Revolution?

[Rick]

One of the biggest hopes I have for Combat Mission, is that it influences the entire wargaming industry. The simultaneous execution and hexless map system seem to me to be qualities that all wargames could benefit from.

So the question is, do people here think that those influences will be far-reaching? Will there be a game from another developer about say modern combat but share's at least the fundamental characteristics of Combat Mission? Will there be operational level games with simultaneous execution and maps without hexes?

[Thomas Davie]

Interesting comments, but unfortunately, I do not think that the effects of a game such as Combat Mission will really be all that far reaching.

Why? Well, in order to possibly cause a paradigm shift in the way that games are;

a) played, purchased, c) distributed, d) designed, etc you have to reach a certain critical mass of consumers. Not though, that the critical mass of players may be larger than the number of purchasers required for Battlefront to survive. Time will tell on this one.

Do I want simultaneous execution? Not particularly. Do I want a hexless map system? Nope, not a chance in hell. Those aspects of Combat Mission don't impress me in the slightest, and from my perspective I hope they *will not* influence the industry in the slightest.

What I *do hope* is Combat Mission's legacy or effect is the following;

a) attention to detail

simulation or approximation of reality

c) quality of AI (the jury is still out on this, but I'm hoping).

But yes, there will be operational level games with simultaneous execution and without hexes. I just won't buy them.

Tom

[Ralph]

Tom,

I for one can vouch for BTS as far as AI is concerned. I have all three of the flight games that they have released and the AI is super.I am still working on winning the redstorm campaign in FC2. While I am not an authority on the military the games also seem to have realistic characteristics for the planes involved.I hope that BTS will give us a very thorough manual for CM (My only gripe with AS and OTR).

I do agree with you on the hex based structure of wargames, I like a boardgame style game that has taken advantage of the computer to give me ease of setup, opponents that are a mouse-click away and an AI that I can play either to learn the game or sharpen my skills.

I do not think that CM will revolutionize gaming because the wargaming community is relatively small and the big guys are looking for the quick seller that will make them a bundle.

I quick case in point is Atomic games makers of the Close Combat series.Even though all 3 titles sold over 100,000 copies each, Microsoft dropped them to concentrate on games that will sell in excess of 250,000 copies each! I would dare say that the boys at BTS will be delighted if they can sell 100,000 copies of CM!

Ralph

[Doug Beman]

I would like to see the engine used in CM translated to naval combat, specifically tactical warfare a la the great SSI games. Time could proceed from a strategic scale (maybe one week per turn) and go to a 1 or 5 minutes/turn timeframe when a battle occurs. Given the attention to detail and commitment to getting it right that BTS has, it seems to me that they would be the ones to give us a new strategic/tactical naval game

DjB

[Marko]

As for me, the IGOUGO system bores me to tears. It's too much like playing chess. It is my fondest wish that more wargames in the future will use simultaneous execution, or invent an even better way of doing things. Dragoon uses a leader/initiative based system and kudos to them for trying something different. I don't mind hexes, though, because all computer games reduce to a grid at some level.

My favourite wargame would have to be the World@War series of games. It was a shame, though, that the AI wasn't flexible, and that there was no editor. But the gameplay was just brilliant. I only played a few times against a human (hotseat) but they were the best wargaming experiences I've ever had. Nothing since has come close.

I'm not interested in playing boardgames on the computer. It's computer wargames that fascinate me! Using the power and advantages of the computer to simulate war is not such a crazy idea, don't you think? So here's to the success of Combat Mission and to all of its direct and indirect progeny!

Marko

[Rick]

I never liked hexes because in reality one can travel in more than six directions and it means things like the enemy is either 25m away or 50m, he can't be 35m because the hex grid doesn't allow for that. Obviously some sort of coordinates must be used. However, I feel realism will be benefited if a very large number of possible directions are supported as well as many discreet locations.

One thing I wholeheartedly agree with is that the obstacle to CM being revolutionary is, will it be seen by enought people? I like the web promoting idea, since it allows BTS to come up with a game that is detained enough etc. that it won't sell to millions and it will still make money. I market via the web myself, and the great thing is that even if you don't get you that many sales, the advertising was cheap enough that it's not a disaster. OTOH, if you pay for store space and only sell a few copies, Ouch!!!

