I like the SSG wargames, but I am not among those who think they are the best out there. There are enough issues with the Decisive Battles games–the look, the gamey nature of the system, the devotion to game balance over historical fidelity, to name a few–that, while they don’t keep me from buying them, do keep me from viewing them as the be all and end all of computer wargames.
Ditto with the John Tiller stuff, the Panzer Campaigns games. I like these in many respects, but an aging game system, lack of modularity and flexibility, and questionable AI keep them from being the ne plus ultra as well. I own them all and play them (mostly PBEM), though I tend to play the SSG games solo more.
The problems with wargames on the PC are many:
People don’t buy enough of them–the number of people who bitch and moan about these games is far higher than those who actually purchase them.
The stuff people talk the most about is often the stuff they are least willing to pay for–a great example here is “innovative” game systems, heavy command and control realism, high fog of war, etc. Put that stuff into games and people get weirded out, or frustrated (“Why won’t that unit go THERE, damn it!”) Yet forums are filled with people clammoring for just this sort of thing.
Many wargamers like solo play, not because they are antisocial (PBEM is popular too) but because it fits the nature of the hobby–we like to pour over books and maps, using the games as supplements to our history. Boardgames do this very well, computer games don’t. The AI sucks, generally, or the game is made in a very ‘gamey’ way a la the SSG titles so the AI can deliver a challenge, but one that is usually grossly ahistorical. Also, computer wargames often lack the combination of apparent historical fidelity and transparency of modeling you get in board games.
While the PC is potentially a terrific wargame tool, we have yet to reap the fruits of the computer revolution. Originally it was all about data–the PC would alllow oodles of data and number crunching. Then it became AI. What was lost along the way is core design–the basis of any game. Board games with no technology whatsoever have always been based on design–you came up with a model and a concept, you did the research, you built the game around these things. With PC wargames, the need to create a reusable and easily portable game system outweighs the need to design a good game system, all too often.
A lot of this is interrelated. Lack of customers = lack of money = lack of incentive/ability to create new stuff. There is enough of a market to sustain low-end development, but that merely reinforces the “reload and reuse” cycle. Hey, I love the Panzer Campaign games, but they are in dire need of a code base revamp and design reconceptualization. My beef with the SSG games is somewhat different, partly aesthetic and partly conceptual, but the lack of sales certainly seems to be a factor in limiting development of more sophisticated (in terms of historical fidelity) simulations of operational warfare.
I’ve always wanted something like The Gamers OCS system on the PC. Hell, I always wanted ASL, too, though Combat Mission comes darn close in that regard. Then again, Battlefront isn’t exactly flooding the world with games, and the third party ones they are marketing are a decidedly mixed bag.
So we do have decent games, for several niches (PBEM, competitive game play, WEGO tactical) but nothing of the breadth and depth we could have. But then, if there is no one buying them, who will make them? And really, even with the best wargames you can think of, would there be enough wargamers willing to buy them? History indicates no.
