So what's wrong with TOAW from a CM'ers standpoint?

[PFMM]

It's amusing to see this flare up again. With the release of Theater of War I can see some of what people have against realtime gaming. It also reinforces my view that we need less emphasis on systems and more emphasis on gaming.

In some ways Theater of War reminds me of the game I produced almost two decades ago, a dull boring grind, though looking much, much better. You might as well take a pen and stab away at a graph.

[simovitch]

Critisizing the gameplay of the AA engine based on a few hours with the RDOA demo is like refusing to ever get a driver's license after failing highschool driver's ED.

Sure, I enjoyed SL, ASL, Up Front, Go, chess, and most all AH games ad infintum, and I even play a rousing game of Plauge and Pestilance with my wife and kids now and then. I know the Art. I helped design and playtest a number of games for my brother, who is a part owner of GMT and a former AH employee.

A new AA demo is due out soon. Micromanage that tank Co. and order it to direct fire on that last known enemy Mortar location until it runs out of HE. The supply convoy may or may not get to you until the morning but what the hell?

Granted No PBEM is a big minus, and that is likely the reason the AA system lacks the sales volume of CM and others. There has been talk in the skunkworks about emulating a PBEM system very similar to CM, but that is a while off yet.

[JasonC]

Driving is useful, AA isn't.

Your invitation is so pathetic I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Asked to tout gameplay and the riveting clarity of choices, to elaborate the calcuable decision tree that makes a strategy game a matter of strategy, you offer the advice to fire at a reported position until out of ammo in the hope of possible resupply, or (presumably, you don't actually mention a single decision!) refrain from doing so.

Here is my diagram of the decision tree you actually stated in your previous post.

Do A. Result might be B or it might be C.

That is the decision tree of the oh so strategic game of craps.

Here is my modification to allow the single decision to refrain from firing off all of one unit's ammo at a reported positon, or not.

Do A, in the remote hope that B might happen, with C nearly certain but perhaps OK because of D.

Or refrain from doing A, passing on B as unlikely compared to C, removing dependence on the chance element of D. But resulting in no know gain or benefit for anything else, and with no alternative (other than complete inaction) proposed.

This is the decision tree of someone deciding not to bet in craps.

The closest thing offered yet to a real interesting decision in a brand new AA demo meant to entice us all, is reducible to the situation in CM where you have a T-34 with a decent HE supply and there is one flag on the far side of the field, and you can area fire at it or not. Are people lined up around the block to play that CM scenario?

I can just see it, Rune Does AA, a whole platoon of T-34s can choose to fire at a whole German heavy weapons position beyond spotting range, area fire. Or not, on the off chance something may actually happen later on. Scenario length 15 minutes.

Oooh. Aaah. So cool.

If this is understanding the art, what would spitting on the customer look like?

Why are they releasing a demo? To show immersion factors again. Our simulation engine simulates simulated combat more simultaneously than any other simulation ever simulated! Yay!!!

Show us a decision tree interaction between two minds that doesn't bore us to tears, or give up strategy gamers and just sell it to the army. Where they won't care how much they bore their LTs to tears.

[simovitch]

JasonC, once again you pose a compelling argument for or against some vague aspect of conflict simulation. And as usual your dogmatic tone undermines the effectiveness of your approach.

Here, I'll apologize for you: "...sorry, I missed your point entirely - JasonC"

[JasonC]

You tell other people they must have failed driver's ed not to like the game you are touting and then complain about -their- dogmatic tone?

It is chutzpa, I'll give you that.

You claim to understand what design for game play is about, and then complain that it is vague.

Dude, it is only vague because you failed driver's ed. Is that the sort of tone you prefer?

[simovitch]

Jason,

The driver's ed analogy was not meant to be personal dogma, it was a reference to the obsolete demo.

It is not the design concepts of the different wargame genre's that are vague, but the evidence being provided to support an argument why one is 'better' than the other when we all have different and overlapping preferences.

I did enjoy the Rune T34 analogy, but my point with the 'HE direct fire' example was a breif example of AA's ability to allow management at that level of gameplay, for those who are seemingly unaware of the ability to play at that level.

Why I need to explain this to a professional educator and philosopher of abstract thought processes is beyond me. I respect both your education and your position in the field of math and scientific interpretive methods. Your well structured argument against the AA system was established many posts back, but your last few posts here seemed dogmatic and misplaced to me.

If they were meant to shut me down as just another misguided fanboy, then perhaps you can feel that you were successful, but (rhetorically speaking)why?