View Full Version : Flame suits on. It's time to compare wargames - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly!!!
Don Maddox
14 Aug 03, 04:39
Okay guys, it's been a while since we had one of these threads and it's about time someone threw some JP8 on the fire! First, let me say that these threads have a way of heating up and taking on a life of their own. Having said that, let's don't hold back. Tell it like it is and maybe the game designers will take it as constructive input. Enough of that crap, let's roll!
First, let's talk about the new Korsun Pocket game from MatrixGames. This game seems to have caused quite a stir and is getting some very high praise from critics. From what I can tell it's a true operational-level game, and the emphasis is on strategy, not micromanaging every little detail like the Panzer Campaigns series. I should say that I have not played this game yet, but a lot of folks are saying the AI is the best on the market. Is that important to many of you with the PBEM environment being what it is today? Personally, I play against the AI a lot. I'm not sure it's appropriate to directly compare KP to Korsun '44 as they are very different systems and use different scales.Thoughts?
http://war.robjess.com/archives/kpstart.jpg (http://www.wargamer.com/wachtamrhein/images/kpbig.htm)
As many of you know I spent a lot of time with Talonsoft's Campaign Series before moving on to newer systems. I created many of the graphic and sound mods out there and I thoroughly enjoyed East Front II. Having said that, I took it hard when Talonsoft dissolved and basicially ended the series courtesy of Take2. :mad: John Tiller did much of the work on this title and I thought the series had great potential to expand into the modern era and/or add additional features and scenario packs. I remember when the original East Front was released there was a lot of bad press about it. It had some bugs, but mainly the critics were upset about the choice of scale. They said platoon scale for a wargame just wouldn't work. I beg to differ. Platoon scale in many ways is at the top of my favorite list. It's large enough to recreate some fairly significant engagements, but small enough so that tactics actually mean something. You really have to pay attention to the terrain, unlike many other wargames where terrain simply means you move through that hex more slowly.
This brings me to the Panzer/Modern Campaigns series from HPS. I personally wish that John Tiller had kept this system at the platoon scale like his earlier Campaign Series, however, the larger scale does allow for the recreation of entire battles and campaigns. The level of detail and user options in this series are nearly unrivaled, but the micromanagement and time consuming turns seem to be too much for many wargamers. I have heard a lot of people say the system is just a "cookie-cutter" approach and there are just too many units, thus the game engine is no good. I disagree. It is fair to say that some of the full campaigns are really only fit for truly hardcore wargamers. Playing a single turn of the full Kursk scenario is similar to playing Daniel McBride's Drang Nach Osten for ACOW. On the other hand, this is really a scenario designer issue, not a game engine issue. Tiller and co have refocused themselves on somewhat smaller scenarios with their more recent releases, and there is no reason why smaller more reasonable scenarios can't be created by talented players.
http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/PZC/PZC_Sicily/sicily2_small.jpg (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/PZC/PZC_Sicily/sicily2.jpg)
http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/PZC/PZC_kursk/Scrshot1_small.jpg (http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/PZC/PZC_kursk/Scrshot1.jpg)
While we're on the subject of the Panzer Campaigns series, I know this subject is going to come up so we may as well get it out in the open now. Tiller's approach of creating a whole separate game for each new battle instead of creating a single game and then releasing add-on packs does not sit well with a lot of gamers, myself included. I have interviewed John on numerous occasions and he has stated his reasons for doing so. As I understand it, this is mostly a financial/marketing decision, not really a game design issue. My own opinion is that this approach is a mistake, and I further believe it has kept the PC system from being an even bigger success than it is. Still, the games are good in ther own right and I will buy them. What do you think?
The Squad Battles system, also from John Tiller, is not getting the attention it deserves. Warfare HQ may do something about that soon. This is a solid system that suffers from horrible graphics. Fotunately some talented wargamers have taken it on themselves to release various mods that have this game looking and playing very fine. Look for a full review of Squad Battles: Advance on the Reich very soon at Warfare HQ.
What can you say about Combat Mission? This system has unlimited potential and some of the most innovative features around. It's not that old, but it's already a classic. Having said that, there are some things that could be better. Some of the graphic mods for vehicles and terrain turn this system in a real treat. Why doesn't Battlefront have graphic artists doing this from the start? We're doing half the work for them! Don't get me wrong, I love mods and I have done one or two myself. :cool: On the other hand the Combat Mission series has been a smashing success and I can see little excuse for the placeholder default graphics that come with the CD. Battlefront needs to shape up and raise their standards a bit with their subsequent releases. They are well aware of how popular the various textures and mods are for the series. If they would fix that the series would then be nearly perfect.
The Operational Art of War. No other wargame attempts to scale the heights that Norm Koger's classic does. It can represent nearly any conflict, at any scale, in the last 100 years. It's famed event engine is unrivaled and makes it one of the most powerful systems ever created. This system does suffer from some shortcomings though. It's interface is atiquated and not very user-friendly. It can be hard to tell what's going on and the information is not presented in an easy to assimilate fashion. This system could gain significantly from an interface overhaul. Let's compare wargames for a moment, ACOW vs Panzer Campaigns. These systems are somewhat different scales, but they cover much of the same wargame terrain. ACOW has a clear advantage with it's event engine capabilities, but these are only of any real use in the hands of a talented scenario author who dedicates some serious time to the task at hand. Panzer Campaigns, on the other hand, offers somewhat finer detail and control over individual units. Which one is a more realistic recreation of a given battle? That's a hard question to answer. What do you think?
