From the Movie NETWORK "I'm tired of it and I'm not going to take it anymore" ;)

[EricGuitarJames]

Thanks for the clarification Didz! I thought they were the 'factions' you were referring to.

I note your objections to 'real-time' with interest. I've never been one for 'teamplay' myself, even at my old wargame club it just never seemed to work out. Plus I'm probably too much of a maverick to endure the constraints of being part of a team.. or even in charge of a team. As regards the rest of them I think we've both posted on the other thread so there's no need to re-gurgitate them here.

I regard the objection to graphics as mildly spurious. Of course 'nice' graphics shouldn't be added to the detriment of the gameplay but given the life expectancy of a computer I don't see why a programmer shouldn't make some use of the processing power of a relatively modern pc (even a five-year old system should run at 400mhz with 32mb of RAM). TOAW will run on much less than that so it would hardly be a stretch to add a bit of 'eye candy' to that. I have to say that I don't see a 'division' between factions or that you can't have both accuracy and intellectually challenging gameplay. I also don't see why you couldn't have a game with an optional hex-grid overlay and optional graphics (small, accurately modelled men or just blocks/chits with symbols on). Saying all that, it only goes to show that my experiences in wargames are different from yours[:)] and indeed to Ravinhood's. I'm quite happy with the way wargaming development is heading at present but I hope that somewhere someone is developing a game that meets your desires[:)]

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

In fact in most cases Real Time isn't real time at all its usually accelerated time and modern game designers seem to take a peverse pleasure in insisting that everything you do has to take place when the game time is running.

You so completely aced that one Didz

We seem to have an error though in terminology guys.

I am trying to get people to realise, when I say fancy graphics, I am in no way referring to games like Korsun Pocket, which in my means of definition, is not "fancy". Maybe the word "detailed" would be appropriate.

I have no beef with a game being "detailed". Although sometimes the detail load can get a bit out of hand.

"Fancy" to me is the pointless application of 3d and the insistance on 3d as if 3d was in some way able to elevate a lousy game out of its lousiness.
And some of the 3d games out there or in production, will NOT excite either me or Didz by the looks of things.

I would love to see the power of modern computer graphics used in a way it would actually matter.

Just think, how cool it would be, if that overly expensive collection of miniature soldiers, was replaced with gorgeously detailed 3d representations, on a stunning 3d gaming table, but it was NOT stuck in some ludicruous notion of a real time experience.

I would rather it just look like I was looking at an actual game table, playing actual miniatures, in an actual game of table top miniatures.
No expensive set of miniatures, no burden to get them painted before you can use them. No difficulty in storing them, or trouble in safe travel with them.

You could have a 4 x 8 table set up regardless of how your house looked like too. And the goddamned cat couldn't reach it either.

And the game would run like it actually would be played in what would I guess be best termed "actual time". Because it would actually play as if you actually were playing on an actual table.

No moronic concepts of "real time".

[dinsdale]

I'm curious to know what all these "fancy graphics" game are. I must have missed them all as I can't recall any serious wargame or sim having extraneous eye candy.

Maybe some examples might be in order?

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
I regard the objection to graphics as mildly spurious. Of course 'nice' graphics shouldn't be added to the detriment of the gameplay but given the life expectancy of a computer I don't see why a programmer shouldn't make some use of the processing power of a relatively modern pc (even a five-year old system should run at 400mhz with 32mb of RAM).

I think the issue being made is that for those who merely want to play computer wargames of the 'boardgame' type the need to upgrade their PC's to cope with 'eye candy' graphic's is annoying.

Personally, I have to regularly upgrade my PC anyway as my gaming tastes cover a much wider spectrum of interest so I am reasonably certain that the game which forces me to upgrade is unlikely to be a computer boardgame.

