Enough already!

[SireChaos]

Hey, it´s not like there aren´t lots of scenarios that haven´t been simulated to death already:

- the Thirty Years´ War
- the Mongol invasion of Europe
- the Spanish Civil War
- the Russian Civil War
- the campaigns of the Migration Period (primarly the exploits of Attila the Hun)
- the conquest of the Americas (primarily the fall of the Aztec and Inca empires)
- the rebellion of the Seven Provinces of the Netherlands (aka the Eighty Years´ War)
- the Crusades
- ...

[V22 Osprey]

- Anglo-Zulu War
- The United States' Expansion West fighting the Native Americans
- English Civil War
- Fights between Japan and USSR in 1939 and 1945
- ....

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

How about a ''something other than WWII'' Campaign game?[:'(]

Yeah!!!! Can we maybe get comprehensive game covering the Anglo-Zanzibar War .

Maybe 3-4 scenarios, in addition to a full blown campaign.

[EdinHouston]

I understand people might like to see something different, other than more WW2 games.

But one thing to think about is, maybe the developers are focusing on wars/battles that customers actuallly want to buy. This is already a small niche market, and when you start talking wars/battles like the 30 Years War, well then you are talking about a small niche within a small niche. Good luck trying to make any money on that.

I dont disagree that it wouldnt be fun to see other wars/battles. Personally, I like the ancient, medieval and musket eras more than many wargamers. But i understand that those eras arent as popular, wont sell as well, and therefore are less likely to be made.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

I understand people might like to see something different, other than more WW2 games.

But one thing to think about is, maybe the developers are focusing on wars/battles that customers actuallly want to buy. This is already a small niche market, and when you start talking wars/battles like the 30 Years War, well then you are talking about a small niche within a small niche. Good luck trying to make any money on that.

I dont disagree that it wouldnt be fun to see other wars/battles. Personally, I like the ancient, medieval and musket eras more than many wargamers. But i understand that those eras arent as popular, wont sell as well, and therefore are less likely to be made.

Alas this is too true. The facts are that it's a hand to mouth existence for wargame designers. Every title needs to be a winner. Developing titles on esoteric subjects increases the risk that you go out of business. Now we heard this same chorus after HTTR and so we opted to do something different, hence Conquest of the Agean ( COTA ). While this scooped all the awards we kept hearing from potential customers that they were not going to buy it because they were not interested in the Greek or Crete battles. But <G> were they looking forward to our next Bulge game.

[Alexander Seil]

People are missing the point that one of the big reasons the wargaming market is small is because most companies tend to develop the same game over and over again. Just look at HPS (their WW2 games, that is). Yes, WW2 sells more by default, but there's a lot of stuff you can do there that's not the Bulge.

And, besides, if the entire marketing strategy here is based on selling wargames about the Bulge to middle-aged white men, here's a newsflash - the industry is living on borrowed time. And the specifics of what you make a game about don't really matter if you market it to the general public. Sure, WW2 helps, but people will buy games about the 30 Years' War too. Just look at Paradox - which incidentally had pretty good luck so far marketing a wargame like HoI2 to the mainstream gamer (at 500,000 copies sold).

Of course if the industry wants to go on assuming that anyone under the age of 30 is genetically incapable of enjoying a wargame, it will go the way of the dodo and in the future we'll only play MMORPGs. Thankfully, that's not going to be the case because there are enough developers who realize that there is a demand for novel strategy games and wargames that are based on original models and material.

EDIT: Though I suppose HPS does one thing wrong and one thing right - they keep reusing the same tired old engine, but they DO keep it fresh by introducing obscure battles!

EDIT2: In case you're wondering how old I am, by the way, I'm 22. Never touched a board wargame, either. Discovered wargames entirely by accident because back in the 1990's wargame developers didn't look down their nose on the mainstream gaming press.

Alas this is too true. The facts are that it's a hand to mouth existence for wargame designers. Every title needs to be a winner. Developing titles on esoteric subjects increases the risk that you go out of business. Now we heard this same chorus after HTTR and so we opted to do something different, hence Conquest of the Agean ( COTA ). While this scooped all the awards we kept hearing from potential customers that they were not going to buy it because they were not interested in the Greek or Crete battles. But <G> were they looking forward to our next Bulge game.

So? That's because your "customers" (and they aren't really customers, are they? They're members of Matrix Games forums, which resemble a retirement community at times) are the same middle-aged white men. How come Paradox can "sell" HoI3 to mainstream press (despite it having, *gasp* counters on almost every screenshot released!), but you can't? Clearly it's not a problem with your game, it's a problem with how you market it. Personally the very fact that you did this topic earns you points with me as a customer for as long as you continue being a developer.

EDIT3: In case you're wondering, I am one of your customers, and I held off on buying anything about Market Garden until I could get my hands on COTA.

