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

[.50Kerry]

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

ORIGINAL: .50Kerry

ORIGINAL: Culiacan Mexico

What a silly statement.

The US military when it run Wargames simulations doesn’t use board games or miniatures neither of which accurately reflect the battlefield.

You have confused Wargamers with hobbists.

NONSENSE!

Why just the other day I saw stormin' Norman doing a reenactment of planning the end around the RG in GW1 with pewter and dice eh?

[:D]

In the early 70’s, I had some friends who reject the whole board game concept as not being “Real Wargames” or “War gamers” (Miniature Hobbyists). In the early 80’s, I had other friends who rejected the whole concept of computer wargames as not being “Real Wargames” or “Wargamers” (Boardgame Hobbyists). Hobbyist spend a lot of time complaining about why their system/beliefs are the only true path.

Real “Wargamers” ([;)]) don’t place the emphasis on the tools used to create the simulation, but on the simulation itself.

The point is in the execution of theory.....

bords and monitors are merely the mechanism for the delivery and refining of theory....

good post Culi....

and yeah a lot of Grog's sound more like preachers than gamers....

[ravinhood]

Real “Wargamers” ( ) don’t place the emphasis on the tools used to create the simulation, but on the simulation itself.

And what wargamers are there without the tools? Even if you play an imaginary war with your hands as guns, you still have to have hands to play it or you can't play. Unless of course you considered your knub to be a laws rocket launcher or something.

[ravinhood]

Well by somewhat todays standards, Combat Mission, the Total War series (yes they are strategy wargames) I think what you are looking for dinsdale are state of the art FPS type graphics and we aren't talking about that, we are talking about merely the move from just a cardboard square counter with some numbers on it, to the likes of Sid Meiers Gettysburg, Waterloo, Napoleans last Stand, Combat Mission, Total War series, hell even Panzer General II and III (Scorched Earth) and you are trying to shrink the wargame market by placing a title of "serious wargame" on them, what's serious to one, may not be serious to another. But, then again you always did like playing "devils advocate" don't you? >:)

[Riun T]

Great last point I was wondering how I was going to explain myself on this same point of some games that are real playable and still come up with annoying little quirks.EG(why in Operation Flashpoint Resistance U get total control of a 25km Island and u can use any weopon, any vehicle,and really quite good control of AI minions)yet in other games like Call of Duty even in multiplay u only get their rifle and that only sitson the field till a respawn, no grenades no other equip.
I think these problems aren't grafix as much as engine issues but I guess I would Like to see more scene congruency ie.... If I'm needing to sift threw the enemies bodies for weopons to complete or climb over the stack of their bodies to get the final waypoint than show it ,but u don't have to have the bubbles and minnows ( Far cry swimming scenes)as grafic eye candy for me to try it .

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Well by somewhat todays standards, Combat Mission, the Total War series (yes they are strategy wargames) I think what you are looking for dinsdale are state of the art FPS type graphics and we aren't talking about that, we are talking about merely the move from just a cardboard square counter with some numbers on it, to the likes of Sid Meiers Gettysburg, Waterloo, Napoleans last Stand, Combat Mission, Total War series, hell even Panzer General II and III (Scorched Earth) and you are trying to shrink the wargame market by placing a title of "serious wargame" on them, what's serious to one, may not be serious to another. But, then again you always did like playing "devils advocate" don't you? >:)

So you would put War In The Pacific or Combat mission in with Total War [X(] If you can't see a difference then I don't really know what to say. My enjoyment of Total War is not mitigated by it's lack of depth, but to claim it has something it doesn't is ignoring the type of game it is.

The wargame market is like any other, it has different levels of depth, which are not necessarily linked to enjoyment, but most definately distinguish styles of game. That's nothing to do with devils advocacy, it's just a fact.

IMHO the biggest problem with the deeper wargames is that they pay little or no attention to accesibility. Repetative mouse clicks, unclear graphics, unsortable lists, cluttered interfaces...the list is endless. The UI is a barrier which keeps all but the most commited from playing them.

Then again, Total War is hardly much better, finding a princess in a cluttered province, or even finding another monarch to send a diplomat off to, can be chores in themselves.

