What makes a game a wargame?
Moderator: maddog986
What makes a game a wargame?
I'm asking this because i consider one series of games i own,X-Com,as a wargame,though i'm sure many would disagree with that conclusion.Sure the subject of it is an alien invasion,but the basic jist of the game is to develop tactics for your squad and equipment to best accomplish your missions.Can only games with little counters and hex maps be considered in this category,or is the genre much more open to interpretation than that?
"..if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away."
Well this one may get a few flames. In any case, I know a lot of old timers who will insist a real wargame needs to be on a hex map. Well, the next question would be, what's wrong with an octagon map? Then the next question could be....
For my definition, I would have to include some rules. For example, surrendering units. This is one of my favourite and most important elements to a game. As well as artifllery, except if your playing an ancient times game, artillery realy may not have an influence at all in the game.
P.S. Some people will lead you to believe Risk and Axis&Allies is a wargame. IMHO i'd call that silly, but everyone has their own interpretations...
For my definition, I would have to include some rules. For example, surrendering units. This is one of my favourite and most important elements to a game. As well as artifllery, except if your playing an ancient times game, artillery realy may not have an influence at all in the game.
P.S. Some people will lead you to believe Risk and Axis&Allies is a wargame. IMHO i'd call that silly, but everyone has their own interpretations...
Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…
Wargame needs real guns. A b-class scifi blaster does not do. (and since i consider all scifi weps b-class...)
"99.9% of all internet arguments are due to people not understanding someone else's point. The other 0.1% is arguing over made up statistics."- unknown poster
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
"Those who dont read history are destined to repeat it."– Edmund Burke
Originally posted by Zakhal
Wargame needs real guns. A b-class scifi blaster does not do. (and since i consider all scifi weps b-class...)
Does it need to include grenades,high explosive for taking out those pesky targets,smoke to cover your advance,and flares for nightfighting?
"..if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away."
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Normally, for me, a wargame, to earn the definition "wargame", needs to intelligently simulate war.
Now traditional wargames tend to simulate actual historical events more than what ifs.
And the further from "actual" your event is, the further from plausable qualifier you would have to assume it would be.
So outright science fiction is a great deal less capable of being defined as wargame by us fussy anal grognards hehe.
Now as for medium, well hexes are used everywhere, and hexes alone don't make it a wargame. Hexes are just hexes.
Snits Revenges used hexes eh
Turns won't make it a wargame. Checkers has turns. I don't think many will rush to call checkers a "wargame".
Scale of view is not going to make much difference, so being in first person 3d mode is really just what it is, first person 3d mode.
Some wargames will just plain suck, but even though they might just plain suck and be pure garbage, they might still deserve the label "wargame". They will just have to wear the stigma of being "pure rubbish" too.
Some might wear the label of "pure wargame", but odds are they will be seen as "pure boring" to a lot easily enough too.
Normally my most important criterion, is "did the event actually take place".
I prefer to simulate history myself. It allows me the priviledge of deciding if the simulation is "accurate". Because we have historical records to compare with.
My next big thing is turns. I much prefer the regulated reliable old turn. And usually with turns you get hexes (because hexes make defining turns a heck of a lot more simple).
I have room for real time, but you won't find me a very accomodating customer. Most RTS games look stupid to me.
I don't mind 3d, but I have not been converted from 2d yet. 2d does the job well, and that is where it is at for me.
Most of my wargaming was done on boards. Boards do not make a wargame "more" wargame. Merely more traditional. Computers do not make a wargame better, just more likely that you won't have trouble leaving it set up.
And there you have it (in my opinion).
Now traditional wargames tend to simulate actual historical events more than what ifs.
And the further from "actual" your event is, the further from plausable qualifier you would have to assume it would be.
So outright science fiction is a great deal less capable of being defined as wargame by us fussy anal grognards hehe.
Now as for medium, well hexes are used everywhere, and hexes alone don't make it a wargame. Hexes are just hexes.
Snits Revenges used hexes eh
Turns won't make it a wargame. Checkers has turns. I don't think many will rush to call checkers a "wargame".
Scale of view is not going to make much difference, so being in first person 3d mode is really just what it is, first person 3d mode.
