Exciting news about Battlefront and Slitherine

[Vergeltungswaffe]

22 minutes ago, IanL said:

and @Bil Hardenberger him self talks about Cold War at 1:42:21.

He does not look like his avatar

I think the resemblance is uncanny. And that's a good thing!

[A Canadian Cat]

OK just finished skimming though the content from the point mentioned by @Holien. Fairly interesting discussion about CM and the military project it is part of. Cool.

One other thing that struck me is WTH do games still have and show hexes? I really wish they would stop doing that (sure games have to track things internally some how - I just don't need to see that bled out into the visuals of the game). We have computers now, so, even in 2D we don't need hexes to track movement. Speaking of which why are we still making 2D war games? I just don't feel any nostalgia for those old board games with the cardboard squares. Well some but not enough to want to keep repeating that experience. I suppose I'm just spoiled by Combat Mission.

Oh and Broken Arrow looks interesting - I am however pretty worried about the size of that project. It seems like it is a prime candidate for a "jack of all trades, master of none" problem. Anyway it will be interesting to see.

[Holien]

I had to leave the video before Bil appeared, just got back in so will be nice watch later.

[Erwin]

Several very interesting looking games examined in detail.  Am a big fan of WITPAE so WarPlan looks good (and more playable), also Broken Arrow looks amazing.  Impressed that Slitherine put all this together.

[Mord]

6 hours ago, IanL said:

 

One other thing that struck me is WTH do games still have and show hexes? I really wish they would stop doing that (sure games have to track things internally some how - I just don't need to see that bled out into the visuals of the game). We have computers now, so, even in 2D we don't need hexes to track movement. Speaking of which why are we still making 2D war games? I just don't feel any nostalgia for those old board games with the cardboard squares. Well some but not enough to want to keep repeating that experience. I suppose I'm just spoiled by Combat Mission.

 

Because there are still Boomer Luddites who'll say "I don't care what a game looks like as long as it plays well", followed by "Will it work on XP?" They have no foresight and a pathological inability to step outside of their comfort zone. You taste a meal with your eyes before it touches your tongue. We live in a time where you can have both great graphics and great game play, but if it were up to these dummies we'd still be looking at NATO symbols on a monochrome abacus, as long as it tracked how many buttons the fallschirmjäger lost in the arty barrage.

There were guys that wouldn't play FoG II because the maps used squares instead of hexagons. The squares actually allow you to maintain consistent lines, even while moving units. And instead of being able to attack and move in 6 directions, the code provides movement and attack in eight directions (utilizing the corners of the square). Objectively better in all ways. Screw that! I've been using hexagons since 1975, therefore REEEEEEEEEE! They even bitched because the models had animations! Then there was the collective pants pissing when CM dared not be everything that came before it. It irritates me, how much wargamers are their own worst enemies.

I play computer games because I don't want to look at an abstract symbol on a piece of card board, I want to see the little dudes, and tanks, or knights, or Romans or ships, whatever. I don't even mind a 2D, isometric, table top miniatures feel as long as the sprites weren't ported over from 1992. If JTS games would update their UI and graphics to about 2010 standards I'd be happy to purchase a lot of their 18th-19th Century gunpowder titles. Funnily enough they are working on a new engine and players are requesting they not change that Antediluvian tool bar abomination. Yeah, that'll help sell 10s of more games!

Do you know the fastest way to get me to put my wallet back in my pocket? Show me a square with a NATO symbol.

In the end, I guess it's a matter of taste, and there is room for all types, but that doesn't mean they should look like a pig fart. But if we didn't have developers that could see past Avalon Hill circa 1974. I probably wouldn't even be playing any wargames.

 

Mord.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by Mord

[Mord]

4 hours ago, Erwin said:

Impressed that Slitherine put all this together.

Marco is the man! I love that dude. He talks to me when I post in the chat just about every week.

 

Mord.

[Bufo]

If Broken Arrow is going to be the spiritual successor of Wargame Red Dragon, then I will insta buy it 

[ng cavscout]

6 hours ago, Mord said:

Because there are still Boomer Luddites who'll say "I don't care what a game looks like as long as it plays well", followed by "Will it work on XP?" They have no foresight and a pathological inability to step outside of their comfort zone. You taste a meal with your eyes before it touches your tongue. We live in a time where you can have both great graphics and great game play, but if it were up to these dummies we'd still be looking at NATO symbols on a monochrome abacus, as long as it tracked how many buttons the fallschirmjäger lost in the arty barrage.

