I will be posting this in a few places but thought it might help newcomers at this board also.:
Pausable Continuous Time Free Flowing (PCTFF) Versus Turn & Hex Based (T&HB) Wargaming
With the upcoming release of the Arnhem area/ Market Garden battles by both HPS (Panzer Campaigns 10 : Market Garden '44) and Matrix Games (Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich) the question of pausable continuous time free flowing wargames versus turn and hex based games becomes a relevant discussion for those wondering which to purchase. I will say up front that I am clearly biased as I sold all of my turn & hex based games in favor of playing the earlier release of the Matrix Games title under Panther Games (Airborne Assault – Red Devils Over Arnhem) and Battlefronts Combat Mission games. I am also a beta tester for the new Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich – or more accurately an AAR writer.
Here are some of the reasons that drove me to sell off all my games after playing the original Airborne Assault game.
The “Feel”
First and foremost, it was the feeling I had when playing the game. It pulled me into the battle more than T&HB game ever did. The fluid movement of units was more realistic and engrossing than “taking turns”. The excitement of seeing an attack develop where you least expected it and the flurry of orders to help rectify the situation gets the adrenaline going. In the PCTFF game you clearly see the advantages of surprise and momentum in a game. Pushing the element of surprise by staying one step ahead as your troops use the momentum of an attack your opponent was not expecting before his orders can get out.
Fuzzy Boundaries
T&HB games are too clean. The chaos of battle is much better reflected in a PCTFF game, as units overlap, forces become mixed, lines get confused and units need to be brought under control and lines restored. Almost always the T&HB based games eventually get to the point of being two static lines opposing each other with attempts to concentrate in some area to make a bulge in the line and perhaps a breakthrough represented by a bulge in the continuous line. Compare this to the fluid constantly moving nature of a PCTFF game and you have a dramatic difference in play and “feel”. Feel the excitement of having that armor break loose in the opponents rear areas and understand the true advantage of armor when breakthroughs occur.
Unknown Odds
Most T&HB games allow you to spend endless time playing the odds and thinking how to stack up the odds in an attack, in the real time games you think more about planning attacks based on organizational TOE’s. Thoughts like; “it looks like a battalion holding that hill, I’ll send the 1st Division to clear the hill with the support of the Corp artillery” versus “I have 125 attack points, if I move this counter into the attack I can get the odds up enough to assure an 80% chance of winning the round”. This is what pulls you into the game more than anything – the vagueness of the intelligence information and the need to monitor the attack to see if you guessed correctly. FOW exists in T&HB games, but it is clearly different forms of attack, with gut playing more of a role than the calculator does.
Orders Delay
One of the most fantastic features of the PCTFF game, one not originally included, is the realistic orders delay. In T&HB games units immediately respond to your movement orders. In PCTFF, you can’t just react to an unforeseen event, you have to suffer the delay that results from not having sent reconnaissance units out to cover your flank. As the attack crashes into your troops, you wince as the delay in orders trickling out take effect. This truly separates the General that is prepared and takes the right precautions from those that don’t. Didn’t keep a reserve – bummer – you now have to react to an unforeseen attack and you have no troops to do it with. This will make you think like a real commander had to.
Unknown reaction
In T&HB games your units have specific capabilities. They can move so many hexes, they have a certain attack factor, they go where you send them and for the most part they advance and retreat where you would expect. In the free flowing world of real time, units don’t always react as you would expect. It is not clean and predictable – you have to improvise your plan as it moves forward.
Fatigue, morale and leadership
In most T&HB games these features only feel like numerical differences in units, in a PCTFF game you see the impact, and recognize the difference in the units by their reaction to your orders before you even look at the statistics to determine the problem. I never was able to get this feel from T&HB games.
Multi-level play
The PCTFF game is very scaleable and you can participate/command at any level. You can choose to micro-manage each unit down to the company level, anywhere up to Division or Corp level if you choose to. This is made possible by an AI that is not only your opponent in games against the computer, but also your subordinate as you give orders.
So What Don’t People Like? Here are some of the thoughts I have heard.