My real concern is this trend I am seeing of trying to produce a hybrid computer wargame capable of satisfying everyone. I honestly feel thats a bad decision and bad news both for players who like the boardgame style of gameplay and those who are hoping for a more dramatic visual expereince.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Just think, how cool it would be, if that overly expensive collection of miniature soldiers, was replaced with gorgeously detailed 3d representations, on a stunning 3d gaming table, but it was NOT stuck in some ludicruous notion of a real time experience.

I would rather it just look like I was looking at an actual game table, playing actual miniatures, in an actual game of table top miniatures.

No expensive set of miniatures, no burden to get them painted before you can use them. No difficulty in storing them, or trouble in safe travel with them.

That would certainly be a step in the right direction and ,of course, perfectly feasible with todays graphic's cards.

But having got that far it would be a mistake not to expliot the advantages that a computer can give over the use of figures and green baize to solve some of the shortcomings of tabletop battles.

For example:

The table no longer needs to be limited to 4x8. That limitation was dictated by the legnth of the players arms in trying to reach figures in the middle of the table. With a computer, no such limit exists so the battlefield can be as large as necessary to represent the battle, or completely boundless. Just think no more artificial flank protection along the edge of the table, or automatic escape off the rear table edge.

Fog of war can now be accurately represented because figures don't have to be placed in full view at the start of the game and can easily be hidden again during play if circumstances dictate. Not only that but the affects of powder smoke, rain, snow and fog can all be applied visually to the screen without using mountains of cotton wool.

In addition the players view of the battlefield can be deliberately limited to that which would be available to the commander he is playing rather than from a helicopter poised several hundred feet above the action. I have played Waterloo hundred of times but never appraciated until I actually stood on the spot where Napoleon viewed the battle that he couldn't even see Hougoumont or Plancenoit and that the whole centre of the battlefield was dead ground hidden from his telescope.

In addition the computers superior and impartial processing ability can handle all sorts of housekeeping tasks which the human player would never have time for. Orders can be dispatched by miniature ADC's who have to brave the fire to deliver them and can lose their bottle, get lost or killed without the player being informed. Reinforcements can get delayed redirected or lost whilst the player is still watching the clock expecting them to arrive any minute.

The ground can get waterlogged by heavy rain, impeded by the dead of previous assaults or simply churned into a quagmire by the passage of troops. Buildings can burn and block the passage through towns, and troops efforts to dig fortifications can actually be shown as part of the terrain.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
And the game would run like it actually would be played in what would I guess be best termed "actual time". Because it would actually play as if you actually were playing on an actual table.

No moronic concepts of "real time".

Yes. One of the easy ways to spot a tabletop style wargame designed by someone who knows nothing about tabletop wargaming is to check the way they handle time and one of the surest ways to fall foul of this trap is to use real time.

The fact of the matter is that Tabletop Wargame rules had to fudge time.

The reason for this was that Tabletop Wargames didn't do a very good job of modelling the constraints of historical command and control. Things just happened too quickly.

Orders were issued, delivered and executed in a fraction of the time and with a degree of certainty which could not have been possible in the real battle. To compensate for this and make battles last a representative duration wargame rule designers fudged the time scale.

They would set a time scale of say 15 minutes per move.

The problem with this was that it then created inaccuracies in what was capable of happening in those turns. For instance the advance of D'Erlon's Corps at Waterloo was less than a 1000m and at standard French marching pace probably took less than 15 minutes but on the tabletop it takes over an hour of game time. If the artillery were allowed an hour to fire on this advance for an hour they would destroy it easily and so the firing rate and effects are also fudged so that guns and muskets only get the equivalent of about 1 minutes fire effect in a 15 minute game turn.

These fudges have to be carefully balanced to provide a playable result but if a computer designer who doesn't understand this comes along and strips away the turn sequence to introduce real time play, that whole balance goes down the toilet.

Typically, the first thing they do is introduce firing at real fire rates. Suddenly muskets are firing two or three rounds a minute and decimating the advancing columns. So they introduce accurate marching rates so now D'Erlon's corps advances at an accurate rate of 76 paces per minute [pace ordinaire]. And then they scratch their heads because for some reason the battle of Waterloo is all over in less than 45 minutes and the Prussian's never got a chance to turn up.

