“I am not the general. I am some guy.”
Great read thanks.
FWIW the older wargames that stand up best for me are Conflict in Vietnam, Decision in the Desert and Crusade in Europe (Atari versions).
Worth checking out and in my opinion if someone is looking to make a historical console/ handheld wargame, these games are a good starting point for ideas.
This is the number one reason that I prefer fictional settings (fantasy, sci-fi, alternate history, whatever) for these sorts of games. It takes the specter of “fudging history to make a more interesting game” out of the equation entirely. I like historical games, too, but too often I feel like historical authenticity is competing with my sense of enjoyment for developers’ attention.
Good article. Thanks, Bruce!
Good article. The “only one way to invade france” remind me of the V4V and W@W games that dealt with the invasion of France. That was – the first turn was done – the troops were on the beaches, paratroopers were on the ground, etc etc.
There are plenty of wargames that well, it’s just hard to win as either side. Operational Art of War – Korean War scenario. No matter what the North does, it’ll pile its way through the South Korean army and -almost- get to Pusan, but their supply attributes suck so bad that they just can’t keep their troops supplied. Then, the UN shows up, and with the initiative due to their amphib capability, can pick the fight and win. If the Chinese don’t show up, it’s all over. If they do show up, it’s a slogging stalemate.
Everytime.
In real life, battles are usually won or lost before they start for very boring reasons, and it’s hard to make that fun.
Well, that was great. Argh, games suck. :(
Great to see your wargame articles back, Bruce. You’ve always been my favorite columnist.
The whole puzzle versus game dynamic is endemic in strategy games in general. Even the search for the perfect build order in a RTS or Civ is just a slight variation on the “one right answer” problem in wargames.
I still play Operational Art of War, but mostly in MP and very few of the scenarios. Sometimes a more talented friend will take on playing the far weaker party, or we’ll introduce house rules to even things out. But more and more I find myself going to “lighter” wargames like Sid Meier’s Gettysburg or the Tin Soldiers games.
Anyway, great article.
Troy
Yeah, good stuff. This one would make a good chapter-heading quote for Bruce Geryk’s Art of Wargame Design:
That’s a good article with a lot of good stuff to say, but I’ll add one counterpoint: I don’t mind a game that has a “best way to invade France” as long as there are multiple successful (even if not optimal) ways to do it. Maybe that’s what you’re saying anyway. Taking Panzer General (which many consider the worst in puzzley wargame design) as an example, there is almost certainly one “best” way to pull off the France invasion. But there are multiple ways to do it and still get a victory (albeit maybe a “minor victory”) that advances the campaign. Of course, if you do it better, you get bonuses: more resources for improving your army, you keep more of your good units alive and experienced, and maybe you get a shot at Operation Sea Lion. To me, that’s fine.
The puzzle stuff is something I’ve said for a couple years, and is an outgrowth’s of Sid Meier’s apocryphal(?) statement that “Good games are about interesting decisions”. I wrote about this at my Web site two years ago, saying:
An interesting decision should not necessarily have a right or a wrong answer. If there is a right answer and a wrong answer, then it’s a test, not a decision. And there’s nothing wrong with tests, but that’s a different mechanic than decision making. Decision making is about having choices, and having those choices be similarly valid but with different effects and consequences.
Holy crap, Brian’s becoming HRose.
Good points, though. I can’t stand “single correct answer” strategy games; not only is it a test, it’s a test that can be brute-forced. That’s not fun and it’s not challenging; the only expense is time. What should be a gaming experience can be reduced to a search problem.
Great article. I’d like to add that some people do find military simulations entertaining, but today there’s no need to use the artificial hex/counter/turn mechanics for this purpose. Modern computers can do real-time movement with a ~1 meter resolution, as in TacOps and a few others. Making a game that’s using the old hexagon and turn abstractions on one hand, but that’s burdened with simulation details on the other, seems like missing the point.
Also agree with the perennial balancing problems to make a game out of history. Those artificial victory conditions and optional bonuses that Rywill mentioned are a popular attempt to deal with that but personally I’m tired of them. Clear victory conditions are part of good game design IMO. I don’t want to “win” by reaching Objective Gamma one turn earlier, even though it makes absolutely no difference that I can see, or by having an extra ammo truck left over. That’s just ridiculous.
Well, there have been some interesting computer wargame designs. Combat Mission’s a good example; there’s no way short of insanely complex minatures rules that a game like that could be played on the tabletop.
As far as grand strategy games go, well, perhaps we need to take a look at what “winning” is. If I’m playing a sim of WW2 on the strategic level, as the Allies, I’m going to “win”, if winning is defined as beating the Axis. There’s not too many ways around it; it’s very difficult for the Allies to lose given any level of competence whatsoever; they have the superior strategic position. Thus the game becomes, “can you do better?”, a familiar dodge to board wargamers but, judging from Geryk’s article and this thread, not one that everyone is comfortable with.
But on the other hand I don’t particularly want to play a WW2 sim where Germany has none of their strategic constraints and all of their advantages. That’s about like the old Lucasarts “Rebellion” game where the Empire and the Rebels each start with one planet. Sure, it’s balanced, but it’s not quiiiiite what I remember from the movies. Since I’m a history nut I like playing historical sims, and it doesn’t really bother me when I “lose”. It bothers me more if the game looks like it didn’t bother to put any effort into research. And by research I don’t mean a loving analysis of tank muzzle velocities, but things like “Japan didn’t have enough oil and rubber, and no one was selling them any, so they either invade someone or are screwed.”