Time to Play
The PCTFF game does require more dedicated time by two opponents if you want to play head to head. PBEM in T&HB games is attractive as you can pick the time to respond without coordinating it with another player. In today’s busy world finding time to match up with other players is difficult. My answer to this is to make the time. It is worth it. You can play one hour at a time if you like – games can be saved. There are thoughts about how to make PCTFF into a PBEM version, but many feel, and I agree, that this will defeat the very thing that makes this game so much fun. The game is quick to launch and with the use of programs like ICQ/AIM/Yahoo chat, etc. it is easy to find your opponent and start up a game.
The units don’t do what I tell them!
People who are used to the predictable nature of wargames back to the original Avalon Hill days of Blitzkrieg find it a bit disconcerting to have no formal hex lines, no clearly marked lines of battle, and units that don’t always react as you expect. My answer – welcome to the real world. This is a change, but if you accept it and realize your opponent has the same constraints, it becomes a beautiful thing.
In summary, the experience of a PCTFF strategic wargame like Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich, is a taste of the future of wargaming. If you want to feel what it was like to be a General in WWII, like a challenge of unknowns and surprises on the battlefield, want to finally feel engrossed in a game? Then join the club and help support this new style game so it may continue to grow into the next wave of wargames – you won’t be disappointed. If chaos and the unexpected is not your thing and the age old T&HB game systems are the only thing you are comfortable with – then by all means stay with them. They are good solid time proven systems that have served us well and will always have a place in our hearts, they just won’t be able to match the enjoyment of this new direction in wargamming. Some links to help you explore:
Message Board & Game Site:
http://www.matrixgames.com/
Drop Zone Site With AAR’s:
http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/DropZone/
Yakstock
Continuous time versus hex based
Moderator: Arjuna
-
W Thorne_MatrixForum
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 3:11 am
- Location: Houston
Well written Yardstock. I gotta agree with a lot of what you said. My experience is a little different. Continuous time games,CC1, was my first wargame and CC was the reason I bought my first computer.
I played all the CC titles and enjoyed them all. I then went back and played some turn based games, West Front, Steel Panthers, and both Combat Mission games. I like all 4 but... continuous time immerses me in the game much more.
When the first AA game came out I liked the feel of larger battles with Regiment, Division and possible Corps size. I now had a continuous time game that was a larger scale then CC or GIC and the upcoming EYSA.
I still look at and ponder my moves in turn based games but my real interest is in Continuous Time.
AA is a must have for any wargamer!
I played all the CC titles and enjoyed them all. I then went back and played some turn based games, West Front, Steel Panthers, and both Combat Mission games. I like all 4 but... continuous time immerses me in the game much more.
When the first AA game came out I liked the feel of larger battles with Regiment, Division and possible Corps size. I now had a continuous time game that was a larger scale then CC or GIC and the upcoming EYSA.
I still look at and ponder my moves in turn based games but my real interest is in Continuous Time.
AA is a must have for any wargamer!
I must say that I like both PCTFF and T&HB games, they offer different types of enjoyment.
T&HB games (engine quality aside) bring back boardgame memories, which I am quite fond of. Nothing like spending long spells of time reading eg. Advanced Third Reich's rulebook trying to get that cryptic rule to work for you. And then all the fights as to what the rule actually means or not. Truly evil, the accountant and lawyer revived.
I just bought KP last week, and am eagerly waiting for it. It's this warm and fuzzy feeling that everything is in order you know, when I play a T&HB game that's well designed.
I agree with the essence of what you said, Yackstock. For me, the 2 biggest problems of T&HB games have been a) the inability of all engines to define a good model for defensive/reactionary fire (remember the mad gamey truck rush in PzC to suck defensive fire before attacking, which of course I never did use, ahem!), and b) the degradation of each battle to a locked ZoC, attrition front, sort of like playing WW1 trench battles.
I've been eagerly waiting (like many people, I guess) Road to Moscow to come like a fresh breeze, but it never materialised. And then I discovered Airborne Assault, and immediately got hooked. That was before doing beta and all. So hooked that I stopped playing CMBO and TOAW, which I both loved.
PCTFF games (AA at this moment) cannot be matched for fluidity, FoW and thinking like the armchair general I always wanted to be. Thinking about hills, strategic reserves, probing, slipping by under cover of darkness, resting the troops, creating a defensive perimeter (not a solid wall that can't be penetrated, mind you, but one that will of course, as in real life allow penetrations but trap them in), are what real battles are made of, in my poor, armchair general's mind.