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

I understand people might like to see something different, other than more WW2 games.

But one thing to think about is, maybe the developers are focusing on wars/battles that customers actuallly want to buy. This is already a small niche market, and when you start talking wars/battles like the 30 Years War, well then you are talking about a small niche within a small niche. Good luck trying to make any money on that.

I dont disagree that it wouldnt be fun to see other wars/battles. Personally, I like the ancient, medieval and musket eras more than many wargamers. But i understand that those eras arent as popular, wont sell as well, and therefore are less likely to be made.

Alas this is too true. The facts are that it's a hand to mouth existence for wargame designers. Every title needs to be a winner. Developing titles on esoteric subjects increases the risk that you go out of business. Now we heard this same chorus after HTTR and so we opted to do something different, hence Conquest of the Agean ( COTA ). While this scooped all the awards we kept hearing from potential customers that they were not going to buy it because they were not interested in the Greek or Crete battles. But <G> were they looking forward to our next Bulge game.

But come on, Crete and Malta? We want to see things that are actually exciting like Japan fighting the USSR in 1939 with some intense battles.Or maybe the Winter War.I haven't heard anyone ever want a game about Crete and Malta, that should've been a sign.Give us something different, but give us something different that we actually want to see.

I am only 16, I only discovered computer wargames by accident when I discovered Steel Panthers:WAW when trying to search for some good games for free because I didnt have the money to get new games at the time.I actually have played board wargames, though.Tactics II I think it's called, still have it after getting it from an antique shop a few years ago.

[Arsan]

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey
But come on, Crete and Malta? We want to see things that are actually exciting like Japan fighting the USSR in 1939 with some intense battles.Or maybe the Winter War.I haven't heard anyone ever want a game about Crete and Malta, that should've been a sign.Give us something different, but give us something different that we actually want to see.

YMMV, but at least i find the Crete and Greece campaigns much more interesting than the Japan vs USSR or Fins vs URSS campaigns. [;)]
There weren't any Fallschirmjagers in Nomohan! What a bore! [:'(]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Arsan
YMMY, but at least i find the Crete and Greece campaigns much more interesting than the Japan vs USSR or Fins vs URSS campaigns. [;)]
There weren't any Fallschirmjagers in Nomohan! What a bore! [:'(]

I agree - I find nothing interesting about the USSR and Fins or USSR and Japanese battles - nothing at all.

Although I never really knew much or was interested in the Greek region - COTA changed my mind there.

[doomtrader]

Just look at Paradox - which incidentally had pretty good luck so far marketing a wargame like HoI2 to the mainstream gamer (at 500,000 copies sold).

Johan said it was 200,000 with 60,000 in USA


Except what was told above, also reviewers are a little bit guilty. If there is a review of a wargame (hexes, turns) in some non-wargaming magazine or portal, then it's most often starts with the words: "Another hardcore title for veterans from XXX company (...)". There is also a lot of words like hard, challenge, complicated etc.
I'm not suprised that regular player baypasses strategy genre.

So if you wish to have better selection, buy a strategy game for your friend's kid, maybe he will dive into the genre.

[Alexander Seil]

Johan said it was 200,000 with 60,000 in USA

I remember 500,000 rather distinctly (from a recent article/interview), although I can't find the interview where it cropped up, it's possible the numbers were given at different times. In any case, at 200,000, it may still be the best selling wargame of all times.

What did the original TOAWs sell? I think it was around 20,000? That's the only number I ever heard at least.

Except what was told above, also reviewers are a little bit guilty. If there is a review of a wargame (hexes, turns) in some non-wargaming magazine or portal, then it's most often starts with the words: "Another hardcore title for veterans from XXX company (...)". There is also a lot of words like hard, challenge, complicated etc.
I'm not suprised that regular player baypasses strategy genre.

Lame excuses for poor marketing [8|] Being described as "challenging" is better than not being described at all. Besides, I have never seen "depth" being a reason for a low rating. Poor tutorials, incomprehensible interfaces, rampant bugs and ugly graphics do that. "Depth" ends up being a positive characteristics in any mainstream review, and simplicity often gets blasted (take a look at any review for Spore).

Also, a big hint - the reason hexes get blasted is because they are a throwback to boardgames that PCs are supposed to be able to transcend. Incidentally, Airborne Assault games demonstrate clearly that they can. Turn-based mechanics don't get any negative ratings if they make sense in the context of the game, but then there is no rule that says that a wargame has to be turn-based (or hex-based).

