What Complexity do you enjoy Most?

[ravinhood]

I'm taking a survey sorta to find out what most like in complexity levels of their wargames.

So, on a scale of 1 to 10 what complexity do you enjoy "MOST"?

I myself find I enjoy "most" between 5 and 6

To give minimum to extreme I would say Empires Deluxe rates between 1 to 3 and War in the Pacific a 9-10, middle of the road would be like Combat Mission 5 (to me anyways).

[oi_you_nutter]

complexity is also relative to learning the game system

HOI was pretty complex until I "learnt" the interface and the mechanisms, afterward the learning curve it probably dropped a few points in complexity. now it seems second nature.

the same goes for HTTR, Civ3, CM etc

SR2010 is my latest learning nightmare, it contains so much info and the ability to micromange yourself silly, currently a 9 on complexity and will not drop lower than an 8 after I get my head around the interface (its not a bad interface, just that there is a lot of it)

the games I like tend to have lots of details and "period flavour" and would then tend to be more complex, so as an average i would probably enjoy a 6-7

games in general are becoming more complex, gamers expectations, hardware speeds and fancy graphics come at a cost in complexity.

the Empires game that I played on a vax 15 years ago is a 1-2 complexity. the equivalent mainstream "beer and pretzels" game today would be GGWaW or Axis and Allies with a complexity of 3-5

[Sarge]

8+ ASL scale [;)]

[Fred98]

More complex is better – then the truly best players win.

But information must be easily available. We must take advantage of computers to make wargaming better.

For example War in the Pacific is not complex. Instead, there is a lot to do. The information screens are wonderful and could never be done in a board game.

But each screen could be improved by adding 2 or 3 columns otherwise sometimes you need to hunt around for the information.

Battles in Normandy uses hot keys to display the variables and so the information is easy to find.

Complex is good. But easy to find information is all important.

[Bossy573]

Depends on my mood, energy level, time available, etc. I prefer all ranges so I can play what I can handle at any one time.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

More complex is better – then the truly best players win.

Well said Joe [;)]

[Fred98]

If it is really complex and the information is really easy to find, then it is a joy to play.

If the information is difficult to find then the game is a chore.

In the board gaming days finding the information was ALWAYS a chore.

Its important to distinguish between a “chore” and “complex”. Sending an email is technically very complex but it is not a chore to do so.

-

[IainMcNeil]

I like complex decisions & not complex games. Many games make you think they are complicated by offering vast amounts of information or a bad interface, but once you have processed the information available the decision making is simple. Some games like this get great reviews because the reviewers are scared to admit they dont understand it!

Other games have very simple rules & interfaces and yet have very complex decisions. This is the sign of a well designed game. E.g. Chess, Diplomacy etc.

[kafka]

Hi Iain,

what about moving to a more modern era after the realese of Legion 2? I'd like too see how your great team would cope with the medieval era and maybe even touch on such topics like the nepoleonic wars or ww1 or ww2.

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks kafka - we are considering widening the scope of Legion II. Can't say too much about it for now though

[markhwalker]

More complex is better – then the truly best players win.

Perhaps, but I like a game that tests my skill as a tactitician not my ability to remember rules.

To me it isn't all about the rules complexity, but also --in games that use scenarios-- the size of the scenarios. I've been goofing around with SP MBT the past couple of days, and most of the scenarios are ludicrous. I DON"T WANT to lead a battalion of tanks, one at a time. That's not fun, it's work. Same thing with Combat Mission... the small scenarios are a dream, the large ones a nightmare. I hvae to FORCE myself to design large scenarios in Lock 'n Load. I have have a real preference for one-mappers. Your mileage may vary.

Best,
Mark

[James Ward]

If the GAME is enjoyable the the complexity doesn't matter much to me. The Civ games weren't real complex yet they are among my all time favorites.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

More complex is better – then the truly best players win.

Perhaps, but I like a game that tests my skill as a tactitician not my ability to remember rules.

Yep. Agreed. And to avoid remembering rules and remembering game mechanics, you want an innovative user interface.

IE use computers to make wargaming better. ( love that copy and paste - that too is a computer innovation ) [&o]

-

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

More complex is better – then the truly best players win.

I don't agree with that at all. Chess is a far simpler game rules-wise even than the least complex Matrix release, and nobody would claim that the best players don't usually win that. There can be huge potential for variation, creativity and skill within even the simplest rules if the game is well designed. A complex game can hand an advantage (NOT necessarily a decisive one) to the player most familiar with every intricacy of the rules and system, and in the ways they can be exploited. Of course, those players frequently would be the "best" anyway, as to learn a game that well you have to play a lot and gain experience in the process.

The only reason I see for complexity at all is to make the game as realistic as possible. If a game is realistic, the best player should be the best "general"; most familiar in (and potentially creative with) historical strategy and tactics within restrictions dictated by equally realistic supply, diplomatic, resource problems, etc. If those things are handled correctly, complexity is justified and may well reward the "best" player - not because he knows the rules but because he knows the real-world factors those rules are attempting to simulate. If complex rules do not achieve that, why bother? A game may well be just as challenging, and considerably more entertaining, without them.

[Zap]

For me, Detail in wargames usually means historically more accurate(much of the time). We are referring to war games that take their inspiration from real war history. These do not include fantasy or sci-fi games.
So complexity/detail will almost be a necessary part of a war game if it depicts a certain historical battle or war period. Chess does not fit in the catagory mentioned complex rules did not have to be written for Chess. Because Chess is generic.

I prefer a more complex or if you will, histrically correct simulation. Level of 8 or nine but I play them all. Its according to what I am looking for at the time.

I conclude, that complexity/detail/historical accuracy can be made less complex or time consuming with the computer. With the computer it is much easier to realize what is being talked about in this thread.

[EricGuitarJames]

I like complexity if we're talking about the depth of the simulation - that would be a 9 or even a 10. But I prefer the GUI to be as simple as possible given the constraints of my first point, therefore I guess that would be a 6 or 7.

Very difficult to generalise though because they are only factors in the most important part of the game, the gameplay itself. Classic RTS games in the mould of 'Command and Conquer' or 'Age of Empires' can hardly be called complex however it's defined, but the gameplay is great fun.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker



Perhaps, but I like a game that tests my skill as a tactitician not my ability to remember rules.

To me it isn't all about the rules complexity, but also --in games that use scenarios-- the size of the scenarios. I've been goofing around with SP MBT the past couple of days, and most of the scenarios are ludicrous. I DON"T WANT to lead a battalion of tanks, one at a time. That's not fun, it's work. Same thing with Combat Mission... the small scenarios are a dream, the large ones a nightmare. I hvae to FORCE myself to design large scenarios in Lock 'n Load. I have have a real preference for one-mappers. Your mileage may vary.

Best,
Mark

Agree totally. I dont mind games that are complex, I love games with loads of detail. I however dont want to spend half my time just moving units nor do I have the time to play games that take months to play a scenario or hours to play a turn. If I was single fair enough.

I enjoyed the small scenarios with CMBO and CMBB but not the massive ones. I enjoy SB as its so quick to play even with many units (could do with more detail though).

I want a game which is complex but more complex under the hood. I want a game with loads of detail and info (adds to immersion). I also want to be able to get somewhere playing it.