Pluses & minuses of PC wargames

Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Here's something wargame designer Kevin Zucker said in an interview:

The computer games are popular because of the popularity of computers, not because they are good games. If you scratch a computer wargame, you will find a board wargame underneath it; often, the programmers' research consists of buying a published boardgame.

When the computer gives you the answer, you lose touch with the process and end up lost. I still believe in doing arithmetic in my head. People who don't understand the mathematics behind, say, the attrition table in Napoleon at Bay will certainly be unable to take that principle and make another game. I think gamers are getting lazy as a result of computers. They never used to complain of the Attrition Table: it's not that complicated. Yet, I am told, it has given at least one gamer a headache.
Do you agree? Why or why not?
 

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
6
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
Jeez Patrick :) I could write a book on the why's - and I might over time.

I think generally speaking Kevin is right. I don't think popularity of the computers is the only reason - but it is (to me anyway) probably the biggest factor.

Compactness is a factor too --you can write a monster game and put it on a single CD - something that you could never actually set up - had it bee made of paper/cardboard.

-I do believe though - that PC games and players can - and almost always do - lose sight of the processes behind what a game is figuring. It is too easy to ignore something that is not right up in your face.

--------------------

I also don't totally buy the theory that research consists of buying a boardgame - and then calling that -there is at least one PC (alleged) wargame that I had wished they had gone even that far... In other words sometimes you don't even have that much research. What kills me - I am torn between finding it hilarious and really pathetic - is that there are gullible kids that buy into the idea that the designer is god so to speak (a lot of these games list no bibliography- and you know you are left having to take their word for something -despite that there might be a library of info to the contrary)- - - yet there are kids out there on these games' boards running their mouths off about how something is historical - because a 2 minute blurb on the History Channel confirms what the game does. (nm - am digressing)
 

suchey

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Country
llUnited States
I suppose that in some aspects, the statement that "The computer games are popular because of the popularity of computers..." is true...but its the natural evolution of technology I think. In the simplest of terms, the 'war game' has evolved in the same aspect as the rest of "pen and paper" use. Accountants no longer toil over hard copy with pencil in hand, filing is done electronically, etc etc. War games are no exception. Its simply more convenient. How many times have you had to replace a tile for a war game with a dime or a home made piece because you lost the tile. (I don't think I have a single game left which has all of the original pieces remaining).

In my own experience, I could never set up a table top game in my home, due to the fact that my daughter would soon have my Wehrmacht soldiers living in her doll house. Its just allot easier for me to load up a game and be able to "put all the pieces away" with the single click of a mouse and then reset them to their same positions with another single click when I'm ready to take it back up again.

I can certainly see the point that, in some cases, the spirit of the game may be lost, and it does remove a bit of the social aspect as well, but I guess theres give and take to everything.
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
I'd say the only down is getting around a table with models/counters/RPG Elements with soda and snacks with your friends and having fun.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
462
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
I just wanted to comment on the part about:

"... often, the programmers' research consists of buying a published boardgame."

I can't speak directly for everyone that makes games, but I've been involved with John Tiller and helped on a dozen titles and there is quite a lot that goes into our games which includes research, but a fair bit more than "buying a published boardgame."

Sometimes, on some titles there are boardgames which provide some assistance with the research, but not always. When I did Sicily there were some boradgames but the scale of these titles were such that they didn't help too much with the research and you had to really dig into a number of printed sources and then find the best answer for what you are trying to determine.

You can read the Alamein Designer Notes for another example of some aspects that go into making a game:
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~tiller/glenn/alamein/Notes/alamein_notes.html

So I suppose there might be some people who can take a boardgame and make a PC game from it, but by and large I don't think there are many examples of this.

Just like you can't really buy and read your favorite novel and use it to write your own. There is a little more too it than that. That is my opinion anyway.

Glenn
 

gobeavs

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,860
Reaction score
0
Location
West Coast USA
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Glenn Saunders

I can't speak directly for everyone that makes games, but I've been involved with John Tiller and helped on a dozen titles and there is quite a lot that goes into our games which includes research, but a fair bit more than "buying a published boardgame."

Glenn
I know that games like Brothers in Arms (a Call of Duty like FPS), they actually went to Normandy, and the game has a bunch of buildings that are really there. A lot of research goes into making the games. About the original interview, I agree partially. Some of it could be attributed to how common computers are, but I also think that there are good computer games that draw people to computers. Games like Call of Duty, soon to be Half-Life 2, and Battlefield 1942 are quality games. Half-Life 2 especially, people are buying new computers just so they can play it with good graphics settings; it also has a good story/characters/atmosphere, essentials like that.
 