Combat Leader: Cross of Iron. Tastes great, less filling. This looks to be a solid wargame with great potential. Watch out for this one.
Battlefields from MatrixGames. A new forray in the field of operational-level wargames. Watch the MatrixGames website for more info and a webpage update on this one soon. http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/main.asp
http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/images/screenshots/BFScreen0001.JPG
It's a bit unfair to compare wargames to each other, but it's fun isn't it? :devil:
Don Maddox
14 Aug 03, 05:07
John Pancoast wrote on the Matrix forums:
Don't have KP yet, should arrive tomorrow, but did have the HPS game.
Sold it.
The HPS games are good, but I'm not a big fan of the Grand Tactical scale they use. It's a compromise, and like most of those, shows it negatively imo. A game should be either Operational or Tactical, make a choice, don't blend, imo.
In all their PzC games, to me, there's just WAAAAY to many units. It becomes a chore, not an enjoyable hobby, to make moves, especially with the two hour time scale, which is also a mistake imo.
The SSG games flow so much better imo. I find myself concentrating on strategy, etc. with them much more so than with the HPS stuff.
Also, the AI in SSG stuff is head and shoulders above any HPS/Tiller game.
Hope this helps.
I'm not sure that grand tactical doesn't work well, but it is indeed a compromise. With 1km hexes that means most of the units have a range of 1hex, thus negating most terrain obstruction effects. The direct fire resolution for attacks makes the game take a long time to play and the system would benefit from a quck review feature of some sort to speed up things.
It's been said that one man's "micromanagement" is another man's "just right." Stick to the smaller scenarios.
ER_Chaser
14 Aug 03, 10:07
You achieved something you probably did not intend .... I am determined to by Combat Mission now :)
As for those comments, why not Campaign series? I think it is a very nice compromise of complexity and playability. I like it very much... Maybe I should write more later...
Don, I enjoyed you observations. I agree with or concede that you express a well supported view based on personal preference with regard to most items you raise. The one point where I have significant disagreement is concerning the CM series graphics. When CMBO came out, it blew most of us away just looking at the battlefield in the demo scenario of Valley of Trouble. The biggest part of this may have been the 3d battlefield, but the units, especially the tanks, were head and shoulders above anything else out there at the time. Graphiclly, it was like putting the latest and best flight sim on the ground. Since that time modders have put together winter versions of the units (which I agree should have been included as part of CMBB) and hi-res versions, which was a major step forward in both eye candy and game immersion.
The CMBB units are all hi-res out of the box. The terrain is also improved, although probably not enough. Based on my regular observations, only a limited number of the mods out there have added significant quality over the originals. These include (but are not limited to) the new German half tracks recently released by Andrew Fox, and some the uniform mods. Many more are excellent (like those by Mr. Noobie and Saturnin), but are a matter of personal taste.
One game you did not mention is Uncommon Valor. This game fascinates me, but I have spent very little time with it because (at least for me) it is so difficult to get into. The first version had a very short and limited turorial, which just left you hanging. Version 2 of the manual has no tutorial. I have kept a sharp eye for articles presenting a nut and bolts approach on how to get into this game, but have seen nothing that comes close to fitting the bill. Maybe one of our own folks would be willing to provide some insight. In any case it's badly needed, especially with Grigsby's next game (essentually an expanded Uncommon Valor) on the horizon.
Deltapooh
14 Aug 03, 12:08
Well, I'm just sick of all the WWII-based wargames on the market. These companies need to get their heads out of history books, sit down, read up on geopolitics, to create realistic games portraying the future of warfare. At times, I see the WWII as a cover, similar to that of multiplayer in FPS and Tactical shooter games.
I'm sticking with Armored Task Force. It doesn't have PBEM, but at least it's based around modern warfare.
(Of course my criticism should not be misunderstood as being disrespectful to veterans of past wars.)
Personally, the AI/PO is of no interest to me any more, I havent played a wargame (TOAW/Campaign Series) against the computer for over two years.
I used to think that it could be of some value when designing a scenario, but there are allways willing playtesters out there.
It might be nice if someone could release a game designed specifically for PBEM play an put all their resources into the game system and ignore the AI.
Don Maddox
14 Aug 03, 12:52
Well, I'm just sick of all the WWII-based wargames on the market. These companies need to get their heads out of history books, sit down, read up on geopolitics, to create realistic games portraying the future of warfare. At times, I see the WWII as a cover, similar to that of multiplayer in FPS and Tactical shooter games.
Oh my. Gentlemen, start your engines. :devil:
I like both a lot. It sort of depends on what kind of mood I'm in. Modern conflicts haven't gotten nearly as much attention as WWII stuff, but that is starting to change. The various HPS games and Armored Task Force have gone a long way toward opening up the market.
