I'll start by saying that for me, I'd like to see not a game, but a simulation of high-level command with multiple depths. It would begin not with counters and top-down map, but a map like this, that simulates a high command war room. Imagine the game screens below showing the entire world (notice how the graphics don't need to be photo-real):
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.brothersoft.com%2Fscreenshots%2Fsoftimage%2Fw%2Fworld_war_ii-general_commander-264035-1248314546.jpeg&hash=a07ebf6f1d5c2c4a5345822c7cb355efbdf8b2eb)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.brothersoft.com%2Fscreenshots%2Fsoftimage%2Fw%2Fworld_war_ii-general_commander-264035-1248314548.jpeg&hash=c6082d6a6a557a46da74909b06e99b0ec9074b16)
Zoom in for miniatures or NATO symbols and now we have an operational level:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.brothersoft.com%2Fscreenshots%2Fsoftimage%2Fw%2Fworld_war_ii-general_commander-264035-1248314549.jpeg&hash=413211d7fa4d7152fa9b72f288adfa95d8c2bb48)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.brothersoft.com%2Fscreenshots%2Fsoftimage%2Fw%2Fworld_war_ii-general_commander-264035-1248314551.jpeg&hash=ba6123522aab949d9348c26d0cc268156f26cd15)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.brothersoft.com%2Fscreenshots%2Fsoftimage%2Fw%2Fworld_war_ii-general_commander-264035-1248314552.jpeg&hash=3d74309321f2705e3c0ed21760b5271bd5a5fa72)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.brothersoft.com%2Fscreenshots%2Fsoftimage%2Fw%2Fworld_war_ii-general_commander-264035-1248314553.jpeg&hash=de38654d474e253f928831b0557b62b3413f26d3)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.brothersoft.com%2Fscreenshots%2Fsoftimage%2Fw%2Fworld_war_ii-general_commander-264035-1248314554.jpeg&hash=d81f3214075de970e8f177901aa1cab728df3603)
There would be 'mini-games' or mini-sims, such as where Art Treasures could be looted. Modders could add art works of art -a simple mod that could allow players to make the game their very own - something that increases playability and ownership, a feature that is often discounted and expands a game's depth at no cost. What's this got to do with a military game? It's an example of great immersion. How about sending a commando squad to retrieve a national treasure?
Want to build a massive navy? Most games you can but what about Treaty regulations or congress saying you can't and every cent must be politically justified? (most strategy games are actually in 'god mode' by default - you can do anything without restraint.) How about inter-branch rivalry? Your Generals vying individually for supplies or the latest upgrades. The game would combine wargaming with management and personal sims. Football Manager for WW2 High Command? Yes. Hell yes. Can you imagine the interface? I can.
How about a game system based on established statistical analysis of actual World War 2 data? It's all out there. The effectiveness of the Soviet Army in winter. The hit probabilities of Heavy Bombers in 1944.
An Air Operations room with a giant board where animated staff pushed markers across a giant map. A naval operations room where the map was an actual naval map.
Game screens where you walked about the high command to visit different rooms with different game functions (like Silent Hunter or early Medal of Honour). Where you could change the location of your high command (and décor) (Wolf's Lair anyone? The bunkers beneath Downing Street?). How about a staff room where there was a card table (mini card games anyone?) and a wall of pinups (collect or mod them all).
If games like GTA 4 & 5 and Arma 3 can be made then so can games like this. Heck, if you take Master of Orion 3 and multiply the feature level of that game to what can be achieved currently, you'll see it's more that just possible, there's a new horizon of strategy gaming out there that no one has touched upon yet. It has less to do with programming and everything to do with imagination and vision.
Here's something for developers/programmers to ponder:
Thousands of in-game units making to-hit rolls etc. and the CPU requirements involved can be reduced by combining old-school tabletop gaming with modern computing: have the computer use an odds-results table (like tabletop games, but to a level that it could be quite deep -see the CRT below) modified by factors (supply, training etc.).
For a start, this would solve problems like 'when should my AI opponent retreat?' - they would retreat because the results table would say so. Problem solved.
'When should AI units attack'. When the odds the AI calculates is favourable (classically 3:1 etc.), or, your leader/ideology dictates more suicidal odds / heavy attrition.
You don't need to actually model a micro-level of detail (CPU intensive) to achieve a perceived level of detail.
