proposing.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
It does exist, I know it exists, but he seems unaware of anything that is run of the mill outside of the UK.

The idea he was unsure of my knowledge of pre computer wargaming was stunningly comical (cosidering most here at Matrix Games think I am a stick in the mud grognard myself ).

That probably explains why Matrix are not considering any innovations in computer wargaming beyond the more colourful hex grids then.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

"Europa?"

You have never heard of this series of monster wargames? Odd that you have been wargaming as long as I have, and you don't actually know that name.

Fire in the East is one of the bigger portions to it. I have the Merita Merkur and Western Desert potions. I once had the Fall of France portion, but found it was just not interesting.

But then again, that sequence of games you mentoned.

"Heroquest, Lord of the Rings, Horus Heresy, Mighty Empires, Doom of the Eldar, Final Liberation. Dungeon Master, Dungeoneer, The Hobbit, Willow etc. etc. etc."

Are they board games or computer games. I have no idea at the moment.

I am Canadian by the way, you seem to think I am in the US (or it sounded like it in your post). And yes, the Yanks say a lot of things differently

About the A4 paper, I thought it odd too , but he paid for me to mail him 100 sheets of plain white 20lb paper pre punched with my three hole punch, in exchange for some game manuals. I still find it funny heheh.

But just to clarify, here in North America (which is not just the US hehe), the term "rolegame" as applied to a comercial product, will likely have any listening person automatically assuming you mean Dungeons and Dragons, or anything based on what is called the d20 system ie it uses a 20 sided dice in the rolling of dice. Or it might mean a game that perhaps uses percentile which imnplies 2 x d10 ie 2 10 sided dice generating a number at random from 1 through 100. Or perhaps combinations of gaming dice.

Rolegaming has actually to date (here in North America) never really had much connection with "wargaming", which here in North America, usually has nothing to do with miniatures eh (must be because we here in the colonies don't have your old world notion of it meaning miniatures gaming ).

Tell a person here you are a rolegamer, or mention the term playing a role, and you will instantly get people thinking you are a rolegamer.

Mention you are a wargamer, and you will likely be assumed to play one of numerous shooter type wargames, unless you correct them and tell them yopu meant "real" wargames like Squad Leader or Third Reich

My comment on Europa though, was made to explain, that with a board game I CAN fight the entire war in Russia, all three army groups and with Europa, I can do it at the regimental level (but it means a loooooot of counters hehe).
It's a big game though, and means a lot of hours in.
But at least it is possible.

With miniatures, I would likely see a few birthdays come and go before I was able to game out what the board game allowed in one week.

Miniatures look nice on a table admittedly, but they are limited by the physicality.

I seriously wonder Didz if you are even aware of most of what our hobby calls "the greats" of board gaming.

"Not really. I get the impression that you are deliberately interpreting the term in relation to its use as marketing label for computer games."

That to me speaks volumes. You do realise, that long before the PC, rolegaming had nothing to do with computers. It was all done at a table with paper pencil funny shaped dice and a bunch of guys scarfing down pop and chips to all hours of the night

I will admit, I am no veteran of the miniatures hobby. But I am having trouble feeling secure you know your board games and rolegames

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Seeing your past/present experiences Didz (was posted as I posted my previous post), one of us is clearly oblivious in spite of how unlikely it would seem possible.

Just to be absolutely safe though, I am not wanting to give any offense in our posts here.

Just that some of your comments seem outrageous, just as you perceive some of mine to seem outrageous.

What you say does interest me though (otherwise why would I even care to follow this thread).

I like board games, I like hexes, they ain't perfect, but they do work. Hard to get past that fact. And it is a lot easier to carry a board game around, also al ot easier to play it in most cases.

Miniatures gaming is only possible in very well prepared locations. That is indeed a set back.

You have been here at Matrix Games since 2001, but where have you been hiding hehe.

I am hurt you don't know the annoying turn based grognard Les the Sarge though (seems everyone else knows the famous annoying Les the Sarge )

My professional past (if it is interesting), began in uniform, but was brief, and moved into the furnishings trade, then evolved into woodworking. Sadly though, my business did not survive the onset of my disability. I would rather be covered in sawdust at the end of a successful days cabinetmaking.