Some wargames will just plain suck, but even though they might just plain suck and be pure garbage, they might still deserve the label "wargame". They will just have to wear the stigma of being "pure rubbish" too.
Some might wear the label of "pure wargame", but odds are they will be seen as "pure boring" to a lot easily enough too.
Normally my most important criterion, is "did the event actually take place".
I prefer to simulate history myself. It allows me the priviledge of deciding if the simulation is "accurate". Because we have historical records to compare with.
My next big thing is turns. I much prefer the regulated reliable old turn. And usually with turns you get hexes (because hexes make defining turns a heck of a lot more simple).
I have room for real time, but you won't find me a very accomodating customer. Most RTS games look stupid to me.
I don't mind 3d, but I have not been converted from 2d yet. 2d does the job well, and that is where it is at for me.
Most of my wargaming was done on boards. Boards do not make a wargame "more" wargame. Merely more traditional. Computers do not make a wargame better, just more likely that you won't have trouble leaving it set up.
And there you have it (in my opinion).
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
To some chess is certainly a wargame.
Interesting trivia bit though, the "Queen" if I am not mistaken was originally called the Prime Minister (correct me if I am wrong). But it would explain the disproportionate power of the piece as compared to the King.
A game does not require infantry tanks planes and warships to be a wargame.
Interesting trivia bit though, the "Queen" if I am not mistaken was originally called the Prime Minister (correct me if I am wrong). But it would explain the disproportionate power of the piece as compared to the King.
A game does not require infantry tanks planes and warships to be a wargame.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
The man asked for a definition of wargaming. The mechanics of any game are a different issue.
A wargame needs to be based on something historic, so that you can accurately line up the units involved.
Then look at the action in question and count how many hours/days/weeks it took for the action to end.
Can the player achieve victory faster than the historic result – giving him a win – or achive victory in the same time as the historic result – a stalemate – or does it take him longer than his historic counterpart – a loss.
“What ifs” can be fun but it is difficult to bring all the “what if” forces into play.
As for an action set in the future, you can invent powerful weapon systems and then powerful countermeasures. And therefore makes no sense.
A wargame needs to be based on something historic, so that you can accurately line up the units involved.
Then look at the action in question and count how many hours/days/weeks it took for the action to end.
Can the player achieve victory faster than the historic result – giving him a win – or achive victory in the same time as the historic result – a stalemate – or does it take him longer than his historic counterpart – a loss.
“What ifs” can be fun but it is difficult to bring all the “what if” forces into play.
As for an action set in the future, you can invent powerful weapon systems and then powerful countermeasures. And therefore makes no sense.
Good points.Though once again to use Chess as an example,it has none of those things but it was originally developed to teach strategy.So it could be considered as one.FPS's i agree have little to do with tactics or even historical accuracy,they are not wargames but action/adventure types.
Like i said i'm more than a little curious about just what the interpretation is.
Like i said i'm more than a little curious about just what the interpretation is.
"..if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away."
-
Raindog101
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:10 pm
- Location: Hole-in-the-Wall
Originally posted by Maliki
Good points.Though once again to use Chess as an example,it has none of those things but it was originally developed to teach strategy.So it could be considered as one.FPS's i agree have little to do with tactics or even historical accuracy,they are not wargames but action/adventure types.
Like i said i'm more than a little curious about just what the interpretation is.
How about games like "Sub Command", "688i", "Ghost Recon", or "Silent Hunter"?
Would these be considered wargames?
Originally posted by Old Eagle101
How about games like "Sub Command", "688i", "Ghost Recon", or "Silent Hunter"?
Would these be considered wargames?
Once again point taken,i did not think of games such as Ghost Recon where tactics and weaponry are part of the planning and execution of the game.Better yet How about SOCOM?
"..if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away."
Hmm, first you have to seperate the discussion of "What makes a good wargame" from "What is a wargame". Too many of the answers here seem to revolve more around the first than the second.
A Wargame DOES NOT have to simulate or portrey events that happened in history to be considered a wargame. One undebateable example of this is Avalon Hill's Blitzkrieg which is very very generic in nature with fictional terrain and fictional sides (Red and Blue) but still as much a wargame as any other. A SciFi Wargame and such is therefore possible.