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
6
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
Ok to expound on an earlier point -- that Glenn brought up -- I did not fully articulate my point of view. When I mean PC games - I meant in general - and I meant stuff trying to claim to be wargames - like Sudden Strike -and a certain mmpog.... or any of the eye candy heavy games.

I c an see where that point of view from Zucker comes from. (otoh here is a guy talking about people in competition with his products so he does have a conflict of interest).
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by BarcelonaBlom
I'd say the only down is getting around a table with models/counters/RPG Elements with soda and snacks with your friends and having fun.
I know I'm in a minority here, but to me that's an up, not a down.

People are great, but when it comes to getting absorbed in a great game, I'd just as soon do it by myself, in my own way, at my own pace--without having to be distracted by conversation, soda, and snacks.
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by BarcelonaBlom
I'd say the only down is getting around a table with models/counters/RPG Elements with soda and snacks with your friends and having fun.
The only downside to me is having to own an electronic box to play the games; staring at the CRT for hours; scrolling around a one-foot-square map; and being unable to get "under the hood" to see how the game works.

Aside from that, PC games rule!
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
I think he's totally off with the math remark. I'm great at math, and can do fairly complex calculations in my head. But that's not what I enjoy. "Hey, boys, wanna get together over a few beers and crunch numbers over and over for 18 hours?"

No.

Take my favorite wargame, TOAW. Each unit has a proficiency, which is weighted in as 50% of a unit's strength factor. It also has readiness and supply %s, which weigh in as 25% each. Proficiency slowly rises over the course of many battles as the unit gains some victories. Supply is used each round the unit is involved in combat, and every time the unit moves. Typical units (such as an infantry division) are composed of between 15 and 40 individual pieces of equipment, which are all at certain levels as well, based on losses (478/800 Heavy Rifle AT Squads, 23/30 105mm Arty, etc). Some equipment is lost each time you move (damage, lost, etc), but this all goes back into the replacements pool, where all your reserves of equipment, from panzers to planes, resides. You earn so many of each equipment type into your pool each turn. But maybe only from turns 1-40, or 65-90.

This equipment filters out through your supply net into your units each turn.

The supply net itself is traced from a supply source, and this level 'degrades' the farther away you can get from it. This number is also affected by terrain. The map will display the supply values for all the hexes in the game.

Now, if you're unit is on a hex with a value of 20, you still aren't getting 20... If you moved last turn, you lose some of it (a third)? The value is also halved if you aren't adjacent to a supporting HQ (units have Formation, Force, and Free support levels, to determine how freely they can cooperate, which is also a factor involving penalties when different combinations of support levels are involved in comabt, etc). If there's a supply unit within the supply radius (which can be changed), then the level of supply (our '20') goes up one 'step'. (Depending on what the supply scope is for the scenario). Being adjacent to this unit also provides a 50% supply bonus. The strength and location of bombers on Interdiction missions can alter then supply levels for any given turn, and the computer checks this value again at the beginning of every turn. Unused transport points (rail points, sea transport points, and air transport points that are unused at the end of the turn contribute to slightly higher supply levels the following turn),

Units that are cutoff, or otherwise out of supply (paradropped units, etc), can be supplied by the air if there are sufficient air transport points remaining at the end of a turn...

I like the math, I want to know how all of these factors work, and I do. And I worship the added detail and realism this provides... But I don't want to do any of the math that the system can do for me 1 trillion times faster. I game to game, not to practice grade 7 math.
 

chrisvalla

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
645
Reaction score
0
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Country
llUnited States
I agree that most PC games (of the strategy type) have a board game underneath... but I'm not sure that the hard-core grognard player and/or programmer has become math/stat lazy. I think the casual gamer plays them because they don't have the complex calculations required (which turns off the casual gamer)... and everyone plays them for the time compression.
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
6
Location
Chicago, IL
Originally posted by Patrick Carroll
Here's something wargame designer Kevin Zucker said in an interview:



Do you agree? Why or why not?
I think some of the posts were deleted after the hack attack...
:quest:
that's too bad because you had a couple of thought-provoking posts IIRC questioning the basis of decision making in wargame designs.

I recall playing ASL in college and occasionally breaking down into hysterical laughter with the group due to spending hours with the complex rulebook trying to resolve and issue. Though this was a pain in the arse looking back I did appreciate the fact that I knew why my unit would break, go beserk, etc.

I don't sweat the details in the PC games. However, I do appreciate you keeping people and hopefully PC wargame designers on their toes and providing explanations for their decisions. This benefits all wargamers in the longrun! imho
keep up the good work!
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Is realism worth the effort?

Originally posted by Patrocles
I think some of the posts were deleted after the hack attack...
. . .
Yep, looks like at least one of mine got lost.