That’s about like the old Lucasarts “Rebellion” game where the Empire and the Rebels each start with one planet.
Actually, I think the Empire starts out with more sympathetic planets and a stronger fleet and army. Given the time period, after the Death Star is destroyed at Yavin, there are many rebellions starting up spontaneously on various worlds and, just as in Rebellion, most of them get crushed fairly quickly. No Rebellion player is going to win by counting on more than one or two sympathetic worlds in The Core holding out if that (which was actually something the Mon Calmari were able to do in canon). Action in The Core is a stalling tactic so the Alliance can develop new worlds and bases in The Rim - a vast expanse that is much more time consuming to search or effectively seige.
God I need therapy. You see what SWG did to me?! But in some ways Rebellion supports Geryk’s points. You can argue the Imperial player should have even more advantages to more acurately simulate this ominpresent and imposing force from the films (which, once you get into the EU a bit, barely has the manpower to cover the tens of thousands of populated worlds in the Empire, it’s all about concentration of force at strategic locations - hence the need for a Death Star to psychologically intimidate those you don’t have the personnel to pacify). However once you do that in the game it would limit the options available. The Empire would only need to focus on military force when, in the game, your diplomatic and espionage options are also vital, if less effective than the Alliance’s capabilities. There are different strategies to try out rather than a single optimum path.
One aspect, of course, that it’d be harder to replicate in a hardcore simulation wargame is randomization. Most worlds in Rebellion have different locations or resources in each game. Attempting to recruit NPC leaders can go poorly or you might not get exactly who or what you thought you’d need. That leaves alot of room for improvising or modifying tactics. Then there are the semi-random ‘story’ aspects that can crop up, along the lines of the event probability engine in TOAW. Those could completely change your plans and also force you to hedge your bets.
This is why I tend to like much smaller scale wargames these days. Ones in which you’re such a microcosm of a bigger battle or war that there is room for randomization and variability because nobody’s documented what every single platoon, or soldier, did on every given day. Give me small scale tactical battles that are based on historical data but linked together in campaigns that don’t necessarily follow any particular campaign stroke for stroke - just in overall tone. Make what happens on the battlefield have implications for the next battle. And allow logistical considerations and random, but typical, complications to come up during the logistical interlude as well as through prologues and epilogues to each battle. Not unlike Hornet Leader meets Across The Rhine’s strategic elements with some juicy random map Combat Mission battles as the meat of the experience.
That could keep things random, unpredictable, fresh and consequential. It would be all about decisions but, as in life, sometime the decision to live to fight another day has to be a good one. How often is that the case in a wargame’s victory condition?
Wow, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who likes Star Wars Rebellion. It was widely panned at the time of release, but to this day I still play it. Just last week as a matter of fact. It’s really one of the better strategy games of the time.
Anyway, I think most wargames can take a lesson or ten from TOAW. Norm Koger got a lot of things right when it comes to design, and the engine is flexible enough that any glaring errors or bugs can be ironed out with a carefully planned series of events, or adjustments to equipment levels. The game is so well put together that it has, five years later, possibly the largest continuous fanbase of any hex-based wargame in recent memory. Not even Korsun Pocket could get a handle on that niche…even with all the pretty colors and flashy stuff that went along with it.
Combat Mission is also a timeless classic at this point, as others have said.
EDIT:
No matter what the North does, it’ll pile its way through the South Korean army and -almost- get to Pusan, but their supply attributes suck so bad that they just can’t keep their troops supplied. Then, the UN shows up, and with the initiative due to their amphib capability, can pick the fight and win.
Luckily, the scenario is set up in such a way that the North Korean side can still get a Significant Victory many different ways. There are enough victory hexes that keeping Seoul and defending your rear areas will net you a pleasing victory. You just have to know how to manage a delaying action.
I just wish Norm had put a scripting engine and a object model into TOAW, rather than the events system that he did.
I think the event engine is still pretty powerful and fits well with the game engine. Of course, I’ve been so deep in TOAW for so long, it’s hard for me to envision anything outside of the way it works now. Food for thought, I guess.
My only real gripe with the event engine doesn’t have anything to do with what its capabilities are, but more about how difficult it is to use. It probably wasn’t the smartest decision in the world to try and integrate something that complex into a clicky-button thing that doesn’t allow you to search for events, or make bulk edits to groups of events. Only the brave or utterly obsessive need apply.
The unwieldy nature of the editor has kept me from creating scenarios that handle more than about 2 dozen events, which is small beans compared to something on the level of the famous Drang Noch Osten scenario, which handles about 2500 events. How the scenario team were able to keep their sanity during it all, I have no idea.
Wow, I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who likes Star Wars Rebellion. It was widely panned at the time of release, but to this day I still play it. Just last week as a matter of fact. It’s really one of the better strategy games of the time.
(head explodes)
I don’t think I can go back to any other model of tactical wargames now that I’ve played Combat Mission. That was near perfect as far as I’m concerned. Better detail in units, better graphics, etc . . . but as a model, it was righteous.
I also would love to see a game with a larger operational/strategic game and Combat Mission like battles. This would be the X-COM of the current wave of WWII strategy rush.
Bit of an off-topic, but what are some good Wargames for a beginner?
I’ve been a fan of 4x games for a while now and I tried playing Panzer General when it first came out (when was that? '94?) and got frustrated and gave up…but I’m sorta itching to give it another shot :)