Gaming wise, I have run almost every popular paper and pencil roleplaying game on the market, including Warghammer Fantasy Roleplay (nice design actually).
I can speak professionally though, when I say Games Workshop makes the shittiest models on the planet. Yes I have been a professional architectural modeller. And you can't pay me enough to sit down and assemble their junk.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
"Europa?"

You have never heard of this series of monster wargames? Odd that you have been wargaming as long as I have, and you don't actually know that name.

Nope never heard of it.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
"Heroquest, Lord of the Rings, Horus Heresy, Mighty Empires, Doom of the Eldar, Final Liberation. Dungeon Master, Dungeoneer, The Hobbit, Willow etc. etc. etc."

Are they board games or computer games. I have no idea at the moment.

Some are boardgames some are computer boardgames, some are both.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I am Canadian by the way, you seem to think I am in the US (or it sounded like it in your post). And yes, the Yanks say a lot of things differently

Interesting, I assumed you were american from your attitude.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
But just to clarify, here in North America (which is not just the US hehe), the term "rolegame" as applied to a comercial product, will likely have any listening person automatically assuming you mean Dungeons and Dragons, or anything based on what is called the d20 system ie it uses a 20 sided dice in the rolling of dice. Or it might mean a game that perhaps uses percentile which imnplies 2 x d10 ie 2 10 sided dice generating a number at random from 1 through 100. Or perhaps combinations of gaming dice.

Well I have to admit thats not a term I've heard used on any of the roleplay forums I visit.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
My comment on Europa though, was made to explain, that with a board game I CAN fight the entire war in Russia, all three army groups and with Europa, I can do it at the regimental level (but it means a loooooot of counters hehe).
It's a big game though, and means a lot of hours in.
But at least it is possible.

Yes. But the point I was making is that it isn't the only way to do it.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
With miniatures, I would likely see a few birthdays come and go before I was able to game out what the board game allowed in one week.

Thats probably true, but why is it important?

I have completed five campaigns of Campaigns on the Danube. One of which I completed in a single evening.

But at present I am playing another and carefully documenting it as an AAR in the COTD forum. Its taking me far longer in fact I'm lucky to complete a few turns a week but I'm getting much more satisfaction from it than the ones where I rushed through because I am being forced to think and justify all or my plans.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Miniatures look nice on a table admittedly, but they are limited by the physicality.

Agree, but that was the gist of the split in the hobby. Some wargamers considered the visual and emotional aspects of wargaming as important as the gameplay others didn't want to be bothered with the preparation and research and wanted to play the whole war out in one afternoon.

So, when we begin to discuss the need for graphic's in wargames the same split in interest is going to occur. Those who are happy with the boardgame approach will not really value the graphic's because they were never interested in the visual drama of the wargame in the first place. What they want is bigger and more challenging gameplay.

The graphic's will only grab the attnetion and wallets of those players who in the old days would have been attracted to miniature wargames. Because they want the visual and emotional drama the graphic's can provide and that is as important to them as the size of the game and how long it takes to play.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I seriously wonder Didz if you are even aware of most of what our hobby calls "the greats" of board gaming.

I'm sure I'm not, especially as they are almost certainly modern games.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
That to me speaks volumes. You do realise, that long before the PC, rolegaming had nothing to do with computers. It was all done at a table with paper pencil funny shaped dice and a bunch of guys scarfing down pop and chips to all hours of the night

I have never heard it referred to as rolegaming.

But yes I did play Dungeon's and Dragons in the cellar of my mates house with candles and eerie music playing.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I will admit, I am no veteran of the miniatures hobby. But I am having trouble feeling secure you know your board games and rolegames

Likewise. I am no verteran of modern period boardgames but I'm having trouble feeling secure about your knowledge of the miniature wargame hobby and roleplaying games.[:)][/quote]

[riverbravo]

ORIGINAL: Didz
Interesting, I assumed you were american from your attitude.

quote]

LOL..thats fuuuuunnnnnyyy.

Sorry Didz,Uhmm,Im the angry yank!

Honestly,In my experience if you walk into a hobby shop or gamestore and ask for role playing games chances are they will point you in the direction of D&D and games similar to it like the G.U.R.P.S. stuff.