One of my points, briefly, was that while Shane may "worship the added detail and realism" of all the under-the-hood math calculations in PC wargames, I doubt that most PC wargamers pay much attention to it. Browsing through the manual, you may notice some of the details, but most of us end up saying, "That's cool--looks like somebody put a lot of thought into this. But since the computer's gonna take care of it all for me, I can forget all about it and just have fun pushing some cybertanks around!" With that attitude, a PC wargame becomes kinda like a sandbox in which to play with one's toys. And in that sense, a PC wargame is often a less educational experience than board wargames usually are. Yet, in some aspects it's the other way around: a PC wargame provides more education in fog of war, for instance, as well as in many simulational details that only a computer can handle without spoiling playability.

The question I'm struggling with right now is whether realism is worth the effort. I find I can never rely on what the game designer is telling me via the game. And the more detailed and realistic a wargame is, the more room there is for flaws or distortions to creep in. So, I may think I'm learning a lot about warfare from the game I'm playing--but are the lessons valid, or does real war not work this way at all?

In the designer's notes to Squad Leader, for example, John Hill admits that submachineguns have about twice the range of their real-life counterparts. He tells why, and then he goes on to say that on the whole, Squad Leader is true-to-life in an impressionistic way. What does that mean?! For one thing, it means I can't trust details like weapon ranges, because they're not all accurate. What else, I wonder, is inaccurate?

It's the same in all wargames. Even a game like Harpoon, which is supposedly a professional-level wargame used by the US Navy, is suspect. I'd be surprised if it was free of flaws. Not knowing much about modern naval warfare, I have no idea how true-to-life the game really is. (And in that game, it's made worse by the fact that the scenarios are all hypothetical. If these combat actions haven't happened yet, how do we know if they'd really play out like they do in the game?)

So, sometimes I prefer abstract "wargames" like chess. In such games there's no need to worry about associations with real-life warfare. The principles of chess can certainly be applied indirectly to actual war; yet no one expects chess knights to behave just like the knights on the field of Agincourt.

Other times I prefer fantasy (or sci-fi) wargames, because how can you prove or disprove the validity of an elven movement bonus through forest terrain? If it's in the rules, it's valid. There's no historical evidence on elven units to consult or argue about.

But in a WWII game, should armored units be slowed down by forest terrain, or excluded altogether? Wargamers might argue forever about that without settling it.

Although I enjoy realism in wargames, I never completely trust its accuracy. Meanwhile, realism complicates the game (to the point of sometimes requiring a PC to play it on) and makes it far less playable than classic board games like chess and backgammon.

So, I don't know if it's worth it or not. Still working on that one.
 

Alan

Recruit
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
A very few good points, but...

I think gamers are getting lazy as a result of computers.
I have no idea what he means by this. :crazy:

I started out playing board wargames and think the advent of computer gaming was a godsend. No more endless number crunching & die rolling. (No offence to those who still like it - to each his own).

Right now I'm involved in 4 different PBEM PzC/MC campaign games. Lazy??? I think not Mr. Zucker.
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Re: A very few good points, but...

Originally posted by printshop
I have no idea what he means by this. :crazy:

I started out playing board wargames and think the advent of computer gaming was a godsend. No more endless number crunching & die rolling. ...
That's what he meant by gamers getting lazy: too lazy to learn the rules, do the math, roll the dice. In Zucker's opinion (which I at least partly share), if you don't do those things, you miss much of what a wargame can teach you. It's like taking a course in basic arithmetic and having the luxury of an electronic calculator: what will you learn about arithmetic if you don't have to think about it but just sit there pushing buttons?

You may be busy as a bee playing PC wargames. But if you're just playing them like a kid playing with toy tanks in a sandbox, the educational value is nil and you're just amusing yourself.

For some wargamers, that's enough. Others expect it to be something more than just entertainment.
 

trauth116

Webmaster: hist-sdc.com
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
6
Location
................
Country
llAustralia
If you keep in mind that Zucker makes money - or tries to - off of board gaming .. of course he has that opinion.

You know if you find a certain medium to your liking - then - who really cares about a philosophical debate?
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
I think it's more a questions of what type of wargamer you are. I've had conversations with the designer of TOAW, Norm Koger (many times, actually), trying to determine the math behind the results. All of the gamers that I know that come from a boardgame background want to learn the game, the hows and whys. I don't feel there is anything 'educational' lost to these types of gamers, in fact it's quite the opposite.

They have to incorporate investigation into their arsenal to find the knowledge they require. You'll not find a single TOAW vet that has not created test scenarios, and pitted 3 infantry corps against a dug-in armor unit or some such to observe the effects flank attacks have, higher AT values, etc.