/coralsaw
T&HB games (engine quality aside) bring back boardgame memories, which I am quite fond of. Nothing like spending long spells of time reading eg. Advanced Third Reich's rulebook trying to get that cryptic rule to work for you. And then all the fights as to what the rule actually means or not. Truly evil, the accountant and lawyer revived.
I just bought KP last week, and am eagerly waiting for it. It's this warm and fuzzy feeling that everything is in order you know, when I play a T&HB game that's well designed.
I agree with the essence of what you said, Yackstock. For me, the 2 biggest problems of T&HB games have been a) the inability of all engines to define a good model for defensive/reactionary fire (remember the mad gamey truck rush in PzC to suck defensive fire before attacking, which of course I never did use, ahem!), and b) the degradation of each battle to a locked ZoC, attrition front, sort of like playing WW1 trench battles.
I've been eagerly waiting (like many people, I guess) Road to Moscow to come like a fresh breeze, but it never materialised. And then I discovered Airborne Assault, and immediately got hooked. That was before doing beta and all. So hooked that I stopped playing CMBO and TOAW, which I both loved.
PCTFF games (AA at this moment) cannot be matched for fluidity, FoW and thinking like the armchair general I always wanted to be. Thinking about hills, strategic reserves, probing, slipping by under cover of darkness, resting the troops, creating a defensive perimeter (not a solid wall that can't be penetrated, mind you, but one that will of course, as in real life allow penetrations but trap them in), are what real battles are made of, in my poor, armchair general's mind.
/coralsaw
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon. - Napoleon Bonaparte, 15 July 1815, to the captain of HMS Bellerophon.
-
Real and Simulated Wars
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:11 pm
- Contact:
Excellent thread. I eagerly wait for more posts about this interesting topic.
A question for Yakstock: Do you think that games about big operations (like Korsun Pocket) can be implemented in PCTFF?
I recall the Total War series, where battles were solved in real time, but the big strategic things (inter country army movements and other strategic decisions) were turn-based. It is interesting to note that in the next installment (Rome: Total War) every thing will be PCTFF.
A question for Yakstock: Do you think that games about big operations (like Korsun Pocket) can be implemented in PCTFF?
I recall the Total War series, where battles were solved in real time, but the big strategic things (inter country army movements and other strategic decisions) were turn-based. It is interesting to note that in the next installment (Rome: Total War) every thing will be PCTFF.
I don’t see any real problem with larger battles provided that they are depicted at the right scale. To run the HTTR engine at company level for a battlefield dealing with an Army or beyond would be daft. (A bit like the platoon and company level of the Pz Campaigns depiction of the whole of Normandy.)
The Stalingrad encirclement at say, battalion or regiment level, would be feasible with this engine. And I suppose that if you chose to only control units at a very high level, it doesn’t matter what size units are depicted on the map … so long as you don’t try to micro-manage. That’s the beauty of this engine. And if there are people who want to play at lieutenant level rather than General, well they can do that as well!
Ray
The Stalingrad encirclement at say, battalion or regiment level, would be feasible with this engine. And I suppose that if you chose to only control units at a very high level, it doesn’t matter what size units are depicted on the map … so long as you don’t try to micro-manage. That’s the beauty of this engine. And if there are people who want to play at lieutenant level rather than General, well they can do that as well!
Ray
There are pluses and minuses to both continuous and turn-based styles, and I would have to question why one would do away with turn-based games since they are hardly obsoleted (word?) by continuous time games. If continuous time is the only thing that gets your interest, okay, but the validity -- due to the scaling involved -- is NEVER in favor of one millieu over the other.
I enjoy continuous time games if I play solo, but not if versus another person. PBEM is just so much more enjoyable there.
Much depends on your global view of the purpose of wargames, and I find that there are vast differences of opinion on what wargames are intended to accomplish. Woe be to the designer who tries to appease all, though. He'll likely satisfy none.
AA: HTTR is an excellent game system and I look forward to it eagerly.
I enjoy continuous time games if I play solo, but not if versus another person. PBEM is just so much more enjoyable there.
Much depends on your global view of the purpose of wargames, and I find that there are vast differences of opinion on what wargames are intended to accomplish. Woe be to the designer who tries to appease all, though. He'll likely satisfy none.
AA: HTTR is an excellent game system and I look forward to it eagerly.