The other important term, as I've mentioned before, and as many other sites including Wargamer use.. is STRATEGY GAME. Most games are clearly one or the other. Either a strategy game or a wargame. Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Command and Conquer are all Strategy games and fit that title and descript just fine.
Also realize that wargames have different "complexity levels" which means its not correct to think something isn't a wargame simply because it doesn't have the level of detail that another game does (For instance Risk and Axis and Allies vs say Uncommon Valor or ASL). But I would probably agree that Risk and A&A lean much much more to the "Strategy Game" side of things than a wargame.
So what is a wargame? Easy answer. Its most any game that has any level of those additional "boring" elements that aren't welcome in other genres of games including generally Strategy Games. Command Structure, Supply, Morale, Fatigue, Fuel levels etc. None of those are present in Command and Conquer for instance (except for supply which is highly generic) while nearly all of them will be in even the simplest wargame along with other things.
So, to me, though you may not want to play such a game, a SciFi wargame and so on can exist if the same elements are in the game and many examples of such are out there. The keyword there is "historical wargame" or "historical simulation" vs "wargame"...
It's all very simple to me, I think the lines are pretty clear in most cases
A Wargame DOES NOT have to simulate or portrey events that happened in history to be considered a wargame. One undebateable example of this is Avalon Hill's Blitzkrieg which is very very generic in nature with fictional terrain and fictional sides (Red and Blue) but still as much a wargame as any other. A SciFi Wargame and such is therefore possible.
The other important term, as I've mentioned before, and as many other sites including Wargamer use.. is STRATEGY GAME. Most games are clearly one or the other. Either a strategy game or a wargame. Age of Empires, Empire Earth, Command and Conquer are all Strategy games and fit that title and descript just fine.
Also realize that wargames have different "complexity levels" which means its not correct to think something isn't a wargame simply because it doesn't have the level of detail that another game does (For instance Risk and Axis and Allies vs say Uncommon Valor or ASL). But I would probably agree that Risk and A&A lean much much more to the "Strategy Game" side of things than a wargame.
So what is a wargame? Easy answer. Its most any game that has any level of those additional "boring" elements that aren't welcome in other genres of games including generally Strategy Games. Command Structure, Supply, Morale, Fatigue, Fuel levels etc. None of those are present in Command and Conquer for instance (except for supply which is highly generic) while nearly all of them will be in even the simplest wargame along with other things.
So, to me, though you may not want to play such a game, a SciFi wargame and so on can exist if the same elements are in the game and many examples of such are out there. The keyword there is "historical wargame" or "historical simulation" vs "wargame"...
It's all very simple to me, I think the lines are pretty clear in most cases
Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
To some chess is certainly a wargame.
Interesting trivia bit though, the "Queen" if I am not mistaken was originally called the Prime Minister (correct me if I am wrong). But it would explain the disproportionate power of the piece as compared to the King.
A game does not require infantry tanks planes and warships to be a wargame.
You'll actually find Chess as an example of a wargame in many dictionary type sources. I do not actually agree with the interpretation though this is one "game" where I think its pointless to argue. I really respect either view.
It was defined as a wargame before any others really existed. so to was Kriegspiel. You could just about call Checkers a wargame then as a simpler version. I think they fit the definition of strategy games very well and if they teach anything they teach "thinking ahead" and "guessing your opponents next move" or "try to look at all forseable possibilites" and so on... all having much more to do with strategizing in a generic sense rather the the more "logistical" elements I mentioned as one evident difference in actual wargames...
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
While I greatly "prefer" my "war"games to "simulate" "historical" events that "actually" occured.
The definition needs to include warfare in general.
Good luck getting me to play Command and Conquer. But my not liking the lame experience (my feelings) does not remove it from the list. Isimulates armed conflict (even if the realism sucks).
As I mentioned, a "war"game doesn't have to be worth the money to earn the label.
Is monopoly a wargame?, hmmm, ask a banker, he will say it seems like war to him. But that is going to stretch the limits of the term a tad to us grognards.
Pick up sticks is not a wargame.
