computer wargames played more superficially than boardgames?

[Nicdain]

Dear Combat Mission fans, I would like to submit you a consideration I was wondering about today. I must put forward that long ago I have been a board wargame player (Squad Leader, Firepower, Ambush!...) but since it has always been difficult to find opponents, my attention has focused mainly on studying the rules of wargames, with their combat result and terrain effects tables and re-create in solitaire some tactic situations. Since the first appearance of computer wargaming, I have experimented lots of games, finding in Combat Mission the ultimate experience of wargaming.

OK this is just to say that even if I cannot be considered a "Grognard", I made my experiences on this subject.

Now I come to the point: who played boardgames knows that in order to play you have to study pages and pages of rules (this cannot necessarily be bad...) and in the end what is the result? You master completely the mechanisms of the game. You know the function of each variable, the meaning of each parameter.

What I found on the other hand in computer wargaming (Combat Mission included), is that this mechanism is in a certain sense "hidden" in the algorithms that enable the computer to play and let you play. You say: "well but this is what we have dreamt for years! Something (or someone) who relieves us from the pain of rules". OK that's true, but what I mean is that there are some pros and some cons to this fact. The pros are evident. The cons are that if you are not obliged to learn the mechanisms of the game (you could do it, since almost always you are allowed to know how the game mechanism works, but rarely you do) because you know that there is a computer which makes everything work, you could tend to play the game more superficially.

This happens to me (what about you?) in the sense that I tend to play without putting too much attention at all the game variables and paramters. Also because I am anxious of seeing the action develop, so I play fast but superficial. In a board game you are not allowed to play fast. Each move, each action must be planned carefully looking at tables and rules. I am sure this can be done also in computer wargaming, but, as I said, the fact that the "engine" of the game is hidden and the parameters of game are not always readily available (for example as good ol' paper sheets) sometimes can prevent the player from throughly mastering the wargame.

I don't know if these my considerations are clear enough, but I would like to know your opinions on the subject.

Thanks

Nick

P.S.

If the things I wrote don't make sense to you, consider that I usually don't assume alcohol in the morning

[tar]

OK, I'll give a bit of a response.

Certainly with the mechanics exposed as in a board game, you are much more aware of exactly what factors influence a given situation. This has its pluses and minuses. On the plus side, you gain a better understanding of the underlying model. That does help understand the factors that the game designer thought were the most important to simulate.

On the minus side, you know a lot more about how to "optimize" a particular outcome. You know exactly how many factors you need to get the next break on the chart. This is a bit gamey, since in real life there was no such knowledge. (Some of this is also related to fog of war, which is a separate issue). Also, the need to make the computations tractable for a human generally means you have discrete values, alternating movement and a requirement that all of the inputs have to be reduced to a few summary factors so that the computation is easy enough to do with brain and only a few tables.

Fog of war is something else that is much more difficult to achieve with normal face-to-face gaming. Simultaneous movement is also tough, often requiring either compromises (impulse systems) or laborious plotting. The plotting solutions are also a bit less ideal, because of the limitations in reactiveness of the system. Although players often complain about the TacAI in Combat Mission, it is nothing like needing to have to follow a plotted course of action that has become obviously suicidal. At least in CM, the TacAI often does something.

Finally as to superficiality and planning. I guess it depends a bit on how you play. Certainly against the computer AI I will play a lot more fast and loose than in a (for me rare) game against a human. Part of has to do with the different time committments. Combat Mission games are a lot shorter than typical serious board wargames. That means that it is easier to have some sessions that aren't all that serious -- mainly because the time investment is much smaller. If you are going to play a game over a space of several weeks, then its a lot harder to goof around with it.

[David I]

Nicdain,

I understand and completely agree with you. I have played board wargames that I put more study into than some of my college courses. Playing any of War of Rebellion series, where every 20 minute turn could take two or 3 hours, Squad Leader, War in Europe, Siege of Jeruselm, Drang Nacth Osten, etc, etc, was a major effort.

Now in my advanced years I would never consider spending an hour figuring out the American Artillery for one turn in Watch am Rhine.

So in short your right.

I don't think I'll play another board game ever again. What CM can do in milliseconds would take 5 charts and 6 die rolls, let's see with a +1 for sloped armor, + 1 for windy day, +2 for moving target, -4 for target size, hmmm I rolled a 8 so let's see, yep here it is "a miss". Wait did I -1 for long gun? **** better calc that again.

Try War in the Pacific board game vs Uncommon Valor on the computer.

Love computer games. Want to buy any of my old board games?

DavidI

[hoolaman]

I think a short search through the forums here would reveal that many many people are just as interested in learning the underlying probabilities and calculations even in CM.

CM is still a pretty steep learning curve. The main difference is you don't have to calculate everything yourself. I don't think I have ever played a superficial PBEM game. Quick battles seem to run quicker and maybe are superficial, but sometimes overthinking is not such a good thing either.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Nicdain:

Something...Alcohol...Sumfink...

