Grognard Wargamer Thread!

[rezaf]

Oh, I can follow parts of their reasoning, we had discussed that as well.

The point isn't whether or not they should introduce these titles at a high price point or how long they should more or less stick to it, the point is that - eventually - they could give their sales a massive boost if they let the prices plummet to a <$10 price point, and the boost would be bigger the lower below $10 they'd go.

People pick up cheap games of which they don't know if they'll like them or if they'll actually play them to begin with on Steam all the time, because, hey, they're $4.99. What can go wrong?

Like Sarkus said, some of these prices are ridiculous.

They should come up with something that triggered a massive price reduction. Like, less than x copies sold for three months in succession, or the game is 10 years old ... whatever.

Instead, Matrix discontinue older titles (or in VERY rare cases the titles go freeware) or keep them expensive - unless it's not their call, like with the AGEOD games, which can be acquired for cheap from a lot of other sources. I compiled a list somewhere in this thread.
_____
rezaf

[Lizard_King]

I imagine price anchoring is very important for games without a lot of flashy bits to keep the customer perception of value somewhere they need it to be. I'm not sure the Steam model is all that helpful for an exclusively niche vendor, and I'm not sure the Steam outcome of a hundred poorly thought-out purchases next to the ten or so you actually wanted but don't play all that much sitting by the two games you actually got something out of is all that ideal. Nothing wrong with low prices, but if they can survive charging what they think it's worth, more power to them.

[rezaf]

So, as you're reading this thread, I imagine you're at least somewhat interested in the genre.

If that's indeed the case - can you really say the Matrix catalogue doesn't contain at least a few titles where you read the description and are mildly interested, but then see the price point and the game quickly gets sortet in the "ain't gonna happen" mental folder? Because that's been happening to me with quite a few of the Matrix titles.
_____
rezaf

[TheWombat]

I see where you're coming from, but those decisions don't really bother me much. If you let the player fool around with more meta-strategic factors you lose some of the unique appeal of the war in Russia (at least from my perspective). I'd rather face those challenges, as unbalancing as they are, than say speculate on what might have happened with no Balkan diversion or a successful Sealion, etc. Most boardgames from way back had "bucket of cement" type rules that simulated Hitler and Stalin being idiots and all that, so I'm pretty comfortable with a bit of a straight jacket :).

I was pretty escited about that game as well, even with the probable high price, until they started announcing the stuff this version won't be including that was included in the previous versions. It will still be a very hardcore wargame, but reducing features and then charging more makes me wary. In particular, a lot of things have been removed which made the previous versions force you to think beyond the eastern front. You were essentially running the whole war. This version seems to restrict you in that regard to simply being in charge of the eastern front and being at the whim of historical and AI factors. It just removes one of the neat things about the previous Grigsby eastern front games.

[Sarkus]

I see where you're coming from, but those decisions don't really bother me much. If you let the player fool around with more meta-strategic factors you lose some of the unique appeal of the war in Russia (at least from my perspective). I'd rather face those challenges, as unbalancing as they are, than say speculate on what might have happened with no Balkan diversion or a successful Sealion, etc. Most boardgames from way back had "bucket of cement" type rules that simulated Hitler and Stalin being idiots and all that, so I'm pretty comfortable with a bit of a straight jacket :).

The mechanics used in the earlier version I played the most (Second Front) were simple and effective. You chose which forces to send to Italy/North Africa, Norway, and France. They sat in a "box" and the game determined how things went. So you could strip those fronts of armor in the hopes of achieving a breakthrough in Russia, but risk a defeat in those other theatres. That adds a strategic element to the game that is going to be missing from this version. You also decided if you wanted to switch major production of tanks and aircraft in favor of newer and better models even though it meant downtime in production. That is also going to be missing from this version. Instead we are going to be limited by historical choices. That's a legitimate way to make a wargame, but it's different then the previous versions. There are also a number of alternatives if I want to play the eastern front limited by history, making this less unique.

I'm sure it will still be a fine game, but it's not the "be all and end all" version that would have almost completely justified the presumably premium price they will want.