[freeboy]

regarding total war it will be interesting to see the next new release in the series.. Rome Total War and how it deals with these issues

[ravinhood]

Then again, Total War is hardly much better, finding a princess in a cluttered province, or even finding another monarch to send a diplomat off to, can be chores in themselves.

Did you never use your mouse wheel to scroll into the campaign map? I never had a hard time picking up or finding my diplomatic units or religious units. I just used the UI like it was meant to be used.

But, back to the subject at hand. By definition a wargame is anything to do with a war or battle of a war. Look it up in Websters dictionary. Now, you can place "levels" of wargames on them if you like, but, that by no means makes it a "standard" practice, just your own practice. you call some "serious" wargames, by serious I take you mean "complex", "detaled", you listed a couple I believe like HTTR and WitP, and while these would definitely be "complex" and "detailed" and in your definition "serious", it doesn't put them outside of the scope of what a wargame is, a simulation, recreation of a war and/or battle of historical value or even futuristic, I guess all those Nato vs Russia games were not wargames eh?

Les the Old Sarge doesn't think it's a wargame unless it has "HEXES", or at least that's how he seems to imply what a wargame is. But, just like roleplaying games there are many types roleplaying games out there, but, there are "groups" of people who give them different definitions by their own styles of play. Roleplayers do not believe powergamers are roleplayers, but, I know there are powergamers that believe they are roleplayers, who's right? Both are right. There's no ownage of the title roleplayer as long as one is playing a role, same with wargames, there's no specific title ownage to a wargame as long as it is about war and/or battle from a war or futuristic war or even make believe war. War is war, still a wargame.

To me it's not "levels", but, "types" of wargames, we have hex based, action based, real time based, turn based, wego based, simultanious based. All those are "types" of user interface and mobility of the game, but, they are all wargames.

So serious or no, there are several wargames with fancy graphics, Rome Total War is going to have the fanciest graphics of all whenever it is released.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Did you never use your mouse wheel to scroll into the campaign map? I never had a hard time picking up or finding my diplomatic units or religious units. I just used the UI like it was meant to be used.

I assume you mean zoom. Yes, sometimes units are still hidden behind a host of other units in a province and getting to click on them is difficult. If you have another way of using the UI then let me know.

But, back to the subject at hand. By definition a wargame is anything to do with a war or battle of a war. Look it up in Websters dictionary.

Websters is hardly relevant. If you want a dictionary discussion you're in the wrong place.

Now, you can place "levels" of wargames on them if you like, but, that by no means makes it a "standard" practice, just your own practice. you call some "serious" wargames, by serious I take you mean "complex", "detaled", you listed a couple I believe like HTTR and WitP, and while these would definitely be "complex" and "detailed" and in your definition "serious", it doesn't put them outside of the scope of what a wargame is, a simulation, recreation of a war and/or battle of historical value or even futuristic, I guess all those Nato vs Russia games were not wargames eh?

Levels of complexity have been around since I began wargaming. Take a look at the back of an Avalon Hill box, it will give an indicator as to the complexity of the game. By your definition, Chess and Chequers would both be war games if the pieces were named after an historic campaign.

But, just like roleplaying games there are many types roleplaying games out there, but, there are "groups" of people who give them different definitions by their own styles of play.

Yes, but I also believe that there's a more objective manner of determining it as well. For instance, when a game has the scope and number of rules that say War In Russia has, compared with something like Desert Rats V Africa Korps.

To me it's not "levels", but, "types" of wargames, we have hex based, action based, real time based, turn based, wego based, simultaious based. All those are "types" of user interface and mobility of the game, but, they are all wargames.

You might like to categorize them as such, but the publishers go to great lengths to disassociate simpler games from being wargames. Three words: Real Time Strategy.

So serious or no, there are several wargames with fancy graphics, Rome Total War is going to have the fanciest graphics of all whenever it is released.

Medal of Honour is by your definition a wargame too, and that has fancy graphics. When you extend a group to infinite size, any discussion is rendered meaningless as even the most wild generalizations won't suffice to describe the genre.

If you wish to believe that Total War is a wargame and that archers required certain buildings to exist before they could exist, then you're entitled to that opinion. However, if you want to discuss a genre, then at some point you need to be able to accurately recognise what is, and what is not within that genre.

