Nobody Ever Wins (long rant)

[David Aitken]

Anyone seen the film None But The Brave? Directed by and starring Frank Sinatra, and possibly my favourite war film. Anyway, my subject line is the film's mantra, and also the basis for what I feel about war games.

Before I go any further, I might suggest that I shouldn't be playing games at all, thereby defeating the purpose of this post - but I thought it might be interesting for some people. I used to play various games, but currently the only one I still have is Combat Mission - not because I don't have time for anything else, but because (1) it's a quality game, (2) it demands intelligence, and (3) I am fascinated by the Second World War. I regard most other games as a waste of time and destroyer of brain cells.

However, when I see my men getting wasted, I start to lose my desire to play. That's not to say I want them to be invincible, like you'd expect in other kinds of computer game - I don't want an easy win either. But the fact is, to quote the aforementioned film - Nobody Ever Wins. In war, the 'victor' usually still takes heavy casualties.

Obviously, most computer games don't feature attrition - if you lose, you lose in a snap, and then you just take a step back and try again. That's what computer games are about - most people don't want a game to be a depressing experience. But I should stop referring to CM as a 'game', because it is, in effect, a simulator.

My point (if I have one), is that CM simulates an overview of the battle. You can see individual troops and vehicles, but ultimately, what you get is an averaged-out result. I think everyone recognises what this means in gaming terms - who hasn't watched a squad run into a difficult situation and started yelling "NOO!! Don't just sit there you morons! Get up and chuck a grenade at... Yes, that's it... NOO! Damnit, if you'd only just... oh geez..." Etcetera etcetera. So often you wish you were one of the troops yourself, and then you'd show them how to do it.

What I'm getting at is, war games tend to screen out the most interesting parts of a battle - what actually happens on the ground. I'm not criticising games - least of all CM - for that, but it can be a barrier to your appreciation of what's going on. CM and its ilk are essentially a graphical representation of a set of criteria, such as "We've taken the church... the enemy has two tanks overlooking us from the woods... we've taken 23 casualties". A graphical representation is certainly much better than reading the words, but you never get quite as much out of it as you'd like.

For me, and probably for a lot of people, the really interesting aspects of war are seen from the soldier's perspective. Now, I'm no soldier, so my apologies to anyone reading who has fought, and would be in a far better position than me to talk about this. Obviously the soldier has the greatest chance of having his arms blown off, but he's also the one creeping between buildings and hedgerows - he's the one clutching the BAR/Bren/MG34, weighed down with ammo - the one who sees and feels the reality of struggling to capture the next building, and watching people getting torn to bits around him.

Combat Mission certainly allows those of us who have never been involved in war to gain further understanding from a different perspective. BTS are to be highly commended for making a simulation rather than a game, so no-one is left under the misapprehension that battles can be won without terrible cost even to the 'winner'.

Ultimately, though, war is about people killing each other - and I just wanted to share the feeling that those of us who want to fully understand that, are not going to be satisfied by a simulation, no matter how realistic. It's quite depressing to see tanks knocked out or platoons massacred, and no game can offer you what you need to come to terms with that - because they are, inherently, not real.

Before you ask, yes, I am very good at analysing things to death. I'm also a master of self-defeat, and I'm forever on the lookout for new skills with which to make life difficult for myself. =)

David

[sniperscope]

hmmmm interesting post. For me, it's just a game to have fun. Nobody gets hurt (except maybe my pride). I am right now playing a PBEM against TeAcH. Just having a good time, with a few drinks. No big deal. Just enjoy the game my friend. Some of us have waited for over 30 years for this game. Everybody knows that war is terrible. This is just a forum about a very addictive game, people posting, having fun, learning tactics, (Flonn keep posting them please)

I can understand how you feel. Try to just enjoy the game for what it is. The best land based war game ever.

sniperscope

[Calvin]

I think David makes some good points here. It is worthwhile to take a step back sometimes and remember what is being simulated and what it must have been like. But the more faithfully a game simulates "real" war, the better educated we become as to what those men went through. I I feel the same way about war movies. I can't watch Rambo type films or even those rah rah 50's movies. They are offensive, the vets used to shudder or laugh at them. That's what made "Saving Private Ryan" such an important film. It killed any latent desire in the viewer to play GI Joe. It made you realize what war is.