If WW2 statistics says X can be achieved by forces against Y in situation Z then that's all you need for a satisfying gaming experience. The detail is in how this feeds back to the player. An authentic-looking battle report would do this. Immersion and plausibility are the keys.
I'm betting that every classic and/or successful game has high immersion, plausible gameplay results, great player feedback and high perceived level of gameplay detail; and none of that relies on graphical quality or CPU load.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc00.deviantart.net%2Ffs70%2Ff%2F2014%2F129%2F1%2Fe%2Funtitled_by_astigliano-d7hp8xo.jpg&hash=2f1bc714640c32b5f7e8cfa8b108b8935682f219)
GDW's Third World War series Combat Results Table (CRT)
I have to ask - how is that General Commander game? It looks interesting.
Great stuff, Ian. I agree 1000% with your idea that "You don't need to actually model a micro-level of detail (CPU intensive) to achieve a perceived level of detail." Just my own 2 cents, but I feel GG's War in the East loses the forest for the trees for precisely this reason -- trying to micro-model combat in some vain hope of achieving a 'relatively real' outcome. I think it's a fool's errand, and always felt that WitE spent so much time trying to get these "under the hood" calculations right that it egregiously neglected important aspects of the GUI and presentation of essential information. (But don't get me started on the sins of WitE -- in some ways, I find it symbolic of the things WW2 Grand Strategy games tend to get wrong.)
A laundry list of things I would dearly love to see emphasized – and I really mean emphasized, not just marginal considerations -- in a WW2 Grand Strategy Game:
1. Fog of War. The incredible importance of intelligence gathering in order to effectively fight your opponent. The equal importance of C&C and maintaining lines of communication, and of dedicated reconnaissance.
It should be *hard* to find out the location of enemy units. It should require real surveillance. It should be hard to ascertain where enemy units might be moving to.
With an initial contact, it should not be possible to know much about: size / composition / disposition of an enemy force; quality of his troops, etc.
2. Morale, and quality of Leadership and Troops.
Too many WW2 grand strategy games are obsessed with equipment – the armor and gun ratings of Tiger tanks, etc. -- at the expense of things like: morale, motivation, level of veteranship of units. Unit effectiveness should hinge crucially on troop and leader quality. Well led, battle-tested units should be highly valuable. A green unit, no matter how well equipped, should fight far less effectively than veteran units.
3. Operational planning and logistics.
I want a Grand Strategy game where you *must* plan operations. Not just shuffle chits on the map, more or less at whim, representing 'attacks'. Operational planning should involve: Identifying and committing to key objectives; setting direction and tempo of main thrusts; building up a specific OOB, with specific commanders assigned to specific units (armies, corps, etc.), with dedicated and reserve units. Operations should require buildups and preparation; they cannot be stopped on a dime; and corps level commanders will take initiative or lack of action depending on ability, i.e. the operational plan can be drawn up to perfection, but the commanders will not carry it out with anything like 100% fidelity.
4. Roads, bridges, rivers, railroads matter. A lot. In terms of maneuverability / speed of your units; maintaining lines of communication and supply. I'd also like to see units with variable dispositions: traveling "in column," deployed; static, etc.
Things I am sick of:
1. Hex-based warfare. It's an idea that has had its day. Was very effective for a very long time. But it's past time to start thinking outside the box here. I ideally envision a fluid, geographically detailed strategic map – something perhaps along the lines of Eugen's "Wargame" series or "Battle Command" by Historical Software Corp.
2. Tech-trees. This is a complaint I have about GS games (esp. 4x) in general. It should be possible to model research in a new way. In fact, I would *almost* want to eliminate "research" as an element from a WW2 GS game entirely. Racing to tech-up – "gotta get to heavy tanks before my opponent!" – is not fun and bears little resemblance to reality.
3. Chit shuffling – complementing my complaint about hex-based warfare. Individually manipulating dozens or hundreds of counters gets real tedious real fast. The "Command Ops" games are going in the right direction here – the player's role should be to give orders (along the lines of operational planning); the AI should deal with the drudge work of getting the units a' movin' out.
OK, enough of a wall of text for one post, I think!
Quote from: tgb on May 09, 2014, 11:21:23 AM
I have to ask - how is that General Commander game? It looks interesting.