There were guys that wouldn't play FoG II because the maps used squares instead of hexagons. The squares actually allow you to maintain consistent lines, even while moving units. And instead of being able to attack and move in 6 directions, the code provides movement and attack in eight directions (utilizing the corners of the square). Objectively better in all ways. Screw that! I've been using hexagons since 1975, therefore REEEEEEEEEE! They even bitched because the models had animations! Then there was the collective pants pissing when CM dared not be everything that came before it. It irritates me, how much wargamers are their own worst enemies.

I play computer games because I don't want to look at an abstract symbol on a piece of card board, I want to see the little dudes, and tanks, or knights, or Romans or ships, whatever. I don't even mind a 2D, isometric, table top miniatures feel as long as the sprites weren't ported over from 1992. If JTS games would update their UI and graphics to about 2010 standards I'd be happy to purchase a lot of their 18th-19th Century gunpowder titles. Funnily enough they are working on a new engine and players are requesting they not change that Antediluvian tool bar abomination. Yeah, that'll help sell 10s of more games!

Do you know the fastest way to get me to put my wallet back in my pocket? Show me a square with a NATO symbol.

In the end, I guess it's a matter of taste, and there is room for all types, but that doesn't mean they should look like a pig fart. But if we didn't have developers that could see past Avalon Hill circa 1974. I probably wouldn't even be playing any wargames.

 

Mord.

 

Is it odd that I would pay $50 for a working version of this with good AI and upgraded to A3R?

Edited May 12, 2021 by ng cavscout

[Holien]

10 minutes ago, ng cavscout said:

Is it odd that I would pay $50 for a working version of this with good AI and upgraded to A3R?

 

Nope your money your choice, there are a certain group of us reliving our youth and we have the time and money to do so, soon we will be superceded by the next generation who will do the same.

For me the tie in with Slitherine allows Charles and Steve to have an exit plan from the business and if they can get a youngster involved who has the same passion the series might continue onwards.

Also the tie in with the military helps keep the game engine alive in the future years...

So a win win for everyone.

[Mord]

1 hour ago, ng cavscout said:

Is it odd that I would pay $50 for a working version of this with good AI and upgraded to A3R?

No. But it would be odd if you thought every wargame on the planet should look like that. Or it would be odd if they made that look a hundred times better than it does and you complained about it. It would be odd if you thought that was the height of what a computer should offer the genre.  But you are here, playing CM, so you obviously aren't the target of the rant.

 

Mord.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Mord

[Thomm]

Wow, CM:CW is certainly boxed in by hex wargames in this video!

Best regards
Thomm

[Aragorn2002]

10 hours ago, Mord said:

Because there are still Boomer Luddites who'll say "I don't care what a game looks like as long as it plays well", followed by "Will it work on XP?" They have no foresight and a pathological inability to step outside of their comfort zone. You taste a meal with your eyes before it touches your tongue. We live in a time where you can have both great graphics and great game play, but if it were up to these dummies we'd still be looking at NATO symbols on a monochrome abacus, as long as it tracked how many buttons the fallschirmjäger lost in the arty barrage.

There were guys that wouldn't play FoG II because the maps used squares instead of hexagons. The squares actually allow you to maintain consistent lines, even while moving units. And instead of being able to attack and move in 6 directions, the code provides movement and attack in eight directions (utilizing the corners of the square). Objectively better in all ways. Screw that! I've been using hexagons since 1975, therefore REEEEEEEEEE! They even bitched because the models had animations! Then there was the collective pants pissing when CM dared not be everything that came before it. It irritates me, how much wargamers are their own worst enemies.

I play computer games because I don't want to look at an abstract symbol on a piece of card board, I want to see the little dudes, and tanks, or knights, or Romans or ships, whatever. I don't even mind a 2D, isometric, table top miniatures feel as long as the sprites weren't ported over from 1992. If JTS games would update their UI and graphics to about 2010 standards I'd be happy to purchase a lot of their 18th-19th Century gunpowder titles. Funnily enough they are working on a new engine and players are requesting they not change that Antediluvian tool bar abomination. Yeah, that'll help sell 10s of more games!

Do you know the fastest way to get me to put my wallet back in my pocket? Show me a square with a NATO symbol.

