Matrix Games Forums

It has been suggested in another thread - located at tm.asp?m=1557178 - that the "future of wargaming" is somehow related to massive multiplayer real time. The conversation there seems disjointed and really shows no understanding of basic definitions so I thought I'd start a thread to see if we could start off from a fresh direction.

First of all, all wargaming is not tactical - there are wargames on Grand Strategy, Strategy, Operations, and then at the small end of the spectrum, tactical. I think the other thread was discussing tactical PC games, so I'll focus my comments on that.

DEFINITIONS

Some further definitions are in order to guide the discussion.

Tactical wargames can be divided into
Grand Tactical - company-based (that is to say, units commanded by the player(s) are entire companies of men, representing 100 to 200 men apiece) or platoon-based (20 to 60 men)
Tactical - platoon or squad-based, with units representing from 5 to 15 or so men, with individual men and vehicles/weapons also modelled and controllable
Man-to-Man - where every unit in the game is an individual soldier (or possibly a vehicle/crew). Not necessarily a First Person Shooter, these are also done in the third person.

Types of games - tactical games can be divided into different styles of interface, including
Turn-Based: IGO-UGO The traditional alternating turn sequence
Turn-Based: WEGO Turn-based with simultaneous resolution
Real Time: Where everything is played out in a continuous game - brief pauses may be allowed depending on the game
First Person: Not just shooters but also simulators like Steel Beasts.

Displays can include 2-dimensional displays, as a standard map, or more recently 3D worlds. Few games have allowed a hybrid of the two (i.e. orders can be given in either 2D or 3D mode; Muzzle Velocity was an early exception.

THE FUTURE
The suggestion that there will be only one kind of game in the future seems absurd on the face of it. It also seems optimistic to think that we can expect a hybrid such as that suggested in the other thread - where scales and interfaces are mixed - as historically that hasn't been the case. We can look to the past to see how tactical wargames have developed and see how trends have developed.

The first games for the PC were naturally quite simple - Computer Ambush for example, a man-to-man third person game, and Under Fire, a squad-based game. Both were simplistic turn-based, IGOUGO, 2D games. As time went on, Panzer Generals added 3D but truly realistic games like Close Combat debuted. Squad based on a 2D map, it differed from Under Fire in that it was played out in real time (and was of course worlds ahead in terms of visual presentation). Combat Mission took the squad-based tactical game concept and put it into a 3D world, with simultaneous turn-based (WEGO) resolution.

At the time they were released, both CC and CM were hailed as revolutionary and the "next big thing" in tactical wargames - but the other genres never went anywhere. First Person simulations remained popular - witness Operation Flashpoint, a serious take on 1980s era infantry. Despite a woefully underdeveloped armour modelling system and silly contact hand grenades, it remained popular enough to spawn a few sequels and a more recent update (two, actually, by different companies).

What really made a game popular, though, was not necessarily the genre, but the flexibility. OFP spawned thousands of mods from Second World War to Vietnam to the Falklands to Jurassic Park. Whether it sold many more units because of it is hard to say. CM:BB offered up every unit type on the Russian Front and a hugely flexible mission editor that CC lacked, as well as random generation of battles and maps - but no way to import models into the game as with OFP.

But I digress. The point being that there is no single "future" for tactical wargaming. First person real time games will always occupy a position alongside turn based games. Hybrids have been very rare. Muzzle Velocity was an early attempt that suffered as both a serious 2D strategy game and a serious 3D first person simulation. As fun as it was to run over civilians with a tank, shoot at moving trains, knock down buildings with .50 calibre fire, and fight at 300 metre engagement ranges, it got old fast, and the AI simply didn't fight a realistic battle when left to its own - as was required when in 3D mode.

Attempts have been made to make OFP into a massive multiplayer grand tactical game played out in the first person by dozens of individuals. It may be one way to enjoy a game, but it will never become the "only" way, nor do I think a game could ever be marketed as such. The main reason being, that the majority of the game buying public are solo players. This was true in the boardgame age, and is true with PC games. There is usually shock and disbelief at that notion, but sales statistics bear that out - the majority of people buying and playing computer games, even a game like CM which really shines in multiplayer - are playing alone. That's why CM is still marketed towards solo players, and why any game designed solely for multiplayer likely either won't prosper, or definitely won't replace other types of games.

