Matrix Games Forums

While reading madgamers' concerns that AE is too complex and all, it got me to think about the following: the first computer wargame that I really liked was Panzer General. It was a beer and pretzel abstraction of reality with some 20 units that was very, very fun, and any kid could play. Then I found Steel Panthers, and it was a blast - another small, simple game with some 100 units where I had lots of fun blasting them allied tanks from reverse slopes.

The next significant one was TOAW, but then I didn't have as much fun. I liked TOAW much more in principle, because I'm a grognard and TOAW was definitely a grognard's thing. So I could revel for hours with the 4,000 units and detailed TO&E in the Barbarossa At Tactical Level scenario, but it was a much more serious commitment.

The next escalation is AE; it probably has in the range of 10,000 units plus 10,000 people around, and a game can last for months. The first turn can take days to plan, and the rules are so complex that you have to read a 300+ pages manual and read some 100-500 posts to get through exceptions, details, clarifications, etc...

Then, what's next? A game with 100,000 units that will take years to go through? Don't take me wrong in asking that -- I'm a grognard, and I like AE a lot. I revel in studying complexity (I'm paid good money to debug large, complex systems -- and I use to study Linux kernel as a hobby), so my opinion of the increased size and complexity of computer wargames will always be "Yeah!". I can't help myself. But I'm candid about that: these big, complex wargames are starting to look more like a scholar's research project than a game.

So I wonder what happened with the simple pleasure of hiding my Panthers waiting in ambush. Are we really on the right track with these large, hyper-realistic games?


Thanks,
fbs

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.

Well put.

There is immense scope for Theatre sized simulations, IMHO we still havent seen a good WW2 West or East Front game, WW2 Nth Africa/Med campaign or a WW1 game. And I think a substantial market for them.

But I agree, let the computer do a lot of he work (maybe toggles like WITP subs & PDU though who has yet to see an AI capable of this)

i dont want to micromanage pilot training or commanders of PT boats, I'll be happy with who the computer spits out, just like a real theatre commander.

There is still a bigger market for  FPS or "simpler" strategic games like HOI, they just aren't my cup of tea.

Personally, I wouldn't object to more detail in a WitP like game. There plenty of ideas around how to do that, so I wont go and list any.

The important thing though is that these additional layers of complexity must be easy to access, and preferably somewhat (like CS convoys and Japanese Industry) automatable.

Also, not all the features involve adding more size (in the form of increasing unit number by an order of magnitude), ideas that add more depth are just as important.

I like to micromanage [:)]

TBH I think the reason WITP AE has such a loyal fan base is that there isn't much in the way of these mega-micromanagement games, not quality ones anyway.
There is no lack of FPS or "simple" strategy games.

Ultimately there are good examples of games across the complexity specturm and people can choose whichever suites there tastes.

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.

Personally I believe that the inclusion of Pilot tracking adds to the game. It makes it a little more personal. I would also like to see tally sheets for sub captains. Don't you think that command decisions were made in WWII by also weighing in on who commanded a unit and what that person accomplished?

My only micro-complain is search arcs. IMO it's not Yamamoto's or even TF commander's job to play with the search arcs every day...

Come on.. There are plenty of games around for people with Challenged IQs Wow , COD ..The moaning generation Y kids have almost killed decent planning games I still miss FITE where a single turn would take  days and you had to plan your strategy  ,those games limit on complexity was the human time it would take to play but the computer can make things much easier:-)
 
I do think that the computer/game can help us better , managing convoys well , Choosing leaders better , simpler screens like the recent production screen and AETracker etc . If any of you remember stars it had the best convoy system ever , it was predictable and was so simple yet it handled many edge cases.

ORIGINAL: skrewball

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.

Personally I believe that the inclusion of Pilot tracking adds to the game. It makes it a little more personal. I would also like to see tally sheets for sub captains. Don't you think that command decisions were made in WWII by also weighing in on who commanded a unit and what that person accomplished?

I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit...

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: skrewball

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

It seems to me that it is not an issue of "hyper-realism" vs "playability." Rather, realism can still be achieved with some degree of abstraction, something that the UV-WitP-AE series has been woefully lacking in. For instance, tracking individual pilots is stupid. For a small game, its kind of fun to see an individual advance. But not for a theater of war involving millions of men. One could easily imagine that a squadron's pilot quality could be abstracted using the exact same mechanism as is currently used, but presenting the player with only the average quality of the squadron, not the individual quality of each pilot. Likewise, messing with altitudes is stupid. This game is not a flightsim. Let the computer decide. These are my two main micro-management issues. Individual ships and numbers of planes in a squadron is fine by me. But getting down to individual men and how they engage the enemy is a little much.