And also I have seen a single miniature being used to represent a squad,platoon,regiment or whatever the same with tanks and the like.

So yes,massive miniature games on a 4X8 table very possible.

Maybe the term 'roleplay' mite be have a bit of different meaning from North America to the UK.

The first D&D game I saw in the late 70's I think it was,I cant recall ever seeing anyone playing with miniatures,they were mentioned.But I never saw them in use in the game until the 80's I think.I know they have been used for a long time before that but as far as D&D goes,I have no clue if they were used from the first inkling of the game or until later in the series.

[ravinhood]

To me SSI was to computer wargames and roleplaying games as Avalon Hill, SPI and TSR were to the board gaming/table top era.

I think I own every computer wargame SSI ever put out, but, one or two. I don't think I could get down to the software house fast enough to buy them.

Man "Carrier Force" was one of my favorites, "Computer Ambush" (the origional single squad based Combat Mission of today, but, not nearly the graphics heh.) There also was an SSI "Combat Leader & Battallion Commander" makes me wonder how whoever is doing "Combat Leader" today can use that title. Kampfgruppe, Battlegroup, oh and who can forget the RDF series? I think that probably had one of the better AI's around at that time. Germany RDF was great fun. Then there was Typhoon of Steel (Pacific war steel panthers ancestor), Panzers in Europe or something like that (the east and west front steel panthers ancestor) and then of course Steel Panthers itself. All kinds of Civil war battles, even a grand scale operational game called "No Greater Glory", I was a beta tester for that one for them. "Battles of Napolean" by Landrey, one of the greats of the 80's. I can't believe he just disappeared out of the wargame design industry, HE was one of the greats, he also did "War of the Lance", that lil game I told yah had and AI that can kick some hiney. Of course "Panzer General I & II", and "The Perfect General" by QQP wasn't too bad, I had to play it on a setting of 20 though to get a challenging game. heh SSG's Carriers at War, and then all their renditions of WWII and the Civil war games. Battle for Nomandy, Knights in the Desert (africa korp) Tigers in the Snow (battle of the bulge). Fighter Command (battle for Britian), Conflict in Korea, Second Front, West Front, War in Russia, I think there was an Israli game as well, but, I didn't get that one. Man SSI really put out the wargames didn't they?

Heh and that's just the wargames I got from SSI/SSG, that's not even including all the RPGs goldbox series and futuristic series I got. Roadwar 2000 was soooooo kewl though.
Now there's a game that would be interesting to see with todays techie technology that I would probably buy FOR THE GRAPHICS, imagine buses loaded down with men with rifles and shotguns and pistols, blasting away at others in other vehicles like 18 wheelers and sedans, lol, I learned early though, don't shoot at the men, shoot the TIRES first. lol

I guess I would have to say "Combat Leader and Battallion Commander" were the first actual RTS games ever that I played. Heh, anyone but me remember those two? All the rest of them though were the good old fashioned way, "hexed based" and simple to get into playing them if you were a board wargamer.

Anyways maybe you can see now why the games of today just don't Shania Twain me much (heh you have to know that song to know what I'm talking about). I've got all of them, and though the graphics are dated, the gameplay of them isn't. I've found a way to run most all of them with DOSBOX a little program I picked up that works with Windows XP and allows you to play old dos games without having to do all the EditCFG and AUTOBAT stuff, like in the good ole days.

But, what was missing and still is missing from my computer wargame collection is a good series of the Ancients wargames. Now I have Centurion Defender of Rome and it's great for an operational level/strategy/real time combat game. But, I would like something a little more complex with less animations and more "numbers" to move around the maps turn based with. Ala Caesar at Alesia (I'd die for this one, well after I played it of course), or Hannibal or Alexander and the Successor Kings or the Punic Wars I & II, the Fall of the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, and maybe even futher back before Alexander would be nice. I've got plenty of the muskets, and rifles, and cannons and tanks and grenades and bi-planes, and tri-planes and jets and 105's and 88's and all that, but, I don't have enough spears and elephants and "burning pigs" lol, swords and shields, turtle formations, phalanx or horseback archers, judean slingers, etc. etc. from the ancients in a real good boardgame format brought to the PC.