Short answer - the "future" of tactical wargaming will be a healthy mix of turn-based games like Panzer Command and first person stuff like Armed Assault. Massive multiplayer stuff will continue to be "fluff" for the bunnyhoppers of the world, and serious military simulations will continue to be experiments with existing games. There is talk that CM may one day be multi-multi-player. The game would benefit from that; but solo players will likely always dominate the marketplace, which is a reality that is not tied to computer hardware - so no matter how enticing the prospect of multi-multi player becomes, thousands of players will simply remain uninterested - and the future will remain in their hands.

I guess the dopey premise you are trying to hack around is that Real Time Company Commander is supposedly going to displace all other types of wargames in the Universe?  It isn't.  Just as chess does not stop some from playing checkers. 

It can be a new form of a wargaming experience.  That's it.  Some like to play a predictable AI type game against a computer.  There is nothing wrong with that.  More social types might want an arena with other people.  That's all.

The popularity/longevity of CM is largely from the PBEM crowd.  That is people playing people.  See?  So the logical extension is more people.  You need to deride them as 'bunnyhoppers'?  Whatever. 

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I guess the dopey premise you are trying to hack around is that Real Time Company Commander is supposedly going to displace all other types of wargames in the Universe? It isn't.

That would be at odds with your previous statement:

I believe that a multiplayer environment, where each player controls no more than a company of squad/section sized units is the future of CM/PC type games.

However you now say:

It can be a new form of a wargaming experience. That's it. Some like to play a predictable AI type game against a computer. There is nothing wrong with that. More social types might want an arena with other people. That's all.

You agree with me then. Good.

The popularity/longevity of CM is largely from the PBEM crowd.

Incorrect. The majority of sales went to solo players who play against the AI.

That is people playing people. See? So the logical extension is more people.

Incorrect. The logical extension is better AI for the solo players.

You need to deride them as 'bunnyhoppers'?

It is impossible to bunnyhop in PBEM so I'm not sure what it is you refer to here. Do you know what I'm referring to, or are you simply mixing genres? Perhaps that's why the other thread was so difficult to read?

Think about it - if the majority of sales went to multi-player gamers, there would be no need to even spend scarce developmental time developing AI plans, etc. in the latest CM - they could have progressed straight to multi-player. They didn't, and for the simple fact that the bread and butter of computer game developers is still the closet gamers. There is no reason to believe that trend will ever change, as it is not dependent on technology. If they're not inclined to play online now with the tools available (Red Orhestra and OFP provide pretty decent online experiences, ditto Medal of Honor etc. as far as FPS), there's nothing to suggest that added complexity will provide any added incentive. So any suggestion that multi-multi player tactical games are "the future" are probably just wishful thinking - they will remain a niche among the niche. And if Kip Anderson is a proponent of such an idea, he's got a long track record of proposing niche viewpoints and is, I think, a contrarian by nature.

You have a track record yourself.  And I really can't give a rat's ass what you think bunnyhopping is.  But you are probably gushing to explain it to someone I suppose.

Please stop posturing yourself as a historian of wargames.  Its like someone that considers themself a bubblegum-expert.

And as far as kip being a contrarian, here's what Steve has to say about you...

Because you can't have it both ways. You seem to be trying to play to two different audiences. So yes, I do see your comments differ substantially from the remarks of others because they are extremely confused. I'm not saying you have to love or hate the game, and nothing inbetween, but you can't seem to make up your mind about what you like and don't like about it, or at least why you do or don't. I'm not the only one to notice this apparent split personality of your postings. Again, I don't expect you to have a black and white viewpoint, but it would be nice if it were at least consistent from post to post.
Steve @ battlefront

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

You have a track record yourself.

As an historian of wargames? If not, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I haven't been published yet, but I certainly am looking at publishing something on the subject.

And I really can't give a rat's ass what you think bunnyhopping is.

You may have misinterpreted my comments; you seem confused on what the term refers to, I was wondering if you needed a definition provided for you in order to be able to participate constructively in the conversation. It was a method used in first person shooters to throw off the accuracy of "enemy" soldiers - basically you use the jump command to move around the board - bunny-hopping, in other words. A 'gamey' tactic. The word itself has taken on meanings beyond the original definition.

