Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The demise of wargames - or "The Sky is Falling" syndrome

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:26:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

The demise of wargames - articles are being written left and right,
trying to figure out what is wrong and how it can be cured.

Then comes along the list (Charles Roberts Award) of boardgames
published in 2004 and in glossing over the list here's me thinking that
for a hobby in decline there sure are a hell of a lot of games getting
published. 135 to be precise. That's one game every 2.5 days. So I went
back 5 years and had a look at the same list for 1999. only 73 games
published - half the number of today.

Now, I'm the first to say that quantity does not equal quality, but
practically everyone is agreeing the average quality of current
boardgames is a lot better than in the so-called Golden Age so we
should be ok on the quality part. Moreover : I own half a dozen of the
games on the 2004 list and I'm pretty satisfied with the quality in
that small sample.

Ok, so now I'm curious about pc wargames - what were the wargames
released in 1999 ? - the games I was playing back then (3R, TOAW and
TAO) predated 1999 - the only ones I'm finding is Smolensk '41 in the
PzC series and Shogun:Total War. Maybe some incarnation of Steel
Panthers was also released.

Not exactly games to get exited about - which explains why I wasn't
playing any of them ... so how about 2004 :
Rome Total War, ACW - Campaign Gettysburg, Modern Campaigns : North
German Plain '85, Point of Attack II, War over Vietnam, Tin Soldiers:
Alexander The Great, Battles in Normandy, War in the Pacific, Campaigns
on the Danube 1805 & 1809, Dragoon : The Prussian War Machine, Raging
Tiger : The Second Korean War.

RTW, WitP and BiN will be remembered in 5 years time as classics. So
2004 wins out both in quality and quantity.

We're 2 months into 2005 and look at what's been released already :
Flashpoint Germany, Grigsby's World at War, Civil War-Bull Run,
Dangerous Waters and Hearts of Iron 2.

If the sky is indeed falling, it can continue to do so for all I care
as it seems a flood of great games is tagging along for the ride.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:23:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

HR wrote:

> The board games, and I haven't played the newer ones, were much more
of a
> *wargame*. If the computer games had just done what amount to
ports...after
> all whats the computer best at?..crunching the rules and odds.

For the incurable who keep thinking the only good computer wargame is a
straight port of a classic : rejoyce, for faint and distant voices in
the wind are telling me of a classic strategic game getting ported to
the pc - it ain't WiF - and it's been kept Top Secret so far.

[I'm not yanking your chain here, all of the above is true - and no, I
can't be bribed]

> Other than 3R I can't think of a game
> that is easy to see since the screen is covered with menus.

<innocently>
Strategic Command ?
</innocently>

> The later SSG
> games are near impossioble to read, or at least not pleasing to the
eye.

You need a bigger monitor - seriously - that way the pixels are further
apart for games like BiN which for all intents and purposes you
*should* like because it's the closest thing to playing a boardgame on
the pc.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 2:32:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

As far as boardgames go, the wargaming horizon is looking pretty danged
good (I recommend Europe Engulfed to anyone who's interested). As far
as computer wargames... isn't there a new Combat Mission in the works?
What about Wartime Command (a title that I'm greatly looking forward
to)?

-V
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:54:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Yeah but the problem is they're not great games. WAW, I actually have hope
for.
HoI doesn't even belong in this category.

The board games, and I haven't played the newer ones, were much more of a
*wargame*. If the computer games had just done what amount to ports...after
all whats the computer best at?..crunching the rules and odds. But instead
they went for graphics and what not. Other than 3R I can't think of a game
that is easy to see since the screen is covered with menus. The later SSG
games are near impossioble to read, or at least not pleasing to the eye.





<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109694411.500012.132630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> The demise of wargames - articles are being written left and right,
> trying to figure out what is wrong and how it can be cured.
>
> Then comes along the list (Charles Roberts Award) of boardgames
> published in 2004 and in glossing over the list here's me thinking that
> for a hobby in decline there sure are a hell of a lot of games getting
> published. 135 to be precise. That's one game every 2.5 days. So I went
> back 5 years and had a look at the same list for 1999. only 73 games
> published - half the number of today.
>
> Now, I'm the first to say that quantity does not equal quality, but
> practically everyone is agreeing the average quality of current
> boardgames is a lot better than in the so-called Golden Age so we
> should be ok on the quality part. Moreover : I own half a dozen of the
> games on the 2004 list and I'm pretty satisfied with the quality in
> that small sample.
>
> Ok, so now I'm curious about pc wargames - what were the wargames
> released in 1999 ? - the games I was playing back then (3R, TOAW and
> TAO) predated 1999 - the only ones I'm finding is Smolensk '41 in the
> PzC series and Shogun:Total War. Maybe some incarnation of Steel
> Panthers was also released.
>
> Not exactly games to get exited about - which explains why I wasn't
> playing any of them ... so how about 2004 :
> Rome Total War, ACW - Campaign Gettysburg, Modern Campaigns : North
> German Plain '85, Point of Attack II, War over Vietnam, Tin Soldiers:
> Alexander The Great, Battles in Normandy, War in the Pacific, Campaigns
> on the Danube 1805 & 1809, Dragoon : The Prussian War Machine, Raging
> Tiger : The Second Korean War.
>
> RTW, WitP and BiN will be remembered in 5 years time as classics. So
> 2004 wins out both in quality and quantity.
>
> We're 2 months into 2005 and look at what's been released already :
> Flashpoint Germany, Grigsby's World at War, Civil War-Bull Run,
> Dangerous Waters and Hearts of Iron 2.
>
> If the sky is indeed falling, it can continue to do so for all I care
> as it seems a flood of great games is tagging along for the ride.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 4:56:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1109694411.500012.132630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> The demise of wargames - articles are being written left and right,
> trying to figure out what is wrong and how it can be cured.

That article is just one of the perennials. I file it along with the
hoo-haa entitled, "Is the real estate bubble about to burst?"

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The Islamists have been clear all along about their plans to form
an Islamic caliphate and inhabit the entire world with burqas,
stonings, amputations, honor killings and a lack of religious and
political freedom. Whether or not to oppose such a movement should
have been a no-brainer, especially for self-proclaimed 'progressives.'
Instead, they have extended their misguided sympathies to tyrants
and terrorists."
- Cinnamon Stillwell
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:07:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Now I didn't say an exact port..you know what I meant:)  Some counters with
numbers, hexes, woods,...you get the drift:) 

Speaking of there as a computer game close to that genre,not a port...Red
Thunder I believe. I still have it.
However it seemed to play rather slow which might be more the scenario.

Huh huh..a classic port. Ok I'll buy you that Tiger tank. Now tell tell:) 

SC2. I've yet to see and put my faith in. We had our little debate on the
beer and pretzel..or not so pretzel on SC1. So..SC2 will really have to step
in the big league for me to call it a real wargame:) 


Oh wait...I know....Squad Leader...that's it right?? And a few others if I
remember. Or is this all dreamware:) 


<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109704986.852883.250770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> HR wrote:
>
>> The board games, and I haven't played the newer ones, were much more
> of a
>> *wargame*. If the computer games had just done what amount to
> ports...after
>> all whats the computer best at?..crunching the rules and odds.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:10:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Volstag" <hawkbeak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109705542.568394.148630@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> As far as boardgames go, the wargaming horizon is looking pretty danged
> good (I recommend Europe Engulfed to anyone who's interested). As far
> as computer wargames... isn't there a new Combat Mission in the works?
> What about Wartime Command (a title that I'm greatly looking forward
> to)?
>
> -V
>

Yeah..what happened to the release date of wartime command. hmmm..

Then there's that band of brothers one out this month I believe..although
that's more along the 3d tpye shooters but does claim realism.