First off alcohol is good for the thought process and overall well being. I have to look no further than myself for proof and I'm sure those around me(wife included) will concur or they will once I have convinced them. An unwelcome side-effect however, if "too much"* is imbued, is it can make one surly and at times downright nasty. Again, I know those around me will concur on this. As with everything moderation is key.

As for the rest who knows? After a glass or two there is no probem, never has been. Everything is right and proper as it should be.

*Too Much - Authority would have you believe it is one or two glasses or .08% blood-alcohol level, depending on one's body weight. However I have it under good authority(mine) that it is directly related to how often and for how long a period one has emptied the glass. The more the better er merrier... remember moderation is the key and try not to think so hard.

Ron

[GJK]

You can get by with being lax in the computer version where as you can't in the boardgame. In the computer version you can go down to level 1 on every unit, check their condition, set unique waypoints and orders, move them back if they're taking too much fire, etc, -or- you can just group select the whole lot of them and give them a "Move to Contact Order". In the boardgame, you've got to conform to the rules, unless you're playing yourself and then who's watching anyways?

FWIW, I've begun to go back to my boardgaming days since about every one of them now can be played on the computer, versus others. You still need to learn the rules, but the maps and counters are there to move around with your opponent watching you in real time. Search the General Discussion Forums for VASL or VASSAL if interested.

[GreenAsJade]

I'm not sure if this is exactly what others are saying, but the point is that with Computer Games you still _can_ learn a lot about the mechanisms. Read how Walpurgis Night won Wolf in Sheep's clothing. Amazing understanding. Just because it's not written in formulae in a book doesn't mean you can't learn it.

On the other hand, with a computer game you don't _have_ to learn it.

So contrary to the original post, there isn't a situation where board games had one thing and computer has another. In the case of CM, at least, it has it all (in this respect).

[Mord]

I think a short search through the forums here would reveal that many many people are just as interested in learning the underlying probabilities and calculations even in CM.

You got that right brother!

Nicdain go through some of the Combat Mission threads from 99 and 2000. You'll find all kinds of tests and LENGTHY discussions on just about every aspect of CM. I don't think any other wargame on earth has been discussed and picked apart as much as CM has...not even the Holy of Holies ASL...well I could be wrong on that one.

Mord

[Leopard_2]

My 0.02€: Yes, and I very much like it. In my book, the ultimate wargame would allow me to give orders to my Leutnants and see how the battle unfolds, modelling reality instead of "rules" or "mechanics".

[roqf77]

well i see what you mean but you can take the game more seriously as in a way it is more realisic monty wouldnt of gone oh no the tiger has a strength 8 cannon and the armour of that tank is only 6. it would be if it was me for f**K sake back off. i mean you know not to move a sherman out in front of a tiger at long range cuz you know the results through seeing them not just by understanding the rules its a more realistic representation than a board game. i find from having played warhammer 40k when i was younger, i spend more time thinking about tactics but less about trying to make the rules go in your advantage

[GJK]

Originally posted by roqf77:

well i see what you mean but you can take the game more seriously as in a way it is more realisic monty wouldnt of gone oh no the tiger has a strength 8 cannon and the armour of that tank is only 6. it would be if it was me for f**K sake back off. i mean you know not to move a sherman out in front of a tiger at long range cuz you know the results through seeing them not just by understanding the rules its a more realistic representation than a board game. i find from having played warhammer 40k when i was younger, i spend more time thinking about tactics but less about trying to make the rules go in your advantage

If I'm reading your right, then I would disagree. TC's certainly knew the strengths and weaknesses of their tanks and knew what would and wouldn't work. Now, if you say that in real they may not know what is there, where as you do in a boardgame and often even in a computer game, then I agree somewhat. But just the comparison of any wargame to real war is a non argument.

[Moon]

What the original poster calls "superficial" is actually part of the very design of CM! Hiding some of the number crunching was in part to make the game more easily accessible, and in part because tactical warfare isn't about studying rulebooks.

Steve and Charles designed CM with the goal in mind to allow players to try out tactics based on what works in the real-world, not artificial charts and tables. I'll exaggerate, but in a way reading Manstein or Sun-Tzu is supposed to prep you just as well for CM as reading the game manual (which is actually one of the reasons why our "Strategy Guide" for CMAK contains real-world anecdotes rather than game-specific tips and tricks).

Maybe I'm plain wrong, but if you ask me, this approach has in no small part led to the longevity of the CM series. While some people did pick up "gamey" rules here and there through sheer will by and large the game can still be played and won by total newbies to the *game* as long as they have some basic understanding of *tactical warfare*.

Martin

[roqf77]

the point is gjk that a tank commander would only know there experience, in a board game you would know before hand because you read the rules. in combat mission you dont know excactly how effective weapons are against what generaly speaking until they get hit by them, more like real life i understand what your saying i just put it to vague i just mean no tc knew how good a tiger was until they were unfortunate enough to meet one in combat. and they would find out the hard way, rather than knowing before hand.