I have to say that I have a real soft spot for turn-based games. I loved figure and board wargames in my younger days (Help, I'm starting to feel old!) and was introduced to computer gaming about 4 years ago by a copy of Civ2 that arrived bundled with a computer I'd bought to use for making music on. My feeling is that the larger the scale of the battle the more problems a 'Real-Time' game has modelling the combat. I enjoy a game like 'Hearts of Iron' but the combat is handled in a particularly abstract fashion. The real fun, as I see it, is in the diplomacy and scientific research part of the game, but the game would have been just as good, if not better, if it had been turn-based. At the other end of the scale, the only really successful turn-based small scale games are the Combat Mission series and even that is 'psuedo real-time' in that it's equivalent to pausing a real-time game every 60 seconds to analyse the game and issuing fresh orders where appropriate. I think AA is hitting the upper limit of real-time in terms of scaling.
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
I'll take it one step further and state that continuous time games (of all genres) are fully valid only when the player controls a single game consciousness in the game. IOW, flight sims (well, all vehicular sims), FPS's, single character rpg/action/adventure, MMORPG, etc.
Whenever more than a single game consciousness must be controlled by the player, more time is needed to account for the virtual "thinking" of more than one mind. (There is no substitute for the instantaneous reaction of a single human mind in a fluid situation.) The more you multiply the virtual consciousnesses required to be controlled by the gamer, the further from "reality" is the gameplay.
A good "friendly AI" becomes essential at this point. The action might unfold in a pleasing, seemingly realistic manner, but decision-making is where multiple-consciousness continuous time games suffer the most. Pausing w/ orders helps a little, but does not completely overcome the issue. A turn-based game overcomes this by permitting the single consciousness time to do the thinking of all virtual minds that are necessary, given the patience to do it carefully. Of course, the action does not flow as smoothly, but the decision-making is modelled much better IMO.
So, there are the basic tradeoffs I see between the two styles.
Whenever more than a single game consciousness must be controlled by the player, more time is needed to account for the virtual "thinking" of more than one mind. (There is no substitute for the instantaneous reaction of a single human mind in a fluid situation.) The more you multiply the virtual consciousnesses required to be controlled by the gamer, the further from "reality" is the gameplay.
A good "friendly AI" becomes essential at this point. The action might unfold in a pleasing, seemingly realistic manner, but decision-making is where multiple-consciousness continuous time games suffer the most. Pausing w/ orders helps a little, but does not completely overcome the issue. A turn-based game overcomes this by permitting the single consciousness time to do the thinking of all virtual minds that are necessary, given the patience to do it carefully. Of course, the action does not flow as smoothly, but the decision-making is modelled much better IMO.
So, there are the basic tradeoffs I see between the two styles.
Couldn't agree more - the AI in AA:RDOA, both friendly and unfriendly, is of a good standard but still leaves you with the impression that your subordinates are all pretty incompetent. In theory HTTR will deal with many of the issues to make the decision-making feel more 'organic'.Capitaine wrote:A good "friendly AI" becomes essential at this point. The action might unfold in a pleasing, seemingly realistic manner, but decision-making is where multiple-consciousness continuous time games suffer the most. Pausing w/ orders helps a little, but does not completely overcome the issue. A turn-based game overcomes this by permitting the single consciousness time to do the thinking of all virtual minds that are necessary, given the patience to do it carefully. Of course, the action does not flow as smoothly, but the decision-making is modelled much better IMO.
So, there are the basic tradeoffs I see between the two styles.
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Capitaine,
Your point that a turn based system allows adequate time to "simulate" correct decision making for multiple entities while a continuous time game doesn't is true enough where you cannot pause the continuous time game. But I see no difference in terms of the time available for adequate decision making where you can pause, such as in our AA system. In fact a pausable continuous time ( PCT ) game allows you to take time out when you want and to run it fast when there is no need for decision to be made. With turn based systems you are required to make the decision every turn, whether you are interested in doing so or not. And that's why turn based systems are all too often laborious and tedious to play.
As Kevin points out it all hangs on the quality of the AI in a PCT system. Out aim is to design the AI such that it does a reasonable job of handling your subordinate forces. Like the holy grail this is a never ending quest. The AI can always be improved upon. I think RDOA was pretty ground-breaking in that regard ( but hey, I'm the designer, you expect me to say that
). HTTR certainly is another major advance forward. And I'm sure our Bulge game will advance the cause further again.
