Ok, back to topic here, what I was typing last night didn't get posted. So I'm just gonna shrink it somewhat here.
What is the definition of a wargame? or "real" wargame? Who determines the definition? The individual or Websters Dictionary?
Websters terminology of war is : open armed conflict as between nations, any active hostility or struggle.
Websters terminology of warfare is : conflict of any kind.
With those definitions many games, RTS, FPS, turn based, igougo, wego, etc., fit into the defintion of war and warfare. Thus, by definition are wargames. Perhaps we need a new word for different types of wargames, so they can be catagorized by their playstyle or simulation of war, vs simulation of battles. Conflictgames?
IMHO of course a "real wargame" is a game that deals with the "whole war" it is depicting.
"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is a wargame to me. "Africa Korp" is not. Stalingrad is not. D-Day is not. Those three are merely scenarios within the whole perspectrum of the war itself. "War in the Pacific" now is a wargame, but, "Guadacanal" is not, "Iowo Jima" is not, "Battle of Le Tae Gulf" is not, these are parts of the pacific war, but, still just scenarios of the whole. The "No Greater Glory" is a wargame, but, the battles of Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredricksburg, Shilo, etc. etc. are not really "real wargames", they are scenarios of the whole. (remember these are just my individual definitions of what a real wargame is)
So when I spoke of graphics playing a heavier part in todays wargames I'm speaking
"broadly" by definition, not confining it to the board game to computer game conversions. The Total War engine is a wargame by definition, but, it's not a board game to wargame conversion.
My main emphasis of topic was the "sameness" of todays games of the games of the 80's in the II's, III's & IV's as well as this graphics move to every game made today. To me it seems graphics are more important than creating something new or about a
new era or the AI, graphics are more important than the UI, graphics are more important than the gameplay or adding a "multiplayer feature" as in the Total War engine that to this day doesn't have one and will not have one in Rome Total War. Why? IMHO because they were so interested in making these 3D close up figures in real time combat, they discarded the resources for a mutliplayer feature, and more than likely an improved AI.
My other emphasis was to get away from WWII, the Civil War, Napoleanics War and move to some other ages and times of great "conflicts". Boardgame to computer conversion is fine. It doesn't have to have fancy graphics, but, the "ERA" is important. CHANGE of venue is important. There's lots of potential for Matrix type engines to work in the Ancients era, so why this stay with WWII so much? Or even worse, why a move to Sci-Fi?
Course I'm not telling them how to make their games, just giving my suggestions of what I'm willing to buy. I have to feel others feel as I do, they'd like a change of era and venue, strategy/tactics of sword and shield, arrows, light/heavy calvary, elephants/burning pigs (lol) and catapults/ballista's would be a great change from guns and artillery and air power. IMHO.
M:TW was simply a changed Shogun TW, and the real time tactical was already in the game. Obviously campaign multiplayer is not the most important component to that game as it appears to still be going strong with players playing online. The campaign portion is hardly more than glorified risk, and I hope this is not the extent of what you would call strategy. It's a fun game, but that's it.
