Why wargaming can never grow

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
What you want effort, why should I spend effort on a damnit doll?

Well you've just made a 3 post effort, how about some critical thinking effort to the post I made in rebuttal to your points?

Reiryc

[Marc von Martial]

Instead of whinnig back and forth you should better tackle a few points made here.

But I am willing to say, that making games full of graphical details, just to make them attractive to non grognards, is the same as prostituting the game.

Which is not a tackle but sheer ingnorance.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

I have already made all the points useful or otherwise that have any interest to me.

At this point in time, I am just filling in the gaps in my day, in between other posts here and there.

Being that I have been aggressively slagged as well, I have not got much incentive to do much else in the pursuit of the topic.

This also probably explains why there has been no other posters interested in posting anything much in the way of useful comments.
I would assume they are just waiting to see how long it takes for one of us hold outs to get bored enough to go away.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Of course if you wish to make me go away, you could always move this to Art of Wargaming, I certainly have no interest in going there myself.

[Kanon Fodder]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I would assume they are just waiting to see how long it takes for one of us hold outs to get bored enough to go away.

Actually, I was wondering if somehow the board indexes got messed up and we were reading posts from 2002 all over again ...

:rolleyes:

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Kannon fodder the more things change the more they stay the same.

[Tbone3336]

Hello all, I am very new to these boards, however I have been wargaming since 1985. I have nothing to add that would alter anyones opinion at this time except that in the mid to late 80's I played every computer game that SSG and SSI made for the Macintosh. Up to that point I had played various board wargames, and lacking a ready opponent all the time I migrated to the computer more and more. Well SSG published a magazine on a quarterly basis for a while there called Run 5. In just about each issue the editorial was how SSG was struggling with staying afloat in the wargame market and the letters section had people saying the industry would die in a few years. After 1992 I did not have a computer so fell away from wargaming with work and such. Fast forward 11 years or so and I have a new laptop that offered a chance to play wargames again in my decreasingly spare time. I also find SSG is still around and while it focuses on strategy games now (Warlords, etc), they did make TAO which is a great wargame and hopefully very soon Korson Pocket will be for sale. Along with that I find Matrix games and Uncommon Valor (which if anyone tries to say is not an awesome wargame, they do not know one to begin with), Battlefront.com, HPS, all publishing wargames. I also find out that from 1992 through recently I missed out on very good wargames, like (V for Victory, which I downloaded off of a site (forget the name now)), and a host of other games that filled those years. It may very well be that in a few years the industry will be dead, however I am inclined, (using my very limited view of the industry) to believe it will still be going along very nicely. Chess is a very old game, that has not changed in centuries, however the number of chess players H2H and via computers still goes strong, so a genre that can improve such as wargaming must have a future, just one where the business end will have to be tighter and more focused.

[CCB]

Originally posted by Tbone3336
I have been wargaming since 1985. I have nothing to add that would alter anyones opinion at this time except that in the mid to late 80's I played every computer game that SSG and SSI made for the Macintosh.

I have SSG's Battlefront and Rommel and SSI's Kampfgruppe for Apple IIe. They were awesome at the time.

[U2]

Originally posted by CCB
SSI's Kampfgruppe for Apple IIe.

Ah my first wargaming memory. What a game! Though I had it for the C-64

[Marc von Martial]

Originally posted by U2
Ah my first wargaming memory. What a game! Though I had it for the C-64

Dito on that. Btw, I stil have it running, on both, the c-64 and the machine I´m typing from

[U2]

Hi Marc

My copy was consumed in a fire sadly. But I also have my old C-64 plus my all time favourite, the Spectrum, left:)

Ah those were the days...

Dan

[SwampYankee68]

Originally posted by Tbone3336
Hello all, I am very new to these boards, however I have been wargaming since 1985. I have nothing to add that would alter anyones opinion at this time except that in the mid to late 80's I played every computer game that SSG and SSI made for the Macintosh. Up to that point I had played various board wargames, and lacking a ready opponent all the time I migrated to the computer more and more. Well SSG published a magazine on a quarterly basis for a while there called Run 5. In just about each issue the editorial was how SSG was struggling with staying afloat in the wargame market and the letters section had people saying the industry would die in a few years. After 1992 I did not have a computer so fell away from wargaming with work and such. Fast forward 11 years or so and I have a new laptop that offered a chance to play wargames again in my decreasingly spare time. I also find SSG is still around and while it focuses on strategy games now (Warlords, etc), they did make TAO which is a great wargame and hopefully very soon Korson Pocket will be for sale. Along with that I find Matrix games and Uncommon Valor (which if anyone tries to say is not an awesome wargame, they do not know one to begin with), Battlefront.com, HPS, all publishing wargames. I also find out that from 1992 through recently I missed out on very good wargames, like (V for Victory, which I downloaded off of a site (forget the name now)), and a host of other games that filled those years. It may very well be that in a few years the industry will be dead, however I am inclined, (using my very limited view of the industry) to believe it will still be going along very nicely. Chess is a very old game, that has not changed in centuries, however the number of chess players H2H and via computers still goes strong, so a genre that can improve such as wargaming must have a future, just one where the business end will have to be tighter and more focused.