[Fionn]

Will CM be revolutionary? Yes, IMO given the fusion of simultaneous resolution a realistic 3D world and the attention to detail it will be revolutionary.

Will it cause a revolution? No, I doubt it but you'd be surprised how much the industry watches itself and games which are commercial and critical successes. I'm sure it'll go into the collective consciousness and play a part in various decision-making processes.

IGOUGO systems allow a HUGE number of gamey was to manipulate the system. In SP one can cause enemy AI tanks to waste their fire by moving each friendly visible unit only once thus causing the enemy tanks to spread their fire between 5 targets instead of firing all 5 shots at 1 target (thus gaining an aiming bonus). In CM it seems that this will simply be impossible to do since such gamey-manipulating of shortcomings won't be possible.

Also in hex-based systems FAR too much precision of movement is achievable. One of the hallmarks of combat is disorganisation and the need to stop and re-organise every so often. I can honestly say that no turn-based tactical games sufficiently penalise the failure to re-organise after combat/movement.

Furthermore by its very nature the fact that the entire game is constructed of and based in a realistic 3 dimensional representation of the world makes its representation more accurate than a hex-based abstraction of the real world. Hexes only allow movement in 6 to 8 directions, only allow facing in 6 to 8 directions, generally remove the possibility of going hull-down in any game which uses them ( SP doesn't have a working hull-down representation to the best of my knowledge).

Hell in SP the preferred method for killing a tank hiding in trees is to race HTs into close range, move one up to pointblank range, let the tank destroy it and then use the dismounted infantry to close assault the tank. How unrealistic is that. If a close assault works then the tank is destroyed and the infantry take no losses. Again totally unrealistic but given the game system understandable and probably unavoidable.

I can't help but think that a true 3D system will help us get away from gamey ways to "exploit the system" and closer to a more realistic representation of combat. Realism isn't only confined to getting the exact bore of the Navherteidigungswaffe right, it is more based on having an underlying game system ( or engine if you will) which functions correctly and flexibly given what it is called upon to do.

[Kevin Peltz]

I would be interested in hearing anybody's opinion on Panthers in the Shadows and Tigers on the Prowl II- games that I have been playing (and enjoying) for quite some time.

[Fionn]

Well, and I know this is heretical in some corners, I've always felt they were good realistic games BUT when I play a game I'd rather fight the AI than the interface.

[Rick]

I've never played those particular games but difficult interfaces have seemed to go hand in hand with the most realistic games to this point. Another thing that hopefully CM will change.

My favorite example is Gary Grigsby's Pacific War. Excellent game, incredible depth and detail, but boy is that thing hard to play.

[Kevin Peltz]

Fionn and Rick:

The interface does take some getting used to, but I found that after awhile, I developed a pattern whereby I tended to check certain things in certain orders, and it sort of becomes ingrained to the point of being reasonably fluid. I find the interface to be a bit easier than the one in Harpoon II, another game that I like- but the more detailed the game, the more "buttons and levers" you have to contend with. I can't

abide games like Steel Panthers, et al, anymore- I am more than willing to contend with a tough interface if it means a better, more realistic game. Getting back to the topic of a game revolution, I don't think it will happen with CM- it will be supported by a small niche of fans like the people who have written into this forum, and hopefully, it will prove lucrative enough to launch a sequel or two. It has nothing to do with quality- "wargaming" is supported by a smallish group to begin with- I think the last Gamespot survey showed something like 12% of 9500 respondents played "strategy wargames", or something along those lines. I think if you examine the names of those who have posted to this forum, you will probably find that maybe 80% of the messages were generated by the same two or three dozen individuals. A small, but loyal fan base, to be sure. Even if CM proves to be a ground-breaking game, it will still only appeal to this small cadre. I have tried a number of times to start computer wargaming clubs here where I live, and each time it fell apart because ten different people wanted to play ten different games, and were not willing to slip even temporarily into another game category. People just know what they like, I guess.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Rick, Ive got to agree with you that Pacific War was an excellent game, especially considering how long ago it was that it came out The interface wasnt great, and took a bit of getting used too, but my uncle and I played that thing for about 12 months whenever we got a chance, and all in the one single campaign. Suprisingly enough, the war went pretty much how it did historically

[Rick]

Pacific War can go extremely historically, except the names of the ships that sink may be different etc. I loved the game except for the fact that was pretty darn hard. Gary Grigsby coming out with another game on this topic with Talonsoft late this year. I don't know how similar it will be to the original Pacific War, but I am anxiously awaiting that release just like CM.