Don Maddox
14 Aug 03, 13:14
Don, I enjoyed you observations. I agree with or concede that you express a well supported view based on personal preference with regard to most items you raise. The one point where I have significant disagreement is concerning the CM series graphics. When CMBO came out, it blew most of us away just looking at the battlefield in the demo scenario of Valley of Trouble. The biggest part of this may have been the 3d battlefield, but the units, especially the tanks, were head and shoulders above anything else out there at the time. Graphically, it was like putting the latest and best flight sim on the ground. Since that time modders have put together winter versions of the units (which I agree should have been included as part of CMBB) and hi-res versions, which was a major step forward in both eye candy and game immersion.
You hit a nerve with this one. My favorite issue to complain about! http://www.warfarehq.com/Articles/Wargame_Articles/grognards_graphics.shtml
The CMBB units are all hi-res out of the box. The terrain is also improved, although probably not enough. Based on my regular observations, only a limited number of the mods out there have added significant quality over the originals. These include (but are not limited to) the new German half tracks recently released by Andrew Fox, and some the uniform mods. Many more are excellent (like those by Mr. Noobie and Saturnin), but are a matter of personal taste.
I beg to differ on that. Many of the user-made mods are head and shoulders above the stuff that came with the CD. I agree that CMBB is better than CMBO, but it's still about five years behind most other games on the market. The Combat Mission graphics engine is quite crude and inefficient compared with Operation Flashpoint (which is several years old now), or any of the 1st person shooters currently on the market. Unreal2 sports polygon counts an order-of-magnitude greater than even the largest CMBB maps, and furthermore sports all the latest and greatest DirectX9 support. Full screen anti-alising, trilinear filtering, advanced lighting and particle effects, custom shader effects, etc.
Now before I go off on a tangent about graphics let me ask a question. Why do wargamers always say graphics are not an important part of the game? There was a time, when due to technology limitations of the average PC, a trade-off had to be made by developers. Graphic bells and whistles were left out so that additional AI and game features could be put in. That time passed a long time ago. Why should wargamers be singled out for special - and by that I mean less desirable - treatment by developers? I mean flight sims are all about the flying right? Game designers should concentrate on flight characteristics, not the pretty clouds outside the cockpit. One could make that same argument about nearly any game, wargame or otherwise. I don't buy that wargamers should settle for less. We're paying just as much (and sometimes more) for our games as flight simmers, RTS players, or RPG gamers. Why should our games look like crap? Thoughts?
One game you did not mention is Uncommon Valor. This game fascinates me, but I have spent very little time with it because (at least for me) it is so difficult to get into. The first version had a very short and limited tutorial, which just left you hanging. Version 2 of the manual has no tutorial. I have kept a sharp eye for articles presenting a nut and bolts approach on how to get into this game, but have seen nothing that comes close to fitting the bill. Maybe one of our own folks would be willing to provide some insight. In any case it's badly needed, especially with Grigsby's next game (essentially an expanded Uncommon Valor) on the horizon.
Yes, that one should be nearing release.
Good post Jag Commander.
I reckon I'm the anti-Deltapooh. I'm a bit tired of the age of the combustion engine and have been focusing more on the age of the horse and foot of late, though sadly there isn't a long list titles available. Inbetween games of Medieval Total War, I've had to reload my Talonsoft Napoleonic and Civil War Battleground series to satiate my appetite.
Games I'm looking forward to are Rome Total War, Empire in Arms and the mythical grand strategy American Civil War game.
That said, Combat Leader and Battlefields could lure me back to take a gander at 20th Century warfare.
CMBO (and CMBB as well) push quite a lot of polygons, especially for the kind of game it is (wargame).
Many wargamers use older systems and don't have the kind of break-neck hardware that the hardcore gamer does.
At the same time though, Combat Mission (BO at least) doesn't have scalable graphics IIRC. THe only option I can recall was resolution, which is a shame. But that is a programming issue.
ER_Chaser
14 Aug 03, 13:42
I reckon I'm the anti-Deltapooh. I'm a bit tired of the age of the combustion engine and have been focusing more on the age of the horse and foot of late, though sadly there isn't a long list titles available. Inbetween games of Medieval Total War, ....
hey, Brother! :D
I just wanted to add total war series to the list of discussion. Although it is a little different from the ones mentioned here (basically all turn based only), it is truly unique and very charming. The great combo of turn based strategy and real time combat still struck me as the ultimate fun till today.
And old time wars have their own charms, as I agree with your "anti-deltapooh" standing :D ---- indeed, in old time wars, "Strategy" played a more important role, while in "future wars", technology dominates. I think so far the scenarios during WWII best combined the two together, and that contributes a lot to the popularity of WWII wargames.
And let me just add that I am kind of taking a liking to the bright, cartoonish graphics of Korsun Pocket.
ER_Chaser
14 Aug 03, 14:00
We're paying just as much (and sometimes more) for our games as flight simmers, RTS players, or RPG gamers. Why should our games look like crap? Thoughts?
To fool our bosses, friends, etc.. (whoever standing by us watching us playing these crap..) that we are really working on some "projects" instead of playing some apparently visually pleasant games? :D
Seriously it could be sadly because that the population of wargamers despite the "large" group showing up here, is still very small ---- too small to support those Co's to hire good graphic guys for us :cry:
KG_Leopard
14 Aug 03, 15:47
Regarding the graphics, I guess the problem is that most (or all) wargames are produced by small software houses with small budgets and small programming teams.