[Anthropoid]

Here is an idea for you guys to mull over: "Vietnam: The Anglo-French Campaigns in Southeast Asia."
&nbsp;
There are already a couple of very good Vietnam 'scenarios' for TOAWIII, but they are a pretty much operational military engine only. Moreover, since the TOAWIII engine is a general one, in the last incarnation of the Vietnam scenarios I played, there were some historical and military dimensions to that conflict which had to be scripted in through events and victory rules and such which just seemed a bit awkward.
&nbsp;
A good Vietnam game, one which actually allowed for alternate historical outcomes, highlighted the importance of military policy, social foreign policy, domestic policy, public relations, etc., would have to be just about the most innovative, genre-busting game ever.
&nbsp;
Imagine a game that is: part BoB (for airborne, airmobile, air-to-ground and air-to-air ops), part TOAWIII (for basic operational level combat), part Civilization [but MUCH better by being focused on only one historical period] (for espionage, diplomacy, resource acquisition and utilization, and unit and infrastructure building), part Hired Guns (for Tactical level battles), part Crown of Glory/FoF (diplomacy model, container model, promotions model).
&nbsp;
Imagine if you are in the shoes of Eisenhower, playing the "Post War Period" campaign. The French (AI) is bogged down in Indochina against the Vietminh forces of Ho Chi Minh. The engine would need to be cleverly balanced so that a player in any given campaign would have a small to medium-sized array of at least slightly differing options in terms of decisions for policy (military size and training, technologies on which to focus, diplomatic relations, espionage and foreign policy actions and statements, transparency with the press, and speeches [ohh! imagine if something like the CoG diplomacy engine was used to create a cut-n-paste "public statement" engine . . . mapping out all the various permutations and pieces would be a bit complex, but I have no doubt with all the brain power at Matrix it could be done!]. What general path do you want to take for the next four years Ike? What piece will your Vietnam policy play in your overall policy? Will you get reelected? Decide to cryptically send in a team of Green Berets to try to assassinate Ho Chi Minh? Take control of the operation in either/or the Tactical or Operational level engine. Be careful in case a covert op you authorize gets exposed and you take the negative PR hit and risk not getting elected for a second term!
&nbsp;
So you managed to win the election for that second term? How do you change your policies now? Do you think in terms of a long-term vision that will set up your predecessor for long-term victory (but perhaps cause you to achieve only a "Stalemate" victory condition for this campaign section?) or do you go for broke and try to change the course of history dramatically and early in the conflict. The engine would need to weigh things like troop deployment levels, operational doctrine effects (e.g., free-fire zones, full-scale bombing, etc.),&nbsp;psyops and propaganda as well as military-press relations and in-country diplomatic actions&nbsp;and weigh these against casualties in generating media reactions, public and congressional reactions, and the ratio of victory points.
&nbsp;
As a very important conflict which COULD have gone either way, and was exceedingly complicated in involving larger foreign policy issues, domestic issues, a myriad of different political and military historical figures, fascinating military technology, doctrine, and hardware, etc., I think a game that _really_ tried to convey the Vietnam era would be an absolutely incredible game. I bet if Matrix got behind a project, and harnessed the knowledge, enthusiasm and expertise of some of the forum regulars who are modders for Vietnam scenarios for TOAWIII (e.g., Boonierats, but there are other guys too I know) in a year or two you guys could make an astoundingly good game.
&nbsp;
Whats more, I think we are far enough past that era that the world might be ready for it. There are still a lot of living Vietnam vets; many of whom were very traumatized by their experiences, but I think many of whom would LOVE the chance to 'redo things the right way' and not forsake victory. I'm not saying it should be a game in which the US playe can make whatever decisions he needs to make to achieve victory. The give-and-take and the constraints of being a Democratically elected commander in chief in a spooled rotten nation with a hyper-active press and media should mean that it is ALWAYS a challenge to achieve a victory, or for that matter even to do as well as the historical leaders did. What is more, the transition from leader to leader, and the chance that you get alternate Presidents (as well as alternate S. Viet. leaders) would absolutely need to be modelled in there. But even if it was very hard to 'win' a big campaign, it would be an awesome game.
&nbsp;
Not to mention the younger generation guys like me who were just being born as the war was winding down. We all grew up sitting on the living room carpet watching the last few images of that conflict on the news when we were toddlers, and our whole lives we have been inundated wtih rhetoric about that war. Plus the even younger Generation Y and Netgen segments of the market . . . WWII is true "history" to almost all of us, and CW, Nappy, WWI, etc. is definitely full-fledged history to all of us.
&nbsp;
Vietnam is something we all (or at least Gen X and prior) have some realworld connection to. Granted, there remain quite strong opinions, and quite probably tender wounds that have never fully healed, and probably never will. But I don't think that that is a reason NOT to make a great game. Indeed, I think it is an even bigger reason to make a great game. I think if done as good as Matrix can do a game, if all the best ideas and best resources at your disposal were carefully marshaled, and you started with a visionary "break with convention and let the nature of the topic define the 'rules' for the engine and game design" kind of strategy, you guys could make a game that would cause an Earthquake in the gaming industry and quite likely revolutionize strategy wargaming. Plus, you'd probably make a bundle of $$ . . .
&nbsp;
The industry/hobby is getting a bit full of hacks and cliche pulp fiction at this point (which was the original point of this thread), and I think that this is what it needs.

