Beyond Squad Leader for the PC

[ravinhood]

A TRUE adaption wouldn't sell enough copies and would be too difficult a game to make given that

I've been reading that statement for 20+ years and it hasn't been true yet. SSI proved computer wargaming was alive and well 20 years ago and now Matrixgames is proving it today. It's not an EA market or kiddie clikfester market, but, it's still a very huge and thriving market, both in computer and board wargaming.

If they can make Battles in Normandy, give them the license and I bet you they can make Squad Leader on computer a damn close resemblance. Paradox is just going to ruin the "name", yet, again. The license needs to goto real wargame programmers, not this wanna be a wargame design team.

You talk like all the wargamers that played Squad Leader by Avalon Hill are dead man. We're just in our prime and I would gather to say "still" the leading purchasers of most all "TRUE" wargames as you want to call them.

I'd say there is a HUGE market for a TRUE Squad Leader to Computer Conversion with AI and multiplayer and random map abilities. Advertising in Strategy & Tactics alone would probably net enough sales to warrant making it, let alone all the other info sites and magazines.

RTS wargamers are not wargamers, never were wargamers and never will be wargamers, they are nothing more than kiddie clickers without any real strategic or tactical know how of what real wargaming is. Oh sure they know how to click real fast and follow a preplanned battle "schematic" that's the "same" game after game, over and over and over again, he who gets there with the mostest the fastest is hardly a wargamer in my opinion.

[Marc von Martial]

RTS wargamers are not wargamers, never were wargamers and never will be wargamers, they are nothing more than kiddie clickers without any real strategic or tactical know how of what real wargaming is. Oh sure they know how to click real fast and follow a preplanned battle "schematic" that's the "same" game after game, over and over and over again, he who gets there with the mostest the fastest is hardly a wargamer in my opinion.

I like both, but thanks for putting me in a drawer, it´s exactly such statements and this "elitist" attitude some of my wargame fellows tend to show that prevents getting fresh blood into this hobby. [8|] I tell you the blunt truth, if it would be only for die hard "wargamers" we and a other wargame companies would be not in business.

[Fred98]

There are no RTS wargames.

Why do hex game lovers continue to talk about RTS??????

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
I like both, but thanks for putting me in a drawer, it´s exactly such statements and this "elitist" attitude some of my wargame fellows tend to show that prevents getting fresh blood into this hobby. [8|] I tell you the blunt truth, if it would be only for die hard "wargamers" we and a other wargame companies would be not in business.

I totally agree. I'd consider Close Combat, HTTR, and HOI all wargames (and such similiar games). I wouldn't really consider most Command & Conquer style games wargames though(But I do play W40K-DOW & Others). I personally don't play HTTR (yet), don't care for HOI, but do find Close Combat to have been pure genious.

But, to be one of a few perhaps to take a neutral stance on this topic??? I would offer for consideration that perhaps some of the real anger some have is due to a thought that each RTS title robs the Turn-Based world of one more of an ever decreasing number of turn-based games out there.

Especially in the case of what still is one of the most beloved turn-based titles out there, Squad Leader. Its a bit like Wargaming Blasphomy to have an RTS Squad Leader. Why not just call it something else? Even if Paradox's game is downright awesome, why call it Squad Leader?

[wodin]

Close Combat.............I sit here and hark back to the days when I actually really really looked forward to playing my purchase.

Those days are gone from what I can see.

I now sit here waiting waiting waiting for CL. Play Squad Battles..........dream of CL........scan the net to see if a game like close combat is about to come out........then wait.........

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

RTS wargamers are not wargamers, never were wargamers and never will be wargamers, they are nothing more than kiddie clickers without any real strategic or tactical know how of what real wargaming is.

I can't agree with that either, there's just too much in the middle ground that can certainly please both "pure" RTS gamers and wargamers alike. Some are well known (like Close Combat and the Total War series), others (like the sadly under-rated and obscure Soldiers of Anarchy - one of my favourite games ever) less so. Try one of this years releases too, Kohan 2. It looks like a bog-standard fantasy RTS on the surface, but you'll be suprised at how effective genuine tactical thinking can be in the "right" RTS.

[Fred98]

Regarding the upcoming Sniper/Ambush - Have a fear of the following situation. It can only happen in a turn based game.

My squad and I are on a patrol.

Looking out to avoid routes where the enemy might ambush us.