A classic example of this is Medieval Totalwar where battles are over in about 30 minutes to an hour.

Doh!

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Didz

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Just think, how cool it would be, if that overly expensive collection of miniature soldiers, was replaced with gorgeously detailed 3d representations, on a stunning 3d gaming table, but it was NOT stuck in some ludicruous notion of a real time experience.

I would rather it just look like I was looking at an actual game table, playing actual miniatures, in an actual game of table top miniatures.

No expensive set of miniatures, no burden to get them painted before you can use them. No difficulty in storing them, or trouble in safe travel with them.

That would certainly be a step in the right direction and ,of course, perfectly feasible with todays graphic's cards.

But having got that far it would be a mistake not to expliot the advantages that a computer can give over the use of figures and green baize to solve some of the shortcomings of tabletop battles.

For example:

The table no longer needs to be limited to 4x8. That limitation was dictated by the legnth of the players arms in trying to reach figures in the middle of the table. With a computer, no such limit exists so the battlefield can be as large as necessary to represent the battle, or completely boundless. Just think no more artificial flank protection along the edge of the table, or automatic escape off the rear table edge.

Fog of war can now be accurately represented because figures don't have to be placed in full view at the start of the game and can easily be hidden again during play if circumstances dictate. Not only that but the affects of powder smoke, rain, snow and fog can all be applied visually to the screen without using mountains of cotton wool.

In addition the players view of the battlefield can be deliberately limited to that which would be available to the commander he is playing rather than from a helicopter poised several hundred feet above the action. I have played Waterloo hundred of times but never appraciated until I actually stood on the spot where Napoleon viewed the battle that he couldn't even see Hougoumont or Plancenoit and that the whole centre of the battlefield was dead ground hidden from his telescope.

In addition the computers superior and impartial processing ability can handle all sorts of housekeeping tasks which the human player would never have time for. Orders can be dispatched by miniature ADC's who have to brave the fire to deliver them and can lose their bottle, get lost or killed without the player being informed. Reinforcements can get delayed redirected or lost whilst the player is still watching the clock expecting them to arrive any minute.

The ground can get waterlogged by heavy rain, impeded by the dead of previous assaults or simply churned into a quagmire by the passage of troops. Buildings can burn and block the passage through towns, and troops efforts to dig fortifications can actually be shown as part of the terrain.

That is what I want to see. This is what Im trying to fight for when I say wargames can have good graphics.

Who wouldnt want this??

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: wodin
That is what I want to see. This is what Im trying to fight for when I say wargames can have good graphics.

Who wouldnt want this??

I'm sure that you will find there are people on this very forum who wouldn't want it.

If you are keen to refight the entire of WW2 at operational command level or War in the Pacific then such detail and nice graphic's are irrelevant. The game is an intellectual exercise not a roleplaying experience and so that level of 3D visual dram is not required. Combat is handled abstractly and the results returned in seconds, why watch a two hour graphic representation of the battle if you just want to get on and finish the campaign.

And what people are complaining about above is that they don't want to be forced to buy powerful graphic's cards and bigger hard drives in order to store and watch graphic displays which don't add anything to their preferred gaming expereince.

Personally, I think they have a valid point. I think we should be given a choice.

[wodin]

I see your point. I didnt read your post enough to see were you were coming from.

Its Les post whom I agree with.

However what you said does give a realistic picture of a battle front which if your after realism and really want to know whether you could command troops with the eyes of a particular general then what you stadted sounds right.

The thing I would ogject to is if it was real time click fest.

What Les said though wouldnt really need some super computer.

If you so object to buying or upgrading you rcomputers how come you arent using a commodore 64? Or an Amiga/Atari?

How come you are on the net. This isnt neede either to play wargames?

If you have upgraded from an amiga then why? These type of computer had games which would cover wargames.

You bought a new one so you get take advantage of new technology.