Tanks sims are called wargames, I don't see why being a sub driver wouldn't be the same. And being a leg running around with a rifle ain't much of a wargame, but I guess it is more of a wargame than Grand Theft Auto (although you might get some loonie to suggest it is urnban warfare).
The Sims, now that is not a wargame (especially when I play it hehe).
Last time I checked we didn't have to worry much about dragons, but I would say Heroes of Might and Magic was a wargame. Bit on the fantasy side though.
But we can all agree, ASL, A3R, B-17, Midway, Steel Panthers, Strategic Command, Combat Mission, Battlefield 1942 all have enough war in them. Some are closer to board games if not actually board games in the first place.
But I guess it comes down to does any one care.
The definition needs to include warfare in general.
Good luck getting me to play Command and Conquer. But my not liking the lame experience (my feelings) does not remove it from the list. Isimulates armed conflict (even if the realism sucks).
As I mentioned, a "war"game doesn't have to be worth the money to earn the label.
Is monopoly a wargame?, hmmm, ask a banker, he will say it seems like war to him. But that is going to stretch the limits of the term a tad to us grognards.
Pick up sticks is not a wargame.
Tanks sims are called wargames, I don't see why being a sub driver wouldn't be the same. And being a leg running around with a rifle ain't much of a wargame, but I guess it is more of a wargame than Grand Theft Auto (although you might get some loonie to suggest it is urnban warfare).
The Sims, now that is not a wargame (especially when I play it hehe).
Last time I checked we didn't have to worry much about dragons, but I would say Heroes of Might and Magic was a wargame. Bit on the fantasy side though.
But we can all agree, ASL, A3R, B-17, Midway, Steel Panthers, Strategic Command, Combat Mission, Battlefield 1942 all have enough war in them. Some are closer to board games if not actually board games in the first place.
But I guess it comes down to does any one care.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
But I guess it comes down to does any one care.
Yes. Labels are important in all societies. Some people like to be called a "wargamer", others like to be called "gamers". Some are offended being called the later but not the former and so on.
I submit for consideration the following statement... "Just because a game has war as a theme or contains conflict or warfare does not make it in any way shape or form a wargame". Meaning "wargame" is not meant to be taken simply literally as in any "game" about "war".
Battlefield 1942 is not a wargame nor even close. Its simply an Action Arcade First Person "shooter" with some additional elements added. All good games have some amount of strategy to win or be good at. And simply being about war and containing weapons and tanks doesn't make it a wargame. Nor would a sub "simulation" game be a wargame... It is a "simulator".
Check out the following semi-authoritative link on the definition of wargaming:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargame
Its makes a few good points.. such as that techincally any game with a winner and a loser can be considered a wargame. So you can take the "argument" to an insane level or just keep it to the simple and obvious differences that are readily apparant between what is a "wargame" and what isn't...
And while I don't agree with the highly generic definition that link gave (I think they didnt think it through quite enough)... I think I've come up with a better definition than a wargame simply being a game that simulates wars and warfare while also including logistical details....
How about a wargame is "Any game of war and/or warfare that includes logistical details and includes many multiple factors in the resolution of conflict and is conducted from a perspective of something higher than an individual soldiers."
The last part is of prime importance and nicely excludes a game such as Battlefield 1942 because you are in control of a single soldier more or less and nothing at all more. That alone excludes it but likewise there are little factors in combat resolution beyond the crosshairs lining up... and many logistical details are also absent.
-
TenaciousD
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:05 am
- Location: Queensland, Australia
Maliki, Good call on XCOM, that game sucked me in big time, I regretted getting tired and sleeping cause it meant I wasnt playing the game.
I reckon the similarity is the potential depth and strategy dependant on imagination. The limits of the game are in the players minds, not the dumbed down for the masses push button X for Y to happen (ooooh I solved a puzzle). You can bet some of the best game tactics (SPWAW) would come from those with military knowledge. The SPWAW game engine simulates fundamental attributes(terrain, visibility, armour, ammunition, front back sides, morale, suppresion etc) which are necessary for realistic tactics to be used eg without front, sides, rear armour flanking would be usable but pointless. Everything you can do has pros and cons, its not just black or white, that is kickarse wargaming.