As to scalability, I think that our existing AA engine would handle larger scale actions very well in all areas except combat and reactions. The Movement system would need to be modified, but to a degree we have already built that in. The planning engine, command and control, reassessment, intel etc would all work fine. However, at the moment we simulate combat in a very detailed manner. This would have to change to handle actions where the base unit was a regiment or higher. In turn this would require the reaction rules to be rewritten. All major work.
So for the moment we will focus on the current company unit scale and leave the larger scale operations to the turn based systems. See there is definitely room for both systems to flourish.
Your point that a turn based system allows adequate time to "simulate" correct decision making for multiple entities while a continuous time game doesn't is true enough where you cannot pause the continuous time game. But I see no difference in terms of the time available for adequate decision making where you can pause, such as in our AA system. In fact a pausable continuous time ( PCT ) game allows you to take time out when you want and to run it fast when there is no need for decision to be made. With turn based systems you are required to make the decision every turn, whether you are interested in doing so or not. And that's why turn based systems are all too often laborious and tedious to play.
As Kevin points out it all hangs on the quality of the AI in a PCT system. Out aim is to design the AI such that it does a reasonable job of handling your subordinate forces. Like the holy grail this is a never ending quest. The AI can always be improved upon. I think RDOA was pretty ground-breaking in that regard ( but hey, I'm the designer, you expect me to say that
). HTTR certainly is another major advance forward. And I'm sure our Bulge game will advance the cause further again.As to scalability, I think that our existing AA engine would handle larger scale actions very well in all areas except combat and reactions. The Movement system would need to be modified, but to a degree we have already built that in. The planning engine, command and control, reassessment, intel etc would all work fine. However, at the moment we simulate combat in a very detailed manner. This would have to change to handle actions where the base unit was a regiment or higher. In turn this would require the reaction rules to be rewritten. All major work.
So for the moment we will focus on the current company unit scale and leave the larger scale operations to the turn based systems. See there is definitely room for both systems to flourish.
Time for me to throw in my two cents (opinion).
I actually play AA in a turn based fashion. This means that I usually leave the clock running at various speeds while I observe the battle. When I come to the conclusion that it is time to issue some orders, then I always pause. I usually create a checkpoint save of the existing orders and then the new orders each with their respective time stamp and suffix.
I arrived at this manner of play for two reasons:
(1) I was a Combat Mission player and I was very used to the iteration between order and action phases of play.
(2) I was very poor playing AA when I started out. Creating check points allowed me to explore my mistakes without having to replay the entire game. After improving a little, I stopped reloading check points and back tracking. However, I still pause and create the check points.
---
Why do I still play in this fashion of observe(run) -> order(pause) -> observe(run) -> order(pause) ...?
I found that playing in this fashion enforce a discipline about:
(1) Identifying the key decision points of a battle. The battle may be fluid and continuous, but there are some small finite windows for revising plans and issuing new orders.
(2) It has caused me to get very deliberate about what I do, when I do it, and why I do it.
(3) It has made me very concious of committing to a plan and not being indecisive.
---
Well, what is the point of my post as it pertains to the topic of this thread? Here it is: If you like turn based strategy games, then you may regard/play AA as a highly enhanced turn based game. Rather than having fixed length turns (in terms of time represented), they are now of variable length. So, it can be 10 simulated minutes between turns or 5 simulated hours. Additionally, the game gives you speeds that you can control the passage of time. So, in a traditional turn based game, the game might move very slowly with many turns to get through periods when little happens. In AA, you can simply fly right through that tedium by not pausing and running at FAST. Now, when the battle is raging, things are not going as you hoped, reinforcements have arrived, then you can pause and work out very painstaking and personalized orders for each and every unit if you care too (just like you might do on a game board). Of course, in AA, you probably wouldn't want to do that in such an extreme, since the AI commanders do a reasonable job of taking your orders and doing your bidding.
---
The game does not force you to cut corners and juggle more than you can handle in order to play it. It is all up to you. Compared to some of the other Beta Team members, I think I must play at quite a slower rate. I have often spent 2-3 hours prior to a scenario reviewing the objectives, terrain, OOB, formulating a plan, a time table etc... This game is very adaptable to personal styles more so than most. This is mainly the result of being able to start and stop it as you please and being able to give orders at any level in the command structure.
Well, I have rambled enough.