I wouldn't even mind a 1st person shooter with a squad if it was realistic.
Not these Battlefield "who charges the fastest" 1942 types.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 9:15:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Volstag" <hawkbeak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109705542.568394.148630@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> As far as boardgames go, the wargaming horizon is looking pretty danged
> good (I recommend Europe Engulfed to anyone who's interested). As far
> as computer wargames... isn't there a new Combat Mission in the works?
> What about Wartime Command (a title that I'm greatly looking forward
> to)?
>
> -V
>

WAW listed as 3/3 on EB. Who is not reliable anymore.
Wartime command if off the charts. Where did it go?
Brother in Arms is listed as 3-15

Again, EB is totally unreliable these days...thet actually used to keep up
with it.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:09:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I think that the key factor was the decision to move to a direct sale model.
Anonymous
March 1, 2005 11:13:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> I think that the key factor was the decision to move to a direct sale
model.

Uhm, I managed to write 432.914 lines of commentary and to delete everything
except for the first one - and the message, I see, makes much more sense now
:o )
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 1:50:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

HR wrote:
> Now I didn't say an exact port..you know what I meant:)  Some counters
with
> numbers, hexes, woods,...you get the drift:) 

Knew all along what you meant :) 

> Oh wait...I know....Squad Leader...that's it right??

Wrong :)  - Well, Paradox did buy the rights to the name "Squad Leader"
and has stated that they're working on it. No idea what *that* will
look like.

> And a few others if I
> remember. Or is this all dreamware:) 

No dreamware - I got the info from Huggy Bear who said that "Word on
the street is ..." And everyone knows Huggy Bear is a very reliable
source.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:31:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <vNydnYkFn_75a7nfRVn-2Q@comcast.com>, HR@horizon.net says...
>
> "Volstag" <hawkbeak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1109705542.568394.148630@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > As far as boardgames go, the wargaming horizon is looking pretty danged
> > good (I recommend Europe Engulfed to anyone who's interested). As far
> > as computer wargames... isn't there a new Combat Mission in the works?
> > What about Wartime Command (a title that I'm greatly looking forward
> > to)?
> >
> > -V
> >
>
> Yeah..what happened to the release date of wartime command. hmmm..
>
> Then there's that band of brothers one out this month I believe..although
> that's more along the 3d tpye shooters but does claim realism.
>
> I wouldn't even mind a 1st person shooter with a squad if it was realistic.
> Not these Battlefield "who charges the fastest" 1942 types.
>

There is a game like that. Modern. I forget the name. Unfortunately,
my computer can't handle it. Really neat though. It's not a shooter;
you just command the squad. It is 3d though. Some guy mentioned it
once on this newsgroup. Maybe he will pop in with the name.
--
Epi

Do you get off on pain? Like to feel it coursing
through your body? Are you a masochist? Do you
like to play with a sore? It's only a matter of
degrees. I guess degrees matter.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 2:02:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> There is a game like that. Modern. I forget the name. Unfortunately,
> my computer can't handle it. Really neat though. It's not a shooter;
> you just command the squad.

Is it "Operation Flashpoint"? That is truly a classic.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 3:05:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <m6gVd.76063$2h5.13703@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
reckall@hotmail.com says...
> > There is a game like that. Modern. I forget the name. Unfortunately,
> > my computer can't handle it. Really neat though. It's not a shooter;
> > you just command the squad.
>
> Is it "Operation Flashpoint"? That is truly a classic.

Not Flashpoint. I do like that game though. It's not one everyone
would have heard of. Like I say, it's not a shooter, you command the
squad.
--
Epi

Do you get off on pain? Like to feel it coursing
through your body? Are you a masochist? Do you
like to play with a sore? It's only a matter of
degrees. I guess degrees matter.
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 7:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:31:42 GMT, Epi Watkins <epicat1212@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>There is a game like that. Modern. I forget the name. Unfortunately,
>my computer can't handle it. Really neat though. It's not a shooter;
>you just command the squad. It is 3d though. Some guy mentioned it
>once on this newsgroup. Maybe he will pop in with the name.

Battlefield 2?

Three-page ads in the mags right now. Major AAA title. From what I've
read very immersive, very loud.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 8:39:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

haha:) 

I heard Squad leader would be almost a direct port. That doesn't sound
something like Paradox would do.

We all know they used the name Sqaud Leader before and that game not only
wasn't close to the original..it was no good.

Hmm..I'll have to go see Huggy:) 

-HR
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109746226.660445.109950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> HR wrote:
>> Now I didn't say an exact port..you know what I meant:)  Some counters
> with
>> numbers, hexes, woods,...you get the drift:) 
>
> Knew all along what you meant :) 
>
>> Oh wait...I know....Squad Leader...that's it right??
>
> Wrong :)  - Well, Paradox did buy the rights to the name "Squad Leader"
> and has stated that they're working on it. No idea what *that* will
> look like.
>
>> And a few others if I
>> remember. Or is this all dreamware:) 
>
> No dreamware - I got the info from Huggy Bear who said that "Word on
> the street is ..." And everyone knows Huggy Bear is a very reliable
> source.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>
Anonymous
March 2, 2005 8:41:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hmmm...think think will ya:) 

America's Army? But that's a shooter.


"Epi Watkins" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8f75fcff97d0db9896b7@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <m6gVd.76063$2h5.13703@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> reckall@hotmail.com says...
>> > There is a game like that. Modern. I forget the name. Unfortunately,
>> > my computer can't handle it. Really neat though. It's not a shooter;
>> > you just command the squad.
>>
>> Is it "Operation Flashpoint"? That is truly a classic.
>
> Not Flashpoint. I do like that game though. It's not one everyone
> would have heard of. Like I say, it's not a shooter, you command the
> squad.
> --
> Epi
>
> Do you get off on pain? Like to feel it coursing
> through your body? Are you a masochist? Do you
> like to play with a sore? It's only a matter of
> degrees. I guess degrees matter.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:12:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Battlefield 2?
>
> Three-page ads in the mags right now. Major AAA title. From what I've
> read very immersive, very loud.

I played a beta of BF2 at a press-event in London. One of the features is
the "Theatre Commander" role: you watch the battle unfolding on a strategic
map and you do send orders to squad leaders - players in the 3D battlefield
able to command and coordinate small group of other players in what is
called a "squad". The Uber Commander can also order artillery and air
strikes. It looked like a cool concept!
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:14:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <fdSdnRvi2bKK3LvfRVn-jA@comcast.com>, HR@horizon.net says...
> Hmmm...think think will ya:) 
>
> America's Army? But that's a shooter.
>
>
> "Epi Watkins" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c8f75fcff97d0db9896b7@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <m6gVd.76063$2h5.13703@tornado.fastwebnet.it>,
> > reckall@hotmail.com says...
> >> > There is a game like that. Modern. I forget the name. Unfortunately,
> >> > my computer can't handle it. Really neat though. It's not a shooter;
> >> > you just command the squad.
> >>
> >> Is it "Operation Flashpoint"? That is truly a classic.
> >
> > Not Flashpoint. I do like that game though. It's not one everyone
> > would have heard of. Like I say, it's not a shooter, you command the
> > squad.
> > --
> > Epi
> >
> > Do you get off on pain? Like to feel it coursing
> > through your body? Are you a masochist? Do you
> > like to play with a sore? It's only a matter of
> > degrees. I guess degrees matter.

Sorry, it's not America's Army. I never heard of it before or since
someone mentioned it on this newsgroup.

--
Epi

How can a man who used to dress in next-to-nothing,
and show off his body, then turn around and
call others girlie-men. Strange.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 3:16:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <u3hc2155v83kcuj4jubl76til8v9vieaj5@4ax.com>,
sbartman@visi.com says...
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:31:42 GMT, Epi Watkins <epicat1212@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >There is a game like that. Modern. I forget the name. Unfortunately,
> >my computer can't handle it. Really neat though. It's not a shooter;
> >you just command the squad. It is 3d though. Some guy mentioned it
> >once on this newsgroup. Maybe he will pop in with the name.
>
> Battlefield 2?
>
> Three-page ads in the mags right now. Major AAA title. From what I've
> read very immersive, very loud.
>
> Steve

tHAT'S NOT IT. iT'S NOT REALLY A SHOOTER. yOU ORDER THE SQUAD. Forgive
caps, accident.