[Anthropoid]

Well said Alexander.
&nbsp;

Lame excuses for poor marketing [8|] Being described as "challenging" is better than not being described at all. Besides, I have never seen "depth" being a reason for a low rating. Poor tutorials, incomprehensible interfaces, rampant bugs and ugly graphics do that. "Depth" ends up being a positive characteristics in any mainstream review, and simplicity often gets blasted (take a look at any review for Spore).

Also, a big hint - the reason hexes get blasted is because they are a throwback to boardgames that PCs are supposed to be able to transcend. Incidentally, Airborne Assault games demonstrate clearly that they can. Turn-based mechanics don't get any negative ratings if they make sense in the context of the game, but then there is no rule that says that a wargame has to be turn-based (or hex-based).

[oldspec4]

As a 'Nam era army vet, I personally have no desire to replay that conflict. OTOH, it may be an appealing wargame setting for others [;)].

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Know what publishers tell developers when asked about the relative desirability of subject matter?

It goes somethlng like this:

"Take your best shot. Aim for the biggest audience. This may be your last chance. If you make enough profit, you can do stuff that you're interested in later on."

I believe that's the thinking that drives developers to do Bulge games. The USA is still the biggest audience for this sort of software, and marketing a game that focuses on nothing but Germans and Russians is poison of a sort. Among USA, Bulge is to WW2 what Gettysburg is to the ACW. Hence, the plethora of games about the Ardennes 1944.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Lützow]

Why do some people always refer to 'the market' in order to emphasize their position? I don't care how many copies a game sell, because I neither maintain a dev studio nor do I own shares of a big entertainment company. I'm a hobbiest, willing to spend some money for my leisure occupation and would be perfectly fine if solely 100 people play a certain title beside me, as long as it meets my demands. However, I rather take the 100th East Front game before I would pick something about African civil wars or another 'esoteric' theatre I have no affiliation to.

[jackx]

Versatile engines, powerful editors and thus the ability for the community to create mods with relative ease seems to be the best answer to the situation.
I don't think it's that much extra effort for the developers if they plan their game to be moddable from the outset, and it'll allow them to do "mainstream" while the community can then do "exotic" or "overlooked" or anything else it wants. In many cases, that happens already anyways, and with wargames, modding is also quite a lot easier as you usually don't need people that can deliver professional-quality eye-candy, and are willing to do so for free.

Though I guess you could argue against that too, because in the long run, if there are well-done quality community mods available for free, it limits the developers' options for future games...

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Why do some people always refer to 'the market' in order to emphasize their position? I don't care how many copies a game sell, because I neither maintain a dev studio nor do I own shares of a big entertainment company. I'm a hobbiest, willing to spend some money for my leisure occupation and would be perfectly fine if solely 100 people play a certain title beside me, as long as it meets my demands. However, I rather take the 100th East Front game before I would pick something about African civil wars or another 'esoteric' theatre I have no affiliation to.

Unfortunately, games require "companies" to get made, supported, and improve over time. A company that makes a game(s) that sells only 100 copies is not going to be in business very long. While an open-source game could conceivably live on through fan/modding community, it would seem that having the parent producer remain alive too would be better for us hobbiests overall.

While each of us may have his/her personal preferences, the logic of the market is simply inescapable. If the exceedingly complex Vietnam sheme I outline above is not going to make anyone money, then all my ravings about how great it would be are irrelevant. It is not going to get made. I like to think (biased by my own personal view) that such a game would sell, but who knows . . .

[V22 Osprey]

The answer is to make a game like John Tiller's Campaign Series or Steel Panthers.With both games, you get full editors, hundreds of scenarios and campaigns, and can make any scenario with practicly any country you desire.This way the developers can satisfy everyone in one game.This is why I think SPWAW and JTCS has survived over all those years, because you can make any battle you want.You can fight Battle of Bulge in JTCS, but I could just as easily play Winter War.[&o]

[SireChaos]

I think the problem with having (almost) nothing but WW2 titles is a vicious circle of sorts.

- Companies produce nothing but WW2 games because that´s what they think will sell
- Gamers buy the WW2 games because there´s nothing else on the market and playing the umpteenth Bulge game is better than nothing
- Seeing that WW2 games sell, companies produce more WW2 games
- Well what do you think gamers buy now?

Actually, sure, it´s not just WW2, but in my personal and underinformed opinion something like 90% of all wargames seem to be WW2, and of the rest, 40% each are ACW and Napoleonics. And that´s if you count the Total War series and such as wargames rather than mainstream strategy titles.