cheers:)
I reckon the similarity is the potential depth and strategy dependant on imagination. The limits of the game are in the players minds, not the dumbed down for the masses push button X for Y to happen (ooooh I solved a puzzle). You can bet some of the best game tactics (SPWAW) would come from those with military knowledge. The SPWAW game engine simulates fundamental attributes(terrain, visibility, armour, ammunition, front back sides, morale, suppresion etc) which are necessary for realistic tactics to be used eg without front, sides, rear armour flanking would be usable but pointless. Everything you can do has pros and cons, its not just black or white, that is kickarse wargaming.
cheers:)
-
Fallschirmjager
- Posts: 3555
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
- Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Ive thought about this for several days and I have my answer
On a tactical scale...every wargame has you acting in a vacuum.
Lets take SpWaW for example...you play a set battle with your forces then you move on...fun yes...but its gives you no sense of a larger scale
My perfect wargame would use an engine like combat missions.
Lets take Omaha beach for example...you would control a single company of men.
before the battle you would be briefed on your objectives (to clear bunkers and opposition in your sector) then the battle would begin.
Once you got into battle you would control only your company...but these would not be the only troops on the map...you could zoom up and down the map for a quarter mile or so and see hundreds of other men going about their tasks....but these would be controled by the AI
you would be a single company but would feel part of something much bigger...its all about immersion
Then once omaha was complete it woul take you to a large map of Europe and your company would keep moving until the end of the war.
You would be given tasks and could see friendly troops operating along with you.
You could use this system throughout the entire war
This to me would be the perfect tactical wargame
On a tactical scale...every wargame has you acting in a vacuum.
Lets take SpWaW for example...you play a set battle with your forces then you move on...fun yes...but its gives you no sense of a larger scale
My perfect wargame would use an engine like combat missions.
Lets take Omaha beach for example...you would control a single company of men.
before the battle you would be briefed on your objectives (to clear bunkers and opposition in your sector) then the battle would begin.
Once you got into battle you would control only your company...but these would not be the only troops on the map...you could zoom up and down the map for a quarter mile or so and see hundreds of other men going about their tasks....but these would be controled by the AI
you would be a single company but would feel part of something much bigger...its all about immersion
Then once omaha was complete it woul take you to a large map of Europe and your company would keep moving until the end of the war.
You would be given tasks and could see friendly troops operating along with you.
You could use this system throughout the entire war
This to me would be the perfect tactical wargame
Originally posted by TenaciousD
Maliki, Good call on XCOM, that game sucked me in big time, I regretted getting tired and sleeping cause it meant I wasnt playing the game.
I reckon the similarity is the potential depth and strategy dependant on imagination. The limits of the game are in the players minds, not the dumbed down for the masses push button X for Y to happen (ooooh I solved a puzzle). You can bet some of the best game tactics (SPWAW) would come from those with military knowledge. The SPWAW game engine simulates fundamental attributes(terrain, visibility, armour, ammunition, front back sides, morale, suppresion etc) which are necessary for realistic tactics to be used eg without front, sides, rear armour flanking would be usable but pointless. Everything you can do has pros and cons, its not just black or white, that is kickarse wargaming.
cheers:)
Yeah it is an addictive little series.I've always thought that if the game engine could be used in a historical game,say like WWII,then that would be a definitive game of squad and platoon combat at an individual soldier level.i would tell anybody to try this game if they could find it,the city combat alone will have you biting your nails in worry everytime you click to end turn,and everytime one of your soldiers panics and tosses away their weapons and bugs out you'll be screaming in frustration.
"..if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away."
-
Raindog101
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2002 6:10 pm
- Location: Hole-in-the-Wall
Originally posted by Maliki
Yeah it is an addictive little series.I've always thought that if the game engine could be used in a historical game,say like WWII,then that would be a definitive game of squad and platoon combat at an individual soldier level.i would tell anybody to try this game if they could find it,the city combat alone will have you biting your nails in worry everytime you click to end turn,and everytime one of your soldiers panics and tosses away their weapons and bugs out you'll be screaming in frustration.
I agree. I've played the X-Com series longer than any other. Especially X-Com Apocalypse. I thought "Soldiers at War" was going to be "it", but the LOS killed it dead. Un-playable.