I actually play AA in a turn based fashion. This means that I usually leave the clock running at various speeds while I observe the battle. When I come to the conclusion that it is time to issue some orders, then I always pause. I usually create a checkpoint save of the existing orders and then the new orders each with their respective time stamp and suffix.
I arrived at this manner of play for two reasons:
(1) I was a Combat Mission player and I was very used to the iteration between order and action phases of play.
(2) I was very poor playing AA when I started out. Creating check points allowed me to explore my mistakes without having to replay the entire game. After improving a little, I stopped reloading check points and back tracking. However, I still pause and create the check points.
---
Why do I still play in this fashion of observe(run) -> order(pause) -> observe(run) -> order(pause) ...?
I found that playing in this fashion enforce a discipline about:
(1) Identifying the key decision points of a battle. The battle may be fluid and continuous, but there are some small finite windows for revising plans and issuing new orders.
(2) It has caused me to get very deliberate about what I do, when I do it, and why I do it.
(3) It has made me very concious of committing to a plan and not being indecisive.
---
Well, what is the point of my post as it pertains to the topic of this thread? Here it is: If you like turn based strategy games, then you may regard/play AA as a highly enhanced turn based game. Rather than having fixed length turns (in terms of time represented), they are now of variable length. So, it can be 10 simulated minutes between turns or 5 simulated hours. Additionally, the game gives you speeds that you can control the passage of time. So, in a traditional turn based game, the game might move very slowly with many turns to get through periods when little happens. In AA, you can simply fly right through that tedium by not pausing and running at FAST. Now, when the battle is raging, things are not going as you hoped, reinforcements have arrived, then you can pause and work out very painstaking and personalized orders for each and every unit if you care too (just like you might do on a game board). Of course, in AA, you probably wouldn't want to do that in such an extreme, since the AI commanders do a reasonable job of taking your orders and doing your bidding.
---
The game does not force you to cut corners and juggle more than you can handle in order to play it. It is all up to you. Compared to some of the other Beta Team members, I think I must play at quite a slower rate. I have often spent 2-3 hours prior to a scenario reviewing the objectives, terrain, OOB, formulating a plan, a time table etc... This game is very adaptable to personal styles more so than most. This is mainly the result of being able to start and stop it as you please and being able to give orders at any level in the command structure.
Well, I have rambled enough.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
I have found it becomes more and more difficult to go back to turn based games after picking up real time games. The tension just isn't there anymore.
I picked up Titans of Steel and after an hour or so, I was bored, not that the game is not good, it just doesn't have that element of constant threat and pressure to perform.
AA puts you in the fight, yes you can pause to run for more coffee, but the fact you paused isn't going to let you off the hook and completely change your plans just because unit xxx happened to pop up on your screen. Thats what is lacking from turn based games, the "lock in" factor that once you have given the orders, you really can't magically reverse yourself and undo the damage from a mistake.
Mistakes happen in war, by forcing us to live with them when we make them, we are that much closer to being there from an immersion factor. Turn Based games allow you the million "what if" chances which the real commanders never had. It spoils the effect of being under fire as you are not sitting there watching the unit get mauled...
I picked up Titans of Steel and after an hour or so, I was bored, not that the game is not good, it just doesn't have that element of constant threat and pressure to perform.
AA puts you in the fight, yes you can pause to run for more coffee, but the fact you paused isn't going to let you off the hook and completely change your plans just because unit xxx happened to pop up on your screen. Thats what is lacking from turn based games, the "lock in" factor that once you have given the orders, you really can't magically reverse yourself and undo the damage from a mistake.
Mistakes happen in war, by forcing us to live with them when we make them, we are that much closer to being there from an immersion factor. Turn Based games allow you the million "what if" chances which the real commanders never had. It spoils the effect of being under fire as you are not sitting there watching the unit get mauled...