Suddenly, fire seems to be coming from everywhere!

Oh no! The opponent went first and surprised us!

I look to the left and..........his turn ends and it’s my turn. Whew! The tension was great! I will now survey the battlefield.

Hmmm, its probably best to give the order “take cover” before doing anything else. ( Did I mention this is a game – the men must be told to take cover)

But wait. I see an enemy MG to our front and some enemy to our left. One enemy has a grenade which has just left his hand and will certainly land at Jim’s feet.

Next to that enemy are more soldiers who are clearly going to assault from our left as soon as the grenade explodes. I did not see them with my face in the dirt but now I have surveyed the field, their surprise is no longer a surprise. Lucky this is turn based

Jim is a goner. What do I do next?

Lets check Jim’s equipment. He has time to lob back a grenade. *$%@$ Matrix! Why is the equipment shortcut key over there?

Aaaaaaargghhh! Jim doesn’t have a frag grenade!. Ahaaaaa! , he does have a smoke grenade.

Ensure Jim remains standing so he can throw the grenade further and order him to throw the smoke grenade, over the opposite side of the battlefield in front of the enemy MG ( which is away from where the danger is coming from, from Jim's perspective.)(Jim can remain standing because he is a gonner anyhow)

Other troops – instead of going prone – change order to go to kneeling position, face left and fire on the assaulting enemy. The enemy MG is blinded and the enemy’s surprise becomes my great victory! Whoooo!
-

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Have a fear of the following situation. It can only happen in a turn based game.

I'm having trouble following your point (could you maybe summarize?). It doesn't seem to fit for the game you mentioned (Called Sniper Ambush not Sniper/Ambush btw) nor does it seem to apply to Combat Leader/Squad Battles/etc. etc.

It almost sounds like your knocking turn-based formats, but given your statement against RTS games I know thats not true. I think your thinking of a realism issue with too much control of a particular soldiers actions.

One thing hard to define/design into a lot of wargames these days is WHO you represent. Think of UV/WITP the lines are all blurred there. You have control over all kinds of things you shouldnt have. But why? Its unrealistic, or is it? Does it even matter as long as those elements make the game more fun and add more strategy? The same could be true of a tactical game. Maybe you represent multiple Squad Leaders or whatever. Maybe such a thing isn't, taken by itself, altogether all that realistic. But if it adds to the overall fun of the game, and adds extra strategy and depth, then as long as the units themselves are more or less behaving in realistic ways its all good right?

Am I close or way off?

[gunny]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
RTS wargamers are not wargamers, never were wargamers and never will be wargamers, they are nothing more than kiddie clickers without any real strategic or tactical know how of what real wargaming is.

I can't agree with that either, there's just too much in the middle ground that can certainly please both "pure" RTS gamers and wargamers alike. Some are well known (like Close Combat and the Total War series), others (like the sadly under-rated and obscure Soldiers of Anarchy - one of my favourite games ever) less so. Try one of this years releases too, Kohan 2. It looks like a bog-standard fantasy RTS on the surface, but you'll be suprised at how effective genuine tactical thinking can be in the "right" RTS.

Herston
Thanks for bringing up some great points. I have been playing Rise of Nations for about a week and absolutely hate it. Abhor, fling the bloody frisby at the wall hate. And I was all ready to lump RTS games under this hate umbrella. And then yes Kohan was an excellent RTS and so was SOA.
The Thing I hate about RON is that micro management is a requirement, BUT there is sooo much going on that I never have the time to form a strategy. Its rush from one side and repair this to counter attack there defend here Hey! where did my city go? Oh I guess it was wiped out Gee Wiz. Play on a huge map and click on each building for an upgrade, the move each unit and ensure supply trucks and generals are there and zip back and forth, building repairing, upgrading while reading little ticker messages that cover the screen: this is built-that is destoyed-low resource-attrition-etc. garbage absolute garbage IMO

But Kohan and SOA, no, speed was not a factor, and if you wished to micro manage and form a plan then it was allowed in concept. Yet all in real time.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: Veldor

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
Have a fear of the following situation. It can only happen in a turn based game.

I'm having trouble following your point (could you maybe summarize?). It doesn't seem to fit for the game you mentioned (Called Sniper Ambush not Sniper/Ambush btw) nor does it seem to apply to Combat Leader/Squad Battles/etc. etc.