I would like to hear Charles and Steve weigh in on this Revolution or not issue too. I hope that all of us are wrong about the influence of this game. I find it dissapointing that so few people like to play these games, I find that most people don't want to expend any mental effort when playing a game, thus the lackluster performance of wargames on the store shelves. Personally, I like to prove that my brain is powerful more than my wrist. Other that FPS games I can only really think of one other thing that most use their wrists for, and we sure don't brag about that.

[Marko]

Rick,

You obviously haven't heard of my full-body SensoSuit (patent pending): the ultimate solution for your auto-stimulation needs.

Marko

[Moon]

It's pretty funny to read this thread, you know? A bunch of wargamers wondering why nobody likes strategy wargames, while at the same time discussing a helluva difficult game interface - but the conclusion between the two is never made. I've seen this on other message boards before...

I DO think that CM will start a medium to large revolution. CM is so different than the usual IGOUGO hexagonal wargame, so different than Pacific War, Tigers on the Prowl and everything else out there that bores the average player to death BECAUSE of a complicated interface, BECAUSE of unspectacular graphics. I believe that CM will reach a far broader audience than those games, because IMO it will be the very first real tactical SIMULATION of a WW2 battlefield, in true 3D, in "real-time" and with physical and historical accuracy - but, most importantly, with "BOOM" and "BANG" and "AAARGH!" . AND, from what I've seen, all this comes "for free" - the interface is easy enough to operate for even 7 year olds.

The fact that CM comes over the internet only does not change my opinion in the slightest. To the contrary - it's the very first game EVER to be sold in the way it will be sold! This alone, apart from the quality of the game itself, will be watched VERY closely by the rest of the gaming industry and ensure a huge amount of attention from the right people. No, I don't think that CM will have to whomp up sales comparable to "Doom Raider" ( ) in order to revolutionize the industry - I am sure that it will do so simply because it is doing so many things so different - and so better.

[Rick]

Moon,

The scenario you described is exactly what I am hoping for. I just hope that simpler interfaces are the only thing the average gamer needs to stop feeling these games are too difficult to be fun. Sometimes, I get the feeling that most don't want to have to think at all while seeking entertainment. Makes me wonder if any of these people have played chess, poker or other more mainstream games that require thought.

[Sten]

To ensure that CM gets the sales figures and public (the PUBLIC, not other game-companies) attention it deserves, we, the die-hard fans, have some work to do.

We need to discuss this game in as many places as possible. With special regard to newsgroups. If I hadn't found this forum, I could have lived my whole life without ever hearing or seeing CM. I sure as h*ll wouldn't see it in my gamestore . I found this forum through GamesDomains strategy section and their Target Range feature for upcoming games.

It'll probably feel strange, but to promote the game we need to pose the questions that inevitably will arise not here (where the good answers are) but on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic. The morons will be there, with the flamers, trollers and general suckers.

But the game will get the publicity it needs to have even a theoretical chance of revolutionizing anything.

Sten

[Fionn]

This is just my opinion but one thing I have definitely noted amongst games aimed at grognards is that they are resolutely aimed almost solely at grognards in the belief that all a grognard wants are realistic and accurate data.

These games play more like spreadsheets than games and have interfaces which would be put to shame by any other game or business application. Interfaces matter because they do impact on most people's enjoyment of games.

It seems to me that there is a definite train of thought amongst some developers (of the HPS ilk) that as long as the game is supremely accurate that grognards will buy it despite interface problems etc.

