Philosophical Question Regarding the Length of AA-Engine Titles

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: Ron

I think the thread title is at odds with what you are really asking - which is the commitment required to play COTA online/multi-player.

Hi Ron,

You're right in that I'm one of those people that can be hard to follow (unless you can see my hands).[;)] Likewise, you're right in your belief that I'm concerned about the lack of AA multiplayer activity. The game plays great in IP, assuming of course, that fellas actually have enough time and willing/available opponents to have at it. I think that successful games typically have a thriving MP community, one that is (hopefully) both collegial and congenial.

I have only played RDOA/HTTR and now more recently COTA single-player, and I like longer for the most part; I'm pretty positive I will never play it multiplayer because of the format and time commitment required with your opponent. I have played numerous games and wargames pbem, hundreds of times, but only a handful of times tcp/ip(Combat Mission). It is one thing to sit down for an hour or less or more to do your turns at your leisure, something else entirely to arrange a block of time necessary to play tcp/ip.

I hear you; IP just isn't for you.

The length of the battle isn't an issue for me, though I may not be the norm. I recall I loved playing CM operations pbem, and some were very long to commit to, yet only a few opponents were also willing. The vast majority preferred 'medium' sized battles that could be finished in a 'reasonable' amount of time; I think the vast majority preferred pbem over tcp/ip as well - which is probably due to demographics. Not being elitist or anything, but I believe the typical person willing/able to play tcp/ip generally likes and plays a different kind of game than AA the wargame. Going back to CM, the release of ShockForce a couple years ago as a pauseable/continuous time tactical wargame brought a whole new set of players with the typical wargame aspect being of secondary concern initially. AA doesn't have that hook, it is pure grognard and that type for the most part prefers pbem format in my experience.

Thinking back on the 1970's, I recall really lamenting some of the limitations of board-gaming. I believed that getting as close to the real-deal as possible demanded some features that would never TRULY be present in a tabletop-type game:

-Fog of war
-Simultaneous movement
-Continuous play
-Movement unrestrained by hexagons

What I hear a lot of folks saying is that they either don't have the requisite blocks of time available to play a two or three day scenario of AA, or, just as importantly, they prefer playing a human, but can't find an opponent who can accomodate their schedule. Good enough. I get it. I understand. For some of you, "continous play," (which I hold so dear) is impractical, so much so that you simply eschew the whole experience.

Might it be better if designers created smaller scenarios for AA-style games, say a single day of fighting on smaller maps? Last spring, I built a relatively small scenario that pitted a reinforced Pz.Rgt against a reinforced British armoured bde on a 15k x 15k map. It ran from 1300 to 2200 when both sides would have to withdraw to resupply. HOWEVER, I kept tinkering with it, thinking that more was better. Eventually the map grew to 40k x 40k, and included the better part of 15 and 21 Pz.Div, and XXX Corps.

If players had access to smaller, shorter scenarios, ones that could be completed in one or two hours, solo or IP, would they play more?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

Irrelevant, as it hardly has a mass following by video game standards. But to answer your question, it's been a long time since I played the Close Combat games, back when they were first rolled out, so I can only go by that experience. Based on that, yes, I'd call them a wargame, but then again, so was Panzer General.

My point isn't that there's not a need for shorter more accessible wargames--I like those as well. My point is merely that we should keep in mind that a strong selling or popular wargame is going to be far, far less popular and sell far, far fewer units than, say, a Grand Theft Auto, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Gran Tourismo, or FIFA type of game no matter how "accessible."

You're correct to the degree that what most of our readers would consider wargames are never gonna find their way onto a console. However, the Close Combat games that were sold my Microsoft did sell well, well enough to keep Atomic Games, a fully funded development house, in the black for a fairly decent stint. And I'd add that there's not a wargame developer on that the planet that woundn't sign-on, PDQ, were MS to offer to publish two or three of their games.

[Llyranor]

If the Close Combat games are wargames, then they may very well be the best-selling PC wargames out there, since the series apparently sold over 1.2 million copies.

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

. . .

Normally, I'm kind of dismissive of folks "whining" about PBEM when a stable IP module has been developed for a game (as is the case with AA). For instance, I can't imagine playing Close Combat or Sid Meier's Gettysburg PBEM. However, in the case of the games from PG, I have to acknowledge that the absence of PBEM likely has a negative impact on the number of human vs human encounters. Simply too many people sound the same refrain, "it's just too hard for me to get together with other players. I'd love to give it a go, but it's not doable, at least not for me."

BTW, I'm part of a minority here on the Matrix forums in that I would far rather play a game against a human than a computer. While the Airborne Assault games are known for their excellent AI, I consider the quality of their IP implementation to be just as important.

. . .

For a very, very long time I either player both board and computer games against myself or the AI. Where I live no one plays ASL or games of that same complexity, so you just have to play yourself. When I started playing Combat Mission, I played only against the AI. Everyone went on and on about how much PBEM changed the way the game plays. After a lot of thought, I finally tried it out. I have been sold on PBEM ever since.