In the end, I guess it's a matter of taste, and there is room for all types, but that doesn't mean they should look like a pig fart. But if we didn't have developers that could see past Avalon Hill circa 1974. I probably wouldn't even be playing any wargames.

 

Mord.

 

Ever tried Command Opps 2, Mord?

[Erwin]

11 hours ago, Mord said:

I play computer games because I don't want to look at an abstract symbol on a piece of card board, I want to see the little dudes, and tanks, or knights, or Romans or ships, whatever

+1

Altho' Strategic and Operational level games like Grigsby's WITPAE and the upcoming WarPlan are better with icons.  I dislike the games that attempt that level with silly "representational" tanks and inf.

Am looking forward to a future where we can have holographic tables with 3D units moving on a 3D map without all the hassle of miniatures.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Erwin

[MOS:96B2P]

17 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Am looking forward to a future where we can have holographic tables with 3D units moving on a 3D map without all the hassle of miniatures.

I'm looking forward to the holographic room like they had on Star Trek Next Generation. 

Program the computer for the desired date, location, unit, etc. then enter the battle. 

Example program the computer: May 1940, German Army, 7th Panzer Division, Tactical Operations Center, then walk through the door .........    

[A Canadian Cat]

12 hours ago, Mord said:

I play computer games because I don't want to look at an abstract symbol on a piece of card board, I want to see the little dudes, and tanks, or knights, or Romans or ships, whatever

So, its not just me then

[A Canadian Cat]

3 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I'm looking forward to the holographic room

Step one VR glasses. How cool would it be to watch a turn from the perspective of one or more of our pixel troops.

[Mord]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Ever tried Command Opps 2, Mord?

No. I am not real big on operational level games. I have a distinct dislike for NATO symbols, always have. They just don't do anything for me. That scale and the visuals takes me away from the intimacy of the fighting. But if the counter squares were switched over to actual tanks, infantry, airplanes, ships models/sprites it would probably be much more appealing to me. I have been dicking with a JTS demo for Napoleon. You can view the battle with miniatures on "3D terrain" and zoom out to symbols and a 2D map. I like that aspect because it feels like you are going from the battlefield to a commander looking over his plans. Best of both worlds I guess. Though, as I said, they GOTTA update the graphics.

However, I can appreciate that Com Ops2 is innovative and designed outside the stereotypical box. Same goes for Command: Modern Operations, War in the Pacific, War in the East II, Lock N Load, to name a few. Games that don't interest me for one reason or another but have updated the traditions they have come from and dare to be more.

I am more about the tactical to grand tactical level when it comes to wargames (with a few exceptions). They feel more gritty, personal and immersive to me. I like the stories they create. The biggest level games I probably play are OOB WWII and Unity of Command but most would agree they are Beer and Pretzel. I enjoy the art aesthetic of Unity, and I love all the units in OOB.

As an aside there are ways for games to create intimacy, immersion and less visual abstraction, and that's through the UI. Tiller is able to do this with the unit cards. Though I am not overall attracted to his stuff, it's one area I think would fit well in a lot of games, with more detailed info though. There's a lot of immersion that can be found in a unit card that can offset more abstract graphics.

 

Mord.

[Mord]

So, let me be a little clearer as I think a lot of my point got lost in my rhetoric/hyperbole and inability to explain it better, last night. I am not attacking hex-based games, nor operational level games, nor board games translated over to the computer etc. As I said before, there's room for all, and to each his own. I am attacking the stale notions that some wargamers still cling to (and you know you've seen these guys) that resist and oppose innovation and graphical enhancement because of some backwardass nostalgic loyalty to days gone by. Enjoying an operational, hex-based, wargame is not the same animal as dismissing everything else that isn't one. That's the main thing I am driving at. Ian's post just sent me into a rant that I have had brewing for a few years now. LOL

As I touched on above, CMBO was savaged by the faithful when it was first developing. How dare they step away from the top-down, hexagonal, turn-based tradition of true wargaming? Then as it matured and was released it grew into acceptance. People embraced this new style and it was lauded and defended for the most part, in most corners of the Wargamosphere. Then when the engine was exhausted they started developing the next gen. The second it was understood that CMx2 wasn't gonna be another abstracted 3D clone with some updates and a new coat of paint, the witch burning commenced by the very same people that defended it. They couldn't stand the 1:1 representation, the higher fidelity terrain, the concentration on more details and abandonment of abstraction. A lot of those guys hung around on a board for YEARS prophesying the demise of Battlefront.com. LOL It took so long they finally got sick of their own hate and quit.