I dont want a wargame which is all graphics no gameplay who would?

All Im saying is that computers are powerfull enough to give a good graphical representation and have great gameplay.

You neednt sacrifice one for another. FPS games will allways require more graphical power than a WGO or turn based wargame.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I suspect there are more people that would want to play what you and I and Wodin just expressed support for Didz.

But as no one has made the damnable game, not like we have any one way to know eh.

Your enhancements just mentioned would be a logical application of computer power too.

Keep it looking like table top wargaming, but remove some of the physical limitations.

And every time the designer tries to sneak in crap that belongs in one of those "designed for idiots" grade games like Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike, you smack the designer in the back of the head

Anyone willing to play Steel Panthers, would likely be a candidate for this program.

Oh, and for those curious, Blitzkrieg and Sudden Strike are examples of "fancy graphics" games.
Oh look they run around like grade three children, but the images are of tanks and infantry, how nice.
And now they are making those oh so cute games increasingly in 3d.
Oh look, its Code Name Panzers, same doofus behaviour patterns, but now in 3d.

I doubt there is a real wargamer in any of the companies. Likely all have worked in Hollywood though.

They could make the game of Didz dream right now, with each and every feature he mentioned. But you would have to be a wargamer to have clue one to understand the WHY.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Oh, and for those curious, Blitzkrieg and Sudden Strike are examples of "fancy graphics" games.

Are either of those games considered serious wargames?

They're RST click fests, one might as well say Halo or Planetside are examples of "fancy" graphics.

So where are the wargames with this issue?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Dinsdale, only the most dim person is going to refer to a game like Planetside as anything other than a scifi MUD.
They ain't wargames any more than pinball machines are

The two games I gave as examples of though, joe schmuck consumer actually DOES think they are wargames. They are nothing more than complex arcade games that never should have been allowed away from a console machine.

It is a telling thing, when I have to listen to younguns extolling their skill and savvy and grasp of strategy when all they have ever played is those dumb toys.
But it indeed happens.
Put them in a real wargame where they will lose and lose utterly because only real skill counts, and you suddenly see how empty their claims are.

They might as well just accept, they know nothing of the way we use the word.
I mean, you can call using coloured paper for resume's a form of strategy.
You can say paying your bills on a monday is a form of strategy.

But to us, when applied to a wargame, it means something entirely different than what the fools that attach the letters RTS to a game seem to realise.

There is no "real" in RTS, nor is the term "strategy" in RTS of any real relevance to a real wargamer.

There is no real difference between Blitzkrieg a 2d real time game, and Code Name Panzers a 3d real time game.
They both do a lousy job at what they do. Which is pretend to be wargames.
25 or so years ago, they would have only been found in arcades, and no one would have been crazy enough to refer to them as wargames.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Dinsdale, only the most dim person is going to refer to a game like Planetside as anything other than a scifi MUD.
They ain't wargames any more than pinball machines are

The two games I gave as examples of though, joe schmuck consumer actually DOES think they are wargames. They are nothing more than complex arcade games that never should have been allowed away from a console machine.

They're not wargames either, and having read the various posters who think graphics can detract from the depth of the game, I'm still wondering where those games are.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
Are either of those games considered serious wargames?

Asolutely! Read on.

SUDDEN STRIKE - The Real Time Strategy & Tactical Wargame
http://www.rts-suddenstrike.de/english/index_news.html

The beginning of a new age - with Sudden Strike!

A game that sets new standards!
A game with graphics you've never even dreamed of!
A game that will keep you glued to the screen for weeks on end!
A game that is extremely realistic and breathtaking!
A game that brings never-ending enjoyment!

Go down in history - with Sudden Strike!

Plot: World War II

The Blockbuster Sudden Strike is set in World War II and offers carefully planned Russian, German, French, American and British missions.

The fantastic depth of the game, the infinite tactical possibilities and the excellent game-play outshine anything ever seen to date.