Just imagine, Combat Mission was programmed by only ONE man! However, it has the best graphics of all (turn based) wargames. At least it is in true 3D. Beside that, compared to modern FPS, it's technically crap, not only because it has not all the bells and whistle, but even high performance machines (like my own :)) can't run it smooth. It has technical problems with even basic features like 'fog' and FSAA. It doesn't has any benefit from modern hardware - indeed it runs as good or bad on my XP2400+ with a Radeon9700pro like on my old Athlon-1000 with a Geforce2. BTS often announces the upcoming CM2 with it's great engine rewrite - while they have not even started to work on it. Even if the y start right now, they will need 2+ years, and I doubt that they will be even close to the modern hardware/software that is already available today.
Now look at the 2d wargames...it is no wonder that the wargames are a niche market. Some NEW games still look like my old Amiga or PC-386 games!
And let me just add that I am kind of taking a liking to the bright, cartoonish graphics of Korsun Pocket.
You own this one, Mike?
You own this one, Mike?
Nope, but may shortly. Just made that comment based on the screenshot.
Don Maddox
15 Aug 03, 03:31
CMBO (and CMBB as well) push quite a lot of polygons, especially for the kind of game it is (wargame).
Many wargamers use older systems and don't have the kind of break-neck hardware that the hardcore gamer does.
That's an interesting pont, but I think it's wide of the mark. While it's true that flight sim enthusiasts usually have more powerful machines, why is this so? You've already answered that question: because there is software out there that is compelling enough for them to shell out the bucks for a computer that can run it. I believe the lion's share of wargamers would be willing to do the same if there were a need for it. But in truth the kind of graphics that I'm talking about for most wargames don't need very high system requirements. With the exception of an RTS wargame that has hordes of units running around, or a 3D wargame with expansive outdoor environments, most wargames are 2D. These games can look really great with some basic effort on the part of the developer.
Regarding the graphics, I guess the problem is that most (or all) wargames are produced by small software houses with small budgets and small programming teams.
Some wargames are always going to be a niche market due to their nature, but I don't believe that's true at all for the genre as a whole. How many copies of the Close Combat series has Microsoft sold? How about Talonsoft's Campaign Series titles? I know they sold a lot of them. Sudden Strike sold over 700,000 copies with it's original release! I've heard some wargame developers complain that they can hardly sell 2,000 copies of their game. Well it's no wonder, when the whole game looks as if it were programmed on Bubba's back porch! 3/4 of the wargames on the market don't look like a quality product, so why should consumers assume otherwise?
Look at the mod packs and unit portrait packs that Volcano Man has released for the various HPS titles. These are about 1,000 times better than the placeholder graphics that came with the game. It's nice to see that some of the upcoming titles from MatrixGames have some spit and polish to them. We could sure use it.
because there is software out there that is compelling enough for them to shell out the bucks for a computer that can run it. I believe the lion's share of wargamers would be willing to do the same if there were a need for it.
In part I agree, mainly because I am only aware of a handful of wargamers who are young enough such that they'd have to beg their parents for computer upgrades and so on.
You're right that if there was something worth upgrading for, they probably would. This would apply more for tactical wargames like Combat Mission...
But the traditional wargames (turn based, hex system) have little use for an emphasis on graphics. The evolution away from hexes and away from turns (to things like 'continuous time'), while starting, isn't far enough along to facitiliate any kind of emphasis on graphics. The 2D hex system sets a pretty low bar for what can be accomplished. Until wargames move more into, say, a Road to Moscow style system, graphics just aren't going to be any kind of priority.
That being said, I like the Korsun Pocket graphics, but is it really a significant improvement over, say, TOAW? I like the looks of it, but it's not going to add that much to the experience. I'd rather they put the extra time into writing up an accurate manual, stomping out bugs or adding to the playability of the game.
Ultimately I just don't see much point for games that are stuck in 2D by design, though for 3D systems like CMBB/O you're probably right.
I think the whole 2D hex-system has just made us all apathetic to graphics in general (which we then apply to games where graphics could be better, such as Combat Mission), so long as they aren't atrociously ugly.
Regardless of the genre though, graphics will always take a backseat to playability. Just take a look at the original Su-27 Flanker, which is easily one of the best flight sims out there (even today).
It is important to note that CMBO preceded Operation Flashpoint by a full year. As Scipio pointed out, CMBO was programed by a single guy in a very small company, which sold its games only over the internet. Of course a small company had to use its game engine for more than one title, so improvemnts to CMBB and CMAK are limited by the engine. In contrast Operation Flashpoint received wide retail distribution. Still Code masters is not what I call one of the big guys. Why is it that it took the little guy to make a quantum leap in war game graphics? The facts strongly suggest that the big companies had decided that war gaming was only a marginally profitable nitche market. When CMBO was released, SSI was virtually gone and Talonsoft was waving goodbye. It is clear that they were not going to invest money or personnel to create or support war games that had near state of the art graphics or even a decent 3d model.