+1
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 09, 2014, 02:21:14 PM
1. Hex-based warfare. It's an idea that has had its day. Was very effective for a very long time. But it's past time to start thinking outside the box here. I ideally envision a fluid, geographically detailed strategic map – something perhaps along the lines of Eugen's "Wargame" series or "Battle Command" by Historical Software Corp.
2. Tech-trees. This is a complaint I have about GS games (esp. 4x) in general. It should be possible to model research in a new way. In fact, I would *almost* want to eliminate "research" as an element from a WW2 GS game entirely. Racing to tech-up – "gotta get to heavy tanks before my opponent!" – is not fun and bears little resemblance to reality.
3. Chit shuffling – complementing my complaint about hex-based warfare. Individually manipulating dozens or hundreds of counters gets real tedious real fast. The "Command Ops" games are going in the right direction here – the player's role should be to give orders (along the lines of operational planning); the AI should deal with the drudge work of getting the units a' movin' out.
Both of these posts are spot on. I vehemently agree with these points in particular. I've given up on playing pretty much all WWI/WWII strategic sims specifically because of number 2. Heck, it's why I won't play really any of the existing Napoleonic sims, either. That's just boring as hell and adds nothing to the game.
I too would really like to see improved operational and logistical planning implemented in a game, somewhere. I like WitE myself, but despite all of the micro-detail in the combat resolution, it's the lack of a Command Ops style approach to operations that causes me to lose interest. If I'm a Supreme Commander, I should be setting the goals of an operation and making sure that the logistics are lines up (at a macro scale) to support those operations, not moving divisions. Micro-managing is great at the tactical scale, but a complete drag at the operational up!
Quote from: tgb on May 09, 2014, 11:21:23 AM
I have to ask - how is that General Commander game? It looks interesting.
I've not explored it in full as yet so I can't comment with any authority but I enjoyed what I've played of it. It's a real-time game that plays through the Battle of the Bulge at varying levels of scale depending on the scenario. There's also a scenario editor which allows the whole map to be used and includes other forces other than the US and Germany. In theory you could create the Bridge Too Far scenario and others.
The vid I found below is pretty poor but it shows the different map modes and a small scenario map.
I'm sorry, but is that supposed to make me want to play the game? Talk about the interface from hell!
Quote from: tgb on May 09, 2014, 08:43:00 PM
I'm sorry, but is that supposed to make me want to play the game? Talk about the interface from hell!
It's the map.
"General Commander" looks like it had enormous promise. Yeah that video isn't great, but it's obvious that the game is doing some innovative, interesting things that I have not seen before in a more serious WW2 strategy game (with possible exception of games like R.U.S.E., which wasn't terrible but not exactly what I'd call groggy or 'high concept strategic').
Too bad this game didn't seem to get the traction it needed to succeed -- to be honest, I didn't even know about it, and seems like it could have used a bit more of a marketing push when it came out, but perhaps the resources just weren't there. Appears the dev's abandoned it some time ago, from what I read on the Matrix forum, which is a real shame.
Reminds me of the game atilla60 and I started to make all them years ago.
Real time strategi where you could play politician, businessman or military.
Lowest ranking officer would be divisional commander and up.
Lowest unit size to order around would be batalion size except for certain special forces.
Argh man now I wish we hadnt dropped it :'(
Good points from Sandman, and Ian C. It sounds most interesting. :)
Quote from: jejo68 on May 10, 2014, 09:59:27 AM
Reminds me of the game atilla60 and I started to make all them years ago.
Real time strategi where you could play politician, businessman or military.
Lowest ranking officer would be divisional commander and up.
Lowest unit size to order around would be batalion size except for certain special forces.
Argh man now I wish we hadnt dropped it :'(
Well you are both experienced gamers, and I know Atilla60 has worked for years in IT, so I say think about doing it. You'd probably do an excellent job. I'd buy it on trust from you and Atilla60, knowing you'd do your best and would support it properly. :)
The more I think about it, the more bummed I am that "General Commander" is a dead letter. Maybe it was just too much of a departure from 'industry standard' ww2 tbs at the time? And yet from the look of it, I really like the departures it seems like it was making!