But you are probably gushing to explain it to someone I suppose.

It seemed clear that you needed a definition provided to you in order to be able to participate constructively in the conversation; apologies of that was not the case but your comments were unclear on that point.

Please stop posturing yourself as a historian of wargames.

That's exactly what I am, though. We all are, in a sense, in that we're participating in a community dialogue on the subject.

Its like someone that considers themself a bubblegum-expert.

[/quote]

It seems odd to deride one element of pop culture while discussing the merits of another. Bubblegum and chewing gum sales probably treble that of niche products like tactical wargames worldwide on an annual basis. Everyone is an expert on something. Socks, gum, bulldozers. Nothing is unimportant - not to a true historian.

And as far as kip being a contrarian, here's what Steve has to say about you...

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the quote about me - can you explain? It seems lifted out of context. My comments re: kip are a gentle jab at him; he's a long-serving member in good standing of the battlefront forums, where he's gone on record as stating his desire for Combat Mission to be played at the operational level, so I'm not sure he's really the one to be speaking for the gaming public at large - and I don't mean to suggest he's attempted to do so. I just happen to know his tastes, and he's admitted as such. His public statements on game length in CM are also notable and probably at odds with what the average "closet gamer" is willing to endure. See the comments in the other company-command thread for evidence of that.

From the title of this thread, one would think you were a historian of the future.
 
In any case, there will be multi-player wargames and many will welcome them.  Hopefully, TOW will be fixed.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

From the title of this thread, one would think you were a historian of the future.

From the title of this thread, you can surmise that an intelligent person has analyzed the past in order to make a general prediction of what might happen in the future - rather than simply pull assumptions out of thin air and base them on facts that are inaccurate as in my opinion, you have done with your predictions of the "future" of "wargames".

In any case, there will be multi-player wargames and many will welcome them. Hopefully, TOW will be fixed.

And the trends will show that they will be outnumbered by games designed with playable AIs, and solo gamers will continue to outnumber multi and multi-multi-player wargames by several orders of magnitude. Basically, if you can't sell them, no one will make them.

You are also predicting hybrid games like Muzzle Velocity, and there is no reason to believe these will ever gain in popularity, either unless at some point the market shows itself willing to bear the developmental costs in time and money in making them available. Combat Mission: Campaign would have been an excellent example of such a hybrid. Time will tell on that one, but so far, the historical trend has not been optimistic.

There is no reason that a multi-player game can not have a single player mode with a decent AI.  That is what many people want from TOW.
 
You seem to be straining to make some moot point.  Eat some fruit.  You'll feel better.

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

The main reason being, that the majority of the game buying public are solo players. This was true in the boardgame age, and is true with PC games. There is usually shock and disbelief at that notion, but sales statistics bear that out - the majority of people buying and playing computer games, even a game like CM which really shines in multiplayer - are playing alone. That's why CM is still marketed towards solo players, and why any game designed solely for multiplayer likely either won't prosper, or definitely won't replace other types of games.

Yup. The real charm of computer games for these folks, the solo-only players, is that these titles can provide them with an "opponent," something lacking from solo board-gaming (which is also quite popular). I won't bother our readers with my thoughts as to why so many wargamers prefer solo play, but I've seen survey data that strongly suggests that our ranks include a disproportionate number of individuals who can fairly be characterized as introverts, our forum companions, notwithstanding.

Massive multiplayer stuff will continue to be "fluff" for the bunnyhoppers of the world, and serious military simulations will continue to be experiments with existing games. There is talk that CM may one day be multi-multi-player.

The problem with MMOG is that it's just too difficult to develop cadres of folks who care to play cooperatively, to train and "fight" together. While very limited such groups can be built around a game like Battleground Europe, they are the exception, rather than the rule. The logistics of it all are simply too daunting.

As for Red Orchestra, I don't consider it an MMOG because it's so constrained in terms of numbers. And while it sets the stage for squad vs squad play, it's still dominated by bunny-hoppers. This is not to say that it doesn't provide an opportunity for teams of players to take advantage of it's strengths, but it's still a shooter, and always will be.