So how about it Matrix? Can we have some Ancients wargames next using your engines that are so famous now? Or would they even work in an Ancients era? If not, thas ok, I'll give you time to make a NEW one just for ME! lol

[Cap Mandrake]

I too like the role-playing idea, especially when applied to team play with subordinate and superior commanders. Add incomplete intelligence, smoke and mist on the battlefield, inefficeint communication with courriers, eye-level or horesback level views and near real-time action and you would have a real winner. [:D]

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

To me SSI was to computer wargames and roleplaying games as Avalon Hill, SPI and TSR were to the board gaming/table top era.

I think I own every computer wargame SSI ever put out, but, one or two. I don't think I could get down to the software house fast enough to buy them.

Man "Carrier Force" was one of my favorites, "Computer Ambush" (the origional single squad based Combat Mission of today, but, not nearly the graphics heh.) There also was an SSI "Combat Leader & Battallion Commander" makes me wonder how whoever is doing "Combat Leader" today can use that title. Kampfgruppe, Battlegroup, oh and who can forget the RDF series? I think that probably had one of the better AI's around at that time. Germany RDF was great fun. Then there was Typhoon of Steel (Pacific war steel panthers ancestor), Panzers in Europe or something like that (the east and west front steel panthers ancestor) and then of course Steel Panthers itself. All kinds of Civil war battles, even a grand scale operational game called "No Greater Glory", I was a beta tester for that one for them. "Battles of Napolean" by Landrey, one of the greats of the 80's. I can't believe he just disappeared out of the wargame design industry, HE was one of the greats, he also did "War of the Lance", that lil game I told yah had and AI that can kick some hiney. Of course "Panzer General I & II", and "The Perfect General" by QQP wasn't too bad, I had to play it on a setting of 20 though to get a challenging game. heh SSG's Carriers at War, and then all their renditions of WWII and the Civil war games. Battle for Nomandy, Knights in the Desert (africa korp) Tigers in the Snow (battle of the bulge). Fighter Command (battle for Britian), Conflict in Korea, Second Front, West Front, War in Russia, I think there was an Israli game as well, but, I didn't get that one. Man SSI really put out the wargames didn't they?

Heh and that's just the wargames I got from SSI/SSG, that's not even including all the RPGs goldbox series and futuristic series I got. Roadwar 2000 was soooooo kewl though.
Now there's a game that would be interesting to see with todays techie technology that I would probably buy FOR THE GRAPHICS, imagine buses loaded down with men with rifles and shotguns and pistols, blasting away at others in other vehicles like 18 wheelers and sedans, lol, I learned early though, don't shoot at the men, shoot the TIRES first. lol

I guess I would have to say "Combat Leader and Battallion Commander" were the first actual RTS games ever that I played. Heh, anyone but me remember those two? All the rest of them though were the good old fashioned way, "hexed based" and simple to get into playing them if you were a board wargamer.

I agree with you completely and it's good to see someone else that harkens back to those glory days (cue Springsteen). Carrier Force was definitely the game I logged the most hours playing in the 80's. My guess is the only game I spent more time playing was Harpoon in the 90's.

I loved Combat Leader but didn't enjoy Battalion Commander as much. Don't know why. Of course, Combat Leader was a game that featured state of the art graphics when it came out. A 3-D version of Roadwar 2000 would be cool.

I dutifully filled out my reader response card for every SSI game and mailed it in. I know that by the end, when asked how many SSI games I owned it was 40+, probably 50+. I still have a stack of old SSI catalogs, A bunch of Run5 mags, and 20 years worth of Computer Gaming World - I stopped subscribing a couple of years ago.

I used to order all my games from some place in Norcross, GA but I can't remember the name. Saved $10-$20 per game and that definitely added up.

It was certainly a golden age for computer wargames; I doubt we'll ever see the like again.