Conquer the enemy's positions, land your troops on his shores, win the cleanup operations and call in paratroops or fighter bombers for support. Whatever you can think of, you will find - in Sudden Strike!

Developers:

The developers are a team called Fireglow. The main team consists of twelve people working full time on the development of this game.
Game Questions

What's so special about Sudden Strike?

Sudden Strike, in all its complexity, is not just a realtime strategy game, but rather a tactical simulation. This is not only due to the amazingly realistic graphics, the huge number of units involved (up to 1,000 units at a time) and the size of the maps, but far more to the love that went into the countless details of the game: Sudden Strike has real forests and buildings that can be used as refuges and hiding places, seasons … even soldiers who like to take a break and have a smoke now and then. Sudden Strike also foregoes the usual aspect of production and immediately concentrates on tactics (see "Features").

Is Sudden Strike based on turns or realtime strategy?

Sudden Strike is played in realtime (even on slow machines).

Where is Sudden Strike set?

Sudden Strike is set during World War II. As our aim is to make the game appeal to players worldwide, we will at least incorporate German, English, American and Russian missions and units. Among other things, Sudden Strike will deal with the war in Russia, as this was probably the grimmest war to be fought on land in history (and this setting offers a much greater variety than e.g. the northern Sahara would). Naturally, decisive and exciting battles, like the Normandy Invasion and the winter in Stalingrad, will also be implemented.

Will there be a multiplayer option?

Of course. As many as twelve players will be able to compete in up to four teams.

Does Sudden Strike have a campaign mode?

There are three campaigns available: One for the Allies, including the Normandy Invasion and requiring the fulfillment of many special mission objectives. Then there is a German campaign which has a lot to do with introducing new weaponry. Finally, the Russian campaign contains all the most brutal battles.

Does Sudden Strike use a special interface to control the 1,000 units?
Sudden Strike's controls are based on the well-known standards for realtime strategy games. There are, however, a number of additional functions for Sudden Strike's special features.

Is it a game or simulation?

First and foremost, Sudden Strike remains a game. We merely stay as close to the historical model as it is possible in a GAME. While realism enhances a player's immersion, reality tends to be unsuitable for a game. Careful considerations have to be made in this context. It would be a great mistake to make the scenarios historically correct: The real battles were rarely well-balanced. Compromises also have to be made where weapons range, line of sights and the effect of weapons are concerned.

OUR GREATEST PRIORITY IS TO CREATE AN ENJOYABLE GAME!

In this context, realism is a means, not a goal. Yet Sudden Strike will be much more realistic than ... see for yourselves!
The fact that we want to make the game fun to play does not mean that we're trying to produce a clone of Dune2. The heart of Sudden Strike lies in strategy and tactics, not in reaching great levels of production and eliminating opponents. In most cases, a "Rush" will NOT lead to fulfillment of the mission, while wisely employing specific units will. This brings Sudden Strike closer to the category of strategy games based on turns rather than the usual realtime strategy games. But don't worry, you will not miss out on all the action.

Additionally, we remain close enough to the historical background to create a more intensive understanding of events than it would have been possible with a fictional background. At this point we would like to add a note to everyone who makes great demands on Sudden Strike regarding its realism: As many will already have noticed, units' parameters are easy to access, read and edit. We do not doubt that there will very soon be "corrected" data available from various sources. Naturally, the missions must be adaptable to such new data. We will provide a mission editor for this purpose (only in the add-on version).

Our main goal is to produce a game and make it as good as possible. It is then up to the Internet community to make that game entirely realistic and historically correct. Indeed, we would be very pleased about such a development, and more than willing to help and potentially later accept such data as official, shall we say 'Sudden Strike Sim' data.

As we have stated before:

Our greatest priority is to create an enjoyable game.

Seem to be taking themselves pretty seriously to me.

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames
Cheating is rife in any part of life where 'winning' or 'succeeding' is prized above all else. Look at the number of top sportsmen/women who have been caught taking drugs, even where the financial gain was minimal. At least in wargaming we don't have that kind of problem, or is that why I keep losing when I play online[:D]

Depends what you call cheating. When I was in the NWC (Napoleonic Wargame Club) there were some appalling examples of gamesmanship especailly amongst the French.