What I've found in a handful of games that does work, all of them grand-tactical RT, is four-to-eight player contests in which units are divided up among the participants, each being assigned his own command, a BDE or DIV, perhaps. The obvious benefit of this arrangement is that it alleviates what can quickly become crushing perceptual burdens which emerge in all but the smallest of battles. The best example of this flavor of game are the Sid Meier's titles, Gettysburg, Antietam, Waterloo and Austerlitz.

IMO, the Close Combat series of games could benefit from 4-8 man, MP, as could many naval games. But, back at square #1, we have to ask ourselves, who is gonna play them? It'd be a hoot, but we're always gonna have trouble dragging a second (or third) online, no matter how gratifying the experience might be. I'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense for developers to devote scare resources to an enterprise that, in the end, will see so limited a level of participation.

<sigh>

Thanks for your comments, Michael.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

This is about as silly a thread as "what's your favourite colour?" It lacks focus. [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
There is no reason that a multi-player game can not have a single player mode with a decent AI. That is what many people want from TOW.

This isn't what you were suggesting in the other thread. Your contention was that real-time multi-player games would be "the future". Now you're suggesting that multi-player can simply be tacked on to existing games designed for solo play vs. the AI. And yet your comments in the other thread indicated exactly why you can't design games for solo play with more than a handful of units. You're simply talking in circles at this point.

Any workable simulation is predicated on the idea that one commander can only reasonably be expected to handle at best three to five units (not including subunits) - particularly in real time. So if that is the case, how would you suggest that a game designed for play against the AI - which to be successful would allow the player to command only 3 to 5 units - also be applicable to multi-multi-player and still provide a satisfying experience for both real time solo play and real time multi-player? Either the solo player will be swamped with too many units to control, or the multi-player game will suffer by having too few.

Unless you're suggesting that the scale be shifted to allow, say, company level games for solo play and divisional level games for multi-player - but that too is unworkable, and brings us back to Kip's comments. If we use Panzer Command or Combat Mission as an example, they simply were never designed to simulate the logistical burdens and command "friction" inherent in brigade or higher level operations. So tacking that on to a company level game would not bear much fruit either.

Again, my point for those that are confused is that the suggestion - your suggestion - that real time company command is somehow "the future of wargaming" is false. There simply is no way to implement such a game without a major expenditure of programming time in order to do it properly, and short of real world military applications, it would only appeal to a fraction of the gaming market.

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

The problem with MMOG is that it's just too difficult to develop cadres of folks who care to play cooperatively, to train and "fight" together. While very limited such groups can be built around a game like Battleground Europe, they are the exception, rather than the rule. The logistics of it all are simply too daunting.

Good comments all around - but I'd add that you want not just cadres of folks, but "like-minded" folks who can agree on the best types of training to conduct. A look at the personality types on this forum alone would point to the hazards of recruiting among those interested in such a thing.

What I've found in a handful of games that does work, all of them grand-tactical RT, is four-to-eight player contests in which units are divided up among the participants, each being assigned his own command, a BDE or DIV, perhaps. The obvious benefit of this arrangement is that it alleviates what can quickly become crushing perceptual burdens which emerge in all but the smallest of battles. The best example of this flavor of game are the Sid Meier's titles, Gettysburg, Antietam, Waterloo and Austerlitz.

IMO, the Close Combat series of games could benefit from 4-8 man, MP, as could many naval games. But, back at square #1, we have to ask ourselves, who is gonna play them? It'd be a hoot, but we're always gonna have trouble dragging a second (or third) online, no matter how gratifying the experience might be. I'm not sure that it makes a lot of sense for developers to devote scare resources to an enterprise that, in the end, will see so limited a level of participation.

Yes, this is exactly as I see it as well. Even just finding PBEM is challenging; I'm in the midst of a meta campaign for CM right now, and playing against a fellow from Australia. The time zone difference provides unique challenges. Assembling 8 or 12 players to go online at the same time, and consistenly would require a level of devotion most adults (the age range to whom such a game would appeal to most directly anyway) would find troublesome.