--
Epi

How can a man who used to dress in next-to-nothing,
and show off his body, then turn around and
call others girlie-men. Strange.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 12:46:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:12:48 +0100, "Vincenzo Beretta"
<reckall@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I played a beta of BF2 at a press-event in London. One of the features is
>the "Theatre Commander" role: you watch the battle unfolding on a strategic
>map and you do send orders to squad leaders - players in the 3D battlefield
>able to command and coordinate small group of other players in what is
>called a "squad". The Uber Commander can also order artillery and air
>strikes. It looked like a cool concept!

I think so too, in theory, but after my first serious multiplayer
experience with Call of Duty: UO I wonder if the kiddies will be able
to play nice and agree which one gets to be Uber. It would work well
with clans, but pick-up games tend to be pretty egalitarian and fight
taking orders from strangers.

My style of play is more thoughtful, slower, and stealthy (I like
sniper rifles) than the grab-a-submachinegun-and-charge play style of
your average 15-YO male on hormones. I've been called every name in
the book for playing my own game.

Steve

--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:48:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Sorry, it's not America's Army. I never heard of it before or since
> someone mentioned it on this newsgroup.

Full Spectrum Warrior?
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:48:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <d05tt3$gu3$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, andybrown@somewhere.in.nz
says...
> > Sorry, it's not America's Army. I never heard of it before or since
> > someone mentioned it on this newsgroup.
>
> Full Spectrum Warrior?

I think that's it.

--
Epi

How can a man who used to dress in next-to-nothing,
and show off his body, then turn around and
call others girlie-men. Strange.
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 6:48:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Yeah thats what I was thinking but couldn't remember the game.
It's ok. Its a squad with 2-3 fireteams. So you can,and should, use the
leapfrog tactic.


"Andy Brown" <andybrown@somewhere.in.nz> wrote in message
news:D 05tt3$gu3$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Sorry, it's not America's Army. I never heard of it before or since
>> someone mentioned it on this newsgroup.
>
> Full Spectrum Warrior?
>
>
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:46:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <Gvednd4WK7BV8LrfRVn-hg@comcast.com>, HR@horizon.net says...
> Yeah thats what I was thinking but couldn't remember the game.
> It's ok. Its a squad with 2-3 fireteams. So you can,and should, use the
> leapfrog tactic.
>
>
> "Andy Brown" <andybrown@somewhere.in.nz> wrote in message
> news:D 05tt3$gu3$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> >> Sorry, it's not America's Army. I never heard of it before or since
> >> someone mentioned it on this newsgroup.
> >
> > Full Spectrum Warrior?
> >
That was it, and I loved it. What little of the demo I could play
without it freezing (not locking up, just slow computer).
--
Epi

How can a man who used to dress in next-to-nothing,
and show off his body, then turn around and
call others girlie-men. Strange.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:53:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> I think so too, in theory, but after my first serious multiplayer
> experience with Call of Duty: UO I wonder if the kiddies will be able
> to play nice and agree which one gets to be Uber.

I believe that competition with other clans will be the key here. Like in a
basketball team, the side able to cooperate and to coordinate his efforts
will have the upper hand - and the commanders can kick and ban "unruling"
players. At the end, it will be a matter of darwinian selection, propelled
by the will to win.

BTW, having someone who sets an ambush for you and tells you were the enemy
is is more satisfying than charging blindly :o )
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:20:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Epi Watkins" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c90c7b5306aac5f9896bb@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <d05tt3$gu3$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, andybrown@somewhere.in.nz
> says...
>> > Sorry, it's not America's Army. I never heard of it before or since
>> > someone mentioned it on this newsgroup.
>>
>> Full Spectrum Warrior?
>
> I think that's it.

Yes, that was fun although I found it a bit tedious after a while.

Cheers
Martin
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:42:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I don't think our hobby's on the way out, at least I hope not. Have a look
at the two categories of the Charles Roberts awards for 2003 that are pertinent
to the NG though :

Best Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargame
No winner
Best 20th Century Era Computer Wargame
No winner

Disappointing year, huh? The times, they are improving, wrto wargames anyway.
:-)

Regards Mike Kreuzer
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <422bb1b4@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
says...
> I don't think our hobby's on the way out, at least I hope not. Have a look
> at the two categories of the Charles Roberts awards for 2003 that are pertinent
> to the NG though :
>
> Best Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargame
> No winner
> Best 20th Century Era Computer Wargame
> No winner
>
> Disappointing year, huh? The times, they are improving, wrto wargames anyway.
> :-)
>
> Regards Mike Kreuzer

I can't really remember what came out in 2003. Didn't HTTR. That
wasn't disappointing.

--
Epi

How can a man who used to dress in next-to-nothing,
and show off his body, then turn around and
call others girlie-men. Strange.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 3:42:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <422bb1b4@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
says...

> I don't think our hobby's on the way out, at least I hope not. Have a look
> at the two categories of the Charles Roberts awards for 2003 that are pertinent
> to the NG though :
>
> Best Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargame
> No winner
> Best 20th Century Era Computer Wargame
> No winner
>
> Disappointing year, huh? The times, they are improving, wrto wargames anyway.

I have no idea by what carefully-vetted, universally-admired process the
fabulously prestigious "Charles Roberts" accolades are awarded, but it's
difficult to see how HIGHWAY TO THE REICH managed to evade notice given
its release date.

And I'm pretty sure that HPS *might* have released a game or two (or
twelve...) in both categories in 2003.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful
British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic
of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on
America=3Fs motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush
Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats
but also to remake the Middle East."
- Gerard Baker
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 2:16:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Mike Kreuzer wrote:
> A brief list of problems with HTTR.

Ok - Maybe Arjuna or Steve will pick this up, but I'll try to give some
info on this without compromising the NDA.

> - a display that's impossible to make out when a giant blob of XXX
Corps arrive
> at the bottom of the screen.

Unit filters - hitting the "2" will only show HQ units. It's not
perfect, and the whole issue of filters has been debated at length in
the forum.

> - a sneaking suspicion that the casualty model problem from airborne
assault is
> still there, just disguised with smaller individual units. Too many
black box
> calculations generally. Not everyone likes knowing the formula, but
there is
> one, so why not tell me it?

The COTA manual has lots of info on this, but not the exact formula
IIRC. A bit impossible really as there is no such thing as a "combat
formula" to calculate odds or such.

> - no OOB display, it badly needs one (have read here COTA has this)

Correct - screenshots were published in the COTA forum.

> - no campaign/continuity (have read here that COTA has this) and
while on this
> point, no dates.

NDA restrictions apply here for me

> - PCT, which I know you like but which I've got a problem with. With
PCT you've
> still got turns, but you get to end them when you feel like it (ie
when it's to
> your advantage to do so). Put this way it's even more gamey than
fixed length
> turns.

I think that what you mean by "gamey" is that a player that wants to
think about a certain situation can unrealistically stop the game and
think about it while the *real* commander had to make instant decisions
- well, if you want to feel the time-pressure of command there's no-one
forcing you to hit the pause button :) . I often play this way, and it's
a challenge.

> - No PBEM (because of the PCT).

Well, I came up with a suggestion to make PBEM work under the working
title "yet another dumb idea" ...

> - That annoying screen resolution dialogue at the start of the game.
Every
> single time ...

Ok - you've got a point here - I will put in a feature request for
this.

> - No consideration of alternate objectives, eg no VP for seizing the
crossings
> west of Arnhem. Arguably the best way to take Arnhem (at a level
higher than
> the one portrayed in this game).

COTA has exit objectives - essentially simulating strategic victories
at a level higher.