[PeckingFury]

I think we all should give up on the ideas of the computer simulating wargames and turn that focus on improving paintball warfare. [:D]

[ravinhood]

By your definition, Chess and Chequers would both be war games if the pieces were named after an historic campaign.

Key word there is IF and so that statement is irrevelant.

I began wargaming when there was no complexity code at all on the back of Avalon Hill games...so your point? And also not by my definition at all if it wereso, but, by Websters defintion and the standard defintion of the whole.

You keep saying "I" believe and "I" this, of course you can believe that way, but, that doesn't make it the "standard". Objective or not, it's reality that counts. Each individual looks at each wargame and roleplaying game in a different eye, not yours or mine, though most would agree with me over you I believe.

Yep, Medal of Honor is a FPS wargame. It's a recreation of a battle that puts the player right down into the battle himself. Doesn't make it any less of a "type" of wargame. It's a wargame by definition and because you call Webesters definitions irrevelant, then you can't see the light of what "truely" wargames are.

Wargames are not restricted to "your style" of play or "your beliefs" of what a wargame is, just look up wargames on sales lists, you will see a plethora of all "types" of gameplay styles that are called wargames. Just because you don't believe it so, doesn't make it less so.

The genre is wargames are wargames, pretty basic point, nothing outstanding about that. You just live by an old method of what "you think" is a wargame, fortunately most of us have open enough minds to realize many "types" of wargames fit into the genre. I'm 48 years old and I have no problem including all these different "types" of wargames into the genre.

Now, if you want to take it down to "types" of wargames as in "turn-based", "hex-based", wego, simultanious, FPS, RTS, and on and on, that's fine. Several of those wargame "types" do not have fancy graphics, though most are still pretty fancy compared to the graphics of the 80's. Go back and look at Kampfgruppe and Battlegroup and then look at STEEL PANTHERS WWII, tell me those aren't fancier graphics. Same basic game, different fancy graphics. Then go look at COMBAT LEADER the origional version around 1982 or 1983 and then compare it to the rts games of today, woah much more fancier graphics and Combat Leader was the first RTS game I ever played. Though no micro management system, still an RTS guess what? WARGAME!! The we can look at all of SSI's wargames and compare them to todays versions of those same wargames and what do we have??? FANCY GRAPHICS! Sid Meiers Gettysburg takes the cake. Let's even take Civilization, is it a wargame? Of course it is, I always find myself in a war when I play it. Now let's look at Civilizaion I, omg look at the FANCY GRAPHICS improvements on that wargame. hehe

Is HTTR any less of a wargame compared to TOAW, even though HTTR is REAL TIME, and TOAW is turn based? IS HOI any less of a wargame, compared to TOAW, even though HOI is real time, compared to TOAW that is turn based? We can compare even another "sub-catagory" of wargames, where there are operational, strategic, and tactical?

They are all wargames of a different "type", they fall into their perspective catagory of a wargame. I will continue to accept the "standard" and "Websters" definition over "one mere mind of what a wargame is. I'm sure I will have more followers.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
You keep saying "I" believe and "I" this, of course you can believe that way, but, that doesn't make it the "standard".
...
Yep, Medal of Honor is a FPS wargame

Then applying the word "wargame" is meaningless and the topic of discussion impossible. Your scope of what is or what is not a wargame will include almost every game which involves combat.

[ravinhood]

Then applying the word "wargame" is meaningless and the topic of discussion impossible. Your scope of what is or what is not a wargame will include almost every game which involves combat.

Of course that is "your opinion" but, not the opinion of the masses, so you can go elsewhere I guess and try to find another topic of discussion or to play your devils advocacy.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Then applying the word "wargame" is meaningless and the topic of discussion impossible. Your scope of what is or what is not a wargame will include almost every game which involves combat.

Of course that is "your opinion" but, not the opinion of the masses, so you can go elsewhere I guess and try to find another topic of discussion or to play your devils advocacy.

I have no idea why you continue to use the term devils advocacy. I also do not presume to speak for "the masses" as you do. However, if you wish to discuss wargames then I suggest you find some method of being able to define what one is, otherwise any discussion without common subject matter is pretty much impossible.