I think that is a non-issue if there is a forum where people can just sign up for a game.&nbsp; It doesn't have to be certain people all arranging a time.&nbsp; Much like poker tournaments.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
In any case, no matter what Dorosh or anyone else says, there will be multiplayer options in games in the future.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
there will be multiplayer options in games in the future.

No one is disagreeing that this is possible; battlefront has already mentioned they want to add this option to CM:SF. What is at issue is your assertion that hybrid games will somehow become popular (mixing game scales, for example, and having operational turn based play and man-to-man first person, for example, in the same game), or that multi-player games will become the "norm" - I presume this is what you meant by declaring MMP to be "the future". I happen to disagree further that they will be lucrative for anyone - they won't, at least not in comparison with games designed with the solo player in mind. As you pointed out, I'm correct in the assertion that a workable AI will always be the focus for software releases and any game released solely for online play would be very rare indeed. Not to say I wouldn't be interested in seeing such a game; I doubt very much we'll see many of them, especially those that involve third person strategy rather than first person shooting.

I think that is a non-issue if there is a forum where people can just sign up for a game. It doesn't have to be certain people all arranging a time. Much like poker tournaments.

Mangled speech aside, what is the point in having a multi-multi-player game and then fighting a single battle with a group with which you've trained for many hours? This is non-sensical. Poker is an individual game. War is a team endeavour. To be good at the kind of game you're talking about would take days if not weeks of teamwork. You then think the best expression of that teamwork would be to sign up randomly on a message board to play at random, one battle at a time, with strangers? I'd have thought the entire point to a multi-multi player experience would be to fight through an entire campaign and put the training and teamwork to a real test - meaning an extreme commitment of time. That's not consistent with simply signing up on a forum as if it was a poker tournament. They're completely different things.

What boggles my mind, is how people fail to see the logistic aspect (especially on a wargame forum) before arguing the theoretical aspects of something. Wargaming, without RTS games included in that title, will be hard pressed to every become a MMOG. Why? Simply put, MMOG require persistant manpower to keep functioning (server maintenance, in-game help, etc), a decent staff to keep watch over the "massive" (the fist M of MMOG) number of people who are live in the game, and a consistent development team who will periodically update the game so that players "stick with it" once they have delved fully into all the content. For most MMOG's to be successful they need to have a wide-enough fan base to cover costs, an attractive enough premise to appeal to casual gamers and hardcore gamers (a VERY small percentage of MMOG gamers), and a game design that allows for a near continuous stream of action so that one absence does not completely ruin a long game (turn based will shut down if a player goes AFK, long games like Europa Universalis can collapse if a person leaves and an AI takes over). Further, most MMOG rely on player-created or player-driven content to keep people interested even when the player has fully experienced all of the content. This last point is key. Why is WoW so addictive to millions of people? Because you, as a player, can chose your own goals, achieve goals in your own manner and at your own pace, and you never know exactly what the outcome of your action will be, due to the actions other players, random loot tables, player-based economy, and random spawn locations. How would you do this with, say, a WWII game? You can't suddenly introduce ahistorical weaponry to keep stuff interesting, you aren't going to allow Germany to fight for the allies, or give the player the option to create their own aircraft. It would be hard to keep interest, and since wargames have a niche market, it would get enough subscribers to cover costs and to keep up development. It is naive to think that developers haven't already thought of these ideas before and that most of them have judged them not profitable and continued to focus on solo or PBEM style play.

Games like Battlefield 2 (of 1942), Quake Wars, and the other FPS squad based multi-play games are not technically fully MMOG. Servers can be run privately by players (many are and connect through Gamespy's client), and content is not really persistent (he maps and their goals and their sides are always the same). These are actually simply multiplayer games, like connecting via a LAN, that have been expanded using internet connections.