> - The yet-another-Arhnem-game syndrome, I suppose.

Then you will be mighty pleased with the Med setting of COTA :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
March 8, 2005 7:59:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi Mike,

You're right that I do watch this NG, though I've been a tad busy
lately to get too involved. Couldn't pass up this opportunity though.
;) 

OK my specific comments are below. But first let me say this that no
computer wargame ever published will be "perfect". We certainly aim for
the sky at each release, but we also recognise that this whole business
is an evolution. We aim to continually develop and refine our engine.
That is why it is great to get some constructive criticism. Thanks.

Mike Kreuzer wrote:

> A brief list of problems with HTTR. Some of which I understand may
be fixed in
> the next game in the series, some of which are personal preference
specific, but
> few of which I think are trivial. I'm not sure why you think there
are none,
> perhaps you're just more tolerant and forgiving than I am. ;-)
>
> - a display that's impossible to make out when a giant blob of XXX
Corps arrive
> at the bottom of the screen. I'm not after eye candy here, but hexes
& stacks
> of counters were one elegant solution to this problem.

Point taken about the congestion of units. As Eddy mentioned use the
Unit filters to hide/show the different types. The new Order of Battle
Display in COTA will help here.

As to hexes and stacking, well in part it's a personal preference of
mine not to have hexes, but in the main it is a policy of aiming to
support the highest fidelity of resolution. This applies not only to
the map/or ground scale but also to the time scale. I have mentioned in
this NG some months back the arguments in favour of high fidelity,
particularly in relation to time. I won't go over that again in detail
here. Suffice to say that you get a far superior/realistic simulation
where your time interval ( aka turns ) is one minute duration than you
do with hourly intervals/turns. Similarly, you can more realistically
simulate the interaction of units when their occupied area ( the ground
they occupy ) can be sized and placed to the nearest 4m than you can
when you have 1km hexes.

>
> - a sneaking suspicion that the casualty model problem from airborne
assault is
> still there, just disguised with smaller individual units. Too many
black box
> calculations generally. Not everyone likes knowing the formula, but
there is
> one, so why not tell me it?

The problem I have with this is that there is much more than just one
algorythm. The other day we were interviewing a programmer and he asked
me how much source code there was for COTA and I told him that the
source code alone amounted to over 2GB of data. Now that is a lot of
code. The Fire Event code alone is 1850 lines long; Bombard - 950
lines; PlanAttack - 7700 lines etc etc. We have gone into a fair bit of
detail in the Startegy Guide and the Manual. More than enough to give
the player a good understanding of what happens.

It is important to remember that we do not resolve combat using an odds
system and couple of dice. We resolve each weapon on target
individually. Combat unfolds continuously over time, event after event.
Just as it does in real life. In RL combat results cannot be predicted
by a commander to the same precision that a player of your traditional
board wargames can. In RL a commander does not look under the stack of
counters and say if only I had another 3 attack points I would get onto
the 4:1 column. It doesn't work like that.

While a firepower ratio is indicative it does not and should not be the
sole factor that goes into determining the outcome of an engagement.
Apart from firepower and terrain ( the hard factors ) there are a
plethora of "soft" factors such as unit aggression, fatigue, morale,
commander leadership and efficiency, not to mention the impact of
surprise that can be gained by a more efficient force operating with
less orders delay.

Having said all that we are continually refining our combat algorythms.
We have worked on them for COTA and no doubt we will do so again for
the game after that.

>
> - no OOB display, it badly needs one (have read here COTA has this)

Yep see the COTA forum for some screen dumps.

>
> - no campaign/continuity (have read here that COTA has this)

No COTA will NOT have a campaign feature. We dropped this in favour of
a realistic Resupply system and Mixed Mode Movement - two features
deemed essential to simulate the effects of the steep and difficult
terrain in Greece and Crete and the operational constraints imposed by
the long lines of supply.

>and while on this
> point, no dates. Scenarios that start on D+3 rather than 17
September or
> whatever are annoying. (A personal grudge leftover from an earlier
life spent
> working with databases that required a pencil & paper handy to save
info between
> screens.).

OK that's an easy one. We have some more screen real estate that now we
are going to a min of 1024 x 768. I'll add that to the wish list and
see what we can do for COTA.


>
> - PCT, which I know you like but which I've got a problem with. With
PCT you've
> still got turns, but you get to end them when you feel like it (ie
when it's to
> your advantage to do so). Put this way it's even more gamey than
fixed length
> turns. Remember the flip flops you disliked in Third Reich? Every
time you hit
> pause in HTTR you're flip flopping. Out of click & twitch, PCT and
fixed length
> turns I much prefer turns. Now, they could be resolved
simultaneously, or
> broken down into phases, or not, that all depends on what the game's
meant to be
> simulating, but I think if times going to be sliced up (and it has
to be) then
> it shouldn't be up to the player to do it.
>
> - No PBEM (because of the PCT).

One of the new features we have added to COTA and announced yesterday
on the COTA forum is a Run Until button. This allows you to set the
time that the game will run to. You can use this to impose your own
customised turn structure, if you so wish. For instance, if you are
playing online you can set the game to run for one hour hence of game
time. Similarly, you could use it for a PREM style arrangement where
one player gives his orders with the game paused, saves it, emails it
to his opponent, who isssues his orders and then runs the game until
the agreed time at which he issues his orders, saves it and emails it
back and so forth.

Having said all this I find it rather amusing that you think PCT
"gamey". In RL opposing commanders do not wait for a set time at which
they issue their orders. They certainly do not give their opposite
number a fair chance. It just does not happen like that. They will
maximise every advantage they can get. A good commander will endeavour
to get inside his opponent's decision making cycle - so that he can
gain the initiative and effect surprise, so that he can make the enemy
dance to his tune. That is real life and that you can only get with a
high fidelity time interval and a PCT system.

>
> - That annoying screen resolution dialogue at the start of the game.
Every
> single time ...

See page 51 of the HTTR manual for details on how to set the specific
resolution and this screen will not reappear.
>
> - No consideration of alternate objectives, eg no VP for seizing the
crossings
> west of Arnhem. Arguably the best way to take Arnhem (at a level
higher than
> the one portrayed in this game).

You can easily edit in the ScenMaker one of the many Arnhem scenarios
and include these alternate objectives. I'm sure other users would be
interested to play it as well.

> Regards,
> Mike Kreuzer


All the best Mike.

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:43:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Charles Roberts Awards are voted on by whoever wants to, the details are on
consimworld & maybe other places.
http://www.consimworld.com/archives/000488.html

I suppose there's not as much overlap between
boardgamers-who-also-play-computer-wargames and computer-wargamers as I'd
thought before. I'd always assumed the two groups were the same people, but
thinking about it they probably aren't. The list of wargames released in 2004
on consimworld doesn't even have computer games, just board & cardgames.

Suppose we'll all have to make an effort to vote this time around, (What were
the games released last year?) Voting closes May 15, 2005 in case you want to
put in a word for one of those HPS games you like so much. ;-)

Regards, Mike

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9634fc10471ee98a205@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <422bb1b4@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
> says...
>
>> I don't think our hobby's on the way out, at least I hope not. Have a look
>> at the two categories of the Charles Roberts awards for 2003 that are
>> pertinent
>> to the NG though :
>>
>> Best Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargame
>> No winner
>> Best 20th Century Era Computer Wargame
>> No winner
>>
>> Disappointing year, huh? The times, they are improving, wrto wargames
>> anyway.
>
> I have no idea by what carefully-vetted, universally-admired process the
> fabulously prestigious "Charles Roberts" accolades are awarded, but it's
> difficult to see how HIGHWAY TO THE REICH managed to evade notice given
> its release date.
>
> And I'm pretty sure that HPS *might* have released a game or two (or
> twelve...) in both categories in 2003.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful
> British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic
> of this blighted region has already shifted.
>
> Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on
> America=3Fs motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush
> Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats
> but also to remake the Middle East."
> - Gerard Baker
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:43:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <422ccb20@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
says...