Combat flight sims saw their last dose of major support at the time CMBO was released. EA dropped the Janes line. Except for Mircrosoft, there wasn't much out there. It took a little company in Russia honchoed by a single man to come out with the next great thing that surpassed eveything out there in virtually every way and especially with graphics. That happened with IL-2. Fortunately, Ubi Soft picked up the game, as did the gaming press.
In contrast look what Shrapnel is offering. 82nd Airborne has 1998 graphics that have been promised for immenent release for at least three years.
While Don makes a good point that war games are generally step children when it come to graphics, they are also step children with regard to alsmost everything else as well. At least that's true for the major game companies. For them it's mostly about money and they've concluded that we won't make them much, if any. Is it a self fulfilling prophesy? They make less than great games and then complain that those games don't sell enough. Probably--but that gives us little ultimate satisfaction, and more important--no results.
It seems that for the forseeable future we will have to turn to the little guys. Koger, Tiller and Grigsby--where are they now? not with the big companies. Since our type of games will almost always be produced by the independants, we are not likely to see state of the art graphics very often, if ever. I wish it was different. It's not.
With all that being said, let's give credit and praise to those folks and games that push things forward. In that context Big Time/Battlefront deserve much credit for CMBO & CMBB, and Oleg Maddox and his team cannot be praised enough for the IL-2 series.
Cap'n Fantastic
15 Aug 03, 11:25
Hey there -- just my 2 cents. Not trying to be a dingus (afraid how this post will come across) but here goes:
I, for one, am not gonna knock CMBB's graphics. I see a ton of eye-candy in this game that wasn't there in CMBO and I know a couple of folks who modded vehicles for CMBO only to be invited to contribute to CMBB. Put the two titles on screen, side by side, and try to ignore the fact that there was a big improvement.
With a few exceptions, the default vehicles look fine to me. I just fought a KV-1 for the first time in ages, and smiled at the way that bastard looked on my screen. The catastrophic explosions suffered by AFVs make me cringe (especially when one of those columns of smoke and debris used to belong to me). And the terrain is miles above the day-glo green seen in CMBO v1.0.
I think it's worth noting that many mainstream review sites on the net and printed magazines I've bought off the shelf state the game, while no FPS, looks outstanding for what it is. Not one of them makes me feel like I'm settling -- trading a smidgen of looks for gameplay. If folks thing the game looks like crap, they should view some of the screenshots posted on this forum. I for one think they look awfully purdy.
And honestly, I don't see that many modders complaining that they've been left to do BFC's work for them. My friends don't say "aw hell, lookit that. it won't do." Instead, they want to see what that tank would look like with zimmerit, or a certain regiment's emblem splashed across the turret. Or maby they want an extraordinarily dirty tank. The fact that the game is so open to modders has come across as a selling point.
Enuff of that. I don't work for those guys.
In terms of TOAW. God, I miss it. My PC died two years ago and my wife talked me into an imac. Don't get me wrong, the lil' feller's working just fine. But I miss that game.....
KG_Leopard
15 Aug 03, 11:53
Some wargames are always going to be a niche market due to their nature, but I don't believe that's true at all for the genre as a whole. How many copies of the Close Combat series has Microsoft sold? How about Talonsoft's Campaign Series titles? I know they sold a lot of them. Sudden Strike sold over 700,000 copies with it's original release! I've heard some wargame developers complain that they can hardly sell 2,000 copies of their game. Well it's no wonder, when the whole game looks as if it were programmed on Bubba's back porch! 3/4 of the wargames on the market don't look like a quality product, so why should consumers assume otherwise?
Well, but when was CloseCombat or the Campaign Series released? In the mid 90s or even earlier - at that time they were nearly 'state of art', and technically able to compete with other popular titles. I don't see Sudden Strike as a real wargame, cause it's a relative unrealistic RTS, but just imagine the Steel Panthers or Campaign Series with that quality of graphic!
But you are right, it's often the fault of the companies. Not only that their new products looks like 10 year old games, if they develop something real new, they make the error to realease them long before time. Just look at the game that is now named 'Squad Assault' and produced by Matrix. Already released from another company and under another name (can't remember both right now) already in alpha stadium. It was just DOA. And then they wonder why no one purchase it and say 'Wargaming is a dead market'.
For me, Combat Mission is the best wargame out there. But it should be mentioned that BTS has the great advantage to be alone on the floor. There is just NO competitor in 3d wargaming. What would happen if there will be once another game of that style with modern graphics. Even if it had less deepness, BTS would have a real hard life then.
Speaking about graphics: I don't expect a state of the Art wargame to use the latest Doom 3 engine, no way, 2D is just fine for me (for hex-based games) but TOAW should be the minimum requirement ! How old is that game ? And it still looks a whole lot better than any Panzer Campaign game. I refuse to play the Campaign games simply because they look ugly and boring, I've seen better graphics on my Amiga 500 !
The hex-graphics that represent the enviroment look like sh**, the graphics of the weapons or some ugly low-res (bad) hand-painted pictures (they could have at least used some decents photos!) and the interface is just the boring windows default style. screenshot (http://fly.hiwaay.net/~tiller/glenn/K44/K44_02.jpg)
Hey, I had the chance to get this game for free through... mysterious chanels... (OK, eDonkey :D ) but I refused, not because my morality stood in my way but because I don't want to play a game that looks so ugly. Not even for free ! And I don't care if the game itself is fun once one gets used to the graphics... no Sir, not me.