If you argue the future of some wargames being in MMOG, without every PLAYING World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, both examples of tactical, group (or squad) based gameplay (even warfare in some cases) then you can't really argue effectively. The vast majority of WoW players are casual, despite popular mythology, and their "group tactics" vary wildly in quality. To expect that you could make a solely wargame MMOG and see decent fanbase and tactics is grossly inaccurate. WoW and GW are so popular because you can do other things beside fight, you can be solo or group, you see unexepected development and can customize your character in innumerable ways. Of course... WoW did build its fan base through its original RTS... [:D]

It would be hard to upkeep a persistent MMOG with a niche field like wargamer (RPG's are far less niche). Low fan numbers means low numbers of combatants and low subscriber profits. Historically based wargames lack the ability to create unexpected content (without making it ahistorical) and limit player options. I think, 10 years from now, wargmaes will look EXACTLY like they do now (maybe better graphics and some better scenarios). Look back 10 years, as any historian can tell, wargames today bear a marked resemblance to wargames then (at least in their mechanics). Some 10 year old games are being rereleased... yes I am talking to you Carriers at War... and Battlefront... and Cross of Iron... and Europa Universalis 3... [:'(]

EDIT: And Yoozername... that last comment is ridiculous. Multiplayer options in Wargames is the wave of the PAST. PBEM IS A MULTIPLAYER OPTION!! As is Hot-Seat. As is LAN. Sheesh... what do you call these things we have been doing for 20 years now... cooperative multi-person solo play?

SoM

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort
Low fan numbers means low numbers of combatants and low subscriber profits. Historically based wargames lack the ability to create unexpected content (without making it ahistorical) and limit player options. I think, 10 years from now, wargmaes will look EXACTLY like they do now (maybe better graphics and some better scenarios). Look back 10 years, as any historian can tell, wargames today bear a marked resemblance to wargames then (at least in their mechanics). Some 10 year old games are being rereleased... yes I am talking to you Carriers at War... and Battlefront... and Cross of Iron... and Europa Universalis 3... [:'(]

EDIT: And Yoozername... that last comment is ridiculous. Multiplayer options in Wargames is the wave of the PAST. PBEM IS A MULTIPLAYER OPTION!! As is Hot-Seat. As is LAN. Sheesh... what do you call these things we have been doing for 20 years now... cooperative multi-person solo play?

SoM

I'll start with your good comments first, and I think you echo my thinking on this. The reason I started with some historical comments is for the very reason you state very well - wargames haven't changed much in the last decade other than by graphical upgrades. WEGO is an interesting mode of play but is nothing new - they were doing Simultaneous play in wargames in the 1970s. It was too cumbersome to make workable then; now we have computers to do the work for us. Even so, turn-based stuff like Steel Panthers or Airborne Assault still remains popular. There are reasons for this. And yes, you are correct - anyone thinking they are the first one to "think outside the box" is simply hubris.

What boggles my mind, is how people fail to see the logistic aspect (especially on a wargame forum) before arguing the theoretical aspects of something. Wargaming, without RTS games included in that title, will be hard pressed to every become a MMOG. Why? Simply put, MMOG require persistant manpower to keep functioning (server maintenance, in-game help, etc), a decent staff to keep watch over the "massive" (the fist M of MMOG) number of people who are live in the game, and a consistent development team who will periodically update the game so that players "stick with it" once they have delved fully into all the content. For most MMOG's to be successful they need to have a wide-enough fan base to cover costs, an attractive enough premise to appeal to casual gamers and hardcore gamers (a VERY small percentage of MMOG gamers), and a game design that allows for a near continuous stream of action so that one absence does not completely ruin a long game (turn based will shut down if a player goes AFK, long games like Europa Universalis can collapse if a person leaves and an AI takes over). Further, most MMOG rely on player-created or player-driven content to keep people interested even when the player has fully experienced all of the content.

I think you may be mixing up your genres. We're not talking about discovering worlds here - if you had a random map generator as flexible as Combat Mission's, it would work, but the reason they abandoned that in CM:SF was that it was too hard to do with current expectations on graphics. So you may have a point - even generating 3D building models for a realistic WW II landscape would be difficult to do at random, requiring dedicated modellers. There would be little financial incentive to do it, but a look at the OFP modders shows it can be done. For a very, very small market.

This last point is key. Why is WoW so addictive to millions of people? Because you, as a player, can chose your own goals, achieve goals in your own manner and at your own pace, and you never know exactly what the outcome of your action will be, due to the actions other players, random loot tables, player-based economy, and random spawn locations. How would you do this with, say, a WWII game? You can't suddenly introduce ahistorical weaponry to keep stuff interesting, you aren't going to allow Germany to fight for the allies, or give the player the option to create their own aircraft. It would be hard to keep interest, and since wargames have a niche market, it would get enough subscribers to cover costs and to keep up development. It is naive to think that developers haven't already thought of these ideas before and that most of them have judged them not profitable and continued to focus on solo or PBEM style play.