I think this is correct insofar as the very hard-core will buy PIS etc BUT the VAST majority of gamers who don't care so much about detailed accuracy etc are NOT going to buy a game with an inferior interface and inferior graphics...

People like HPS are painting themselves into a corner unless they update their interface to make their games more user-friendly. Note: I simply don't accept the argument that it is impossible to make a wargame look good if it is to be accurate also.

It doesn't cost much to make nice counters, green terrain hexes etc but I remember getting TOP many years ago and playing it and comparing it to less hard-core wargames out there and lamenting the fact that it couldn't look just a bit nicer. It really impacts sales and ease of play which is important for future development.

Ease of Play: Just because a game is ultra-realistic doesn't mean the interface can't be relatively simple with an eye paid to keeping the many layers of data away from the player unless he/she really wants them. Many of the more hard-core wargame publishers seem to forget that.

Showing off all the data in a cumbersome and cluttering display format which is non-optional sure as hell drives away many people who might otherwise buy the game. I think that a certain attitude whereby displaying all the data all the time is "proof of grognardism" in the game has been carried too far. Now it is merely driving away lots of other people.

I've recently been testing a game which is very hard-core in its own way but which doesn't bother cluttering the player's decision-making processes with all the myriad data some other games do. Quite simply it will tell me if I can hit the enemy and what chance my hits have to kill the enemy tanks (infantry ) etc...

We need to wean wargame developers away from the ethic whereby showing complexity upfront is good to a different ethic whereby making a simple interface but keeping this complexity and fidelity somewhat out of the way of the more casual gamer is practiced.

FWIW the second approach is also more realistic since in real war no-one was told,"We have 24.5% chance of hitting the front right slope of 81mm at 5 degrees and penetrating between 70 and 95 mm dependent on various factors which thus results in an 84% kill chance sir."

They were told. "We can probably hit it and if we do we shoudl penetrate it.." In a game this is better represented by saying "75% hit chance, Kill possibility 80%" than the topmost example.

Hell I remember Fighting Steel (a naval wargame) got absolutely trashed on cdmag because it didn't immediately report to gamers the exact locations of hits and the millimetric readings of how thick the armour was at that point and how much of it the shell penetrated... (Even though this is a TOTALLY unrealistic requirement.)

There's a core of wargamers out there who are vocal and unreasonable and almost require such data to be put in a game before trashing it... Companies listen to them and end up putting out spreadsheets instead of games.

I want realism but if it isn't fun I won't be playing it much. I VERY rarely play any HPS games although I appreciate their realism because their not much gamewise IMO.

Then again HPS doesn't sell its products as games so much as it sells them as "conflict simulators" which they most asuredly are.

All in all I agree with Martin (aka Moon). Interface and playability impact sales majorly BUT there are groups of "self-styled-grognard-guardians" out there whom Ive had run-ins with about just these choices before who simply put think a spreadsheet of tank gun firings makes a great game.

They're giving all the rest of us grognards whom are reasonable about wanting a GAME and not just a hyped-up equation a really bad name with all the companies by serially thrashing every releases (sometimes on the flimsiest of motives)...

I'd better stop now before this becames an R rated letter since I get really annoyed when i remember some of the stupid things these guys do...

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To ensure that CM gets the sales figures and public (the PUBLIC, not

other game-companies) attention it deserves, we, the die-hard fans, have

some work to do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly don't think that BTS and BF.C would have anything against that although I am fairly sure that BF.C's ambitions are reaching higher than staying an "underdog" in the biz which you find by accident. When I read between the lines of BF.C's Manifesto (you'll find it in the About section) I see something bigger (read: advertising, PR, contests etc.) eventually, but I might, of course, be wrong.

BTW, Sten (whose quote it is above) - the revolution will not be caused by the (wargame) public - as little as the public really has much influence on the games that are released nowadays . It's the game publishers that have something to learn here. If THEY realize that BF.C is a new, better and functioning concept, only then - I think - will we see a revolution in the industry.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Uhm, guess it is about time one of us posted

Will CM start a revolution? For the industry as a whole, certainly not. The Big Boys might try and borrow a thing or two from us (they may not), but without PC Data sales figures to back up their money centric decisions, they are not going to try and copy us. Since we aren't in stores they won't have any idea how many units we sell, so they will assume the numbers to be too low to bother with.