[A quick aside on "Ryan." When that ramp fell onto Omaha beach and the men in the first few rows shuddered and dropped as the machine gun rounds went through them... It brought home the point you hear veterans make again and again. That is, death in war is random, soldiers often feel like cattle ("what bells for those who die as cattle"] and the difference between life and death is often a few yards. "They never had a chance..." You hear quotes like that consistently. ]

Anyway, it IS possible to have a solid knowledge of history and tactics, and it IS important to know the soldier's war in the trenches along with the General's war in the staff room. One thing that is encouraging is the fact that most of the Wargamers posting here have both a strong interest in WWII history and a realistic idea as to what war is. Sure, you get the occasional Waffen SS groupie and whatnot, but anyone who is truly learned knows the difference between computer games and reality.

One good rant deserves another, eh David!

Calvin

[Formerly Babra]

Yep. Just finished a rather challenging game with a tactical victory. Tho' my opponent's Tigers and Pz IVs had been silenced forever, I was more struck with the dead Shermans it took to achieve it.

As the Iron Duke said, the only thing more melancholy than a battle lost is a battle won.

------------------

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[KNIL]

Wow, what an interesting and thought provoking thread...

[snagdad]

yes, this is interesting. I went on vacation a few weeks back and upon returning, it took me some days before I would start playing CM again. It's because it can be so tiring; if I start after the kids are in bed I will be up until well past midnight. Moreover, playing the game itself is tiring due to the concentration level. And finally, there is that sense of losing your men and causing so much destruction.

Myst was the first game that ever awed me on the computer; Amber was the first game that actually scared me, and CM is an order of magnitude beyond these in a lot of ways.

I look ahead to where the hardware is going, before too long we'll have a helmet to put on for a virtual environment and the realism will go up a few notches. I wonder at what point it will get too real.

At any rate, I'm back playing. It is a game, or a simulation if you will, and it is a great one. Any other software I've got doesn't really interest me at this point.

[Supertanker]

I don't mean for this to sound like a personal attack, but I think you are on the wrong track for reaching your apparent goals. Maybe it is because I've been playing computer games for so long, but I draw a much thicker line between actual wars and the little electrons and photons that make up a computer game. To me, the men on the CM battlefield are like plastic chess pieces, and bear no relation to my family members and friends who are veterans. When my CM "men" die, they do not lose all of their hopes and dreams. Their loved ones do not cry, and clutch some memento to their breasts. When I see the little casualty marker guy on the CM battlefield, it does not give me a chill and sense of somber remembrance like when I visit a national cemetary. No matter the graphics or sound quality of the game, I can still turn it off and go sleep in my warm bed, well fed, with no fear of what may happen in battle the next day. Many people gave up their lives to ensure I can do that, and I feel like I am belittling their memory and sacrifice if I dare give such weight to a mere game.

The point of the game is to have an enjoyable experience; it is intended as entertainment. Scenarios have been purposely balanced for gameplay, not historical accuracy. If it isn't fun or entertaining, the makers know you will turn it off and find something that is that way. If you are trying to gain a deeper understanding or appreciation of how war is about killing each other, then forget about entertainment media and go read accounts of war written by veterans. I just finished reading "With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa" by E.B. Sledge. That book will do far, far more to teach you about the randomness of death and sometimes pointless nature of a battle that the most closely fought game of CM.

[Holdit]

I think the fun approach and the reflective approach aren't mutually exclusive. Of course it's fun; if it wasn't, we wouldn't find it so addictive. On the other hand, with the battle over, there is time for though on what you have and haven't achieved with your command.

Personally, I make a point of trying to minimise casualties. They may be polygons, but they're polygons representing (to me) real men whose existence isn't to be wasted lightly. This of course, has to be balanced with the knowledge that sometimes, in order to use your men effectively, you're going to have to kill them. Another factor that makes the game so compelling.

My best and most enjoyable victory so far (demo only - hurry up postman!!!)was as the Germans in Chance Encounter. I took all the flags for a major victory and utterly decimated the US force. Of course it was fun, of course I was delighted, of course I went "yes!" with each Sherman knocked out, it was great!

But...when I saw the casualty returns afterwards and saw the losses (not exceptional either) and weighed them in the context of the scenario: 100+ casualties for a crossroads that in a few hours would have massive artillery and airpower brought against it and be retaken not too long after that. All the sacrifice had bought would be a few hours in a gesture to stave off a defeat that was inevitable anyway. I'm not saying it's depressing, just that it triggers some deep thoughts. I reckon this is actually another feather in Big Time's cap as regards the immersion factor. And is, paradoxically, another factor that makes this game truly great.

Of course, after the deep thoughts comes...the next round! Fun hat back on again...

[David Aitken]

> If you are trying to gain a deeper understanding or appreciation of how war is about killing each other, then forget about entertainment media and go read accounts of war written by veterans.