> Charles Roberts Awards are voted on by whoever wants to, the details are on
> consimworld & maybe other places.
> http://www.consimworld.com/archives/000488.html
>
> I suppose there's not as much overlap between
> boardgamers-who-also-play-computer-wargames and computer-wargamers as I'd
> thought before. I'd always assumed the two groups were the same people, but
> thinking about it they probably aren't. The list of wargames released in 2004
> on consimworld doesn't even have computer games, just board & cardgames.
>
> Suppose we'll all have to make an effort to vote this time around, (What were
> the games released last year?) Voting closes May 15, 2005 in case you want to
> put in a word for one of those HPS games you like so much. ;-)

Or, we could all just confer on the "Charles Roberts Awards" all the
attention they so richly merit.

Which is to say, ignore them entirely, particularly when cited as having
some particular meaning in a PC wargaming context.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful
British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic
of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on
America=3Fs motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush
Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats
but also to remake the Middle East."
- Gerard Baker
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

HTTR came out in December 2003, I was thinking it came out last year when I
wrote that though, HTTR's part of the improvement I was talking about. HTTR's
got it's problems, but it's certainly not disappointing.

Regards, Mike

"Epi Watkins" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c958228811e46bc9896cc@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <422bb1b4@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
> says...
>> I don't think our hobby's on the way out, at least I hope not. Have a look
>> at the two categories of the Charles Roberts awards for 2003 that are
>> pertinent
>> to the NG though :
>>
>> Best Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargame
>> No winner
>> Best 20th Century Era Computer Wargame
>> No winner
>>
>> Disappointing year, huh? The times, they are improving, wrto wargames
>> anyway.
>> :-)
>>
>> Regards Mike Kreuzer
>
> I can't really remember what came out in 2003. Didn't HTTR. That
> wasn't disappointing.
>
> --
> Epi
>
> How can a man who used to dress in next-to-nothing,
> and show off his body, then turn around and
> call others girlie-men. Strange.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 11:43:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <422ccb29@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
says...

> HTTR came out in December 2003, I was thinking it came out last year when I
> wrote that though, HTTR's part of the improvement I was talking about. HTTR's
> got it's problems, but it's certainly not disappointing.

What "problems" are those?

[I mean, in a so-general-as-to-be-essentially-worthless sense, even a
Rolls-Royce Centenary Phantom has probably "got it's problems." But I'd
be proud to own one, nonetheless...]

HTTR is a *certain* candidate for Wargame of the Year 2003 - and if a
particular awards collection manages to mention "2003" and "wargames"
*without* mentioning HTTR ... well, the omission says a lot more about
the "awards" in question than it does about HTTR.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful
British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic
of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on
America=3Fs motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush
Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats
but also to remake the Middle East."
- Gerard Baker
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:52:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c969b772ae38c0e98a209@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <422ccb29@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
> says...
>
>> HTTR came out in December 2003, I was thinking it came out last year when I
>> wrote that though, HTTR's part of the improvement I was talking about.
>> HTTR's
>> got it's problems, but it's certainly not disappointing.
>
> What "problems" are those?
>
> [I mean, in a so-general-as-to-be-essentially-worthless sense, even a
> Rolls-Royce Centenary Phantom has probably "got it's problems." But I'd
> be proud to own one, nonetheless...]
>

A brief list of problems with HTTR. Some of which I understand may be fixed in
the next game in the series, some of which are personal preference specific, but
few of which I think are trivial. I'm not sure why you think there are none,
perhaps you're just more tolerant and forgiving than I am. ;-)

- a display that's impossible to make out when a giant blob of XXX Corps arrive
at the bottom of the screen. I'm not after eye candy here, but hexes & stacks
of counters were one elegant solution to this problem.

- a sneaking suspicion that the casualty model problem from airborne assault is
still there, just disguised with smaller individual units. Too many black box
calculations generally. Not everyone likes knowing the formula, but there is
one, so why not tell me it?

- no OOB display, it badly needs one (have read here COTA has this)

- no campaign/continuity (have read here that COTA has this) and while on this
point, no dates. Scenarios that start on D+3 rather than 17 September or
whatever are annoying. (A personal grudge leftover from an earlier life spent
working with databases that required a pencil & paper handy to save info between
screens.).

- PCT, which I know you like but which I've got a problem with. With PCT you've
still got turns, but you get to end them when you feel like it (ie when it's to
your advantage to do so). Put this way it's even more gamey than fixed length
turns. Remember the flip flops you disliked in Third Reich? Every time you hit
pause in HTTR you're flip flopping. Out of click & twitch, PCT and fixed length
turns I much prefer turns. Now, they could be resolved simultaneously, or
broken down into phases, or not, that all depends on what the game's meant to be
simulating, but I think if times going to be sliced up (and it has to be) then
it shouldn't be up to the player to do it.

- No PBEM (because of the PCT).

- That annoying screen resolution dialogue at the start of the game. Every
single time ...

- No consideration of alternate objectives, eg no VP for seizing the crossings
west of Arnhem. Arguably the best way to take Arnhem (at a level higher than
the one portrayed in this game).

- The yet-another-Arhnem-game syndrome, I suppose.

Maybe other things. Now, all up I don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the game,
which is great, but not perfect. Grognards, remember? :-)

> HTTR is a *certain* candidate for Wargame of the Year 2003 - and if a

Well, I think it was too! Did I vote? No. Do I plan to this year because of
that? Yes!

> particular awards collection manages to mention "2003" and "wargames"
> *without* mentioning HTTR ... well, the omission says a lot more about
> the "awards" in question than it does about HTTR.
[OT sig snipped]

I think it has more to do with the presumption (that I discussed previously
having shared myself) that computer wargamers and board wargamers are the same
people. Charles Roberts started out as a boardgaming award, most of the voters
are boardgamers, etc. I happen to enjoy both and wouldn't mind the award
meaning something for both parts of my hobby.

Here's a first brush at a list of games to vote on for 2003, in case anyone's
interested/motivated/whatever.

I haven't included PBEM aides (VASSAL and Cyberbox etc), and wasn't looking
for empire building games/first person shooters/etc, but did include re-releases
and add-ons. Is there anything I've forgotten? Anything I've included that
actually happened in 2003 or (blush) 2005?

Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargames
Horse & Musket 2: Dragoon: The Prussian War Machine (Shrapnel, November?)
Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great (Matrix, October?)

20th Century Era Computer Wargames
ANZAC Attack, add-on to Lock 'N Load, Forgotten Heroes: Vietnam (Shrapnel,
June?)
Battles in Normandy (Matrix, September?)
North German Plains 85 (HPS, March?)
Point of Attack 2 (HPS, January?)
Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War (Shrapnel, August?)

Games that I think might have been released in 2003, but like HTTR seem to have
only registered on my mental radar in 2004 <g>:
Across the Dnepr, add-on for Korsun Pocket (Matrix, December 2003?)
Combat Mission: Afrika Korps (Battlefront, December 2003?)

Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:52:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <422ce941@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
says...
> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c969b772ae38c0e98a209@news-east.giganews.com...
> > In article <422ccb29@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
> > says...
> >
> >> HTTR came out in December 2003, I was thinking it came out last year when I
> >> wrote that though, HTTR's part of the improvement I was talking about.
> >> HTTR's
> >> got it's problems, but it's certainly not disappointing.
> >
> > What "problems" are those?
> >
> > [I mean, in a so-general-as-to-be-essentially-worthless sense, even a
> > Rolls-Royce Centenary Phantom has probably "got it's problems." But I'd
> > be proud to own one, nonetheless...]
> >
>
> A brief list of problems with HTTR. Some of which I understand may be fixed in
> the next game in the series, some of which are personal preference specific, but
> few of which I think are trivial. I'm not sure why you think there are none,
> perhaps you're just more tolerant and forgiving than I am. ;-)
>
> - a display that's impossible to make out when a giant blob of XXX Corps arrive
> at the bottom of the screen. I'm not after eye candy here, but hexes & stacks
> of counters were one elegant solution to this problem.
>
> - a sneaking suspicion that the casualty model problem from airborne assault is
> still there, just disguised with smaller individual units. Too many black box
> calculations generally. Not everyone likes knowing the formula, but there is
> one, so why not tell me it?
>
> - no OOB display, it badly needs one (have read here COTA has this)
>
> - no campaign/continuity (have read here that COTA has this) and while on this
> point, no dates. Scenarios that start on D+3 rather than 17 September or
> whatever are annoying. (A personal grudge leftover from an earlier life spent
> working with databases that required a pencil & paper handy to save info between
> screens.).
>
> - PCT, which I know you like but which I've got a problem with. With PCT you've
> still got turns, but you get to end them when you feel like it (ie when it's to
> your advantage to do so). Put this way it's even more gamey than fixed length
> turns. Remember the flip flops you disliked in Third Reich? Every time you hit
> pause in HTTR you're flip flopping. Out of click & twitch, PCT and fixed length
> turns I much prefer turns. Now, they could be resolved simultaneously, or
> broken down into phases, or not, that all depends on what the game's meant to be
> simulating, but I think if times going to be sliced up (and it has to be) then
> it shouldn't be up to the player to do it.
>
> - No PBEM (because of the PCT).
>
> - That annoying screen resolution dialogue at the start of the game. Every
> single time ...
>
> - No consideration of alternate objectives, eg no VP for seizing the crossings
> west of Arnhem. Arguably the best way to take Arnhem (at a level higher than
> the one portrayed in this game).
>
> - The yet-another-Arhnem-game syndrome, I suppose.
>
> Maybe other things. Now, all up I don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the game,
> which is great, but not perfect. Grognards, remember? :-)
>
> > HTTR is a *certain* candidate for Wargame of the Year 2003 - and if a
>
> Well, I think it was too! Did I vote? No. Do I plan to this year because of
> that? Yes!
>
> > particular awards collection manages to mention "2003" and "wargames"
> > *without* mentioning HTTR ... well, the omission says a lot more about
> > the "awards" in question than it does about HTTR.
> [OT sig snipped]
>
> I think it has more to do with the presumption (that I discussed previously
> having shared myself) that computer wargamers and board wargamers are the same
> people. Charles Roberts started out as a boardgaming award, most of the voters
> are boardgamers, etc. I happen to enjoy both and wouldn't mind the award
> meaning something for both parts of my hobby.
>
> Here's a first brush at a list of games to vote on for 2003, in case anyone's
> interested/motivated/whatever.
>
> I haven't included PBEM aides (VASSAL and Cyberbox etc), and wasn't looking
> for empire building games/first person shooters/etc, but did include re-releases
> and add-ons. Is there anything I've forgotten? Anything I've included that
> actually happened in 2003 or (blush) 2005?
>
> Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargames
> Horse & Musket 2: Dragoon: The Prussian War Machine (Shrapnel, November?)
> Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great (Matrix, October?)
>
> 20th Century Era Computer Wargames
> ANZAC Attack, add-on to Lock 'N Load, Forgotten Heroes: Vietnam (Shrapnel,
> June?)
> Battles in Normandy (Matrix, September?)
> North German Plains 85 (HPS, March?)
> Point of Attack 2 (HPS, January?)
> Raging Tiger: The Second Korean War (Shrapnel, August?)
>
> Games that I think might have been released in 2003, but like HTTR seem to have
> only registered on my mental radar in 2004 <g>:
> Across the Dnepr, add-on for Korsun Pocket (Matrix, December 2003?)
> Combat Mission: Afrika Korps (Battlefront, December 2003?)
>
> Regards,
> Mike Kreuzer

It sounds more like problems you have with the game than bugs or
something.

--
Epi

How can a man who used to dress in next-to-nothing,
and show off his body, then turn around and
call others girlie-men. Strange.
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 1:57:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Erratum:
> Here's a first brush at a list of games to vote on for 2003, in case anyone's
> interested/motivated/whatever.

For 2003, read 2004. It's been a long morning. ;-)
Mike Kreuzer
Anonymous
March 8, 2005 8:09:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Mike Kreuzer" <INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au> wrote in
news:422cea6c@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

> Erratum:
>> Here's a first brush at a list of games to vote on for 2003, in case
>> anyone's interested/motivated/whatever.
>
> For 2003, read 2004. It's been a long morning. ;-)
> Mike Kreuzer

If you're interested I ran a "wargame of the year 2004" in here - WitP came
in first, Battles in Normandy 2nd.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:19:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 07:36:41 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> - a sneaking suspicion that the casualty model problem from airborne assault is
>> still there, just disguised with smaller individual units. Too many black box
>> calculations generally. Not everyone likes knowing the formula, but there is
>> one, so why not tell me it?
>
>Uh, what's the "problem?" That Panther has decided, for some reason of
>their own, to keep certain internal details of the game unpublished?
>

Since this is my one pet peeve with the original RDOA, I'll comment
on it. The problem is (was?) that the combat engine just doesn't
handle regimental sized units well. The units take casualties and
morale losses that are way out of proportion to what they should be
and this some units like the british reinforcment infrantry division s
that are only broken up into regiments become almost useless in the
game.

Panther's 'fix' to this problem was to tell people to buy HTTR where
they broke those divisions down into smaller sub-units.

Rgds, Frank
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:35:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <5BEvQk5H0trxGdLvR+jVE58ZJCY4@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...

> >> - a sneaking suspicion that the casualty model problem from airborne assault is
> >> still there, just disguised with smaller individual units. Too many black box
> >> calculations generally. Not everyone likes knowing the formula, but there is
> >> one, so why not tell me it?
> >
> >Uh, what's the "problem?" That Panther has decided, for some reason of
> >their own, to keep certain internal details of the game unpublished?
> >
>
> Since this is my one pet peeve with the original RDOA, I'll comment
> on it. The problem is (was?) that the combat engine just doesn't
> handle regimental sized units well. The units take casualties and
> morale losses that are way out of proportion to what they should be
> and this some units like the british reinforcment infrantry division s
> that are only broken up into regiments become almost useless in the
> game.
>
> Panther's 'fix' to this problem was to tell people to buy HTTR where
> they broke those divisions down into smaller sub-units.

I've played HTTR avidly for more than a year now. Every scenario, every
side, every situation. And I've never had the slightest qualm or
question about casualties incurred in any context. Thus my take on this
specific point is:

(a) If there was ever a problem, it's 'fixed' in HTTR.
(b) Problems unique to a previous game are hardly relevant to a
subsequent game.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful
British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic
of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on
America=3Fs motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush
Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats
but also to remake the Middle East."
- Gerard Baker
March 10, 2005 2:44:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Mike,

Thanks for the discussion. I have just finished writing the
ResupplyDetermination() code - probably another 10,000 lines and I need
a break from bulk fuel capacities, rationing, supply arrival events
etc.
:) )

First off, re spatial scale/fidelity. While I agree with your thrust
about commanders not necessarily having up to the data info on their
subUnit locations, this is only one aspect to consider when deciding on
how accurate/detailed your ground scale will be. A very important
consideration is the right scale for resolving "tactical" engagements -
ie. fire and movement of units. For this its best to have max fidelity.


Oops. Just summoned from on high - dinner's ready. I'll be back.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Mike Kreuzer wrote:

> Nice to see the near monopoly Australia's making of this too
> (how did we ever manage that? :-)

uh-oh - another kangaroo-kisser - just what we needed in here <sigh> :) 

> A 1km hex and a 1km pixel are
> exactly as detailed as one another, ditto a 4m hex and 4m pixel, so a
preference
> between them's not necessarily just based on detail.

