Flame suits on. It's time to compare wargames - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly!!!

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Put your flame suits on gentlemen. It's time to compare wargames!!!

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?



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.





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



It's a bit unfair to compare wargames to each other, but it's fun isn't it? :devil:
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
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

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,962
Reaction score
1
Location
NYC
Country
llChina
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...
 

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
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

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
649
Reaction score
1
Location
Closer than is safe for my enemies
Country
llUnited States
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.)
 

Wolf

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
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.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Deltapooh said:
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.
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
Jag Commander said:
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.
 

Tex

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
Location
Dallas
Country
llUnited States
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.
 

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
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

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,962
Reaction score
1
Location
NYC
Country
llChina
Tex said:
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.
 

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
And let me just add that I am kind of taking a liking to the bright, cartoonish graphics of Korsun Pocket.
 

ER_Chaser

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,962
Reaction score
1
Location
NYC
Country
llChina
Don Maddox said:
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:
 

Scipio

Member
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
370
Reaction score
2
Location
Germania Inferior
Country
llGermany
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!
 

Dr Zaius

Chief Defender of the Faith
Joined
May 1, 2001
Messages
8,902
Reaction score
408
Location
The Forbidden Zone
First name
Don
Country
llUnited States
MikeJ said:
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.
 

MikeJ

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2003
Messages
660
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
Don Maddox said:

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).
 
Last edited:

KG_Jag

KG Vice Kommandir
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
1,782
Reaction score
180
Location
New Braunfels, TX/Reno, NV
Country
llUnited States
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.
 
Joined
Jul 25, 2003
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Location
See above
Country
llUnited States
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.....
 
Top