Well met, T-Bone. I too cut my teeth on computer wargames in the mid 80's (SSI's Mech Brigade, Kampgruffe, the "Clash of superpowers" series by SSI [or somthing to that effect, a series of modern USSR/USA games SSI did], "The Nam" by SSI and more), and started in boardgames with a few I forget the names of, but are now on EBAY for big bucks. I started getting into the more advanced board games like Blitzkrieg and ASL, but found the computer made wargaming easier ( I guess that means I fail some people's "Grognard test", EH?). IU agree with you that in my admitedly small experiences, I have looked forward to evolution in wargaming, better production values wrapped around a good and realistic engine. To stop growing and innovating is to atrophy and die, a concept as true in wargaming, computer and board, as anywhere else in life. Certain people may disagree, but they are being small minded. At any rate, if you are sorry you missed out on the Vfor Victory series (Take my word for it, in it's day it was great! - I still have fond memories of my campaigns) check out Matrix' Battlefields! project. I am chomping at the bit for that puppy. It proves my point in that it looks to be an innovative successor to V4V (same scale, subject matter, better looks, multiplayer capabilities, AI, speed, and interface). Welcome to the boards, and don't worry, most threads are not this inane.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Well I suppose in the grand scheme of things, some comments will become just "I told you so's", and others will just become embarassments.

But in the end, all that will matter, is whether anyone will care.

Me I am onboard awaiting Combat Leader. That much is unlikely to change.
I had to upgrade a perfectly good computer in order to play it though.
But that was not a problem, as my son has an interest in games like most kids his age, and I have been endeavouring to locate somethign i can call "the wife's game". She appears to be interested in just about anything. Translation, she will likely have me get Baldur's Gate which did not require any form of upgrade.

My son will likely go the route that most kids in time have to walk, ie he will get the pleasure of getting his own computer.

Me, I am likely ending my computer wargaming journey with Combat Leader. I am not purchasing Combat Leader out of any manner of undying love for matrix though. My purchase will be about buying a good game, from a company that has shown me it can make a good game at the scale.

Combat Leader if successful, will likely go to 3 or more add ons. But as technology doesn't stand still, and its the nature of the business, that games exploit where possible those advances, it is not automatic that a person being able to run the first release of Combat Leader, will automatically be able to run the last offering wearing the Combat Leader label.
Currently, my computer has differing opinions of differing Steel Panthers incarnations. Fortunately it likes the versions I like the most. The others require some effort on my part.

But where the future of computer wargaming is concerned....well I guess it will continue on.

Next years games will require faster processors, more ram, better video cards. New hardware will like always not always be totally in love with all of your old hardware. Some parts will drag you back. You will yet again have to watch the horror and the carnage down to your wallet.

But through it all, each wargame made, will have been capable of being entirely capable, with yesterdays technology. It will be capable of being just a challenging, just as good looking and just as marketable. But if doesn't have the latest look it will I guess not be as "cool".

This thread has been about "looking cool".

I suppose if all you want, is to "look cool" then you have my scorn.
I know you will call me names, but then I have had to deal with that before. In the winter for instance I wear what works, not which looks "cool". I have never been the sort to "follow the crowd". I stand out, I look "odd" I do it MY way.

Most of wargaming's past has been about odd guys playing odd games. I have been looked at as being geekish most of my life. It doesn't bother me to look that way. I like to laugh at the "cool people" in my own way.

Some have even questioned why I am here. Frankly I am questioning why I am here.
At this moment I am looking more and more longingly at my board games. Each and everyone one of them still fully compatible as the day I bought them. And each and every bopard game I see on the shelf today, is every bit as compatible with all of my older games.

Maybe the world of computers and it's future, and my future have nothing to offer each other. If that is so, then that is the way it will be. I don't feel like a stick in the mud, I don't believe I am better superior or any of that nonsense.
Making comments like that only indicates I have touched a nerve and the person saying it has gone defensive.

I have access to a lot of cool software that allows me to play board games online. I think it is cool that I can play my useless, boring, unfun, tedious board games online in direct dontradiction to all those that say board games are the past and have no future.
I think it is interesting that I am obviously not the only one that thinks that board games are not boring and unfun. Because I have not been the one driving forward the creation of this sort of software. So obviously I am not alone.

