Matrix Games Forums

Capitaine,

Interesting points ...

If we put the issue of hexes and turns aside, both MMG's and PG's engine have offered the player hierarchical command at various levels with AI subordinates to execute your orders and possibly generate implicit orders to their subordinates. This makes these games much more scalable than totally flat command games and/or unit stack grouping games. Additionally, it permits the player a greater focus on strategy, since mechanistic details are left to the game engine. This is done without having to abstract away low level details of combat (like eliminating small units from the battle space).

So, if I take your point that traditional wargaming is that way for a reason, and the reason is that it is a good model to learn about and study warfare via modeled systems ... then, my question is what in traditional wargaming provided the scalability and strategy focus offered by such systems seen in CWBR/TC2M and RDOA/HTTR/COTA?

Thanks.

PS: I am not being argumentative. I am truly curious as to why PG's engine hasn't taken the war gaming community by storm. Clearly, you are better qualified to answer that than I am.

Capitaine,

Just because hexes and turn based play make you more comfortable does not mean that it is more realistic. HTTR and COTA are the only games I have played that make me feel like I am back in a Tactical Operation Center running a battle... no hex based game has ever done that.

I have not played a hex based game since I was introduced to this series and the CM series, as to me, a former military man, hexes are, and have always been less realistic and were simply a necessity to make playing these types of games easier before computers were in widespread use.

Bil

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Capitaine,

Interesting points ...

If we put the issue of hexes and turns aside, both MMG's and PG's engine have offered the player hierarchical command at various levels with AI subordinates to execute your orders and possibly generate implicit orders to their subordinates. This makes these games much more scalable than totally flat command games and/or unit stack grouping games. Additionally, it permits the player a greater focus on strategy, since mechanistic details are left to the game engine. This is done without having to abstract away low level details of combat (like eliminating small units from the battle space).

So, if I take your point that traditional wargaming is that way for a reason, and the reason is that it is a good model to learn about and study warfare via modeled systems ... then, my question is what in traditional wargaming provided the scalability and strategy focus offered by such systems seen in CWBR/TC2M and RDOA/HTTR/COTA?

Thanks.

PS: I am not being argumentative. I am truly curious as to why PG's engine hasn't taken the war gaming community by storm. Clearly, you are better qualified to answer that than I am.

Hmm... not sure I follow all your jargon, but I would say, first, what traditional wargame do you have in mind as "flat command" or "unit stack grouping"? I'm not sure I follow these characterizations as typifying the turn-based genre.

As for the "scalable" command system of CWBR and HTTR et al., well, it's pretty much superfluous isn't it? What is your point in including low level units "in the battle space"? When you see them on a map, they overlap and evade your control. If YOU don't control them, then you aren't "playing them" in the game. The game is playing itself. That may be rewarding, but if the idea is to learn and study warfare, then having the AI command these units (or having the player micromanage them) doesn't convey anything, really. It may enhance the experience by giving the player the illusion of command, but he really isn't making command decisions.

I should make known that I'm pretty disenchanted with "experiential" wargames. IOW, the worst thing imaginable to me are the WW2 FPS games that purport to "put you among the troops". That's a shooter and has nothing to do with the science of war IMO. Likewise, I don't go much for the "experience" factor of simulating command by taking units out of your hands. It has a degree of "realism" to it, but what is the point? Training? It certainly isn't most conducive to studying troop qualities and comparisons, which can be experienced better in a slower paced system.

In my opinion, your scalability is simply the only means by which such games can possibly be played on a large scale. The fun involved depends on the beholder.

Sorry I can't be more scholarly about this... Like I say I think the conveyance of information and learning comes more effectively without extreme time pressure and with knowledge organized more systematically. But I gather that most of the fans of CWBR and HTTR enjoy the "experience" factor conveyed by the games that I don't find very rewarding. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

Capitaine,

Just because hexes and turn based play make you more comfortable does not mean that it is more realistic.

I didn't say hexes and turns make me more comfortable. I said I find them rewarding and conducive to study. Because I like wargames for this purpose, such games have more appeal to me.

HTTR and COTA are the only games I have played that make me feel like I am back in a Tactical Operation Center running a battle... no hex based game has ever done that.