[TheWombat]

I remember Second Front and the original Eastern Front game (War in Russia, or whatever it was called) too; I just never thought those decisions really mattered that much. The production decisions were kind of interesting, but ultimately, they never really mattered much to me. I'm more interested, personally, in fighting the war that was, rather than exploring the what-ifs. Just a personal preference. I do think it would have been good to have those options this time around, but given how long this one has taken and how much trouble Grigsby games have always had with the AI, well, maybe we'd be asking for too much.

The mechanics used in the earlier version I played the most (Second Front) were simple and effective. You chose which forces to send to Italy/North Africa, Norway, and France. They sat in a "box" and the game determined how things went. So you could strip those fronts of armor in the hopes of achieving a breakthrough in Russia, but risk a defeat in those other theatres. That adds a strategic element to the game that is going to be missing from this version. You also decided if you wanted to switch major production of tanks and aircraft in favor of newer and better models even though it meant downtime in production. That is also going to be missing from this version. Instead we are going to be limited by historical choices. That's a legitimate way to make a wargame, but it's different then the previous versions. There are also a number of alternatives if I want to play the eastern front limited by history, making this less unique.

I'm sure it will still be a fine game, but it's not the "be all and end all" version that would have almost completely justified the presumably premium price they will want.

[Janster]

Why isn't Gary Grigsby remaking War in Russia...

[TheWombat]

Why isn't Gary Grigsby remaking War in Russia...

Well, this is pretty much that game--division level USSR vs Germany, 1941-45, but it's more like later titles I guess than WiR itself, in terms of graphics and look/feel. But it's the same basic philosophy as far as I can tell. War in the the East should be Grigsby's ultimate monster game treatment of the Eastern Front, like War in the Pacific was for, well, the Pacific.

I'm hoping the AI actually does stuff this time around.

[Sarkus]

They've actually made it clear that people are not supposed to think of this game as a direct successor to the previous three games he did on the subject. Presumably because of the decision to eliminate some of the stuff mentioned earlier.

As for the AI, I did find it amusing that one of the AAR's appears to have been shut down when people started questioning the AI as the player was about to capture Leningrad and Moscow in mid-October of '41. The guy doing the AAR was an experienced beta tester playing on one of the easier difficulty levels and made that clear at the beginning, but that didn't stop the criticism from emerging.

[TheWombat]

They've actually made it clear that people are not supposed to think of this game as a direct successor to the previous three games he did on the subject. Presumably because of the decision to eliminate some of the stuff mentioned earlier.

As for the AI, I did find it amusing that one of the AAR's appears to have been shut down when people started questioning the AI as the player was about to capture Leningrad and Moscow in mid-October of '41. The guy doing the AAR was an experienced beta tester playing on one of the easier difficulty levels and made that clear at the beginning, but that didn't stop the criticism from emerging.

Yeah, I think you have to accept that there isn't going to be an uber-grog AI for any game like this. I never really worried about it, much; I play these things almost solo anyhow (and sometimes I do hot-seat both sides). As long as the AI makes me do relatively smart things, I'm happy. I'm not that good anyhow.

[spelk]

I threw a question out to the folks at wargamer.com, trying to eek out of them the 'secret to operational gaming', declaring my inadequacies, and looking for some inspiration - I summarised some of the suggestions made on my blog here:

http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=943

Wondered if any of the QT3 wargaming crowd (if you're interested) had any more to add to the subject..

[Eduardo X]

I threw a question out to the folks at wargamer.com, trying to eek out of them the 'secret to operational gaming', declaring my inadequacies, and looking for some inspiration - I summarised some of the suggestions made on my blog here:

http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=943

Wondered if any of the QT3 wargaming crowd (if you're interested) had any more to add to the subject..

I typically have the same issues as you, but playing a game like Advanced Tactics (it's on sale now AND made by the same guy as WtP!) on a random scenario, where you have to create each unit, really helps me get a sense of how to build a front line, where to attack, and when to defend or retreat. Even if it doesn't help you get that sense of where lines are weak or where to attack, Advanced Tactics is a great lighter wargame that I can't recommend enough.

[TheWombat]

I threw a question out to the folks at wargamer.com, trying to eek out of them the 'secret to operational gaming', declaring my inadequacies, and looking for some inspiration - I summarised some of the suggestions made on my blog here:

http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=943

Wondered if any of the QT3 wargaming crowd (if you're interested) had any more to add to the subject..

Cool stuff, and I actually have pretty much the same feelings about big operational level games. I've played the Poland part of WtP about four times now and still can't win ;).

[spelk]

I typically have the same issues as you, but playing a game like Advanced Tactics (it's on sale now AND made by the same guy as WtP!) on a random scenario, where you have to create each unit, really helps me get a sense of how to build a front line, where to attack, and when to defend or retreat. Even if it doesn't help you get that sense of where lines are weak or where to attack, Advanced Tactics is a great lighter wargame that I can't recommend enough.

I have Advanced Tactics, and have only managed to play some of the very small randomly generated scenarios. When I discovered AT I was very impressed by the way supply plays such a crucial role in the game. I hadn't come across this in most of the chit shufflers I'd attempted. Plus I could see that it was a labor of love, although the UI was a bit homebrew at times, I really wanted to delve into it, but struggled with the same hurdles.

When I saw that WtP was released, and it was by Vic (the same dev) I had to look into it, and boy the presentation is light years ahead. The UI still has some quirky/flaky parts to it, but it now just looks like a wargame I can devote a lot of time to. AT didn't have that quality of presentaion.

I've only found out recently that Vic is currently working on an Advanced Tactics Gold Edition, so I'm hoping the original game will be brought into line with the WtP presentation at least. Its due for release in Q1 2011. Once he's finished up with that, he will then move on to tweak W2P a bit more, but also is looking to add to the Decisive Campaigns beyond the Blitzkreig. So I feel investment in time and effort becoming proficient at the WtP game might be good for my wargaming in the future. :)

[spelk]

Cool stuff, and I actually have pretty much the same feelings about big operational level games. I've played the Poland part of WtP about four times now and still can't win ;).

Heh, I seem to have trouble playing the part of Germany in the encounter, which is rather telling of my skill level at these sort of Operational games, and is one of the factors why I thought its about time I come clean and asked for some help from the real Grogs. :)

[TheWombat]

Heh, I seem to have trouble playing the part of Germany in the encounter, which is rather telling of my skill level at these sort of Operational games, and is one of the factors why I thought its about time I come clean and asked for some help from the real Grogs. :)

The horrible thing is, I've been playing games like this, board and computer, since, um, like 1974 or something and I STILL suck....

[Sarkus]

That top down/bottom up combo is how I approach those types of games. Figure out your big picture strategy, and then go down to a more manageable level and do the dirty work of making it happen. Sure, it takes a lot of time in the bigger games, but that's what a lot of people like. Personally I find that approach somewhat tedious as well as unrealistic, but until we get good enough AI "lieutenants" in those games, it is what it is. And that's why the Command Ops games are somewhat disappointing from my perspective - we finally have the kind of AI support to make things easier and thus attract a whole new audience to the genre, but they price the games so high that only grognards are willing to make the committment.

[spelk]

And that's why the Command Ops games are somewhat disappointing from my perspective - we finally have the kind of AI support to make things easier and thus attract a whole new audience to the genre, but they price the games so high that only grognards are willing to make the committment.

Totally agree with you there Sarkus, Command Ops could be the sort of wargame that bridges the gap between grognards and real time strategy players. But it seems the advancement towards decent AI has a high niche price tag attached, rather than an illustrious reputation for pushing the boundaries of wargaming into the more mainstream strategy arena. Having said that, Command Ops does have a lot of grognard detail, to an almost simulation level, but the subordinate AI is where the magic is, and its the ability to macro-manage your troops that gives the game what I think a broader appeal. Shame they had to price it out of 'give it a try' bracket of most gamers pockets. Although recently Matrix's christmas sale has brought it down to a more manageable price.

[Nikolaj]

I threw a question out to the folks at wargamer.com, trying to eek out of them the 'secret to operational gaming', declaring my inadequacies, and looking for some inspiration - I summarised some of the suggestions made on my blog here:

http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=943

Wondered if any of the QT3 wargaming crowd (if you're interested) had any more to add to the subject..

Excellent post! I'll try reading the topic on wargamer, to see if I can glean a few nuggets of advice.

[spelk]

Panzer Corps announced today from Slitherine, looks like a souped up Panzer General... salivating already..

http://www.slitherine.com/games/panzercorps_pc

[JoshV]

So, as you're reading this thread, I imagine you're at least somewhat interested in the genre.

If that's indeed the case - can you really say the Matrix catalogue doesn't contain at least a few titles where you read the description and are mildly interested, but then see the price point and the game quickly gets sortet in the "ain't gonna happen" mental folder? Because that's been happening to me with quite a few of the Matrix titles.
_____
rezaf

Thats me. Some of these titles are super old, look interesting, but then i look at the price point and flinch and close the page.

[Jason Townsend]

TOAW - especially "classic" popular scenarios with battalion/regiment sized chits - is very easy to approach as a sort of tutorial to the information overload aspect of the game scale. It also has a pretty straightforward battle-odds calculator that adjusts as you commit/uncommit units; if you pay attention to that process and read the detailed combat results after resolving, it gradually refines your sense of what the respective units are "worth." (Of course, those ideas of unit value are pretty dependent on how the scenario designer chose to build and rate his units.)

In practice I agree with the "top down/bottom up" idea, but the bottom up is often the important part and depends on the scale and design of the scenario. It might or might not coincide with an actual corps- or army-level formation, or it might be "the big multi-corps battle around the city of X and the big battle along mountain road Y" or something.

A final factor is that scenarios and games aren't always designed to be very playable. "Monster" scenarios effectively overload any player past the point of "normal enjoyment;" they're just a mountain-climbing exercise for player and designer.

[peterb]

TOAW - especially "classic" popular scenarios with battalion/regiment sized chits - is very easy to approach as a sort of tutorial to the information overload aspect of the game scale.

Which scenarios, specifically?

[Jason Townsend]

Korea '50 is the classic case - it's in the tutorial with Kasserine, which isn't bad for a more battalion level scale. I also PBEMed the original Normandy scenario a fair bit - it can get a bit unbalanced if an Allied human really plays their cards right, but I really liked it.

I'd sort of suggest Korea over Normandy because Normandy starts out with so much Allied fire support that it doesn't quite teach you the combat balance between the units - so much power comes from all the naval arty and massed air. (Of course there gets to be a lot of air in the Korean scenario, but it takes time to build up while the NKs rock out for a few turns.)

[Kinky Friedman]

My problem with Matrix isn't so much the price points as the combination of the price point AND the lack of a demo on most of their titles. I'm much more likely to take a huge plunge if I can be more confident I'll like the game once I buy it.

[spelk]

As a kind of follow on from the Secret to Operational Wargaming, I'm documenting a rough and ready AAR from the Battle of Netherlands scenario in the Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris game. If anyone is interested:

Turn 1
http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=949

Turn 2
http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=1008

Its an 8 turn scenario, so I'll try and get the other turns submitted as soon as possible.

[tiohn]

War in the East is supposed to be released any minute now. Pricing has been confirmed at $80 for the download and $90 for a physical copy with a printed partial manual.

[Nikolaj]

War in the East is supposed to be released any minute now. Pricing has been confirmed at $80 for the download and $90 for a physical copy with a printed partial manual.

It's out!

I won't be able to get it until january at the earliest, though. I still haven't bought any christmas presents. :(

[spelk]

Ok, I've managed to get the next installment of my WtP AAR up.
http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=1001

Blooming 'eck, doesn't that make War in the East pricier than Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge?

[tiohn]

Ok, I've managed to get the next installment of my WtP AAR up.
http://sugarfreegamer.com/?p=1001

Blooming 'eck, doesn't that make War in the East pricier than Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge?

The same price, I think.