Correct, in essence hexes are just an outline around a coordinate -
they're a big help when you've got a game where judging distances your
units can get to in a turn is at stake, they serve no real purpose in
non turn-based games.

> Secondly, detail's not
> necessarily realism. If a unit's placement is only known to the
quarter of the
> day and it's location to the nearest kilometre grid square -- known
to the
> overall commander at the time, not to the archives later that is --
then any
> detail above that's less realistic rather than the other way around.


Correct as well. From the pov of the overall commander to be
ultra-realistic FOW should include own-unit FOW and Information delay
as well as order delay. But HTTR is not a game where you only play as
the overall commander who gets info/issues orders at the corps level.
That wouldn't make for a fun game. The game is operational at heart -
letting you tinker with history, finding out if you could do better
than Sean Connery ... I mean Urquhart given 20/20 hindsight. The
realism of HTTR comes in the execution of your orders, in the good
battlefield tactics prevailing over bad, in your little tin soldiers
acting like *real* soldiers would. It's a game that's equally up to the
task of providing joy for the micro-manager as it is for the
"strategic" player which at heart I am.

> Sure enough - I like your exit VP idea better though. Was there any
thought to
> retrofitting HTTR with COTA features? (He asked innocently. ;-)

Yes, it's on the table - probably several months after the release of
COTA.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:14:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <422bb1b4@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au says...
> I don't think our hobby's on the way out, at least I hope not. Have a look
> at the two categories of the Charles Roberts awards for 2003 that are pertinent
> to the NG though :
>
> Best Pre-20th Century Era Computer Wargame
> No winner
> Best 20th Century Era Computer Wargame
> No winner
>
> Disappointing year, huh? The times, they are improving, wrto wargames anyway.
> :-)

Ah yes, I see in 1999 they thought that the stunningly
wargamey and extremely historical 'Age of Empires II'
was worthy. Not to mention the whole series in 2000.
'Medieval: Total War' got the gong in 2002.
Hmm I think it's a bit harsh to not give an award in
2003 (or 2004) for that matter, Command and Conquer
prolly had something released in that period, and hey
there was always counterstrike.
Snark aside, do these guys really have such high
standards that they think everything released in 2003-
2004 is a load of bollocks?

- Factory
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:42:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110266697.521297.64500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>
> Frank Hunter design - I think they look fabulous - much better than
> expected :) 

[snipped]

> Well, Frank often answers questions in person there so he knows his
> "grumblers"

[snipped]

I thought they looked pretty good too. I loved playing Paths of Glory (the
boardgame) and would be more than happy to see a breakout of WWI strategic
games. :-)

Ta too for your comments re HTTR, I'm trying to prune the threads there).

Regards, Mike Kreuzer
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:50:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<dave@panthergames.com> wrote in message
news:1110286775.292698.29110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Mike,
>
> You're right that I do watch this NG, though I've been a tad busy
> lately to get too involved. Couldn't pass up this opportunity though.
> ;) 
>
> OK my specific comments are below. But first let me say this that no
> computer wargame ever published will be "perfect". We certainly aim for
> the sky at each release, but we also recognise that this whole business
> is an evolution. We aim to continually develop and refine our engine.
> That is why it is great to get some constructive criticism. Thanks.

Much appreciate you taking the time to pop in, always have. The critique's
certainly meant to be constructive so I'm glad you took it that way. You've
come up with a game that's not perfect, sure, but you're heading in the right
direction! :-) Nice to see the near monopoly Australia's making of this too
(how did we ever manage that? :-)

[my own stuff snipped]
>
> Point taken about the congestion of units. As Eddy mentioned use the
> Unit filters to hide/show the different types. The new Order of Battle
> Display in COTA will help here.
>
> As to hexes and stacking, well in part it's a personal preference of
> mine not to have hexes, but in the main it is a policy of aiming to
> support the highest fidelity of resolution. This applies not only to
> the map/or ground scale but also to the time scale. I have mentioned in
> this NG some months back the arguments in favour of high fidelity,
> particularly in relation to time. I won't go over that again in detail
> here. Suffice to say that you get a far superior/realistic simulation
> where your time interval ( aka turns ) is one minute duration than you
> do with hourly intervals/turns. Similarly, you can more realistically
> simulate the interaction of units when their occupied area ( the ground
> they occupy ) can be sized and placed to the nearest 4m than you can
> when you have 1km hexes.
>

[snipped]

Oh it's more detailed obviously to have a 4m resolution pixel than a 1km hex,
but there are two things to say about that. A 1km hex and a 1km pixel are
exactly as detailed as one another, ditto a 4m hex and 4m pixel, so a preference
between them's not necessarily just based on detail. Secondly, detail's not
necessarily realism. If a unit's placement is only known to the quarter of the
day and it's location to the nearest kilometre grid square -- known to the
overall commander at the time, not to the archives later that is -- then any
detail above that's less realistic rather than the other way around. I suppose
an argument could even be made to not let the British player issue any orders at
all while Urquhart's out of communication for much of the crucial early battle,
that'd be a lot more realistic, but a lot less detailed. (Maybe a bit less fun
too. :-)

More on time detail further down (much, much more. :-)

>
> The problem I have with this is that there is much more than just one
> algorythm.
[interesting detail snipped]

All true enough. I suppose it's a slightly more info on the way factors
interrelate rather than 0.3*baseMorale+0.2*HairPastAFreckle sort of detail that
I was after. Despite what page 51 would tend to indicate I like to RTFM, just
not the non game bits about screen resolution. :-)

>
> No COTA will NOT have a campaign feature. We dropped this in favour of
> a realistic Resupply system and Mixed Mode Movement - two features
> deemed essential to simulate the effects of the steep and difficult
> terrain in Greece and Crete and the operational constraints imposed by
> the long lines of supply.
>

Reasonable enough, supply was one of things I was going to add to my list but I
ran out of puff typing. I'm not unhappy about any improvements. :-)

[d+6 stuff etc snipped]
> One of the new features we have added to COTA and announced yesterday
> on the COTA forum is a Run Until button. [snipped]

Excellent news. :-)

> Having said all this I find it rather amusing that you think PCT
> "gamey". In RL opposing commanders do not wait for a set time at which
> they issue their orders. They certainly do not give their opposite
> number a fair chance. It just does not happen like that. They will
> maximise every advantage they can get. A good commander will endeavour
> to get inside his opponent's decision making cycle - so that he can
> gain the initiative and effect surprise, so that he can make the enemy
> dance to his tune. That is real life and that you can only get with a
> high fidelity time interval and a PCT system.
>

My problem with PCT is essentially in the one way delay of information. If I
tell a unit to do something there's a delay before it reacts (and fair enough at
the scale of HTTR). But as soon as one of my troops anywhere on the battlefield
knows something, at that instant I know it too, and can react to it without any
delay at all. Click pause, send order. With a turn cycle at least I'm delayed
till the end of the turn. Ideally I suppose PCT should mean that when I click
pause the game would only pause some number of game-time minutes afterwards,
based on the capabilities/load/doctrine etc of the overall HQ. That I wouldn't
have a problem with, but ... the distance/obscurity/rank/social
standing/personal relationship/etc between the information sender & receiver
should all play a part too, because they do in RL ... and how would the game
know which bit of info I was reacting to? As soon as some or all of that
detail's abstracted out, then we're back with turns being just as good, or
possibly a better an approximation of RL as PCT.

To build that point up in more detail than is probably necessary .... and this
is all by way of game design discussion generally now obviously, not
specifically related to something I'm expecting to see in COTA any time soon,
I'm at least that self aware BTW. :-)

Sure enough, there are no turns in RL, that I've noticed anyway. But there's no
time compression either, so once a game moves away from 1:1 unpausable it's a
matter of which compromise to go with. No pauses mean that reactions are down
to a player's reflexes (click'n'twitch, which I think we've both rejected).
Pauses mean either turns or PCT. You say tomato, I say tomato. I happen to
think pauses that are a distance apart that isn't determined by the player are
less gamey because anything that the player controls which wouldn't be
player/his avatar controlled in RL is by [my] definition gamey.

