advanced squad leader

[Ocelotl]

http://2ndbn5thmar.com/tactics/ccm.htm

“Close Combat” and Learning Infantry Tactics

Somebody posted this link somewhere else in this forum. However, I have seen it before.

[Sarge]

Major McBreen

I have learned more about small-unit infantry tactics from the “Close Combat” simulation than I have from thirteen years of Marine Corps infantry experience.

I know a couple Marines that would love to read that.[:@]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

Care to elaborate, how about a list.

1) No Turns

Is there any I left out [:D]

LOS. And I'm not talking about LOS to an adjacent hex field for sure hehe, but about tanks or inf units shooting through windows or into woods. What else... throwing grenades into trenches / river beds, long range tank/pak shots that fail to penetrate armour on max range, etc., and so on.
Smoke screens obstructing the view realistically, armor piercing rounds bouncing off a tank's front plate, etc etc....
Given, in hex games, the latter is being simulated by either computing endless amounts of abstract value columns (question is how accurate that would be), but many hex games use to throw the dice to determine the outcome, which is entertaining, but anything than realistic.

Close Combat was an early 2D attempt there, but modern 3D games use to implement real world physics these days, and I doubt that any hex game would get as close to reality as these.
Now, once someone gets rid of these ridiculous RTS-ingredients, like resource management (incl. breeding troops, etc.), and will use the technology to make a more serious approach, then wargames would surely reach a new level, if using the most recent 3D-technology and physics. We'll see those ones sooner or later, no doubt.

EDIT: turn-based Hex games and any kind of continous-play games (using counters) depend on a massive amount of abstractions.....

One game may have a sophisticated supply system, but u would never see trucks, nor could u actually plan to interdict/destroy the enemy's supply lines and the trucks. Another game might provide a sophisticated tank manouever model, but it might just feature inf troops in an abstracted way (let's say mounted on APC/truck). You actually don't see troops moving, panicking, attacking or even flanking tanks in any of these games. Future games might jump in there.
Some ppl will still stick to their beloved turn-based games, but for me these are just somewhat sophisticated types of board games.
Continous-play games (using counters) do a pretty good job on the tactical/strategical side of things (with the AA series being the best of them, easily) but still depend on those abstractions, therefor they will remain limited substitutes (with a lot of compromises) in many categories.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Now, once someone gets rid of these ridiculous RTS-ingredients, like resource management (incl. breeding troops, etc.), and will use the technology to make a more serious approach, then wargames would surely reach a new level, if using the most recent 3D-technology and physics. We'll see those ones sooner or later, no doubt.

I suspect there's a considerable doubt, actually. Three reasons. First, its not as if it hasn't been tried but the attempts to date can only be described as noble failures, at best. Secondly "the most recent 3D technology" with the associated bells and whistles cost big development bucks - and anyone with those bucks will develop games for a mass audience to recoup them - and pure wargames are not the choice of a mass audience. Thirdly, as far as real time/turn based goes the debate is still open, I think. I agree at a tactical level board-game style is something of a dinosaur these days (albeit it a much loved dinosaur), but other options spring to mind, not least Combat Mission. There's your physics and 3D (if not the "most recent technology"!) but CM is turn based WEGO not real or continous time. Not because that couldn't be done but because the developers (and a great number of other people - including me) think the approach they did take simulates real military C&C and the application of tactics at that scale far better than a real-time approach could have done.

[Ocelotl]

Well its a bold comment, a good opening line for a paper. However he [Major Brendan B. McBreen USMC] does go on to say

The historical methods for teaching tactics, walking the ground, working through the examples in the manuals, tactical decision games, and actual field exercises, are important and must be done by all leaders. Schools and units must focus on real leaders, real units, and real ground.

To augment this practical training however, leaders need to experience the chaotic challenges of combat hundreds of times. As an inexpensive and easy-to-use tool to teach a Marine leader the dynamics of tactics, the “Close Combat” simulation is matchless

.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

[]...... "the most recent 3D technology" with the associated bells and whistles cost big development bucks - and anyone with those bucks will develop games for a mass audience to recoup them - and pure wargames are not the choice of a mass audience.