Games like Battlefield 2 (of 1942), Quake Wars, and the other FPS squad based multi-play games are not technically fully MMOG. Servers can be run privately by players (many are and connect through Gamespy's client), and content is not really persistent (he maps and their goals and their sides are always the same). These are actually simply multiplayer games, like connecting via a LAN, that have been expanded using internet connections.

If you argue the future of some wargames being in MMOG, without every PLAYING World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, both examples of tactical, group (or squad) based gameplay (even warfare in some cases) then you can't really argue effectively. The vast majority of WoW players are casual, despite popular mythology, and their "group tactics" vary wildly in quality. To expect that you could make a solely wargame MMOG and see decent fanbase and tactics is grossly inaccurate. WoW and GW are so popular because you can do other things beside fight, you can be solo or group, you see unexepected development and can customize your character in innumerable ways. Of course... WoW did build its fan base through its original RTS... [:D]

If we're truly talking about a company-level game where units are squads and gun crews, the interesting thing will be the personalities in your unit, not the terrain you interact with. The history writes itself in your actions, in other words, not some fake D and D type backstory, but in your own experience with the game. Another reason the "poker tournament" example is particularly inappropriate.

EDIT: And Yoozername... that last comment is ridiculous. Multiplayer options in Wargames is the wave of the PAST. PBEM IS A MULTIPLAYER OPTION!! As is Hot-Seat. As is LAN. Sheesh... what do you call these things we have been doing for 20 years now... cooperative multi-person solo play?

Uh, you forgot the realtime aspect. But glad you amused yourself.

I disagree that people need to 'train' to fight a battle if each person is controlling a company.&nbsp; Whoever 'hosts' the game could assign an overall plan.&nbsp; Objectives, timetables, what have you.
&nbsp;
I find the reactionary response interesting.&nbsp;

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh
If we're truly talking about a company-level game where units are squads and gun crews, the interesting thing will be the personalities in your unit, not the terrain you interact with. The history writes itself in your actions, in other words, not some fake D and D type backstory, but in your own experience with the game. Another reason the "poker tournament" example is particularly inappropriate.

If you have ever played World of Warcraft with a "pick-up group" (a randomly gathered group of people assembled for a particular goal), then you might not use the word "interesting" when talking about the "personalities in your unit." [;)] That basically keeps people coming back, but it is the "terrain you interact with" that initially draws people in.

What you both seem to be depicting is a game that utilizes the "clan" format seen in games like Guild Wars or the old Mechwarrior clans. Unfortunately, this style of game does not appeal to everyone (I hate guilds in games) and unless you have the game randomly assign the player to the same guild/clan/unit, each time they log in, then you are not going to get that group dynamic out of the box. Besides, all of these concepts are VERY old concepts for wargaming (gaming clans have been in existence since very early days) and thus represent the past and present of wargaming, as well as the future. I simply do not see how a persistent world wargame would work, random map generation for each map is no different than internet, LAN, or hot-seat games already being played. Making it a real time unit/squad based game turns it into an FPS, like the Battlefield series, and online WEGO is already being done. RTS tend to be more casual than tactical, so I can't see that working either.

The best idea I have seen in a long time is Stardock's Society, but this seems a long way off from actually being done. Still, it is more RTS than tactical wargaming.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

I disagree that people need to 'train' to fight a battle if each person is controlling a company. Whoever 'hosts' the game could assign an overall plan. Objectives, timetables, what have you.

I find the reactionary response interesting.

In a "company-level" game, the units that players command are individual squads. The intermediate level of command - platoons - can be simulated by command restrictions, when done for solo players, or in the case of a multi-player game, the fact that different players are commanding these sub-units could be the actual device by which command friction is modelled.

That being the case, the need for training is obvious - and the reference to "controlling a company" is curious. Are you actually talking about an operational-level game where each player actually controls platoons and squads as a company commander? Because that is certainly not what a "company-level" game is. Once again, you're talking about games that no one has shown any willingness to design or market, for very good reasons.