Me too. Try playing Squad Battles. Ive just discovered this gem of a series and Im telling you I havent enjoyed a game as much PBEM for a very long time, SB is very exciting when you get a good scenario and is loads of fun. I for one am looking forward to Sniper Ambush. Infact its up there with the only other game I waiting on CL.

[Fred98]

My point is: soldiers on patrol will move quietly and probably in bounds – ideal for turn based.

But once the shooting starts, the squad leader can’t pause and think about it. It needs to be continuos time. Well, to rephrase, the commander can pause, but he can’t make the enemy pause.

While the commander is pausing the enemy is attacking the flank. If the enemy’s attack is paused the commander will see it coming and then the surprise is lost.

I played Ambush and I played Patrol ( the sequel to Sniper ) so am familiar with both. It was the “prone man crouches, fires weapon and goes to ground” and the whole action taking 5 mins instead of the 3 secs it ought to take that ultimately turned me off board games.

I was going to begin another thread as you don’t have your own forum, but I might as well start here re: your upcoming game:

Men who come under fire automatically go for cover – having it as an order is silly

Or, at the start of a game you could set a “Standard Operational Procedure”. And when men come under fire they follow it with out orders. Example: 1. Go to ground. 2. Go to ground and return fire 3. Go to ground and begin a fighting withdrawl

Or, men use their own initiative within a set of orders. If a man is threatened he will return fire – without waiting for an order.

An optional timer. Players have 5min, 10min, 15min or unlimited mins to complete their turn or the turn ends automatically. This stops the commander under heavy fire, from reviewing every visible hex in detail.

Hexes at 2 meters rather than 4 meters ( how far can you move under fire?)

More to follow.

[Veldor]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98
I was going to begin another thread as you don’t have your own forum, but I might as well start here re: your upcoming game:

Far more people have shown interest in all 3 of our titles than I could possibly have wished for given the still limited public information we have shared about their designs. I hadn't really planned on opening our own forums quite yet but since people keep asking me questions on various other forums, including this one, it would probably be a lot more appropriate in many cases. I hate appearing to hijack threads but I did at least start this one and this is now one of at least 4 topics covered in this thread. [:D]

I played Ambush and I played Patrol ( the sequel to Sniper ) so am familiar with both. It was the “prone man crouches, fires weapon and goes to ground” and the whole action taking 5 mins instead of the 3 secs it ought to take that ultimately turned me off board games.

In generic terms, so as not to drag out this response, SNIPER AMBUSH is not like either SNIPER or AMBUSH in many if not most ways related to gameplay aspects themself. It does have a similiar scale (at least vs. games like Squad Leader). I personally never cared much for Sniper! itself.

Men who come under fire automatically go for cover – having it as an order is silly

I'm not so sure that's quite the given that you make it out to be. It depends partially on the circumstances involved. If 10 men are charging an enemy position where 1 enemy combatant is located, under little cover himself, who is only firing back with a pistol would the men still automatically go for cover when they came under fire? Even if the enemy had more cover himself, was 2 instead of 1, a better weapon, all kinds of things I can think of it wouldn't be an absolute certainty.

An optional timer. Players have 5min, 10min, 15min or unlimited mins to complete their turn or the turn ends automatically. This stops the commander under heavy fire, from reviewing every visible hex in detail.

Again I think this really becomes an issue of who or what a player is representing in the game. See my UV/WITP remarks above. I believe even most RTS games that allow pausing allow you to pause indefinitely. The "sitting back and reviewing everything" is what many turn-based players like most about turn-based games in the first place.

Hexes at 2 meters rather than 4 meters ( how far can you move under fire?)
More to follow.

Where does the "rather than 4 meters" come from?

I will see about setting up some forums of our own. I really value input on game design aspects (as I could discuss these types of things all day long) and all feedback on the games positive or negative. I also enjoy getting ideas or inspiration for various ways to improve the games even more.

[Fred98]

As for inexpensive forum software, I can recommend the software used over at the RUN5 forums

ORIGINAL: Veldor

Men who come under fire automatically go for cover – It depends partially on the circumstances involved.

Yes this is true – to which I need to suggest something important/basic about your game system but can wait as a separate topic.

ORIGINAL: Veldor

An optional timer.

The "sitting back and reviewing everything" is what many turn-based players like most about turn-based games

Yes and I did say “optional”.