The game system was basically finished but even when they had to repaint almost all graphics (for their modern campaigns) they used the same (probably cheapest) graphic 'artist' do draw the unit graphics. How low can you go...
Siberian HEAT
15 Aug 03, 13:00
We had a discussion recently about graphics in wargames down in the TOAW forum. It was mostly about the Battlefields! system, but might add some depth to this topic.
Linky (http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2724&highlight=battlefields)
KG_Leopard
15 Aug 03, 16:12
We had a discussion recently about graphics in wargames down in the TOAW forum. It was mostly about the Battlefields! system, but might add some depth to this topic.
Linky (http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2724&highlight=battlefields) Tsk-tsk-tsk. What a cheap attemped to move some traffic on the TOAW forum :p
Don Maddox
15 Aug 03, 16:32
It is important to note that CMBO preceded Operation Flashpoint by a full year. As Scipio pointed out, CMBO was programed by a single guy in a very small company, which sold its games only over the internet. Of course a small company had to use its game engine for more than one title, so improvemnts to CMBB and CMAK are limited by the engine. In contrast Operation Flashpoint received wide retail distribution.
True, but I'll bet Operation Flashpoint wouldn't have received much support if the graphics had been really poor. Here is the problem I have with Combat Mission's graphics: the terrain itself. I can live with the vehicle models becuase most of them look fairly good with professional quality textures applied to them. I did one of the original building mods for Combat Mission and the hardest thing about doing that mod was trying to achieve the look of shadows and shading where none exists. None exists because the buildings are so crude they are perfect squares with two slanted planes for roofs! No overhangs, no interiors, no porches, no nothing. The Operation Flashpoint maps - hardly cutting edge by any standard - are several times larger than any CM map I have ever come across and each map sports numerous towns and villages with realistic buildings. These buildings have full interiors and sport x20 the textures on a CM building. Not only that, but as Scipio pointed out earlier, the CM engine doesn't even perform very well while OFP runs silky smooth on a decent machine.
Combat flight sims saw their last dose of major support at the time CMBO was released. EA dropped the Janes line. Except for Mircrosoft, there wasn't much out there.
They're making a comeback though. Combat Flight Simulator3, IL2, and Lockon Modern Combat is on the horizon.
While Don makes a good point that war games are generally step children when it come to graphics, they are also step children with regard to alsmost everything else as well. At least that's true for the major game companies. For them it's mostly about money and they've concluded that we won't make them much, if any. Is it a self fulfilling prophesy? They make less than great games and then complain that those games don't sell enough. Probably--but that gives us little ultimate satisfaction, and more important--no results.
Well said, and this is the heart of the matter. It isn't just graphics, it's every aspect of the game. Our multiplayer options are a joke to other gamers. Game support, in the form of scenario and map editors, ranges from the almost-impossible-to-use to the just plain freakish. Jag Commander hit the nail right on the head with his statement about self fulfilling prophecy. The bottom line is that I hear people talk all the time about wargames being some tiny niche market that a few oddballs still cling to. I think this is just plain wrong.
Like most of you I don't consider the original Sudden Strike to be a true wargame, however, it could be turned into an isometric view version of Combat Mission by making the combat resolution somewhat more realistic. Is it all that different than the Close Combat series? That title had, and continues to have, quite a following. My point is I believe it is entirely possible to program wargames that look great, are simple enough for the masses to get into (thus earning the developer a healthy profit), yet detailed enough to satisfy the grognard.
The reality may be that we don't see as many cutting edge products come our direction as we would like. Fair enough, however, that doesn't mean we have to adopt the attitude that we don't want better or don't deserve just as much for our hard earned money.
Siberian HEAT
15 Aug 03, 16:58
Tsk-tsk-tsk. What a cheap attemped to move some traffic on the TOAW forum :p
Ladies and gentlemen, after stopping in the TOAW forum, make sure you swing by the CM forum and see the good things they have cooking over there!
How was that for equality? :D
KG_Leopard
15 Aug 03, 17:06
You are to kind :)
Can we add this banana to our smielies list?
Good thread guys, most of what I might have said has already been uttered.
Suffice it to say, I think the world of computer wargaming has spent to much time on pretty and not enough time on substance.
TOAW is to me the ability to play nearly every board game I love with the convenience of my computer. So it follows I am watching the progress of Battlefields and Korsun Pocket.
I am not personally in love with 3d real time because to me it is just a gimic.
I am waiting to see how the reborn Airborne Assault does, because it looks promising.
Combat Leader is following a hard act to follow, that being Steel Panthers.
And I think Strategic Command has done for grand strategy what Panzer General did for operational scale wargaming.
I have seen just about every shooter out there up close, but I think there is only one shooter worth playing. And that would be Battlefield 1942. Sure it doesn't look "realistic" but I don't think that has prevented it from being the most fun of all shooters I have witnessed.
Don Maddox
17 Aug 03, 06:34
Can we add this banana to our smielies list?
We can. I have the technology!
LesTheSarge9-1
Combat Leader is following a hard act to follow, that being Steel Panthers.