By taking redundant math out of the equasion when you actually play the game, more time can be spent exploring possibilities, trying new avenues of approach, learning about fog of war and supply and morale. For people like this, the math itself adds nothing educational. We're all capable of doing it, or we wouldn't be playing these games in the first place.

Where the confusion lies, I think, is that PC games attract the more casual gamer, that would never have started up a game of A3R to save thier lives. But they like games like Panzer General, etc, so they come in and play a few of the more entry level games, and generally, they don't learn anything about battles, supply, et al... They just push the pieces around and have fun, also being denied the 'educational' benefit of doing repetitive math 736 times to complete the game.
 

Alan

Recruit
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
You know if you find a certain medium to your liking - then - who really cares about a philosophical debate?
You know, you're absolutely right trauth116. :bowdown:
 
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
318
Reaction score
1
Location
Minnesota
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by trauth116
You know if you find a certain medium to your liking - then - who really cares about a philosophical debate?
Sounds like "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." (Just substitute "wargames" for "art.")

I work with an artist who says that old saying was a big joke back in art school, but the longer he works as an artist, the more truth he sees in it.

Anyhow, it's true that you can't leave human nature out of the equation. It may not be the main factor, but it has to be considered. For instance, nobody really likes all the number crunching that has to be done in some wargames.

I still distinctly remember the last time I played Panzer Leader. I was calculating the odds for an attack: "Let's see, I double the defender's strength for terrain, halve the attack strength for range . . . the AT's strength is quartered for weapon type, but the AFV's is only halved . . ." and then I stopped right in the middle of the turn, threw up my hands, and said, "This isn't a wargame; it's a number game!" I put the game away and never played again.

But OTOH, I also remember my first games of--uh, I forget the title, but it was one of the "V for Victory" computer wargames that Avalon Hill put out (or maybe "V for Victory" was the title). Anyhow, I felt like everything was speeded up to the point where I couldn't follow. I'd drag my units into position, maybe glance at the odds--having no idea how those odds were calculated--and click Go. Next instant, units are eliminated or retreating, and I'm dragging units around again. I soon got tired of it.

Same thing happened with the HPS game I just bought ("French & Indian War"). A map full of units that I have to drag around every turn, meticulously changing facing and formation. And although the combat parameters are right there in a drop-down menu, I never bother to look at them. I just click here and order a unit to fire, click there and order a unit to charge. There are too many units to move each turn for me to take time to study all the details for each one. So, it's just another game of dragging lots of units across a map.

I liked Norm Koger's "Age of Rifles," because it covers my favorite period. But after a while it started to feel like an elaborate capture-the-flag game; I was always making wild cavalry sweeps to grab victory flags--and they often paid off. Also, the AI sucked (I did try a PBEM game or two, but I soon tired of that). And most of the scenarios were so big that, once again, I found myself just dragging lots of units across the map.

Panzer General, simplistic as it was, was a lot of fun for a while. I preferred it to most serious wargames. I lost interest eventually, though, because--once again--most of the scenarios were so big that I had to drag a hundred or more units across the map every turn.

Sid Meier's Gettysburg was a surprisingly good game. I've never been a real-time fan, but I bought a cheap copy on eBay to see what it was like. It felt real--and best of all, I could give orders to a whole brigade or division and the unit would keep doing its thing until I jumped in and changed the orders. No more painstakingly dragging a hundred units across the map; I could just say, "All you guys, go here." That made even big-map scenarios palatable. I still had no idea how combat results were calculated, but I didn't care; my focus was elsewhere. After a while, though, I felt that I wasn't really playing the game; the game was playing me. All kinds of things were happening that I had no control over.

One final point: With the game "Master of Magic," I bought the strategy guidebook (one of the best strategy guides ever written for a computer game). I enjoyed the book as much as the game itself. It explained everything in detail, in a conversational tone. If I wanted to, I could've learned just how combat was resolved. But I never did. Know why? Because it was too complicated. Since the computer was crunching the numbers, the designers felt they could make the math very complex, thus giving a more realistic "feel" to the various unit types. But IMO the math was too complicated for a game, better suited for a simulation. So, I skimmed the section on combat resolution and then learned by trial-and-error.

In short, my problem with PC wargames is:
1. It's too easy to slip into laziness or sloppy play, since the computer handles so much.
2. The algorithms which make up the game engine are often undocumented, leaving players in the dark.
3. The algorithms are often much more complicated than in board (or miniatures) wargames--so even if they are documented, they're more than I care to study. In effect, such wargames attempt to be simulations; and I have a hard time trusting any designer's model. So to me, all the extra complexity comes across as an elaborate snow job.
 
Top