In operational and strategic level games I too am one of those. But at the tactical level, it doesn’t feel right to me.

Given 8 men, I would set the optional timer to 4 mins or 30 seconds per soldier. A squad leader under fire might have 30 seconds to make a decision and as this is a game each soldier needs to be given an order individually – hence 30 seconds for each man.

ORIGINAL: Veldor

Hexes at 2 meters rather than 4: Where does the "rather than 4 meters" come from?

I thought I read it somewhere. What scale did you have in mind? A prone man pointing a rifle is probably a little over 2 meters long, so an even 2 meters sounds good.

[ravinhood]

I tell you the blunt truth, if it would be only for die hard "wargamers" we and a other wargame companies would be not in business.

If that is so Marc, then how come 99% of all your games you STILL publish are hex based and/or turn based? How come 99% of all HPS titles are hex based and/or turn based? Shrapnel? If the hardcore market is so dead, how, come 99% of it still churns out hex based and or/turn based games so often?

Did you sell more copies of HTTR or Korsun Pocket? I would gather to say you sold more copies of Korsun pocket because it appealled most to "hardcore" wargamers, and not RTS kiddiefied clickfesters. I know HTTR is not a kiddiefied click fest, but, it is "real time" and it's also "command decision" and I'm not so certain there are a lot of hardcore gamers into those types. I myself can deal with "command decision" games, but, I much prefer more hands on approach as in a board wargame.

I believe that the reason you see a decline is because you won't publish the damn games us "hardcore" players want. Well, not so much YOU and Matrixgames in particular, but, you know what I mean.

This quote says it best also "I would offer for consideration that perhaps some of the real anger some have is due to a thought that each RTS title robs the Turn-Based world of one more of an ever decreasing number of turn-based games out there. "

The damn RTS genre has been robbing us of turn based wargames ever since the dawn of DUNE, that gawd forsaken RTS game that started it all. Well actually before DUNE was another game titled "Combat Leader" followed by "Battallion Commander", those are some old titles back in the way early 80's. But, it was really DUNE that launched the move to RTS in full force and led to Age of Empires and STOLE the kids away from "turn based" games. It's not the hardcorers fault, the developers themselves have changed the face of what they "think" wargaming is.

And of course I've stated this before, when a "hobby" turns into a living, people change, and things change and wargames changed for the "worse" for a lot of us.

It's one reason I will "always" support devlopers like Shwerpunkt, since they didn't give up their "hobby" to make a living off of it. Sure, it takes them awhile to churn something out, but, it's pretty good quality and they don't charge and arm and a leg for it either.

If the future of a "wargamer" is RTS wargames, I'm glad I don't have a long time to be around to be a part of that silliness. Clicky festing is just not wargaming, it's just not strategic or really even tactical. It's just throwing what you have against anothers of what they have the fastest with the mostest, how the hell is anyone ever going to create historical wargames like that?

Let us remember the dawn of wargaming, it wasn't RTS, it was "turn based", and for awhile it wasn't even hex based, but, inch by ruler inch, I guess the ole hardcore wargamers of that era spit a fuss when someone came up with the idea of "hexes" and cardboard counters eh? lol

When SSI was in business I bought every wargame they made, wanna know why? because they were "turn based" and either hex based or square based and "origional" you didn't see a Gettysburg 2 or a Shilo 2 or anything with a 2, 3 or 4 on it back then, I sure can't say that now about many of the companies today.

The titles you are "remaking" today are "tired" and "old", that's why you're sales are falling, not because the hardcore market isn't there, but, my gawd man how many iterations of D-Day and Barbarossa and Pacific War do we need? You're stuck in a rut of the same ole same ole trying to make a $$ off of "Saving Pvt. Ryan"! lol

You have "Combat Leader" coming up that many are excited about, but, what is it really? A remake of "Steel Panthers" is it not?

I have to praise the hell out of Slitherine for someone who finally went to the Ancients era, and Spartan/GoT are great "new" games. I can't wait for more in that era.