I think it's the level of command that creates the problem of scaleability in 'real-time' games. Using 'Market Garden' as an example, as the Allies you'd go from being Horrocks/Urquhart to Dempsey/Brereton. As a Corps commander your primary concern is combat and you command from a relatively close-up position. As an army commander there are many other concerns - ensuring supply/communication lines are clear, replacements are allocated to units, strategic planning, co-ordination with air force or naval commanders to ensure their units are available to support your troops and so forth. In real life the army general deals with the 'big picture' leaving the detail to his trusted staff. To replicate this in a 'real-time' game would either lead to boredom or management overload. In a turn-based environment where orders are issued on a half-daily or daily basis you can be both General and Chief-of-Staff and as such is probably as 'realistic' as a playable large-scale wargame can be.Arjuna wrote: As to scalability, I think that our existing AA engine would handle larger scale actions very well in all areas except combat and reactions. The Movement system would need to be modified, but to a degree we have already built that in. The planning engine, command and control, reassessment, intel etc would all work fine. However, at the moment we simulate combat in a very detailed manner. This would have to change to handle actions where the base unit was a regiment or higher. In turn this would require the reaction rules to be rewritten. All major work.
So for the moment we will focus on the current company unit scale and leave the larger scale operations to the turn based systems. See there is definitely room for both systems to flourish.
To summarise my own viewpoint- 'real-time' for 'up close and personal' and turn-based for 'deep strategy'. And I love 'em both.
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
The problem is that this lack of time threat turns deep strategy into chess without the timeclock. Gets boring when you have an unlimited amount of time to plan and replan until you have the perfect move.turn-based for 'deep strategy'.
It would be interesting to see some form of time clock imposed on some of the hex based games to put some pressure back into things.
-
Adam Parker
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2002 8:05 am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
I've been following this forum out of curioisty for a while as anything new to our hobby is worth the interest especially something that breaks the mould.
I'm of the school of thought that its not a matter of one system (eg: TB vs CT) being "better than the other" in deciding whether or not to invest in it - rather than "making sure its polished".
I haven't played the orriginal to this title but acknowledge its desire to provide a new avenue to war gaming - to scale up the Close Combat feel so to speak to the platoon and company scale.
My feeling is simply, don't rush it. Make the interface as user friendly and intuitive as possible - make the game with war gamers in mind and not the RTS crowd who with their access to endless artifical stimulants and "doof doof" music, can cope with a myriad of units roving around a map at once, constructing and building ad nauseam whilst keeping track of mechbot special abilities etc :p I jest of course.
But with user friendliness in mind, with an engine that doesn't tax the average 2003 PC, this title should be an interesting way to explore Market Garden at the per unit, "under battalion", "individual battle" level.
Just like I am finding Korsun Pocket (as expected) in no way stepping on or being stepped on by Korsun 44, I expect this title to clearly be a separate beast from anything current or forthcoming covering the same era of history.
The issue is, the worst thing that can be done for a title such as HTTR is to rush it without all bugs firstly being attempted to be identified and then fully ironed out. I recommend avoiding this natural tendency to rush to consumers at all costs. The industry can wait a little longer for a title which will be unique in exploring Market Garden at the battle rather than campaign level. Failing to do so will see any new title with a fresh learning curve such as HTTR quickly become a lemon regardless of being TB or CT based.
As the nouveau-retro saying goes: "Build it (and beta test the living daylights out of it) - they will come".
Adam.
I'm of the school of thought that its not a matter of one system (eg: TB vs CT) being "better than the other" in deciding whether or not to invest in it - rather than "making sure its polished".
I haven't played the orriginal to this title but acknowledge its desire to provide a new avenue to war gaming - to scale up the Close Combat feel so to speak to the platoon and company scale.
My feeling is simply, don't rush it. Make the interface as user friendly and intuitive as possible - make the game with war gamers in mind and not the RTS crowd who with their access to endless artifical stimulants and "doof doof" music, can cope with a myriad of units roving around a map at once, constructing and building ad nauseam whilst keeping track of mechbot special abilities etc :p I jest of course.
But with user friendliness in mind, with an engine that doesn't tax the average 2003 PC, this title should be an interesting way to explore Market Garden at the per unit, "under battalion", "individual battle" level.
Just like I am finding Korsun Pocket (as expected) in no way stepping on or being stepped on by Korsun 44, I expect this title to clearly be a separate beast from anything current or forthcoming covering the same era of history.
The issue is, the worst thing that can be done for a title such as HTTR is to rush it without all bugs firstly being attempted to be identified and then fully ironed out. I recommend avoiding this natural tendency to rush to consumers at all costs. The industry can wait a little longer for a title which will be unique in exploring Market Garden at the battle rather than campaign level. Failing to do so will see any new title with a fresh learning curve such as HTTR quickly become a lemon regardless of being TB or CT based.
As the nouveau-retro saying goes: "Build it (and beta test the living daylights out of it) - they will come".