I wouldn't suggest for a minute that a computer game is the best source of information for the subject on which it is based. But obviously, Combat Mission accurately reflects its subject matter, in that you can't just go out and trounce the baddies with nuclear bazookas - even if you win, you're still going to take a beating, which illustrates how far removed CM is from your average computer game.

David

[Guest Germanboy]

I just finished a scenario that came with the game, pulling off a major victory. Out of an original force of 253 men, I lost 174 (69%) with 52 KIA (21%). This figure is slightly misleading though, because my final reinforcement platoon only lost 8 out of 50 men, while my initial force was almost totally annihilated. The almost final act was to throw away one squad close-assaulting a tank that I had no other way of getting, and that was covered by an enemy squad in a house. My opponent lost 173 out of 193 (90%) with 32 KIA (17%). The battlefield is littered with dead bodies, burning vehicles, abandoned guns. It is a very sobering sight, going over the map now. Especially since I am just reading an account of a similar action in Normandy.

Oh, and before someone tells me that I have just thrown away the lives of my men because I am a bad tactician - I believe that the only way to win for the side I played in this scenario is to undertake a lot of head-long charges and close-assaults with all the risks that entails.

------------------

Andreas

[PD]

Well, I've just finished the Carentan Operation (No spoilers).

Each battle took one sitting. I couldn't do two in a row, because of the amount of planning I went into, and attention to positions, firing arcs and cover.

I ended up one battle short, with a 4:1 advantage in casualties. And a new contempt for tanks

Because CM doesn't have an ingame screen capture (can't have everything), I can't show you some of the close quarters fighting that took place when a desparate AI ran troops into the wrong place...

Those body markers can stack up. But when I finally finished tonight, I know when I fire it up tomorrow I'll probably do three DYO's

Seeya!

[Ubermac]

Hellooo..are we privates or generals?

Look at the bigger picture, it's war, it's hell, but in order to achieve victory...sacrifices must be made. True, i overdo it sometimes, sending a ****load of little men across a flank to confuse the enemy, knowing they will be kebabs within a few turns, but hey...if that means being able to punch a hole in the lines and causing maximum casualties..so be it.

But seriously, i think it's all about knowing the difference about strategic knowledge and outsmarting an opponent against the human drama behind it all. It's like the fact it's hard to tell someone you have books about the Waffen SS at home bacause the unit as a military elite interests the living hell out of ya. But ofcourse, there's no need to rant on about that here....

------------------

And remember kids....dressing up like Hitler in school, is NOT cool!

[Henri]

Although your comments are well thought out, I believe that you would like the game to be something that it is not, a first-person game.The zoom can make it almost that, however. In this game, the player is in the position of a Battalion commander or a Battle Group commander, with additional features of a company commander with a satellite view.

As for casualties, it varies a lot as it does in real battles: I have won scenarios with ratios of 4:1 in my favor , and others where almost everyone on the map was killed or wounded .

Henri

[David Aitken]

> I believe that you would like the game to be something that it is not, a first-person game.The zoom can make it almost that, however. In this game, the player is in the position of a Battalion commander or a Battle Group commander,

I've actually been arguing exactly that in a recent thread on the subject of first-person play. I wouldn't want CM to be first-person, and even if it were, it would still be a game, and therefore inherently unrealistic.

I speak from a philosophical and excessively analytical viewpoint. =)

David

[guachi]

PD wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Because CM doesn't have an ingame screen capture (can't have everything), I can't show you some of the close quarters fighting that took place when a desparate AI ran troops into the wrong place... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, young grasshopper, you are mistaken. All you need to do is hit 'Printscreen' on a PC to get a screenshot.

Jason

[PD]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by guachi:

PD wrote:

Ah, young grasshopper, you are mistaken. All you need to do is hit 'Printscreen' on a PC to get a screenshot.

Jason

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is my face red Is that in the manual? (Havn't read ALL of it yet) (Obviously).

Thanks

[Los]

"Scenarios have been purposely balanced for gameplay, not historical accuracy. If it isn't fun or entertaining, the makers know you will turn it off and find something that is that way."

I can tell you assuredly as part of the design/test team that this is a FALSE statement. While some of the scenarios were created to have balance to them some of the scenarios, (including every one with my name on it), was created to provide historical accuracy regardless of balance. (However we did choose battles and operations that were intrinsicly challenging near run things) When I design a scenario I want the commander to be faced with the situation his countrpart faced at the time. I have no concern for play balance (I hate points counting) and will not add a single unit to the battle if it wasn't there in real life. (not taht all scenarios weren't tweaked during testing, they were.)