Does anybody think that if Steve and Charles could've created BN in 2000 they wouldn't have? The thing that stopped them was the technology. I highly doubt three man squads was their idea of Wargaming Nirvana. And does anyone think that 1:1 infantry is just a frivolous eye candy addition to CM tactics? If you do, you haven't been paying attention to your battles.

 

Mord.

[A Canadian Cat]

7 minutes ago, Mord said:

Enjoying an operational, hex-based, wargame is not the same animal as dismissing everything else that isn't one.

A point I very much agree with. My initial rant on the face looked like a "why are they producing anything with hexes" rant but that's not really how I feel. My problem was that in all the games presented there was one actual game that didn't use hexes (CM) and one game in development that didn't (Broken Arrow). Amidst a sea of hex based games.

 

10 minutes ago, Mord said:

I highly doubt three man squads was their idea of Wargaming Nirvana. And does anyone think that 1:1 infantry is just a frivolous eye candy addition to CM tactics? If you do, you haven't been paying attention to your battles.

Yep!

[Mord]

A perfect example of taking the hex, a quirky art style, and flipping a genre on its head, would be Second Front. If that game lives up to it's design it is gonna be an amazing piece of wargaming. Maybe not for everybody, but a damned unique and interesting addition to the hobby.

 

Mord.

[Mord]

9 minutes ago, IanL said:

A point I very much agree with. My initial rant on the face looked like a "why are they producing anything with hexes" rant but that's not really how I feel. My problem was that in all the games presented there was one actual game that didn't use hexes (CM) and one game in development that didn't (Broken Arrow). Amidst a sea of hex based games.

I understood.

I think we both were too amped up to make everyone else understand! LOL.

 

Mord.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Mord

[ratdeath]

26 minutes ago, Mord said:

A perfect example of taking the hex, a quirky art style, and flipping a genre on its head, would be Second Front.

I hope they add multiplayer after release, especially if it turns out to be a fun game. Feels like computer 3D version of Deluxe ASL.

[Aragorn2002]

53 minutes ago, Mord said:

So, let me be a little clearer as I think a lot of my point got lost in my rhetoric/hyperbole and inability to explain it better, last night. I am not attacking hex-based games, nor operational level games, nor board games translated over to the computer etc. As I said before, there's room for all, and to each his own. I am attacking the stale notions that some wargamers still cling to (and you know you've seen these guys) that resist and oppose innovation and graphical enhancement because of some backwardass nostalgic loyalty to days gone by. Enjoying an operational, hex-based, wargame is not the same animal as dismissing everything else that isn't one. That's the main thing I am driving at. Ian's post just sent me into a rant that I have had brewing for a few years now. LOL

As I touched on above, CMBO was savaged by the faithful when it was first developing. How dare they step away from the top-down, hexagonal, turn-based tradition of true wargaming? Then as it matured and was released it grew into acceptance. People embraced this new style and it was lauded and defended for the most part, in most corners of the Wargamosphere. Then when the engine was exhausted they started developing the next gen. The second it was understood that CMx2 wasn't gonna be another abstracted 3D clone with some updates and a new coat of paint, the witch burning commenced by the very same people that defended it. They couldn't stand the 1:1 representation, the higher fidelity terrain, the concentration on more details and abandonment of abstraction. A lot of those guys hung around on a board for YEARS prophesying the demise of Battlefront.com. LOL It took so long they finally got sick of their own hate and quit.

Does anybody think that if Steve and Charles could've created BN in 2000 they wouldn't have? The thing that stopped them was the technology. I highly doubt three man squads was their idea of Wargaming Nirvana. And does anyone think that 1:1 infantry is just a frivolous eye candy addition to CM tactics? If you do, you haven't been paying attention to your battles.

 

Mord.

That's a 'no', right?

[Mord]

5 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

That's a 'no', right?

LOL. No. The first post,that quoted you, was a no...with caveats.

 

Mord.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Mord

[Holman]

31 minutes ago, ratdeath said:

I hope they add multiplayer after release, especially if it turns out to be a fun game. Feels like computer 3D version of Deluxe ASL.

CM actually started development as what would have been the official computer adaptation of ASL.