In let's say 10 yrs even "outdated" real-time 3D-engines will be able to provide an experience (and tactical challenge) beyond anything that a turn-based game will be able to deliver at that time. So even small developers (with a small budget) will be able to work out projects of that scope (using 3D), and these may attract a broader base of ppl, smaller than any game that aims at the masses, but a significant bigger base than current hex games have.

The FPS Operation Flashpoint had a relatively small fan base when it came to Online gaming, compared to any other FPS, due to the realistic weapon/damage model (a headshot resulted in...guess what, an instant kill) which didn't attract many online players - plus, the game was way ahead of its time, with a low amount of broadband connections in most European countries -, but the SP part and the game's sales figures still appeared to be very successful. The presentation and the mix of features is pretty important.

Regarding games for the masses.... although the current Battlefield series (EA) features many (at times) ridiculous (or arcade-ish) ingredients, it gets close to the real thing in an important sector:
A modern approach/doctine, the use of combined arms (air, land, sea) is rendered in there. Still rudimental, but there'll be more games like these, and they don't have to be FPS necessarily, nor do they have to be Multiplayer games. I'm sure that some varieties of games like BF2 and Company of Heroes will evolve to installments which will carry real world physics and realism, eventually. Maybe in the next decade, dunno...in 10 yrs, but they'll come.
They might then include realistic tactical/strategical approaches as well. The fact that some hex-die-hards don't like that idea doesn't mean that they won't come.

ORIGINAL: Ocelotl

Well its a bold comment, a good opening line for a paper. However he [Major Brendan B. McBreen USMC] does go on to say .......

Hehe nice one ! Keep it up [:D]

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy



Regarding games for the masses.... although the current Battlefield series (EA) features many (at times) ridiculous (or arcade-ish) ingredients, it gets close to the real thing in an important sector:
A modern approach/doctine, the use of combined arms (air, land, sea) is rendered in there. Still rudimental, but there'll be more games like these, and they don't have to be FPS necessarily, nor do they have to be Multiplayer games. I'm sure that some varieties of games like BF2 and Company of Heroes will evolve to installments which will carry real world physics and realism, eventually. Maybe in the next decade, dunno...in 10 yrs, but they'll come.
They might then include realistic tactical/strategical approaches as well. The fact that some hex-die-hards don't like that idea doesn't mean that they won't come.

So now we are comparing the current turnbase games/engines to some imaginary title that might happen a decade from now.

UNCLE !

[FlashfyreSP]

Let's not confuse tactical wargames with tactical simulations. Wargames, still used by today's modern military, are intended to allow players the ability to learn and study tactical and strategic actions in a structured way. Simulations, on the other hand, are intended to immerse the players in a realistic setting where they may practice their tactical abilities in real time. Wargames are typically turn-based, in order to allow the players the ability to study the situation, assess the possibilities, and apply solutions. Simulations are usually continuous-time structures, as the intent is for the players to hone their skills under near-realistic conditions.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

So now we are comparing the current turnbase games/engines to some imaginary title that might happen a decade from now.

Hate to quote myself, but here goes:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

In let's say 10 yrs even "outdated" real-time 3D-engines will be able to provide an experience (and tactical challenge) beyond anything that a turn-based game will be able to deliver at that time.

If you'd have actually read my postings, you'd have figured that I was comparing "imaginary" future turn-based (be it a hex or a full 3D approach) games to imaginary real-time 3D-games and their varieties.

Lemme get the soap, you said "uncle" . [:D]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

Simulations are usually continuous-time structures, as the intent is for the players to hone their skills under near-realistic conditions.

This statement would imply that wargames (turn-based - according to your definition) are less realistic, per se.

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

Simulations are usually continuous-time structures, as the intent is for the players to hone their skills under near-realistic conditions.

This statement would imply that wargames (turn-based - according to your definition) are less realistic, per se.

That is correct. Wargames, by definition, are not built to be "realistic"; that is the purview of RTS and arcade games. Is there something wrong with a game being less than completely "realistic"? Wargames, board or computer, are somewhat abstract in their design, for good reason; too many factors in the "real world" to emulate successfully.