However if I did choose battle that wasn't fun to play that would come out and testing and we would most likely scrap it from the mix. We talked very much about this a number of times during the development of the game and created scenarios to meet both the historical accuracy crowd (Who are generally looking to study an event and gain some insight to it through putting themselves in the shoes of the commanders)and some to meet the play balance/pbem crowd. (Who are looking for a good head to head match of equal forces similar to a chess match type thing).

Cheers...

Los

[aka_tom_w]

"What I'm getting at is, war games tend to screen out the most interesting parts of a battle - what actually happens on the ground.

I'm not criticising games - least of all CM - for that, but it can be a barrier to your appreciation of what's going on."

If you want that kind of thing how about trying Rainbow 6 or Myth II?

Myth II is a VERY good tactical RTS game where individal soldiers with board swords, axes and bows and arrows kill each other in VERY glorious and graphic detail. Complete with plenty of blood. Rainbow six is a first person shooter that gives you that personal feeling about being there and shooting someone.

I'm still not sure what your point is. I have re-read your post several times. You seem to say that CM is a GREAT simulation but you can't see the soldier's perspective and can't get a soldier's feeling of being scarred and in the line of fire? But is that necessary or desirable?

As I understand it, being a commander means that you may be forced to send some men to their deaths so that many others will live, so that the battle or fire fight can be won. I good commander knows this and deals with it to WIN the battle. I'm not sure that we really need to "feel" exactly what our soldiers are feeling. I think it is a VERY good simulation and lets you play the role of a commander over about a Battalions worth of troops to accheive an objective. And CM does that (model the battlion commander) VERY well!

Still wondering what is your point?

just curious?

-tom w

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Zaffod]

Very funny i should read this post after the 'epic' battle i played last night. Defending the village of Chambois with more panzers than i knew what to do with... after all the fire and brimstone had settled i had 21 vehicles knoched out whilst watching, literally, a pile of 28 poilsh shermans and halftracks in smolders.. Then i thought... damn, all those ambush spots i had planned accordingly didnt really work out the way they were suppose to. I guess what im saying is that I see your point... even if you win.. you almost certainly have a heavy toll to attribute to your victory. I believe that is how it really was too.. Making the transition from Close Combat to CM is very hard... there are no missions where you can just hide in the bushes and ambush a squad with a tank at close range and laugh as they go down like bowling pins.. There is waaay more thought and calculating involved here.. which really draws the player in even more... I too actually get peeved when i see a tank get knocked out.. even when i see a squad get reduced by a unit!! i probably would have been a very bad leader in war (probably an even more-cautious Montgomery . The fact is, its a game to have fun with.. so go ahead and throw those squads out head-first.. some sacrifices do yield results. Im just thankful that theres finally a game where we are affected by the 'drama' of battle... oh well.. to each his own.. my 2 sence 4 the day

[David Aitken]

> If you want that kind of thing how about trying Rainbow 6 or Myth II?

Myth is maybe my third-favourite computer game of all time, but I sold it anyway. It is particularly annoying, because it simulates individual people, so you get doubly annoyed when a stupid dwarf stands there and watches an axe-wielding Ghol prancing towards him.

As for Rainbow 6... Marathon (the game Bungie made before Myth) is the only first-person shooter I really like, and that's for the story. In technical terms, I hate first-person shooters - because again, ultimately, they are games. Sneaking around with a gun in a game is totally different from doing it for real.

Shame about Bungie... besides BTS they were the one game developer I really liked, but I've lost interest in them since they sold out to Microsoft.

> I'm still not sure what your point is. I have re-read your post several times. You seem to say that CM is a GREAT simulation but you can't see the soldier's perspective and can't get a soldier's feeling of being scarred and in the line of fire? But is that necessary or desirable?

I'm not talking about what I want a computer game to be. CM is as good as anyone could possibly expect it to be. I'm just speaking philosophically, for anyone who's interested in reading.

David

[Supertanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

I can tell you assuredly as part of the design/test team that this is a FALSE statement. While some of the scenarios were created to have balance to them some of the scenarios, (including every one with my name on it), was created to provide historical accuracy regardless of balance. (However we did choose battles and operations that were intrinsicly challenging near run things)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But isn't eliminating the blowouts from the list of scenarios considered play balancing? Even in the early FAQ, BTS stated that they would do that (I think the question was something like, "Didn't the Allies have so much of everything that they will will all the time?" If you start off by limiting scenarios to near run things, then you are just taking a gross approach to adjusting the scenarios to be fun from both sides, or be won by either side. Nobody wants to be a target, and shooting fish in a barrel ain't that much fun, either.