I'm (guardedly) optimistic that the in-development Hearts of Iron IV will push WW2 grand strategy in a good direction. It does appear it will have an operations planning mechanic, which is music to my ears. (I'm apparently one of the few people who actually really liked HoI3's "Army AI control" feature, flawed though it was.) Sounds like HoI4 will improve on this significantly, allowing the player to concentrate on drawing up operational plans and letting the AI do the drudge work of moving your units.
Still, I'm sure HOI4 will also leave a lot to be desired on the 'realism' front. They're still committed to Tech Trees, which just leaves me shaking my head. A gold doubloon to the game dev who figures out a new way of modeling R&D! SM's "Civilization" is getting on 25 years old now, and grand strategy games are still completely in thrall to its tech research model...
Quote from: panzerde on May 09, 2014, 04:19:46 PM
Quote from: sandman2575 on May 09, 2014, 02:21:14 PM
1. Hex-based warfare. It's an idea that has had its day. Was very effective for a very long time. But it's past time to start thinking outside the box here. I ideally envision a fluid, geographically detailed strategic map – something perhaps along the lines of Eugen's "Wargame" series or "Battle Command" by Historical Software Corp.
2. Tech-trees. This is a complaint I have about GS games (esp. 4x) in general. It should be possible to model research in a new way. In fact, I would *almost* want to eliminate "research" as an element from a WW2 GS game entirely. Racing to tech-up – "gotta get to heavy tanks before my opponent!" – is not fun and bears little resemblance to reality.
3. Chit shuffling – complementing my complaint about hex-based warfare. Individually manipulating dozens or hundreds of counters gets real tedious real fast. The "Command Ops" games are going in the right direction here – the player's role should be to give orders (along the lines of operational planning); the AI should deal with the drudge work of getting the units a' movin' out.
Both of these posts are spot on. I vehemently agree with these points in particular. I've given up on playing pretty much all WWI/WWII strategic sims specifically because of number 2. Heck, it's why I won't play really any of the existing Napoleonic sims, either. That's just boring as hell and adds nothing to the game.
I too would really like to see improved operational and logistical planning implemented in a game, somewhere. I like WitE myself, but despite all of the micro-detail in the combat resolution, it's the lack of a Command Ops style approach to operations that causes me to lose interest. If I'm a Supreme Commander, I should be setting the goals of an operation and making sure that the logistics are lines up (at a macro scale) to support those operations, not moving divisions. Micro-managing is great at the tactical scale, but a complete drag at the operational up!
What exactly would you like to see replace the tech tree? There is no getting around the fact that (using WWII as an example) there was a massive increase in the types and effectiveness of military hardware in a short time between 1935 and 1945. How do you see research happening in a game? How do you go from biplanes being state-of-the-art to P-51 Mustangs?
Chris--
Chris--
Quote from: MuzzyDev on May 13, 2014, 05:07:21 PM
What exactly would you like to see replace the tech tree? There is no getting around the fact that (using WWII as an example) there was a massive increase in the types and effectiveness of military hardware in a short time between 1935 and 1945. How do you see research happening in a game? How do you go from biplanes being state-of-the-art to P-51 Mustangs?
Chris--
Firstly, I'm not against Tech Trees.
What I would like to see is some realistic implementation of what R&D was like from a top-level position.
Did the Top Brass throw money at labs and get lucky with a better tank ?
Did someone in High Command or the defense minister decide to go one way with Destroyers or not ? How did it actually work for real ? Who made the decisions, who were the teams? etc. Has any game actually modelled real-world R&D ?
Quote from: Ian C on May 14, 2014, 03:35:47 AM
Quote from: MuzzyDev on May 13, 2014, 05:07:21 PM
What exactly would you like to see replace the tech tree? There is no getting around the fact that (using WWII as an example) there was a massive increase in the types and effectiveness of military hardware in a short time between 1935 and 1945. How do you see research happening in a game? How do you go from biplanes being state-of-the-art to P-51 Mustangs?
Chris--
Firstly, I'm not against Tech Trees.
What I would like to see is some realistic implementation of what R&D was like from a top-level position.
Did the Top Brass throw money at labs and get lucky with a better tank ?
Did someone in High Command or the defense minister decide to go one way with Destroyers or not ? How did it actually work for real ? Who made the decisions, who were the teams? etc. Has any game actually modelled real-world R&D ?