Right, and that's fair. I don't value the experiential factor you appreciate here. I have no use for it at all, really. We play wargames for different reasons. I don't want to be under the impression I'm "running a battle" at all. I want to study the units and their relationships. I enjoy analyzing CRT's and their resolution to gain insight into the [necessary] abstractions every game makes. The seamless sort of gameplay of HTTR/CWBR is good for experiential gaming, not as good for combat analysis.

I have not played a hex based game since I was introduced to this series and the CM series, as to me, a former military man, hexes are, and have always been less realistic and were simply a necessity to make playing these types of games easier before computers were in widespread use.

Yes, I understand, and that's something on which we'll disagree about. I find as many realism issues with PG's engine as you find with hexes and turns. We just see different points of realism and choose to focus on different primary rewards from the game.

I'm not saying you're wrong, remember. I'm only saying that hex/turn wargames are not archaic, unrealistic "old" games as you and others call them. [;)]

I would only add that I don't have any particular turn-based games in mind in my own remarks. Everything I say is theoretical and it very well could be that most or all hex/turn games on the market were not designed that way due to reasoned thought but due to conformity with existing models (from board games). I have some great ideas for merging hexless games with a turn-based mechanism [:'(] , but I haven't seen anything like I have in mind.

This is all very philosophical and the discussion could range pretty far afield, so I'm not for pressing the point. Just wanted to give a few reasons why a hex or a turn might be deemed a valid choice of design by someone completely open to all styles of wargaming.

Capitaine... there is plenty of room for all types of wargamers, I'm happy you like hexes and actually play the games. However...

Right, and that's fair. I don't value the experiential factor you appreciate here. I have no use for it at all, really. We play wargames for different reasons. I don't want to be under the impression I'm "running a battle" at all. I want to study the units and their relationships. I enjoy analyzing CRT's and their resolution to gain insight into the [necessary] abstractions every game makes. The seamless sort of gameplay of HTTR/CWBR is good for experiential gaming, not as good for combat analysis.

Combat, and warfare in general is not that scientific. If you want to really understand what a commander faced in a similar situation, then playing a game like HTTR or COTA is the only way... commanders in reality did not study charts and tables.. they relied on reconnaissance, experience, enemy situation, and intuition when giving their orders. They had to watch their supply lines, provide security to their flanks, win the counter-recon battle, etc... it was not as scientific as most wargamers like to think it was.. in fact warfare was and is a lot muddier than even COTA and HTTR illustrate. However, they get us closer than any game that has come before.

If you enjoy pouring over the charts then I'm afraid you really miss the reason for playing these games in the first place... to experience and relive battle command. But as you say, that is just me.. I'm hard core when it comes to realism in wargames.. more so than most.

Enjoy your analysis of the CRT's and the game's abstractions... if that is what makes you happy then go for it. I would only ask that break out your version of HTTR and play it again.. with a different less scientific approach. You might be surprised how much you learn about unit capabilities and the problems of command.

Bil

Capitaine,

Thank you for your thoughful contributions here. They have certainly enlivened this debate.[:)]

I appreciate where you are coming from when you say that you are less concerned with the "experential" and more concerned with the "analytical" appreciation of wargaming. For me I like both aspects. I spent too many hours to remember analysing SPI and AH boardgames back in the 70's. I'd pull the rule books apart trying to identify the design decisons that went into them. Perhaps that's what got me started as a developer.

When Paul Scobell and I sat down to design the fundamentals of this engine back in 1995/6 we reviewed a whole range of design issues and criteria. We listed all the things we wanted to achieve and the things we hated about other wargames that we wanted to avoid. One of the things we did want to achieve was to create an engine which could realistically model not only what happens in operational warfare but what it is like to be a commander at that level. That is very much the focus for our game engine.

One of the things we were particularly aware of is that operational warfare is all about time and space. It's about having the right resources at the right location at the right time. This is true for all levels of warfare. How to simulate time is critical. On the one hand you want a very small time interval to realistically simulate movement and combat. We ended up choosing one minute for this purpose. In one minute a motorised unit can travel in tactical movement about 250m. Any more and short range wpn systems cannot engage them before they are overrun and the enemy has moved out of range again.