Adam.
I wouldn't worry too much about a 'rush to the consumer' - the release date on this one has been put back a couple times already to ensure that it will indeed be nice and polished.
I agree that the underlying system isn't as important as the specific implementation in a particular game; having said that, since starting to play AA in the Battlefront days, I haven't been able to find anything turn-based nearly as immersive.
Regards
33
I agree that the underlying system isn't as important as the specific implementation in a particular game; having said that, since starting to play AA in the Battlefront days, I haven't been able to find anything turn-based nearly as immersive.
Regards
33
Steve Golf33 Long
Take your point but not convinced by your analogy unless you are referring to playing against another human. If you are playing against the AI then the use of pauses and savegames makes it just as easy to replay a strategy until you find the perfect plan as a turn-based game. I like the idea of a timeclock option though, 'Battle-Isle - The Andosia War' - featured the idea a few years back. Awful game though.Mr.Frag wrote:The problem is that this lack of time threat turns deep strategy into chess without the timeclock. Gets boring when you have an unlimited amount of time to plan and replan until you have the perfect move.
It would be interesting to see some form of time clock imposed on some of the hex based games to put some pressure back into things.
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Whether it is turn based or continous time is dependant upon the scale.
For the:
Individual soldier
The squad leader
The platoon commander
Everything happens in continous time
For the company commander and battalion commanders, things happen partly in turn based time and partly in continous time.
As you go higher up the chain of command, things tend to happen more in a turn based style. Senior officers plan things to arrive at a specific time and place and in a specific order.
As far as gaming is concerned, continous time provides the most tension and excitement – I played all versions of Close Combat over 6 years.
Turn based games, are great for playing a turn in a busy life and PBEM to your opponent.
They are also great for sitting down with a beer and slowly playing a turn in a relaxed manner without the tension of a continous time game.
For the:
Individual soldier
The squad leader
The platoon commander
Everything happens in continous time
For the company commander and battalion commanders, things happen partly in turn based time and partly in continous time.
As you go higher up the chain of command, things tend to happen more in a turn based style. Senior officers plan things to arrive at a specific time and place and in a specific order.
As far as gaming is concerned, continous time provides the most tension and excitement – I played all versions of Close Combat over 6 years.
Turn based games, are great for playing a turn in a busy life and PBEM to your opponent.
They are also great for sitting down with a beer and slowly playing a turn in a relaxed manner without the tension of a continous time game.
I think the "versus" is less significant than each type being the more appropriate to a particular game design and the nature of the particular scenario(s). Scale is very relevant to that, but there are other factors as well. For example, I think Tiller's Squad Battles series (especially the Vietnam games) actually "works" for me much better than the Panzer Campaigns series although it's hard to pin down exactly why. SB are out-and-out turn based games, but simulate small unit tactics very well and are great fun to boot - just as exciting as Close Combat IMHO and a lot more tactically flexible.
Continuous time worked extremely well in AA as the scenario (which is very time pressured) is very well suited to it - far better suited than the Panzer Campaigns system I suspect. I have my doubts how effective it would be on a larger scale. You would have a very playable game maybe, but I think realism might well be a casualty.
P.S On the subject of the HPS games, is anyone else getting just a little tired of the same thing being churned out again and again ? I have three of the SB games and two PC, but have no intention of paying more for the same again. I just wish Tiller would turn them into some sort of system - you buy a core module with one scenario free and then buy more scenarios for $10-$15 as they come along. I'm sure HPS would make more money that way, and fans could get to collect and play all the scenarios without needing a second mortgage. Food for thought for "Decisive Battles of WW2" maybe ?
Continuous time worked extremely well in AA as the scenario (which is very time pressured) is very well suited to it - far better suited than the Panzer Campaigns system I suspect. I have my doubts how effective it would be on a larger scale. You would have a very playable game maybe, but I think realism might well be a casualty.
P.S On the subject of the HPS games, is anyone else getting just a little tired of the same thing being churned out again and again ? I have three of the SB games and two PC, but have no intention of paying more for the same again. I just wish Tiller would turn them into some sort of system - you buy a core module with one scenario free and then buy more scenarios for $10-$15 as they come along. I'm sure HPS would make more money that way, and fans could get to collect and play all the scenarios without needing a second mortgage. Food for thought for "Decisive Battles of WW2" maybe ?