I simply do not have time for TCP/IP. No matter the game. No matter how well it works. I just do not have time for it. Like I said above, anyone with small kids in the home knows why. I am not exactly on the 'retired at home' category of gamers [:D] So PBEM is pefect for me. I play when I have time. If I dont have time to play today, or even this week, its no problem. We will just pick it up later. The more I play PBEM, the less interest I have in playing against the AI, in any wargame. That doesnt mean the AI is bad. That means that the AI can never (atleast not yet [X(]) hold a candle to the excitement and insanity of playing against a human opponent. WitP (or AE) can only hold my interest for a week or two against the AI. With PBEM, I played a single game for just shy of two years (opponent finally dropped out). No game, let alone a single play through within anygame, has ever held my attention for that long. Thats the beauty of PBEM.

I want to play this game against a human opponent, but I just dont have the time. I would imagine there are others in my same boat for whatever reason. That doesnt mean that it is a dealbreaker and the series suffers because of its lack of PBEM. I just *feel* like a game series like this screams for PBEM because of the convenient ways (atleast with gameplay) to segment the combat. From a coding point of view I assume it is either impossible, or would take forever to implement. Thats why I am not holding my breath.

I just want to throw out my opinion that I think that not only would PBEM work within this game series, I think that it would really shine and be a great addition to an already great game.

Still looking forward to Battles of the Bulge coming out. Keep up the great work Panther Games.

Chad

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

Point well taken. I would say, though, that "that was then, this is now." Hell, when I started playing games on the PC (as opposed to MultiTrek and Colossal Cave on mainframes), companies like SSI were filling store shelves with computer wargames. We thought that wargames were going to be a huge part of computer gaming.

Well, things changed, and as computers got better at displaying super-duper art and animation, the types of games changed, so that instead of action-y games being behind the curve they were driving it. And wargames moved back into their niche. Atomic (who also had some very nice turn-based hex map games at the battalion level, like Utah Beach, Stalingrad, Crusader, et al) kind of lucked out when they debuted Close Combat, and one thing about wargames on the PC, particular those picked up by Matrix, is that they have a shelf life an order of magnitude longer than most other types of PC products.

So yeah, most _current_ PC wargame developers would sell their mother (if they have one left after self-funding all these years) for Close-Combat level sales out of the gate. I rather suspect though that realistic expectations of current sales for wargames are pretty modest--hence the lack of downward price pressures even for relatively hoary titles.

All of this is to say, yes, I agree there's a real need for wargames with accessible scenarios and time commitments that allow completion of games in less than WWII-length real time. No arguments there. I just think that we can't push it too far--virtually every attempt to turn serious historical simulation games into fast 'n' furious big sellers to "expand the market" has proven hideously unsuccessful for all concerned. Close Combat is actually a pretty solidly designed and researched series, given all of its parameters. It's not my cup of tea (I did a fair amount of beta testing for Atomic on their turn based stuff back in the day, and that's more my style), but it's certainly well within the "wargame family" I think. But I also think it'd be unlikely to sell super well as a brand-new, freshly designed product in today's market. Maybe if they added large-breasted anime girls soldiers and spiky-haired teenagers with big bazookas duking it out in real-time fighting action; that could work.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

Irrelevant, as it hardly has a mass following by video game standards. But to answer your question, it's been a long time since I played the Close Combat games, back when they were first rolled out, so I can only go by that experience. Based on that, yes, I'd call them a wargame, but then again, so was Panzer General.

My point isn't that there's not a need for shorter more accessible wargames--I like those as well. My point is merely that we should keep in mind that a strong selling or popular wargame is going to be far, far less popular and sell far, far fewer units than, say, a Grand Theft Auto, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Gran Tourismo, or FIFA type of game no matter how "accessible."

You're correct to the degree that what most of our readers would consider wargames are never gonna find their way onto a console. However, the Close Combat games that were sold my Microsoft did sell well, well enough to keep Atomic Games, a fully funded development house, in the black for a fairly decent stint. And I'd add that there's not a wargame developer on that the planet that woundn't sign-on, PDQ, were MS to offer to publish two or three of their games.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

If players had access to smaller, shorter scenarios, ones that could be completed in one or two hours, solo or IP, would they play more?

Don´t we already have access to short scenarios in the "Command Ops" series? Shorter scenarios surely enables more of us to play against a real opponent but it does not in any sense make use of what makes these games great.

One option is to dramatically decrease the scale in the games, replacing companies with rifle teams and sections. In this way supply and command would be simulated a micro-perspective, supplying individual fire positions with ammo and evacuating wounded. Fire team leader could determine what routes to take through the terrain and platoon leaders forming up their units in suitable formations.

This would however just give us a Close Combat game with an excellent friendly AI on the field and heavily abstracted graphics. Hardly a best seller IMO.

One of the best features I actually remember enjoying when playing Close Combat in multi-player was the "Operation"-games. This was a sort of mini campaign where your forces carried over from one battle to the other. This mode prevented someone from "winning" through some kind of desperate move that just created a pyrrhic-victory, because you had instead to plan for the future and consolidate your forces. This can only be achieved through longer campaigns or as in the Command Ops games through longer scenarios.

[Agema]

Many players indeed won't spend that much time on a game. On the other hand, they're the sort of gamers who buy action/shooter/etc. games with completion times of 24h or less gaming time and move on, but overwhelmingly they are not the sort of people who play strategy games anyway.

The length of time required to play and explore many mass-market strategy and roleplay releases such as Oblivion, Total War and so on is massive. You also get people who play World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike online for hours a day, most days, for months or years. I seriously doubt cutting scenario length would make much difference to sales, because to a large extent it's pandering to an audience who just aren't particularly interested anyway.