Yet at the operational level commanders do not make decisions every minute. Typically Bn cmdrs reassess their plans every couple of hours or so - less so if they are attacking. This stretches out to 4-6 hrs for Bde cmdrs, 12-24 hrs for Div cmdrs and so on. So what we needed was a system which could process and resolve the mechanics every minute but which didn't require the huge workload of traditional micromanagment games. That would allow the player to intervene when and how he chose not at some preordained time interval as in your traditional turn based games. Real warfare is not like that. At the operational level the enemy doesn't agree to only make decisions every two hours. He reserves the right to intervene when he judges it to be appropriate.

One of the most important aspects of simulating operational warfare is to model "operational" surprise. By this I mean the effect that one side has the initiaive, calls the shots and forces the other side to react to its moves. This comes about in ral life through a number of factors. One is the application of superior combat power ( and this is modelled effectively in your traditional turn based wargame ). But often at the operational level this only achieved by outmanoevering your opponent. by being able to deploy your knock out punch where the enemy is weakest and before he can respond. By taking advantage of the effects of time and space on the decision making cycle.

In RL a commander issues orders and it takes time to process those orders down the line. It can take hours before a Div cmdr's orders actually translate into units moving. RL cmdrs know this and exploit it. They know that if they can amass superiority at point X it will take the enemy a considerable amount of time before he can respond. What you want to achieve is the situation where the enemy is always on the back foot.

The thing is though that often the differences in processing orders is only small ( eg a Bde may be able to process orders down the line to all units in say 120 minutes. Another Bde may take 130 minutes. And yet over time this difference can translate into a crushiung victory for the more efficient Bde ( provided their commander is bold enough to use it ). Now to simulate this you must have a high fidelity of time ( ie small time intervals ) otherwise there is no way to differentiate. Eg. If we had two hour turns, then there would be no way we could differentiate between the above two brigades.

Anyway I better get back to getting COTA out or those Panther Prowlers will be on my back again. I have enjoyed this discussion. Good stuff.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Bil H

in fact warfare was and is a lot muddier than even COTA and HTTR illustrate

Well, if we would all get quadruple core 10GHz machines and Dave would implement friendly FOW (ie. separate intel databases for each of your units), then, I think things, could get quite good and muddy.

Thus, playing the game would be like boxing in a pitch black room!

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Well, if we would all get quadruple core 10GHz machines and Dave would implement friendly FOW (ie. separate intel databases for each of your units), then, I think things, could get quite good and muddy.

Mark, IMO we really only need one more data base, that would be one that keeps track of each unit's communication/friendly intel status with the overall commander's HQ.

Bil

Thanks for the friendly, informative replies. I'm in this forum because I do have positive experiences from HTTR and am looking into COTA. If I didn't think the gameplay was of value on some levels, I wouldn't even be interested. I particularly like the fact that the maps used are accurate contour maps of the areas and that the game actually does make its point about "timing" that is so crucial. It would be interesting to me to see if this system is capable of modelling entire larger operations like those on the East Front in WWII, or whether it would simply overwhelm the player.

I fully respect the value of the game's intent, even if I've said that actual command experience isn't something I find compelling in wargames -- though I concede it is "realistic" and certainly THE critical factor in actual circumstances. This stems in large part from my belief that "actual experience", be it of flight simulation, an individual infantryman, or the overall commander, cannot be simulated in a game on any meaningful level (hence my low interest in "experiential games"). However... I do believe that command limitations are essential in every wargame, and that they are sadly lacking in most of them; especially "traditional" computer wargames.

I'm still impressed by the interest of so many here in these titles and, in fact, when this much value is perceived, I am inclined to participate as well! [;)]

Good luck in continuing to produce high quality, interesting games.

Capitaine,

Thanks you for a very gracious reply.

I hope we can sustain your interest level to the point where you might be tempted to participate in a head to head game. I often note how my own behaviour changes when playing head to head as opposed to solitair. It is a new experience and a whole lot of fun. I'm not referring to a simulation experience here but a social one. It puts back the social aspect of wargaming that's been missing for a long time. I urge you to try it. Have fun.[:)]