The most common was the use of skirmishers as artillery elimination squads operating completely independantly to their parent units. Another was the use of generals and wagons as blocker to prevent movement into certain hexes.

The games had about as much to do with wargaming as draughts.

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1
There is no "real" in RTS, nor is the term "strategy" in RTS of any real relevance to a real wargamer.

A more accurate label would be ATT (Accelerated Time Tactical) of CFTWNTTT (Click fest Tactical With No Time To Think). There's no element of strategy in any of them.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Yep as Didz did a sterling job of it, no need for me to try to add.

Suffice it to say, anyone claiming Sudden Strike is a "wargame" has basically just knifed their credibilty with me in the back

But fear no those that disagree, they are back for more of your money. SS3 is on it's way (as is likely the money of lots of gullible persons).

[wodin]

Les, I believe Didz thought it would be bad to start doing the things he mentioned in his post not the opposite.

He took what you said then went further trying to imply this would be bad not good for wargames.

He wasnt agreeing with you or myself at all with regards to your post about enhanceing graphis for tabletop style wargame.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I'm not so sure Wodin (will have to let him clarify).

I see what he is saying though, about companies making the error sometimes (to many times my opinion) trying to be all things to all persons.

Like the saying, you can please some of the people some of the time, and most of the people most of the time, but only a fool tries to please all of the people all of the time.

To me, the average 3d real time game, is an attempt to please all of the people all of the time. And it's dumb.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

Not that I like or play games like Sudden Strike, but those games could be the prelude to serious wargaming.
When my kid (2 years old now) makes it to his teens, I am not going to put him on front of a complex wargame as his first impression.
Cheers,

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Chelco, ever tried to break a habit once you got used to it?

If I want a person to be a wargamer, I start them playing a classic wargame, but simoly pick one with low unit quantities, and one with a more or less low complexity game design.

Good example would be Columbia Games block game called Rommel in the Desert.

Uses hexes, uses turns, uses blocks so the person learns the fine art of limited fog of war.
Not many counters, so you are not over whelmed. Supply rules are simple and basic. You have to manage a battle over more than one turn, so it teaches planning.
Counters are fairly straightforward. Map is fairly simple design. But it requires you actually study it closely. Not many turns, so it doesn't drag on and on.

And best of all, it is a "real" wargame regardless of viewpoint.

Anyone that could not enjoy a game like this, anyone that would not "want" to play a game like this, would be best left alone to become whatever it is they feel like they want to become.

My son might turn out to be the apple of his god father's eye (my brother) and turn out to be a sports fanatic (he would be supremely happy over that one hehe).
My brother is more than a jock, he is a sports type jocks look up too hehe.

Then again, my son might suddenly decide he loves history (but that would be tooooo lucky to consider realistic hehe).

He might turn out to be a whiz we a musical instrument (neither myself or his uncle can do squat with one hehe).

But the last thing I plan on doing, is wasting my time introducing him to what I can refuse.

The only way he will ever play dumb games like Sudden Strike, is if he goes out and buys them himself.

[Real and Simulated Wars]

With all due respect Les, I disagree.
I envision the following path for my future teen son: He plays WWII crappy games, he becames interested in WWII, he starts reading out of his daddy's shelf, he realizes how crappy were all the previous games and finally starts serious wargaming. [Evil laughter]
Let me add more, he goes to West Point and 20 years later he chuckles at the sight of his elder dad, playing wargames in an arcaic computer system (wargame developers have disappeared and wargamers were forced to keep old computers to run their jewels) and claiming that he finally took Moscow!. Poor dad, all his life with the ilussion of being a military commander...
Joke aside, I cannot imagine us more than 3 minutes at a table moving counters. At least as his first experience. The visual-stimuli rich environment of other gaming genres is just too much of a competition.