[ravinhood]

And remember how we played all those wonderful computer wargames and RPG's back then mjk428? We used our "fingers". heh Not this evil easy system of a "mouse". I think wargamers are getting laid back, lazy! lol But, that was back in the day when the "N" button was the next unit button and/or the <> greater than or less than keys. Pretty much every game used the same basic interface for moving units and cycling through them so it wasn't a task to learn a new interface every new game you got. It was either A,S,D,W for moving or the numeric keys. Nowadays it's just point and click, geesh we're getting LAZY. lol

Then too in the old days it was a simple combat results action, today, it's 40 pages of popups telling you what each individual soldier can do, has for equipment or suffered losses during a battle. lol That's not what I call complex, that's what I call tedious rigermorow. I remember the first time I played "Second Front", wholy cow at all the individualize information that game presented. I spent so much time flashing through all the units, reinforcing, bringing up this one, moving that one there, etc. etc. I hardly had time to finish a game. I like complexity don't get me wrong, but, I also miss the 4 to 5 hour games that could be completed in a Saturday afternoon.

LoL thinking about "Combat Leader" heh, that putrid greenish tint map, and all the units were an off gray green look, tanks were squares with a line sticking out the front of them in the middle and infantry looked like a pawn from a chess game, only microscopic and all looked alike, but, you only had a handful of units to play with anyways, so it wasn't really complicated to play a match. But, all those uber explosions and combat sounds, lol, in those days that was "realism at it's best" hahah. The later version "Battallion Commander" they made tanks look like tanks and infantry look like infantry and halftracks look like halftracks. But, it was hypothetical warfare between the US, Russia and China, so it wasn't as popular to me as "Combat Leader".

Heh, the memories of the good old days, are we turning into our parents afterall? hahah

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Seeing your past/present experiences Didz (was posted as I posted my previous post), one of us is clearly oblivious in spite of how unlikely it would seem possible.

Just to be absolutely safe though, I am not wanting to give any offense in our posts here.

Just that some of your comments seem outrageous, just as you perceive some of mine to seem outrageous.

Actually, I see your posts a very defensive and narrow minded.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I like board games, I like hexes, they ain't perfect, but they do work. Hard to get past that fact. And it is a lot easier to carry a board game around, also al ot easier to play it in most cases.

Miniatures gaming is only possible in very well prepared locations. That is indeed a set back.

Which is why the potential benefits of a computer based alternative are so great. Imagine being able to obtain the same thrill from playing as one does from a miniatures style game and yet be able to tuck it under you arm like a laptop and save the whole thing when whenever you need to stop play and return to the real world.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
You have been here at Matrix Games since 2001, but where have you been hiding hehe.

Your not suggesting that my length of membership to this forum is some measure of my wargaming experience I hope?

The truth is that I'm not terribly keen on Matrix Games as a publisher, they produce computer boardgames which aren't my favourite type of wargame and the last one I bought was UV which I really hated. I bought it thinking it would be like Pacific War but it wasn't and that plus the aggorgant attitude of the designers put me of buying any more Matrix products.

What lured me back was Campaign on the Danube, because I already own Frank Hunters ACW game and knew it was very good. So after making sure Matrix hadn't screwed this up too I purchaswed it and I am having great fun playing it at the moment. Thats the only reason I'm here on this board today. The programming quality is a bit shoddy but Franks working hard to sort out the issues other than that is a decent Napoleonic Computer Boardgame.

The only other game I'm interested in from Matrix at present is War in the Pacific, and I only hope they don't muck that up.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Gaming wise, I have run almost every popular paper and pencil roleplaying game on the market, including Warghammer Fantasy Roleplay (nice design actually).

Interesting. Do you play tabletop or PBEM?

I've been running my game Fragile Alliances since Nov 2001. Its a PBEM with 21 members from all over the world, the ltest just jioned is from Bangkok. Very slow way to play as you can imagine but the players seem to enjoy it. I spend a lot of my time on the Critical Hit Forum. Did you know there's a new version WFRP V2 about to be launched?

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
I can speak professionally though, when I say Games Workshop makes the shittiest models on the planet. Yes I have been a professional architectural modeller. And you can't pay me enough to sit down and assemble their junk.

Yes. You said. I have only built one of their plastic kits (a Land Raider) and I admit it was a bit awkward to assemble. I always assume you are talking about their Citadel Miniatures which were much better quality than the historical figures I was buying at the time.