Will CM start a wargame revolution? Perhaps. It is *certainly* a revolutionary game, but we find that most developers lack the imagination and/or skill set to do better. The fact that some of the games mentioned above are still based on DOS is but one indication. So my guess is that CM will be held up as some sort of "way of the future" that most other wargames will not reach until Charles has already moved on to something better

Too good to be true? Well... in a couple of weeks there will be some independent voices on here to back us up. Beta is right around the corner...

Steve

[Rick]

Great to hear about BETA right around the corner.

I can only hope that at least some game companies will be influenced by CM. No offense, but two guys will never be able to put out all the topics I'd like to see treated in a similar manner. It would just be way too much work.

I have to agree with Fionn about interfaces. Like I said earlier, I do like a mental challenge in a game, but it is supposed to be fun. If I wanted something that is drudgery I'd go to work and get paid for it, sometimes I think my employers would like me to be there 24/day. Graphics are of much less importance to me personally, but they are nice and I know that they do increase interest by the general public.

[Sten]

Moon, what I meant was that no matter how hig the ambitions of BF.C might be there is probably nothing (except hard sales figures ) that will make the game companies look and listen as hard as a good buzz in the newsgroups and magazines. We can contribute in some small way by at least making some people ask themselves "What does 'CM' in all these headers stand for?"

The public has a LOT of influence. Why else would all these deer-hunting sims crop up?

Moon says:

It's the game publishers that have something to learn here. If THEY realize that BF.C is a new, better and functioning concept, only then - I think - will we see a revolution in the industry.

Learning = Seeing a potential moneymaker, right?

Huge (in wargame terms) public = Potential moneymaker, right?

Even if this crude reasoning isn't the whole truth, it's pretty close.

By giving CM our best shot at making it publically known we help getting a possible revolution started. It can't hurt, can it?

Sten

[Moon]

Nope, Stan, it can't. You're absolutely right. I can tell you all of my friends know about CM already

[Fionn]

Just another 2 cents:

1. PC sales data is tabulated from in-store sales. Since BF.C sells direct via the net such sales data won't become public knowledge AND the big boys won't make changes without such full data.

A few people in those companies might realise the significance but how do you convince a suit unless you have hard figures to back your assumptions up? Answer: You don't..

As for shouting about BF.C everywhere and anywhere . I think the greatest service you can do is just ensure that all your wargamer friends (and lets be honest here, we all have our own little circle of wargame PBEM and wargame discussion buddies ) are told about BF.C and can come here to read about it themselves.

The second-greatest service will come from magazines actually assigning reviewers who "get" the game. I'm sure we've all seen good wargames be butchered by quake players.

Lastly, people who get it need to be willing to stand up in other forums and argue against those who are too tied to the old ways.

In another forum I took issue with someone who was trashing a game for omitting certain things (scenario editor, hit %es etc) which were actually in the game. End result was that he admitted not reading the game manual and returning the game within 2 days of making the purchase. Eventually he got upset since I said his complaints had no validity since his whole methodology of criticism was based on false understandings and an EXTREMELY scant knowledge of the game. It ended up with him threatening to sue me and 1 other forum member who also disagreed with him.

Interestingly the vast majority of people on that forum ( all but one in fact) did nothing but stand by and let the game be maligned by this *person* on spurious data.

One such uninformed and, frankly, bigotted voice can put off many, many lurkers who would buy the game IF a fair presentation of its faults and flaws was given. So, since CM isn't going to be sold in every shop throughout the land, as it were, I think one of the big things that real fans should do is ensure that people who can't move on don't unfairly malign the game. I.e. They don't get away with posting untruths but instead are politely told where they are wrong. If they can't take minor corections without threatening everyone around then it should become obvious to everyone in the forum that their opinion isn't worth much.

And if the forum doesn't self-police then leave, as I did.

[Mike D]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

B*E*T*A

Now that's music to my ears.

Mike D

aka Mikester