But I will let the world of computer wargaming have what it wants. I will wish it well. I will continue to play my boring dull tedious wargames on perfectly good tables.
You guys can pursue your endless need to endlessly upgrade your computers, so you can play yet another game with graphics that are only about looking cool. Because that is where its at right now.
More is not better, it is just more. And that more will require more and more upgrades.

I will not be uprgrading my system just to play the latest game regardless of how cool, when I can just purchase a good board game and play it whereever I wish.
There is a lot of perfectly good computer wargames out there now, and most of them are fairly immune to wear and tear. So there is no danger that excessive playings will cause them to wear out.

I offer these latest remarks. The thread is called Why wargaming can never grow, maybe the right statement should be to ask, Why does it even need to. Everyone should ask themselves if they are really accomplishing what they think they are accomplishing.

This thread so far has made me see why Bill Gates releases new versions of Windows so regularly.
Part is new options, but part is because people are dumb enough to buy it without question. Its the latest thing, it has to be cool.

XP is the first OS I have used since 3.1 that actually did anything useful. Every version in between has been just about exploiting the consumer.

Line up people, buy the latest game with the latest features. Don't be shy, you want this stuff. You "need" this stuff. You can't hope to go on without it.

[Raindog101]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Well I suppose in the grand scheme of things, some comments will become just "I told you so's", and others will just become embarassments.

But in the end, all that will matter, is whether anyone will care.

Me I am onboard awaiting Combat Leader. That much is unlikely to change.
I had to upgrade a perfectly good computer in order to play it though.
But that was not a problem, as my son has an interest in games like most kids his age, and I have been endeavouring to locate somethign i can call "the wife's game". She appears to be interested in just about anything. Translation, she will likely have me get Baldur's Gate which did not require any form of upgrade.

My son will likely go the route that most kids in time have to walk, ie he will get the pleasure of getting his own computer.

Me, I am likely ending my computer wargaming journey with Combat Leader. I am not purchasing Combat Leader out of any manner of undying love for matrix though. My purchase will be about buying a good game, from a company that has shown me it can make a good game at the scale.

Combat Leader if successful, will likely go to 3 or more add ons. But as technology doesn't stand still, and its the nature of the business, that games exploit where possible those advances, it is not automatic that a person being able to run the first release of Combat Leader, will automatically be able to run the last offering wearing the Combat Leader label.
Currently, my computer has differing opinions of differing Steel Panthers incarnations. Fortunately it likes the versions I like the most. The others require some effort on my part.

But where the future of computer wargaming is concerned....well I guess it will continue on.

Next years games will require faster processors, more ram, better video cards. New hardware will like always not always be totally in love with all of your old hardware. Some parts will drag you back. You will yet again have to watch the horror and the carnage down to your wallet.

But through it all, each wargame made, will have been capable of being entirely capable, with yesterdays technology. It will be capable of being just a challenging, just as good looking and just as marketable. But if doesn't have the latest look it will I guess not be as "cool".

This thread has been about "looking cool".

I suppose if all you want, is to "look cool" then you have my scorn.
I know you will call me names, but then I have had to deal with that before. In the winter for instance I wear what works, not which looks "cool". I have never been the sort to "follow the crowd". I stand out, I look "odd" I do it MY way.

Most of wargaming's past has been about odd guys playing odd games. I have been looked at as being geekish most of my life. It doesn't bother me to look that way. I like to laugh at the "cool people" in my own way.

Some have even questioned why I am here. Frankly I am questioning why I am here.
At this moment I am looking more and more longingly at my board games. Each and everyone one of them still fully compatible as the day I bought them. And each and every bopard game I see on the shelf today, is every bit as compatible with all of my older games.

Maybe the world of computers and it's future, and my future have nothing to offer each other. If that is so, then that is the way it will be. I don't feel like a stick in the mud, I don't believe I am better superior or any of that nonsense.
Making comments like that only indicates I have touched a nerve and the person saying it has gone defensive.

I have access to a lot of cool software that allows me to play board games online. I think it is cool that I can play my useless, boring, unfun, tedious board games online in direct dontradiction to all those that say board games are the past and have no future.
I think it is interesting that I am obviously not the only one that thinks that board games are not boring and unfun. Because I have not been the one driving forward the creation of this sort of software. So obviously I am not alone.

But I will let the world of computer wargaming have what it wants. I will wish it well. I will continue to play my boring dull tedious wargames on perfectly good tables.
You guys can pursue your endless need to endlessly upgrade your computers, so you can play yet another game with graphics that are only about looking cool. Because that is where its at right now.
More is not better, it is just more. And that more will require more and more upgrades.

I will not be uprgrading my system just to play the latest game regardless of how cool, when I can just purchase a good board game and play it whereever I wish.
There is a lot of perfectly good computer wargames out there now, and most of them are fairly immune to wear and tear. So there is no danger that excessive playings will cause them to wear out.