True, but it looks as if Matrix is taking the challenge seriously. The scenario editor alone looks as if it will be one of the best on the market. The graphics will be a significant improvement over those in SPWaW and the gameplay looks like it will be much deeper. This series is going to do very well.
Last night, in response to one of our members over at Wargamer needing input on a game, I downloaded the demo for Blitzkrieg.
I am this morning able to say, that HoI is no longer alone in games that inspire me to write nasty hate filled commentary.
While I might merely hate Hearts of Iron for all it might have been based on advertising prior to its release, and all it failed to deliver. I now can add how I despise Blitzkrieg, for it's shameless capacity to be nothing more than a shameless theft of your gaming dollar.
Blitzkrieg is hereby on my list of games not worthy of any kind comment.
It is a disgusting rip off of Sudden Strike 2. And considering SS2 was a game only a clod could use the term wargame on, copying it, was about as uninspired as uninspired gets.
For all that would say anything positive about Blitzkrieg, your opinions have lost value in the same way I tend to deduct 5 points of IQ automatically when I discover the individual actually wastes money on Weekly World News
Don Maddox
19 Aug 03, 08:17
Okay, this brings up another issue: how detailed and realistic does a game have to be to qualify as a true "wargame?" When you break it down, the Campaign Series isn't nearly as in depth as Tiller's later efforts in Panzer Campaigns. What about Close Combat? Is it in-depth enough to qualify as a real wargame? Risk?
Part of the problem with 3D-based wargames such as Combat Mission is that the player may not always have access to what is (or isn't) going on behind the scenes. Using Combat Mission as an example, it can look to the layperson as if the game simply has some tanks and infantry running around shooting at each other. In fact, there is actually a complicated process of line-of-sight algorithms, to hit determinations, damage calculations, morale effects, etc. If you were to put Combat Mission into a hex-based environment such as TOAW it would rapidly become evident that there is more going on than meets the eye.
Is it a good thing that this minutiae is hidden from view, thus making the game less of a number crunching exercise and more tactics driven? I guess that depends on your point of view. Some people are not happy unless they can actually see the number crunching going on, or it at least is accessible in some form or fashion. Advanced Squad Leader is probably at the extreme end of this side of the spectrum. Combat Mission is at the other end and hides almost everything from the player, allowing the human commander only limited ability to micromanage the battlefield.
I didn't enjoy Sudden Strike 2. It was just a little bit too much of a cluster for my taste. Every battle degenerated into a meatgrinder in which one side or the other usually ended up losing nearly everything. Blitzkrieg has made some strides in bringing more realism to the series. The trenches and bunkers are pretty neat and a few of the battles ar enjoyable. Of course, the battles still usually degenerate into a wild melee soon enough. But don't underestimate the value that games like this can have though. Most of us didn't start out playing 10-complexity full campaign games! We started out playing Steel Panthers, or in my case the old Panzer Leader from Avalon Hill. These less realistic games serve as a way to get fresh blood interested in the subject matter of wargames and allow them to progress on to more complicated offerings.
What was the first wargame you ever played?
First "wargame" I ever played was Tactics II. It was about as "realistic" as chess is frankly.
But the important thing to contemplate when determining "realistic" is not how much game is present, but rather how realistic is the game that is present.
ASL rules the heap from brutally realistic. Steel Panthers through a Mega Campaign is brutally realistic. Panzer Leader is a greater deal of simplicity in design, but I think it simulates warfare realistically enough.
Close Combat is realistic mainly because the game kept the unit density to a level where the realism was preservable.
Sudden Strike 2 dropped the ball entirely in my opinion. Just providing "accurate" looking icons does not a realistic game make.
The action has no credibility, and therefore you can write a several page long graphics included fully detailed "review" of the game, and frankly I don't care squat what your "professional" qualifications are, the game is still junk.
I recently tried Blitzkrieg's demo. And if you check out my thoughts on it at Wargamer, it's clear, my view is not inline with the "preferred" view. The only reason I let the matter drop, is because I said my piece. But I have to also perform my function as a moderator, and therefore I can't spend all day every day beating up on some games.
3d is to some the way of the future. If I had a dime for every thing that was "the way of the future" I could buy my next wargame free.
Real time is to this gamer rarely about anything tangibly or usefully free.
Match an organic computer (a human) against an electronic data processor (a computer) and arguments about "real time" become the rants of idiots.
Thus far the only thing I have seen using 3d in anything like a worthwhile manner is Combat Mission. And that is entirely because it is a WEGO system. It matters not how much you fiddle with your turn, it won't resolve till you formally hit end of turn and let it process your moves against the computer's. The organic computer suffers no disadvantage to the electronic computer.
I have seen the real time approach work. Close Combat works. I also think Tac Ops and Airborne Assault have a good handle on real time. But then the game isn't mired in 3d.
3d real time is possible though, anything is possible, the second the designer is capable. And that is just it, there are no shortages of completely incapable designers out there obviously.
And we have reviewers stroking these clods only making things worse.
Saying Blitzkrieg is worth shiit is like offering candie bars to a fat person, not helping any.
I am not sure it is any major "wave of the future" per se, but programs like VASL might very well be a major determinant in what constitutes what we label a wargamer in 5 years.