Also, how many ads have you placed in "Strategy & Tactics" and "Fire & Movement"? You can't just blame the hardcore wargamers on bad sales. It takes some "advertising" also to make sales. If you're only hitting PCgamer and other gaming magazines and sites, I think you are missing a lot of what your core base is. Those RTS kiddy clickers reading PCgamer and Computer Gaming World an other gaming magazines are probably passing right by any ads you place, it's about the same as a hardcore wargamer, once a kiddy clickfester, always a kiddie clickfester, though you should see some of the comments by them on the RTW forums, they "think" now that they are playing RTW that they are real wargamers, moved away from RTS games. lol While RTW is about as kiddie clickfester as they come now, it's nothing like MTW in combat speed. Though it is a change, it still has turn based strategy, but, the combat engine is to loathe for a "hardcore" wargamer.

Well thas my rant and off my soapbox now. I certainly know I won't change anything, but, I do know I will "affect" things. My own word of mouth and online reviews have a following. I can't stop from coming what is coming, but, I can be a part of slowing the process.

[Marc von Martial]

You missed my point entirely.

[gunny]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I tell you the blunt truth, if it would be only for die hard "wargamers" we and a other wargame companies would be not in business.

.......................
The damn RTS genre has been robbing us of turn based wargames ever since the dawn of DUNE, that gawd forsaken RTS game that started it all. Well actually before DUNE was another game titled "Combat Leader" followed by "Battallion Commander", those are some old titles back in the way early 80's. But, it was really DUNE that launched the move to RTS in full force and led to Age of Empires and STOLE the kids away from "turn based" games. It's not the hardcorers fault, the developers themselves have changed the face of what they "think" wargaming is..................................

Actually the game that started it all and was the first to coin the term RTS of which Dune was moddled after was Empire by Mark Baldwin released in 86 for MS dos but was originally written for apple 5 years or so earlier by Walter Bright. This was the biggest selling dos based computer game ever RTS or otherwise.

[dinsdale]

Ahh the old apples Vs oranges debate again.

There are plenty of turn based games which are crap, back before RTS, there were plenty of turn based games which were simple, or the equivalent of the clickfest games today. Try comparing Risk to World In Flames for example.

Thing is, those RTS games which masquerade as "strategy" are the modern games of Othello, or Checkers: games which have coexisted with wargames but been for a different audience.

RTS can be great, such as HTTR or awful like so many. But it can introduce strategy and situations which are impossible in turn-based or even WEGO based games. The reverse is also true and sometimes Hex/turns can create situations impossible for RTS.

Forget the idea that RTS is replacing "good" games, it's not. Those wouldn't have been made anyway, Age of Empires is simply replacing Simon, or Tetris while the ever-more-niche hardcore strategy games can come in RTS/Turn/Hex or any number of flavours. Just like fruit [:'(]

[IainMcNeil]

Slightly unconnected - but does anyone know who owns SSI these days and the IP to their old games? They've been passed around so much I've lost track. I've tried to track them down before but not got very far.

[wodin]

In my view realtime means less realistic than turn based. The reason being is that in real life you have far more enviromental awareness than you do in a computer game. In a realtime PC game the disadvantages of it actaully being restricted to a PC screen with no real idea of distance nor a decent 360 view which in real life you can take in less than a second thus helping you come to decisions far quicker. The added time a turn based game gives you compensates for restricted shackles that a PC game offers. HTTR gave a godd performance at realtime so did CC both games run at a far more realistic speed than many RTS game do and they also on a whole are easily managed.

A turn based game if programmed well with decent opportunity fire gives you far more control and actually time needed. Also in real life combat trained soldiers know instinctly what to do and how to move when to fire where to move etc etc. On a whole we dont so we need the extra time to formulate our moves.

For me I get far more enjoyment at a tactical level in turn based than I do in realtime (except CC:))

All I can say is roll on Sniper ambush my money is ready and waiting same for CL. As far as RTS games go nothing being made at present tempts me. If anyone upgrades the CC game then I will pay out, untill then no thanks.

As for Matrix. Well I thank them for at least helping devellopers make turn based games. Yes advertising might be needed. Also until this download game thingy takes off and big companies also start to do it I can see problems with selling games to the hmm that looks interesting market. Those people who might have seen it on the shop shelf and taken a risk then found they like this style of game might be put off with buying a dorect download game. New blood is needed. Also if you want a big cash earner throw all your time into CL and get it out.

[Voriax]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

Slightly unconnected - but does anyone know who owns SSI these days and the IP to their old games? They've been passed around so much I've lost track. I've tried to track them down before but not got very far.

You can get most of their old games from Home of the Underdogs: http://underdogs.cjb.net/

Voriax