I offer these latest remarks. The thread is called Why wargaming can never grow, maybe the right statement should be to ask, Why does it even need to. Everyone should ask themselves if they are really accomplishing what they think they are accomplishing.

This thread so far has made me see why Bill Gates releases new versions of Windows so regularly.
Part is new options, but part is because people are dumb enough to buy it without question. Its the latest thing, it has to be cool.

XP is the first OS I have used since 3.1 that actually did anything useful. Every version in between has been just about exploiting the consumer.

Line up people, buy the latest game with the latest features. Don't be shy, you want this stuff. You "need" this stuff. You can't hope to go on without it.

I have never heard anyone in this thread say they prefer graphics to gameplay. Everyone has said it should be “gameplay” first.

I was puzzled reading your posts as to why you are so vehemently against up-to-date software or games. Your post makes it clear that the real reason you detest modern graphics is you’re just to cheap to upgrade your PC.

Maybe you should stick to playing “bored” games” because upgrading your PC is just part of PC gaming. It’s called progress, and comes with the territory.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Old Eagle101
I have never heard anyone in this thread say they prefer graphics to gameplay. Everyone has said it should be “gameplay” first.

I was puzzled reading your posts as to why you are so vehemently against up-to-date software or games. Your post makes it clear that the real reason you detest modern graphics is you’re just to cheap to upgrade your PC.

Maybe you should stick to playing “bored” games” because upgrading your PC is just part of PC gaming. It’s called progress, and comes with the territory.

Aw, fer chrissake, leave Les alone, willya? He's a ramblin', obsolete kinda guy after my own heart. He's not "vehement" against anything. I, too, am spending more time with my old (and, for that matter, new) paper-and-cardboard games. So are my friends. I've got my C-64 up and running again FOR FUN DAMMIT because I found a place that will repair it for me when it - inevitably - goes blooie (like Pepperland).

That old stuff was great then and maybe even greater now that we have seen what the Huxleyesque world has to offer. I am hip to the Matrix thing because they are working with what I like. When it stops being that, I will wander off again, strumming my lute and singing songs to the stars.

I hate the new Cadillacs with their homage to the parallelogram. I love my compact pickup and its simple utility. I can buy either. I choose the latter. It works for me, and I don't need to be insulted for it.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

"I have never heard anyone in this thread say they prefer graphics to gameplay. Everyone has said it should be “gameplay” first."

I might as well just call that an outright case of pure bull, a bold faced lie even.

If gameplay first meant anything to this argument, then I would have no ammo to work with would I.

But the truth of it is, that people want that glamour, because the feel they can't compete without it.

I am not to "cheap" to purchase new hardware, no on the contrary I am not dumb enough to purchase a new system ranging in the $1000 plus range, just so I can play a new game each year.

I am constantly hearing how great this game or that game is. The games that require you to have a vintage computer just to run it.
And then in the same post, the person tries to tell me I need a new graphically intense game to remain competitive, or else the hobby is in danger.

One comment totally contradicts the other.
If that old C64 game IS truely any good, then you have just shown that the latest the neatest the more graphically intense game is NOT in need of those graphics.

So which is it people.

I prefer gameplay above all else. That means that I won't play a game if it can't be played on this machine. If your software won't run on my current computer, then you wasted your effort on this gamer that's for sure.

Because I already know this computer can run perfectly good wargames. And if you can't make a wargame attractive, and within the limits of this machine, if you have to incorporate the latest graphics, then you are saying you value those graphics above gameplay regardless if you say you don't.

Ramble, yes I might ramble, but at least I am not contradicting my own comments with my own comments.

[pasternakski]

As Led Zeppelin put it, Les, "Ramble on!"

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by pasternakski
As Led Zeppelin put it, Les, "Ramble on!"

LoL....

[Raindog101]

Les the Sarge 9-1 sez;

I might as well just call that an outright case of pure bull, a bold faced lie even.

Could you point out the post where someone thought graphics more important than gameplay? Who's opinion was it?

[BrubakerII]

Originally posted by Old Eagle101
Les the Sarge 9-1 sez;

Could you point out the post where someone thought graphics more important than gameplay? Who's opinion was it?

Ah, you beat me to it Eagle

I cannot believe that someone is actually arguing that an old genre dressed up by nice artwork is 'prostituting' it Maybe Les is the only true Grognard here if being a Grognard means putting your hands over your eyes and ears and hoping the new world wil go away.

I remember an eon ago when I first bought 'Decision in the Desert' and thought to myself, Wow, this computer thingy (C64)has got potential !

On that topic I remember my first SSG games - they were 'Halls of Montezuma' and 'Carrier's at War' (Uncommon Valour fans please look away ).

Les a question for you: If you were to take a chess game and dress it up in a new display that not only pleased existing fans but also brought one hundred new to the genre, would that be a good or bad thing? Would the game play any differently?