Food for Thought Wargaming Realism Expectations

[Guest R Cunningham]

Scott Udell's Article at CDmag.com:

Command Post

Adapting a bit of sanity from our cardboard brethren

Posted on 03/27/2000

While some out there accuse computer wargaming of clasping the apron strings of it's momma, board wargaming, there's really an awful lot we can still learn from our spiritual gaming parent. Modern boardgame designs are in many ways more advanced than most computer game designs, the graphics are often better (although not always—some computer game graphics are getting mighty fine), and durn it, I just love how most modern boardgame manuals include a juicy designers’ notes section.

But I'm not going to talk about any of that. No, instead I'm going to tell you the single most important thing we can learn from board wargaming: the concept of complexity ratings. Yes, I know—I've touched on this before. But I think the idea is such a good one, and so important to the continued health—even growth?—of computer wargaming that I thought I'd spend most of this column harping on… err, discussing it.

The complexity meter from GMT's boardgame Tigers in the Mist. (Note the bit of flip-side insanity in the form of a "solitaire suitability" rating—almost all boardgames have one of these, too, and almost always they're listed quite high, perhaps a bit of overreaction to the "better" solitaire play of computer games?)

Hardcore wargamers are often criticized for being too critical themselves; people say their (our?) harping on every little detail just drags the hobby down over all. This is certainly the excuse TalonSoft is using as its reason for getting away from anything that smacks of a traditional wargame, and it's a reason other publishers use for not getting into wargames (well, that and the fact that their sales tend to be diddly). You know, these critics of the critics may be right—perhaps we are sometimes too harsh on games for not meeting our "realism standards." Of course, the publishers share a big part of the blame for this—if they claim a game is realistic, then they have to be prepared for any criticism if it's not. I hate it when people in the industry tell me gamers should understand "advertising hype"—damn it, if they make claims in their ads or on their boxes, their game better well stand up. However, I'll admit that sometimes publishers make this error because they think that gamers only want, or will only accept, hardcore wargames… but I think that's wrong, too, either for the publishers to assume for wargamers (as a whole) to imply.

This is where I think we need to take a page from board wargaming's book… or rather, a meter off of board wargaming's boxes… specifically, a complexity meter. I recently spent some time going through my collection of board wargames and confirmed what I long suspected—almost all "modern" board wargames (those published in the last 10 years or so) put some kind of "complexity" rating on the back of their box. One to ten, zero to five, low to high, it doesn't really matter—there's just some kind of indication of where the publisher places this game in terms of difficulty, and it seems that this tend to go hand-in-hand with the ephemeral "realism" quality. Board wargamers don't expect the realism from a "complexity 1" boardgame that they do from a "complexity 9" boardgame, and they'll tend to complain less about nit-picky details from the "simple" game than they do from the "complex" one.

It goes beyond just a rating system—games that are rated on the less complex end of the scale seem to be unashamedly simpler throughout the game (i.e., the rating is not just a sham). For example, take the "blurbage" from the back of Avalon Hill's Bitter Woods boardgame: "Bitter Woods contains everything needed in a regimental Bugle game without inundating players with unnecessary complexity." Gosh—a wargame that’s not complex—what a concept! Or take for example designer Ray Freeman's opening comments in the design notes for GMT's Tigers in the Mist: "My primary design intent was to create a fun, playable game that would be an interesting challenge for relative novices as well as very good players. Historical accuracy was a secondary consideration and realism came third. The objective was to create a game that was a reasonable approximation of the first week of the Battle of the Bulge." True, this is something you find inside the box instead of outside, but it's still an openness uncommon in computer wargaming… probably because designers fear what gamers would do to them if they were this upfront.

My solution? First, I think publishers should try implementing a complexity meter for each game they publish. If your game is hardcore, rate it an eight or nine and be ready for the hits. If it's a mid-level game, call it a four, five, or six, and if it's a beginner level wargame, call it a one or two. Also, be frank about where you put the game, and what facets of the design cause you to rank it that way. Gamers, I think it's then up to us to take the game and consider it's target difficulty or complexity (dare I say realism?) level. If a designer or publisher openly calls a game simple, is it then really fair for us to complain if they didn't precisely replicate the movement rate of a German infantry division in the game? This is not to suggest that we stand still for something that's just plain a bad game (buggy or poorly implemented or just boring), but that we recognize that there is a range of potential in our wargames.

A quick note about the new wargames "In the Works" section we're building for Computer Games Online. This section will be a one stop place for information on upcoming computer wargames. It'll have a company-by-company list of all the games in development, along with links to any preview or news articles we've done and to each game's thread in our forums. The list is longer than you might expect—in the first draft, it's more than 30 games we consider "solid," and nearly 70 games if you include all the rumored, under consideration, and vaporware titles.

And with that, I need to make my bow, sort of. Because of scheduling problems I'm having to leave my part-time editor position. You'll still see an occasional freelance article from me, and I'll still be doing Command Post on Computer Games Online, at least. It’s been fun; see you online.

by Scott Udell

[PanzerLeader]

Personally I don't care if some wargames aren't exactly realistic...As long as the developers listen to the customers and make new patches all the time to make the game a bit more realistic each time. I've never heard anybody whine because a game was "too realistic"!

The complexity rating thing would be good...if there were more wargames on the PC out there! Such a rating would only be of some use if you needed to compare a few games and see which one is more suited to you. Currently there isn't much choice! Even Road To Moscow won't be published now...

[Heibis]

Good point there!

For myself, I never bought a boardgame that had 8+ complexity (apart from the famous OCS series by The Gamers). The fun comes from a balanced and flexible design, where the results are within historical possibilities rather than making all the phases and sub-phases realistic. The social part of the game is really all that matters in boardgames. You dont want to spend your few precious spare hours looking through tons of rules and charts.

For a computer wargame this is also true, to some extent. But that was before CM. Now I think we have a game that is both ultra-realistic in its combat resolution methods and also easy to cope with.

Or so I think, anyway

Jens