Consider that a wargame is asking a single player to perform the duties of numerous members of a command staff: the commander, executive officer, S-1, S-2, S-3, and S-4 officers, messengers, clerks, signals operators, the entire headquarters company, for that matter. No single person can collect, collate, and process the vast amounts of data flowing through this organization; turn-based wargames allow the single player to absorb all this information in a reaonable manner.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

[].......turn-based wargames allow the single player to absorb all this information in a reaonable manner.

You might want to add: ".......,without the player having to cope with the pressure caused by a (realistic) real-time environment." [;)]

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

[].......turn-based wargames allow the single player to absorb all this information in a reaonable manner.

You might want to add: ".......,without the player having to cope with the pressure caused by a (realistic) real-time environment." [;)]

I don't need to add anything...my statement is accurate as it stands. Wargames do not typically deal with "realistic real-time environments"; as I stated, that is the purview of RTS and arcade-style games. Besides, I am not one of the ones denigrating people who play turn-based wargames. [:-]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

Besides, I am not one of the ones denigrating people who play turn-based wargames.

I am not not trying to denigrate either, I was just kidding there. [:)]
Got humor?! [:D]

Btw, I would not limit "realistic" (real-time) environments to RTS or Arcade, or to 3D solely. Basic approaches, or even advanced ones (in one or another way) can be found in Matrix' game portfolio.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Sarge

So now we are comparing the current turnbase games/engines to some imaginary title that might happen a decade from now.

Hate to quote myself, but here goes:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

In let's say 10 yrs even "outdated" real-time 3D-engines will be able to provide an experience (and tactical challenge) beyond anything that a turn-based game will be able to deliver at that time.

If you'd have actually read my postings, you'd have figured that I was comparing "imaginary" future turn-based (be it a hex or a full 3D approach) games to imaginary real-time 3D-games and their varieties.

Lemme get the soap, you said "uncle" . [:D]

Ya, I read it,and understood it [8|]

Still isn’t relevant to this debate.

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy


You might want to add: ".......,without the player having to cope with the pressure caused by a (realistic) real-time environment." [;)]

Another classic for the books.


You haven’t a clue

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

You haven’t a clue

Ahh wondered when Godwin's law would come into effect .... we're getting closer... lol [;)]

Ahh and regarding my post not being "relevant to this debate".... Well, some people started some comparisons, and it had been proposed that Close Combat (among other games) was rather a sore attempt to recreate combat situations, if I'm not mistaken. I'm convinced that it was a kind of pioneer (type of approach) for a series of games/simulations (whatever you call it) to come, and that it carried the most interesting/promising type of approach.....IMHO.

[FlashfyreSP]

Actually, the original context of this thread was ASL and it's 'port' to the computer. And ASL probably came as close to "realism" in a turn-based board wargame. Unfortunately, it hasn't translated that well to the computer, for a variety of reasons. Others have inserted the concepts of RTS and "realism" to this debate, much of which is immaterial to the discussion.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Sarge

You haven’t a clue

Ahh wondered when Godwin's law would come into effect .... we're getting closer... lol [;)]

Godwin's law ?

Now its about Nazis a freedom of speech.


This was all in fun, but obviously your starting get a little out of control. It is becoming abundantly clear your whole motive is to start a flame war.

BYE

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Sarge

This was all in fun, but obviously your starting get a little out of control.

Not really.

It is becoming abundantly clear your whole motive is to start a flame war.

You're wrong again.

You might want to google for the meaning of Godwin's law, or for an example.... there are chances that you might get my joke eventually.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

[].......turn-based wargames allow the single player to absorb all this information in a reaonable manner.

You might want to add: ".......,without the player having to cope with the pressure caused by a (realistic) real-time environment." [;)]

How is this pressure "realistic"? The typical wargame has the player taking on the duties of multiple people. For a "real-time environment" to be truly realistic, it must allow for pauses so that the player can ingest the information that all the multiple different people he is representing would be acting upon.