Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Hi,
In the light of recent posts about the age old question of boardgames
getting ported to the pc - and more specific on why it doesn't or won't
work, I was wondering what parameters decide if a boardgame can be
ported more or less successfully to the pc. Successfully as in
percentage of approximation to the original and in market acceptance
terms.
In order to determine these parameters we might have a look first at
what differentiates pc games from their paper counterparts. And more
precisely from the board designs we call "classic"
Well - for starters - there's Bob, your trusted Real Life (tm)
opponent. He'll be replaced by an AI who in general plays a bit like
Bob after a 2 six-packs so no real difference here.
Fog of War : every pc wargame has it, but it's pretty rare in a classic
boardgame. But gamers have come to expect it on their pc, so a
boardgame with some form of fow is more likely to get ported
successfully.
Map with hexagonal or area grid to regulate movement : really the best
solution for a boardgame but a computer doesn't mind a finer resolution
where it is game-relevant to have a finer grain. Like in tactical level
games. So a tactical level (hex) boardgame that gets ported straight to
the pc will feel a bit out-of-date, but for a strategic level game the
hexes don't matter that much as you'll have some form of area movement
on the pc on this level anyway. Think about it : Hearts of Iron 2 could
be a port of a boardgame, Combat Mission is really a port of a
miniatures game. What about the middle ground : the operational level.
Well, here we see successfull pc wargame designs either with (Battles
in Normandy) or without hexes (Highway to the Reich). Battles in
Normandy could have been a boardgame port so I think we're ok on this
level too. To summarize : a boardgame on the operational or strategic
level is more likely to get ported successfully than one on the
tactical level.
Rules implementation : for a boardgame this is simple : it's the
players themselves who take care of this , but for a pc-game every
"rule" must be programmed into the system. There are a zillion ifs and
buts here but generally speaking boardgames which have a relatively
simple ruleset with few exceptions and high internal consistency are
more likely to get ported successfully as it will both be easier and
cheaper to do so.
Replayability : PC wargamers are spoiled : they don't want a wargame
where they can replay Waterloo, they want their wargame to contain
scenario's for every battle of Nappie. Oh, sure boardgames do and did
contain various scenarios but not on the level that pc-gamers have come
to expect. So for a boardgame to get ported successfully it must
provide for wildly different tactical/strategic possibilities and
possible outcomes.
Ok - that sums up the differences - but there are other factors
involved too :
Franchise availability : you're only going to be able to port a
boardgame for which the licencing rights are available . Forget about
AH titles as you need deep pockets (like Paradox) to get the likes of
The Russian Campaign and such. For some other boardgames it's even more
complicated as sometimes the copyright owner has vanished completely.
Some years ago I tried to track down the copyright holder of 3W's Holy
Roman Empire - an exercise in futility if there ever was one.
Selling potential : Well, let's not kid ourselves : about the only
"name" that really has some selling potential outside the grognard
world is "Squad Leader" - and that one's taken. So if you're going to
port a boardgame it really doesn't matter if it's an obscure underdog.
Or does it ? Well, as your target audience is going to be grognards it
might help if it's a game they have at least heard about.
So to summarize : you need a boardgame on the strategic or operational
level, that has some form of fow, has an easy ruleset, has tons of
tactical/strategic possibilities and for which the copyrights are
available and with a name that rings a bell with grognards.
Easy huh ?
Now the fun part : match existing boardgames to these requirements to
determine if they would make a good port.
Ok, I'll provide 2 examples :
SPI's Panzergruppe Guderian : operational level game that's perfectly
balanced with lot's of tactical options, which pioneered "limited
intelligence", has an easy ruleset and owned by Decision Games (not
sure about this part) who have expressed their willingness to venture
into the pc wargaming.
Columbia's blockgames : Rommel in the Dessert looks a good candate here
- excellent fow - easy ruleset - opportunity to release additional
pc-games from the series ...