I'm not saying that the distance between pauses should be fixed, or that both
sides' turns should necessarily be congruent, maybe the turn length for the high
initiative side should be shorter than the turn length of his opponent, maybe
they should just be out of phase ... either way it shouldn't be up to the player
to set the turn length, it should be determined by initiative, tiredness,
whatever. Shorter time periods aren't necessarily going to be more accurate
therefore, so long as the time period corresponds to reaction time. (I'll
expand more on this below).

Giftzwerg made the point of "so what", what advantage is conveyed on the player
by his choosing when to pause, and I think this is a good question. But it can
be answered with a question: if there was no advantage for a player to pause at
that particular point, why is he doing it? An example (cause he wanted one.
:-).

Orders delays in PCT mean that when I tell 2 Bn to go get the bridge to the
south it won't move till pause+27 minutes game time (or whatever delay). If 10
minutes later I see a German unit heading down the road towards my HQ and decide
to send 2 Bn to a blocking position somewhere north instead, snap, new order,
new 27 minute delay. As an aside, there might be some argument for saying the
colonel's been awoken, the troops have put their fags away and everyone's ready
to commence on order #1, so the 2nd delay should be shorter, but that's another
issue. So far so good, and you could keep adding events and pauses and
extending this example. But the devil's in the detail about what happened
there. As the Bde commander how did I see that German unit?

What's actually happening here is that instead of an orders cycle that simulates
the capabilities of the commander & staff of the 23rd Foot-in-mouth Fusilier Bde
the game has my brain's order cycle. I see a German unit rolling south 5km away
as soon as the first British soldier sees it, something the Bde commander
wouldn't know about without a possibly very long delay. Information delay seems
as important here as orders delay. If this was turn based game I'd sit out the
rest of the turn helplessly watching the Germans roll down the road unexpectedly
(in RL getting the story straight from the nervous/tired/whatever sigs, finding
out what bns are doing what, where the hell's my jeep ... that sort of stuff).
Then I'd be able to change the orders and have the bn. react with a delay. But
as soon as information's known to any one unit it's known to all units and the
player, who can react instantly.

Does that (very long winded, sorry) description of the problem make sense?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a turn bigot. I used to think PCT would be the
way to go with everything. How I pined for a land based version of Harpoon,
till Patriot anyway (bleh). Maybe I'll change my mind again.

[snipped]
> See page 51 of the HTTR manual for details on how to set the specific
> resolution and this screen will not reappear.

THANKYOU! You cannot believe what a difference this makes. It's the simple
things.

[snipped]
> You can easily edit in the ScenMaker one of the many Arnhem scenarios
> and include these alternate objectives. I'm sure other users would be
> interested to play it as well.

[snipped]

Sure enough - I like your exit VP idea better though. Was there any thought to
retrofitting HTTR with COTA features? (He asked innocently. ;-)

Regards, Mike Kreuzer
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:51:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <422f8bff@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, INITIAL+SURNAME@tpg.com.au
says...

> > Having said all this I find it rather amusing that you think PCT
> > "gamey". In RL opposing commanders do not wait for a set time at which
> > they issue their orders. They certainly do not give their opposite
> > number a fair chance. It just does not happen like that. They will
> > maximise every advantage they can get. A good commander will endeavour
> > to get inside his opponent's decision making cycle - so that he can
> > gain the initiative and effect surprise, so that he can make the enemy
> > dance to his tune. That is real life and that you can only get with a
> > high fidelity time interval and a PCT system.
> >
>
> My problem with PCT is essentially in the one way delay of information. If I
> tell a unit to do something there's a delay before it reacts (and fair enough at
> the scale of HTTR). But as soon as one of my troops anywhere on the battlefield
> knows something, at that instant I know it too, and can react to it without any
> delay at all.

Hmmm. I'm not sure this is true, though. You certainly have a bit more
information than a real-world commander (IE, you know where *your* units
are, which is already a bit of a stretch...), but the game does
implement a great deal of FOW uncertainty. Enough that I'm not sure how
much more could be built into the system without it mushrooming into a
code nightmare. My PC already has *eight* friggin' fans in it; let's
not have all of them spooling up to full overboost just to calculate a
minute's play in COTA.

KISS. KISS.

> Click pause, send order. With a turn cycle at least I'm delayed
> till the end of the turn. Ideally I suppose PCT should mean that when I click
> pause the game would only pause some number of game-time minutes afterwards,
> based on the capabilities/load/doctrine etc of the overall HQ. That I wouldn't
> have a problem with, but ...

But you haven't considered it carefully. If you build-in a delay
between clicking the pause and having the game clock actually halt, all
you would really be building is a gamey system where both players would
be clicking "pause" every X seconds throughout the game so that they
could rely on receiving a pause when they needed it.

> the distance/obscurity/rank/social
> standing/personal relationship/etc between the information sender & receiver
> should all play a part too, because they do in RL ... and how would the game
> know which bit of info I was reacting to? As soon as some or all of that
> detail's abstracted out, then we're back with turns being just as good, or
> possibly a better an approximation of RL as PCT.

If the problem is that the delay only affects the transmission of orders
downward from player to sub-units, not of information from sub-units to
the player, then my suggestion would not be to monkey with the pause
button, but to implement an additional "information delay" mechanism to
reflect the amount of time between. This might be as simple as putting
another notch on the "delay" slider beyond the "painfully realistic"
mark that most players select.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Little more than three years after US forces, backed by their faithful
British allies, set foot in Afghanistan, the entire historical dynamic
of this blighted region has already shifted.

Ignoring, fortunately, the assault from clever world opinion on
America=3Fs motives, its credibility and its ambitions, the Bush
Administration set out not only to eliminate immediate threats
but also to remake the Middle East."
- Gerard Baker
March 10, 2005 5:03:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Mike,

As promissed, I'm back.:) 

Re Friendly FOW. The ideal would be to have one friendly database per
unit in the game. However, there will probably never be enough grunt to
handle this. When we originally started designing HTTR back in 1996 we
included multiple databases for each friendly command ( we were going
to have multiple commands per side ). In fact all the hooks are still
in there for this. However, the then hardware specs just could not
handle it. Remember this was when the average new machines hard drives
were 40Mb and it came with x486 running at snail pace with 16Mb of RAM
- ah...the good old days ;) . So we shelved this feature.

Now that machine specs have increased a wee bit, it is something we
hope to include in future releases. We will do this when we incorporate
Team Play. However, there will only be just enough processing capacity
to support one friendly force database per command - ie 4 per side. So
as a player you will still get perfect intel on friendly forces under
your command but you will get a delayed report of other friendly units
under other commands. Not perfect but an advance none the less.

If we implement hierarchical teams - eg Corps Cmdr with 3 Div Cmdrs -
then the Corps Cmdr will always be getting "old" friendly intel. The
Div Cmdrs, will get instant reports of their Div units but delayed
reports of all other friendly units.

I better get back to some coding now or COTA will be too late to pick
us up another "Charlie" for 2005. ;) )

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:36:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> > "Your primary task is to capture the Arnhem bridges or a bridge ... Your
> > secondary task is to establish a sufficient bridgehead ..." blah blah blah. Any
> > bridge will do. If he (ie you or I playing the game) had used a bit of
> > initiative ... this is not really an alternate scenario.

I think the bridge at Arnhem is important, and should be the VPs. The
other crossings can still help you take that one.
--
Epi

I've started selling floor locks.
In this day and age you can't be too safe.
Have you noticed cracks between your floorboards?
That's a sure sign of trouble.For your own security,
purchase one today for only $50.00
!