Very interesting thread, I've enjoyed following it. How deep down the tech-tree 'rabbit hole' of realism do we go and still retain a enjoyable, playable and marketable game? At some point a line is crossed where a game becomes work rather than a fun learning experience....I'm thinking of War in the Pacific which to many gamers is so deeply complex and mired in micro-management as to be unplayable.
Quote from: Rayfer on May 14, 2014, 07:02:19 AM
At some point a line is crossed where a game becomes work rather than a fun learning experience....I'm thinking of War in the Pacific which to many gamers is so deeply complex and mired in micro-management as to be unplayable.
I think the best way would be to have a game run at macro level with the options to tweak at micro levels (which the AI does by default) ; e.g. "I want to go with a Carrier-Based Naval R&D and Builiding plan (Click!) but would like to oversee Submarine developement personally because I'm a Sub fan (Click, click, click, click, click...)".
Most games seem to be either Micro or Macro with nothing in between.
Quote from: Ian C on May 14, 2014, 07:54:33 AM
Quote from: Rayfer on May 14, 2014, 07:02:19 AM
At some point a line is crossed where a game becomes work rather than a fun learning experience....I'm thinking of War in the Pacific which to many gamers is so deeply complex and mired in micro-management as to be unplayable.
I think the best way would be to have a game run at macro level with the options to tweak at micro levels (which the AI does by default) ; e.g. "I want to go with a Carrier-Based Naval R&D and Builiding plan (Click!) but would like to oversee Submarine developement personally because I'm a Sub fan (Click, click, click, click, click...)".
Most games seem to be either Micro or Macro with nothing in between.
Sort of like Matrix's Distant Worlds that allows you to micro-manage starship development, design and construction or turn it over to the AI allowing the player focus on other aspects, i.e. colonization, diplomacy, etc...?? or am I missing your point?
Quote from: MuzzyDev on May 13, 2014, 05:07:21 PM
What exactly would you like to see replace the tech tree? There is no getting around the fact that (using WWII as an example) there was a massive increase in the types and effectiveness of military hardware in a short time between 1935 and 1945. How do you see research happening in a game? How do you go from biplanes being state-of-the-art to P-51 Mustangs?
Chris--
What I'd like to see is a tech mechanic that integrates high-level war goals, R&D, and industrial production.
Instead of forcing the player to select specific techs according to a branching tree of options -- the Sid Meier approach -- why not organize things along lines of a "military-industrial complex." For example, say I'm playing the Allies and want to make strategic bombing a priority. Well, maybe the game provides an "aeronautics industry" that I can fund from my (finite) government coffers – finite, so that there are trade-offs involved. Maybe there are options I can select to steer the aeronautics industry in a certain direction: "emphasize bomber development." The more funding I give, the faster the aeronautics industry will produce a prototype: a B-17, say. Then, there needs to be a time allowance for testing and refining. If the prototype eventually passes muster, it can go into production.
To go from WW2 to Space 4x for a moment -- one of the things I really like about the "Sword of the Stars" take on tech research is that it introduces the element of chance. You have to do a 'feasibility study' for any tech. And maybe the tech in question just turns out to be prohibitively expensive to pursue. Maybe you are researching a tech, and it goes over budget and takes much longer than anticipated. Or there's an early breakthrough. These simple additions, in my view, make research in SotS way more interesting than the insipid, hideously boring "Select new Tech. Wait 5 turns. Receive New Tech. Rinse and Repeat" mechanic that is more or less mindlessly reproduced in 4x games, as well as WW2 grand strategy games a la Hearts of Iron.
Anyway, I would definitely want the "element of chance" to enter into any tech research scheme I could envision for "The Perfect WW2 Grand Strategy Game." And I would want the player to have *much less direct control* over how R&D proceeds than he usually does. It should be possible to waste resources on projects that don't materialize or are just impractical – something that would approximate Hitler's wasteful obsession with "wonder weapons", for instance. Or, maybe the wonder weapon R&D does pan out, and Germany gets the Bomb in '44.
I fully grant that these ideas are not perfect. But for the love of God, something needs to be done to make tech research more engaging – more fun – than it currently is in all too many 4x/grand strategy games.
Quote from: Rayfer on May 14, 2014, 08:35:20 AM
Sort of like Matrix's Distant Worlds that allows you to micro-manage starship development, design and construction or turn it over to the AI allowing the player focus on other aspects, i.e. colonization, diplomacy, etc...?? or am I missing your point?
No, you're correct.