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

[Scipio]

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.

 

[Kraut]

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

Hey, I had the chance to get this game for free through... mysterious chanels... (OK, eDonkey ) 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]

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

 

[Scipio]

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

Tsk-tsk-tsk. What a cheap attemped to move some traffic on the TOAW forum

 

[Dr Zaius]

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]

Tsk-tsk-tsk. What a cheap attemped to move some traffic on the TOAW forum

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?

 

[Scipio]

You are to kind

Can we add this banana to our smielies list?

 

[Aries]

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.

 

[Dr Zaius]

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.

 

[Aries]

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

 

[Dr Zaius]

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?

 

[Aries]

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.

 

[KG_Jag]

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]

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.

 

[Dr Zaius]

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.