Gentlemen, your ideas/comments on this highly appreciated
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Hi,
In the light of recent posts about the age old question of boardgames
getting ported to the pc - and more specific on why it doesn't or won't
work, I was wondering what parameters decide if a boardgame can be
ported more or less successfully to the pc. Successfully as in
percentage of approximation to the original and in market acceptance
terms.
In order to determine these parameters we might have a look first at
what differentiates pc games from their paper counterparts. And more
precisely from the board designs we call "classic"
Well - for starters - there's Bob, your trusted Real Life (tm)
opponent. He'll be replaced by an AI who in general plays a bit like
Bob after a 2 six-packs so no real difference here.
Fog of War : every pc wargame has it, but it's pretty rare in a classic
boardgame. But gamers have come to expect it on their pc, so a
boardgame with some form of fow is more likely to get ported
successfully.
Map with hexagonal or area grid to regulate movement : really the best
solution for a boardgame but a computer doesn't mind a finer resolution
where it is game-relevant to have a finer grain. Like in tactical level
games. So a tactical level (hex) boardgame that gets ported straight to
the pc will feel a bit out-of-date, but for a strategic level game the
hexes don't matter that much as you'll have some form of area movement
on the pc on this level anyway. Think about it : Hearts of Iron 2 could
be a port of a boardgame, Combat Mission is really a port of a
miniatures game. What about the middle ground : the operational level.
Well, here we see successfull pc wargame designs either with (Battles
in Normandy) or without hexes (Highway to the Reich). Battles in
Normandy could have been a boardgame port so I think we're ok on this
level too. To summarize : a boardgame on the operational or strategic
level is more likely to get ported successfully than one on the
tactical level.
Rules implementation : for a boardgame this is simple : it's the
players themselves who take care of this , but for a pc-game every
"rule" must be programmed into the system. There are a zillion ifs and
buts here but generally speaking boardgames which have a relatively
simple ruleset with few exceptions and high internal consistency are
more likely to get ported successfully as it will both be easier and
cheaper to do so.
Replayability : PC wargamers are spoiled : they don't want a wargame
where they can replay Waterloo, they want their wargame to contain
scenario's for every battle of Nappie. Oh, sure boardgames do and did
contain various scenarios but not on the level that pc-gamers have come
to expect. So for a boardgame to get ported successfully it must
provide for wildly different tactical/strategic possibilities and
possible outcomes.
Ok - that sums up the differences - but there are other factors
involved too :
Franchise availability : you're only going to be able to port a
boardgame for which the licencing rights are available . Forget about
AH titles as you need deep pockets (like Paradox) to get the likes of
The Russian Campaign and such. For some other boardgames it's even more
complicated as sometimes the copyright owner has vanished completely.
Some years ago I tried to track down the copyright holder of 3W's Holy
Roman Empire - an exercise in futility if there ever was one.
Selling potential : Well, let's not kid ourselves : about the only
"name" that really has some selling potential outside the grognard
world is "Squad Leader" - and that one's taken. So if you're going to
port a boardgame it really doesn't matter if it's an obscure underdog.
Or does it ? Well, as your target audience is going to be grognards it
might help if it's a game they have at least heard about.
So to summarize : you need a boardgame on the strategic or operational
level, that has some form of fow, has an easy ruleset, has tons of
tactical/strategic possibilities and for which the copyrights are
available and with a name that rings a bell with grognards.
Easy huh ?
Now the fun part : match existing boardgames to these requirements to
determine if they would make a good port.
Ok, I'll provide 2 examples :
SPI's Panzergruppe Guderian : operational level game that's perfectly
balanced with lot's of tactical options, which pioneered "limited
intelligence", has an easy ruleset and owned by Decision Games (not
sure about this part) who have expressed their willingness to venture
into the pc wargaming.
Columbia's blockgames : Rommel in the Dessert looks a good candate here
- excellent fow - easy ruleset - opportunity to release additional
pc-games from the series ...
Gentlemen, your ideas/comments on this highly appreciated
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
After years of
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram