Geryk Analysis: Wargaming

[Brooski]

Geryk Analysis: Wargaming

"I am not the general. I am some guy."

[Rod Humble]

Great read thanks.

FWIW the older wargames that stand up best for me are Conflict in Vietnam, Decision in the Desert and Crusade in Europe (Atari versions).

Worth checking out and in my opinion if someone is looking to make a historical console/ handheld wargame, these games are a good starting point for ideas.

[Ben Sones]

Originally Posted by Bruce

One reason is that by definition, a historical wargame is supposed to recreate historical conditions, and there just aren’t a lot of famous battles (or wars) that could just as easily have been won by either side.

This is the number one reason that I prefer fictional settings (fantasy, sci-fi, alternate history, whatever) for these sorts of games. It takes the specter of "fudging history to make a more interesting game" out of the equation entirely. I like historical games, too, but too often I feel like historical authenticity is competing with my sense of enjoyment for developers' attention.

Good article. Thanks, Bruce!

[XPav]

Good article. The "only one way to invade france" remind me of the V4V and W@W games that dealt with the invasion of France. That was -- the first turn was done -- the troops were on the beaches, paratroopers were on the ground, etc etc.

There are plenty of wargames that well, it's just hard to win as either side. Operational Art of War -- Korean War scenario. No matter what the North does, it'll pile its way through the South Korean army and -almost- get to Pusan, but their supply attributes suck so bad that they just can't keep their troops supplied. Then, the UN shows up, and with the initiative due to their amphib capability, can pick the fight and win. If the Chinese don't show up, it's all over. If they do show up, it's a slogging stalemate.

Everytime.

In real life, battles are usually won or lost before they start for very boring reasons, and it's hard to make that fun.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, that was great. Argh, games suck. :(

[ioticus]

Great to see your wargame articles back, Bruce. You've always been my favorite columnist.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

The whole puzzle versus game dynamic is endemic in strategy games in general. Even the search for the perfect build order in a RTS or Civ is just a slight variation on the "one right answer" problem in wargames.

I still play Operational Art of War, but mostly in MP and very few of the scenarios. Sometimes a more talented friend will take on playing the far weaker party, or we'll introduce house rules to even things out. But more and more I find myself going to "lighter" wargames like Sid Meier's Gettysburg or the Tin Soldiers games.

Anyway, great article.

Troy

[Jason Lutes]

Yeah, good stuff. This one would make a good chapter-heading quote for Bruce Geryk's Art of Wargame Design:

Originally Posted by Brooski

"There are only really two game design axioms I’m sure about. One is that anything below the player’s level of control should be abstracted. The other is that anything that has one and only one solution should be omitted. If you are making a game of World War II and there is one single best way to invade France, you should just start the game after the invasion of France. Or quit game design entirely."

[Rywill]

That's a good article with a lot of good stuff to say, but I'll add one counterpoint: I don't mind a game that has a "best way to invade France" as long as there are multiple successful (even if not optimal) ways to do it. Maybe that's what you're saying anyway. Taking Panzer General (which many consider the worst in puzzley wargame design) as an example, there is almost certainly one "best" way to pull off the France invasion. But there are multiple ways to do it and still get a victory (albeit maybe a "minor victory") that advances the campaign. Of course, if you do it better, you get bonuses: more resources for improving your army, you keep more of your good units alive and experienced, and maybe you get a shot at Operation Sea Lion. To me, that's fine.

[BaconTastesGood]

The puzzle stuff is something I've said for a couple years, and is an outgrowth's of Sid Meier's apocryphal(?) statement that "Good games are about interesting decisions". I wrote about this at my Web site two years ago, saying:

An interesting decision should not necessarily have a right or a wrong answer. If there is a right answer and a wrong answer, then it's a test, not a decision. And there's nothing wrong with tests, but that's a different mechanic than decision making. Decision making is about having choices, and having those choices be similarly valid but with different effects and consequences.

[Mike O'Malley]

Originally Posted by BaconTastesGood

The puzzle stuff is something I've said for a couple years, and is an outgrowth's of Sid Meier's apocryphal(?) statement that "Good games are about interesting decisions". I wrote about this at my Web site two years ago, saying:

Holy crap, Brian's becoming HRose.

Good points, though. I can't stand "single correct answer" strategy games; not only is it a test, it's a test that can be brute-forced. That's not fun and it's not challenging; the only expense is time. What should be a gaming experience can be reduced to a search problem.

[Chris Nahr]

Great article. I'd like to add that some people do find military simulations entertaining, but today there's no need to use the artificial hex/counter/turn mechanics for this purpose. Modern computers can do real-time movement with a ~1 meter resolution, as in TacOps and a few others. Making a game that's using the old hexagon and turn abstractions on one hand, but that's burdened with simulation details on the other, seems like missing the point.

Also agree with the perennial balancing problems to make a game out of history. Those artificial victory conditions and optional bonuses that Rywill mentioned are a popular attempt to deal with that but personally I'm tired of them. Clear victory conditions are part of good game design IMO. I don't want to "win" by reaching Objective Gamma one turn earlier, even though it makes absolutely no difference that I can see, or by having an extra ammo truck left over. That's just ridiculous.

[Lum]

Well, there have been some interesting computer wargame designs. Combat Mission's a good example; there's no way short of insanely complex minatures rules that a game like that could be played on the tabletop.

As far as grand strategy games go, well, perhaps we need to take a look at what "winning" is. If I'm playing a sim of WW2 on the strategic level, as the Allies, I'm going to "win", if winning is defined as beating the Axis. There's not too many ways around it; it's very difficult for the Allies to lose given any level of competence whatsoever; they have the superior strategic position. Thus the game becomes, "can you do better?", a familiar dodge to board wargamers but, judging from Geryk's article and this thread, not one that everyone is comfortable with.

But on the other hand I don't particularly want to play a WW2 sim where Germany has none of their strategic constraints and all of their advantages. That's about like the old Lucasarts "Rebellion" game where the Empire and the Rebels each start with one planet. Sure, it's balanced, but it's not quiiiiite what I remember from the movies. Since I'm a history nut I like playing historical sims, and it doesn't really bother me when I "lose". It bothers me more if the game looks like it didn't bother to put any effort into research. And by research I don't mean a loving analysis of tank muzzle velocities, but things like "Japan didn't have enough oil and rubber, and no one was selling them any, so they either invade someone or are screwed."

[Brian Rucker]

That's about like the old Lucasarts "Rebellion" game where the Empire and the Rebels each start with one planet.

Actually, I think the Empire starts out with more sympathetic planets and a stronger fleet and army. Given the time period, after the Death Star is destroyed at Yavin, there are many rebellions starting up spontaneously on various worlds and, just as in Rebellion, most of them get crushed fairly quickly. No Rebellion player is going to win by counting on more than one or two sympathetic worlds in The Core holding out if that (which was actually something the Mon Calmari were able to do in canon). Action in The Core is a stalling tactic so the Alliance can develop new worlds and bases in The Rim - a vast expanse that is much more time consuming to search or effectively seige.

God I need therapy. You see what SWG did to me?! But in some ways Rebellion supports Geryk's points. You can argue the Imperial player should have even more advantages to more acurately simulate this ominpresent and imposing force from the films (which, once you get into the EU a bit, barely has the manpower to cover the tens of thousands of populated worlds in the Empire, it's all about concentration of force at strategic locations - hence the need for a Death Star to psychologically intimidate those you don't have the personnel to pacify). However once you do that in the game it would limit the options available. The Empire would only need to focus on military force when, in the game, your diplomatic and espionage options are also vital, if less effective than the Alliance's capabilities. There are different strategies to try out rather than a single optimum path.

One aspect, of course, that it'd be harder to replicate in a hardcore simulation wargame is randomization. Most worlds in Rebellion have different locations or resources in each game. Attempting to recruit NPC leaders can go poorly or you might not get exactly who or what you thought you'd need. That leaves alot of room for improvising or modifying tactics. Then there are the semi-random 'story' aspects that can crop up, along the lines of the event probability engine in TOAW. Those could completely change your plans and also force you to hedge your bets.

This is why I tend to like much smaller scale wargames these days. Ones in which you're such a microcosm of a bigger battle or war that there is room for randomization and variability because nobody's documented what every single platoon, or soldier, did on every given day. Give me small scale tactical battles that are based on historical data but linked together in campaigns that don't necessarily follow any particular campaign stroke for stroke - just in overall tone. Make what happens on the battlefield have implications for the next battle. And allow logistical considerations and random, but typical, complications to come up during the logistical interlude as well as through prologues and epilogues to each battle. Not unlike Hornet Leader meets Across The Rhine's strategic elements with some juicy random map Combat Mission battles as the meat of the experience.

That could keep things random, unpredictable, fresh and consequential. It would be all about decisions but, as in life, sometime the decision to live to fight another day has to be a good one. How often is that the case in a wargame's victory condition?

[roboczar]

Wow, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who likes Star Wars Rebellion. It was widely panned at the time of release, but to this day I still play it. Just last week as a matter of fact. It's really one of the better strategy games of the time.

Anyway, I think most wargames can take a lesson or ten from TOAW. Norm Koger got a lot of things right when it comes to design, and the engine is flexible enough that any glaring errors or bugs can be ironed out with a carefully planned series of events, or adjustments to equipment levels. The game is so well put together that it has, five years later, possibly the largest continuous fanbase of any hex-based wargame in recent memory. Not even Korsun Pocket could get a handle on that niche...even with all the pretty colors and flashy stuff that went along with it.

Combat Mission is also a timeless classic at this point, as others have said.

EDIT:

No matter what the North does, it'll pile its way through the South Korean army and -almost- get to Pusan, but their supply attributes suck so bad that they just can't keep their troops supplied. Then, the UN shows up, and with the initiative due to their amphib capability, can pick the fight and win.

Luckily, the scenario is set up in such a way that the North Korean side can still get a Significant Victory many different ways. There are enough victory hexes that keeping Seoul and defending your rear areas will net you a pleasing victory. You just have to know how to manage a delaying action.

[XPav]

I just wish Norm had put a scripting engine and a object model into TOAW, rather than the events system that he did.

[roboczar]

I think the event engine is still pretty powerful and fits well with the game engine. Of course, I've been so deep in TOAW for so long, it's hard for me to envision anything outside of the way it works now. Food for thought, I guess.

My only real gripe with the event engine doesn't have anything to do with what its capabilities are, but more about how difficult it is to use. It probably wasn't the smartest decision in the world to try and integrate something that complex into a clicky-button thing that doesn't allow you to search for events, or make bulk edits to groups of events. Only the brave or utterly obsessive need apply.

The unwieldy nature of the editor has kept me from creating scenarios that handle more than about 2 dozen events, which is small beans compared to something on the level of the famous Drang Noch Osten scenario, which handles about 2500 events. How the scenario team were able to keep their sanity during it all, I have no idea.

[Jason McCullough]

Wow, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who likes Star Wars Rebellion. It was widely panned at the time of release, but to this day I still play it. Just last week as a matter of fact. It's really one of the better strategy games of the time.

(head explodes)

[ElGuapo]

I don't think I can go back to any other model of tactical wargames now that I've played Combat Mission. That was near perfect as far as I'm concerned. Better detail in units, better graphics, etc . . . but as a model, it was righteous.

I also would love to see a game with a larger operational/strategic game and Combat Mission like battles. This would be the X-COM of the current wave of WWII strategy rush.

[Ex-S Woo]

Bit of an off-topic, but what are some good Wargames for a beginner?

I've been a fan of 4x games for a while now and I tried playing Panzer General when it first came out (when was that? '94?) and got frustrated and gave up...but I'm sorta itching to give it another shot :)

[XPav]

Originally Posted by roboczar

The unwieldy nature of the editor has kept me from creating scenarios that handle more than about 2 dozen events, which is small beans compared to something on the level of the famous Drang Noch Osten scenario, which handles about 2500 events. How the scenario team were able to keep their sanity during it all, I have no idea.

Yeah, exactly. A simple scripting engine would be great. Instead of that strange editor, you'd have a "pick a text file". This text file would contain a script that ran once a turn. Your code would look something like (making up the scripting language)

If Map.Hex(12,20).Owner = Player1 Then
Units.Player1.Find("2nd Division").RemoveFromMap();
News.Add("2nd Division Prepositioned Stocks destroyed!"
Endif

And you'd have an object model allowing you to get/set the properties for the terrain, the units, events, all the properties in the system.

So unlike any bodges for equipment replacement that currently exist, you could do a....

If Game.Turn = 20 Then
Units.Player1.Find("3rd Armored").Equipment.Find("M4 Sherman").Equipped = 0
Units.Player1.Find("3rd Armored").Equipment.Find("M26 Pershing").Equipped = 40
Endif

Accesible scripting languages with good object models built into games really facilitate third party development, and making it open ended really helps everyone.

[Brooski]

Thanks for all the comments. I think hex/counter/turn mechanics still have a purpose in that they define the space for the game. They let the designer include/exclude certain elements and focus the game on what is relevant and (I hope) interesting. I love "game mechanics" and I love clever ones even more. Just because computers can model real-time movement down to the meter doesn't mean that it is going to be an interesting game. I understand that Christoph was saying that games should simultaneously assume the constraints of hexes/counters and the need to be simulations, but I think you can get the "flavor" of some historical situation and still use game devices like spaces for movement. In the end, I'm more interesting in playing a game than in simulating anything.

The Star Wars Rebellion comments are interesting (although not enough to make me go dig that CD out of the basement) but again, that's down to game design. If you're making a game about a rebellion against a giant empire, and turn it into an "I build a ship, you build a ship" space 4X game, you've goofed in terms of making a plausible game about a rebellion. You have to focus on depicting other things. There was a boardgame that did this really well called "Freedom in the Galaxy" but it focused on personalities rather than space fleets. This is harder to do on the computer because players want to do everything themselves. Why can't I build another star destroyer?

As far as TOAW goes, that game is popular for one reason: design-your-own scenarios. Or playing designed-by-someone-else scenarios. Whatever. The game system itself isn't all that great, at least in terms of being able to simulate anything at any scale like it tries to. Any regimental-levelgame using the Korsun Pocket system is going to be better than the equivalent TOAW game. But that's it - you're locked into one battle at one scale. A game where you can theoretically play anything anywhere will win every time. That's obviously another reason Combat Mission is successful. It's a great system, but if it came out and only allowed you to play Pegasus Bridge? No way. A single-situation game has to be of sufficient scope that it never feels limiting. Which is why the only really popular single-situation games are strategic ones, because it's all in there somewhere.

[Brooski]

Originally Posted by Ex-S Woo

Bit of an off-topic, but what are some good Wargames for a beginner?

I've been a fan of 4x games for a while now and I tried playing Panzer General when it first came out (when was that? '94?) and got frustrated and gave up...but I'm sorta itching to give it another shot :)

If you got frustrated by Panzer General the first time and gave up, I suggest you go back and try Panzer General again. That's not meant sarcastically, either. I don't really think there are many (any?) good "beginner wargames" on the computer. Simplicity sinks games in that market, so the only option is to go back in time far enough when games were simpler because they could be.

[XPav]

Originally Posted by Ex-S Woo

Bit of an off-topic, but what are some good Wargames for a beginner?

I've been a fan of 4x games for a while now and I tried playing Panzer General when it first came out (when was that? '94?) and got frustrated and gave up...but I'm sorta itching to give it another shot :)

What scale are looking for? Conquer the world? Conquer France? Conquer Paris? Conquer the Eiffel Tower?

[Brian Rucker]

I'm going to respectfully disagree about Rebellion. There's no way an Alliance player is going to win by getting into a slogging match with The Empire. They're simply outgunned. It isn't a fair fight or balanced to be that way. There is a balance but that comes from the Alliance having an edge with diplomacy and espionage - and if they can buy enough time (keep The Empire off-balance enough in The Core that they can develop forces and worlds in The Rim without being wiped out) they can come to parity with The Empire militarily. If there was any one way the game wasn't true to the melieu it was that if you're playing as The Empire you're never going to risk The Emperor by moving him off of Coruscant - not only is he safest there but having him at home raises the loyalty of Imperial worlds (if I remember correctly). So no chance of him hanging around to watch Death Star II blow up a Rebel fleet...nah, he'll be millions of lightyears away watching it all from his hottub in Imperial City.

But enough about this tangent. Yeah, a good Combat Mission style tactical wargame with a random map generator and an "X-Com" (or Across The Rhine) logistical campaign layer would make for never-ending goodness. Throw in variables through a bevy of pre-battle, battlefield and post-battle events to mix it up a bit and you'd have a diary worthy saga generator on your hands.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Combat Mission isn't a bad beginner choice for a tactical wargame if you want WW2. The mouse interface is pretty straightforward, the 3D terrain lets you know where good defensive points would be and the system is instantly rewarding. You can do custom battles very easily and give yourself an experience bonus so your troops don't run out on you while you learn the system.

The beer-and-pretzel wargame like Panzer General is almost a thing of the past since RTS games can fill the need for entry level carnage.

Troy

[XPav]

Originally Posted by Brian Rucker

But enough about this tangent. Yeah, a good Combat Mission style tactical wargame with a random map generator and an "X-Com" (or Across The Rhine) logistical campaign layer would make for never-ending goodness. Throw in variables through a bevy of pre-battle, battlefield and post-battle events to mix it up a bit and you'd have a diary worthy saga generator on your hands.

Steel Panther's Long Campaign kind of did this... and I had fun with it, even it it seemed every battle ended up being the same. I wouldn't recommend Steel Panthers though to a new wargamer -- the DOSish nature would turn them off.

[Brian Rucker]

Steel Panthers did do that. Although I never played that until Matrix and The Camo Group did updated versions. But, like you said, it did tend to get repetative (which is very much why I suggest including more variables through events). While I tend to play the Matrix remix more often, because I like the graphics better and there are huge numbers of scenarios, when I want to play a campaign mode it's always straight to Camo Group. They seem to have developed better AI and more flexible victory locations which makes for a much less predictable experience on the ground.

Edit: Another huge improvement on this model would be making it the logistics less "game" oriented and more based on the theatre. You shouldn't be able to spend points on units you like (even with rarity and scaled costs it just doesn't feel right). Instead you should try and request support. More often than not there should be a real Catch-22 (or Kelly's Heroes?) feeling to logistics. How many units really got what they wanted? Reading any memoir you're seeing guys trying to fend off not only the enemy but a comedy of errors.

Edit: Maybe some battles leave you with salvage you can use (which happened commonly enough - I seem to recall that many of Rommel's support and scout units were captured British vehicles) or luxury items that boost morale or can trade to crooked depot chiefs for things you really need? Not that this should be a central mechanic, that's too predictable and not representative, but one of many elements including perhaps POW (prisoners who might have useful information) and medical aspects (rescuing troops on the ground could lead to some that survive and return or get worse and die - Civil War Generals 2 tracked officers in a similiar fashion who were wounded and out of combat) that some gameplay dramatics could be squeezed out of while still enhancing the realism?

Also a stronger focus on leaders as characters would flesh it out a great deal. I keep on thinking of Close Combat and going through the lists of "my guys" to see who'd been with me the longest, who had the most medals, the highest skills and so forth. I was very disappointed that the Squad Leader PC game was such a dog. The whole idea of getting to manage that many detailed soldiers had some real potential but the actual gameplay...well, let's not dwell on it.

[roboczar]

Now that I think of it, Red Devils over Arnhem and Highway to the Reich are great exaples of the direction I think wargames might be heading. If you haven't tried these, I highly recommend it. They have enough symbology and unit detail to satisfy the grogs, and a real-time 'stop and go' system that makes it great fun for newbies to play. The scenarios are a bit limited, but I'm sure a lot can be done with the editor...I've never sat down and tried. The game itself is satisfying enough.

Actually, it's a bit like TacOps, with a little more glitz. TacOps could potentially be as flashy and fun, but it would take a lot of work on the part of the scenario deigner. HHTTR has it all set up for you from the start.

[Alan Au]

Originally Posted by Troy S Goodfellow

The beer-and-pretzel wargame like Panzer General is almost a thing of the past since RTS games can fill the need for entry level carnage.

I would almost agree, except that RTS games have fallen prey to very much the same reliance on "puzzle" mechanics as some of the old wargames. Skirmish mode is a bit better, but it lacks the situational hook that pre-built scenarios can provide.

I do miss Panzer General though, which was elegant and accessible. I'll have to go back and check my notes on Red Devils Over Arnhem; I remember that the command system was interesting, but for some reason I don't remember it holding my attention for very long.

- Alan