It might come to pass, that we call people that play simulation accuracy first and visually amusing second types, wargamers, and people that are only interested in visually amusing, and not willing to accept dedication to simulation accuracy as nothing more than just another "gamer".
Right now I don't think the label "gamer" and not "wargamer" is a slag. I don't expect everyone to want to play my wargames. I don't "need" everyone to play my wargames. I don't care if my hobby starts remains and continues to be a niche hobby. I don't need mass market type sales.
I also don't have sympathy for retailers/producers/designers that leave themselves with no other way to make an income. Stores know they need a cash cow to stay afloat, and wargame producers might as well wake up and smell the same reality.
If my favourite maker of wargames suddenly starts to produce games that have zero in common with traditional wargames, I won't be screaming "betrayal". It will just be a sign the company has finally hit the big time. As long as they remain true to the actual wargames I like, when actually making the wargames I like, there won't be any trouble.
I will of course only be buying wargames of the style I like, from people that make wargames the way I like them. Makes sense eh.
I saw an original version of Tactics II, but my first war game was Avalon hill's Gettyburg. It was the mid-1960s and an older neighbor had just received it for Christmas or his birthday. See also my apparently standing as third oldest CM series player at this site. However, my passion soon turned to my own copies of the Origianl Avalon Hill games of D-Day and Midway, both of which I still have. In college I got back into things with Panzer Blitz. Computer games were not a part of my life until 1998, when I got my first computer.
There are many levels of war games. Even in the fairly early days (late 1960s) of avalon hill, which was about as pure of a wargaming company as then existed, rated its games in terms of complexity. So the easiest titles had great deal of abstractions, but might be good entry points for newbies, especially for those who might not be sure whether or not they would enjoy wargaming. Thus I do not subscribe to the view that the complexity (lack of abstraction) is necessarily the test of whether or not it's a war game. A recent example of a title that is a war game, but with a great deal of abstraction and some not-so-realistic features in Battlefront's Strategic Command.
All this being said, what is the test? For me it's a variation on the test for obscentiy articulated by a Supreme Court Justice many years ago: "I know it when I see it." As I apply this test, the question is whether at its heart and sole it is a war game or merely something else in GI drag. The Close Combat series is in. All tank rush titles, even those without power-ups, are out. The Sudden Strike series is a closer question, but it's out because its more about massive mayhem than any thing else. Most shooters are out. Only those who make a successful good faith attempt to at least semi-realistically model their era's weapons, tactics, history and battlefield conditions are in.
ER_Chaser
19 Aug 03, 10:33
Okay, this brings up another issue: how detailed and realistic does a game have to be to qualify as a true "wargame?" When you break it down, the Campaign Series isn't nearly as in depth as Tiller's later efforts in Panzer Campaigns. What about Close Combat? Is it in-depth enough to qualify as a real wargame? Risk?
...
What was the first wargame you ever played?
hmm... depth? I am not sure what you mean precisely here, Don. Do you refer to complexity? Or the # of parameters that affect the outcome? Or the # of strategic choices and tactical manuvers the players would have during the game?
If it were the first one, I do not think "depth" is important for a good game, quite the contrary, it is unnecessary then. (IMHO)
If it were the second one, it depends ---- the outcome itself is, in many cases, only one dimensional (win or lose and by how much). Thus no matter it is decided by how many dimensions, for an effective brain(not a sophisticated optimizer), people usually break down the details into several linear systems and track them down to achieve a likely max result. This may or may not be interesting to me, depending on how good those parameters were chosen and set up.
If it were the third one, personally I like it very much. Put it another way, it is the beauty of chess. Simple rules, but unlimited changes. The whole story lies in the player's control. The result of the game is purely the player's skill's image. For wargames, plus some luck. This is what I felt most interesting about Campaign Series. Simple, fast turns, but many rooms to plot. Comparing to ACOW, it has even more tricks to apply, yet much faster play pace.
Close Combat is a very nice series. I enjoyed for over 2 years. Its sound effect was one of the most enjoyable thing to me ... (I just love the sound of MG42 ... ;p) I do not know which ones can be counted as "war games" ---- but games about fighting wars were the very earliest games that I started back in 1990. Probably "risk" does not count. But then there was a great game called "Conquest" on Macintosh, small but very interesting, was definitely a war game (without history)'s prototype.
For the "modern" interface and format of wargames, probably Panzer General was the the first one I played? It was a great hit at the time. But soon turned out to be too easy. Yet, it was fun. :)
Don Maddox
07 Sep 04, 09:43
hmm... depth? I am not sure what you mean precisely here, Don. Do you refer to complexity? Or the # of parameters that affect the outcome? Or the # of strategic choices and tactical manuvers the players would have during the game?
Well, at some point wargames seem to cease to be wargames and become something else if you push the scale far enough. If you push the scale down to the sub-tactical level (what a real squad leader would see), then these games are usually considered to be FPS games, not wargames. If you push the scale much past TOAW, the game becomes more like Supreme Commander 2010 or Axis & Allies, neither of which are normally considered wargames in the traditional sense.
Then again it be simply be the level of detail that is the main qualifier. Is Blitzkrieg a wargame? It's really not all that different in its basic concept and scale to Armored Task Force, yet there is a would of difference in the sheer amount of detail that each system attempts to simulate.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.