Still an all, I love the game.

Personally I believe that the inclusion of Pilot tracking adds to the game. It makes it a little more personal. I would also like to see tally sheets for sub captains. Don't you think that command decisions were made in WWII by also weighing in on who commanded a unit and what that person accomplished?

I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit...

While I will agree with you, I still say it's fun to watch a group of pilots as they progress in the game and run up scores and try to survive.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
I don't know. If you are going to pick pilots for every A/C, then why not pick Sgts. for every infantry squad? Sometimes you have to draw a limit...

Well, I wouldnt object to that, as long as there was a reasonable benefit for doing so, and as long as it could be partially automated like pilot selection without wrecking your game completely...

Picking the -entire- squad might be a little over the top. Maybe. Then again, getting to assign all of them equipment (Rifle, LMG, etc) based on proficiencies with weapon types might be fun...[:D]

I love WITP.
I hate [:@] the time I have to spend clicking.
It is a very user UNfriedly software.
 
Keep complexity, rework communication with a player.
 
Plus:
 
I have noticed that with every patch game starts to respond more and more weird and unstable to player "clicks" (wrong screens, weird screens appear during clicks in a longer session etc).
 
However,
 
I do understand limits Devs worked with and it is not a complain.
 
 

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I love WITP.
I hate [:@] the time I have to spend clicking.
It is a very user UNfriedly software.

Keep complexity, rework communication with a player.

Plus:

I have noticed that with every patch game starts to respond more and more weird and unstable to player "clicks" (wrong screens, weird screens appear during clicks in a longer session etc).

However,

I do understand limits Devs worked with and it is not a complain.

Sadly, mind-machine interfaces are out of reach for the immediate future. That would be the optimal solution!

But considering the age of the engine, I really respect how far the devs have brought it despite its faults, and how they continue to work to improve it (wow at those new wide resolution images!).

If we're looking for a paradigm shift in terms of complexity though, it probably wont happen without a completely new engine.

We just need some pop up menus, right click menus, multi selection etc.

Id rather not have my machine to know my thoughts [:D]


From old witp lover point of view it is unimaginable what devs have achieved and I love it.

From 2009 consumer point of view.... 40% of time I spend clicking is to get simple things done.
Game is great but it do not need more complexity. It need to be more user friendly.

BTW:
Complexity vs player time:

In my grand PBEM where I play as Japanese 1 day turn takes me something between 4 to 5 hours to complete a turn.
I can not imagine my self to spend more time for 1 day turn game.

So I wonder what happened with the simple pleasure of hiding my Panthers waiting in ambush

I love AE. When I want to hide my panzer in a bush (fnar-fnar) I play Close Combat.

Although I could do without some of the micromanagement I think it is important that that games of this scale, scope and attention to detail are created , played and supported.. Emphasis on the played part, they still have to be playable.
The gaming market is quickly leaving the PC for the console and for about 95% of games this has been good for the game, good for the player and good for the industry. The few games that are better on the PC are the ones like WITP. Big detail, long timeframes, small audience. There are not many of us, but this is what we choose to spend our time on. Show of hands, how many people spend more time playing xbox games that WITP? Not so many here, but for the vast majority of gamers it is completely opposite. There is a place for both, and I choose to spend my time with the larger form, and you guys.[:)]

For once i agree with WITPPL by modern standards the interface is substandard ( Im not saying its bad or unplayable just not up to the standard if WITP was written from scratch in 2009) but fixing it requires a new game. In C++ it is just too time consuming ( expensive) to redo this. Though if we are talking about games in General a great deal can be done to improve the interface and Human interaction. You could also have the AI making all the decisions and the human player just adjusts the ones he is intereasted in a bit like a senior commander comming to visit. The game does this already but its not up to standard.

Automatic convoys and Search arcs are probably the biggest here.

Whats wrong with both? Does it have to be 'either or'? ;p
There are 50 million (aproximated) beer and pretzel games out there, but the huge complex games are VERY few and far between. And every one that gets made I cheer madly even if I dont play it. It's just nice to see people invest time developing something of a higher standard that isnt dumbed down for drunks and salt addicts [:D]