4 ms·

I have a friend, now retired, who's passion is these kinds of games. When he and his wife retired, they bought a house with a massive basement that he converted

by bane 9y ago

I have a friend, now retired, who's passion is these kinds of games. When he and his wife retired, they bought a house with a massive basement that he converted into a full-time wargaming room with space for 3 or 4 of these kinds of games setup all at once. Once or twice a week, he and a few other retired friends get together for a few hours and play the game. He has one game that's been going on about 3 years. His library of these games dates back to the early 70s and its really quite majestic. When you see the giant board laid out in its fullest, and the thousands of pieces each in their individual positions...you get the sense that these would be almost impossible games to really play adequately on a computer -- until maybe the hololens. The need to see the context of the entire battlefield is overwhelming that no amount of scrolling around a screen can really compensate for it. Another thing that's not clear for people from the outside is in many cases how scripted portions of the game are, and its really up to the players to spend a few hours following the script in between moves. This is supposed to simulate various historic battlefield conditions like new groups of units moving on and off the field as the real battle progressed, and the "play" happens within this framework. Very deep, very detailed, really fun in a way, and no way could I ever put the kind of time into it that it needs, even for "small" games.

KGIII 9y ago
Some trivia: TSR, original makers of Dungeons & Dragons, stood for Tactical Studies Rules. Rules for the study of tactics, specifically military tactics. They made wargames before they published D&D. Somewhere, I should still have a copy of Cavaliers and Roundheads. At least I believe it has survived all the moves.
- jaysonelliot 9y ago
  Playing at the World by Jon Peterson is a fascinating and comprehensive history of the wargames that led to Dungeons & Dragons, and the early years of the roleplaying hobby. I highly recommend it for anyone that likes painstakingly researched details about the world of games.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    It just so happens that I need to go into town on Monday. I'll stop by my local bookstore and see if they have a copy or if they can order it. That probably sounds archaic but I try to purchase all my books there. There aren't many local bookstores left and I'm partial to it, so I hope to help keep them in business. Much thanks for the recommendation. I've never read it and I am almost done with my current nightstand book. (Battle Cry, Leon Uris.) If they don't have it, they should be able to order it.
    - wavefunction 9y ago
      I use Amazon to look up ISBNs so I can order through my local bookseller, unless it turns out to be a book I can only get through Amazon. Good for you!
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Even more, D&D was actually a lark where these wargamers took a break from their usual 'realistic' wargames and attempted to build a structured fantasy wargame. The role-playing aspect came along later.
ACow_Adonis 9y ago
Kind of on-topic, but Supreme Commander came out in 2007 with two very relevant pieces of technology quite relevant to "whether these would be almost impossible games to really play adequately on a computer". First, strategic zoom: the ability to seamlessly zoom in to the littlest unit and out to the entire battlefield using the scroll wheel of the mouse. As you scrolled out, each unit and building were replaced with strategic icons, but there was no effective concept of a "mini map" needed during play because the whole game space was the one thing. The second thing was native game design for multiple monitors. This let you have the "strategic map" full screen up on one monitor, while you focused in on tactical issues and orders on the second. Because of the first feature though, this was just an arbitrary distinction. As I mentioned, there was no needed conceptually differentiate between the two monitors, as each could be thought of as either a strategic or tactical view (or anything in between) as necessary, and transitioning between the two was so intuitive you basically didn't think about it.
- PetitPrince 9y ago
  Here is a recent commentary on a 7v7 match, where you can see the zooming feature in very natural fashion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qN3VoZoQEw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qN3VoZoQEw
LoSboccacc 9y ago
> the thousands of pieces each in their individual positions [..] the entire battlefield is overwhelming what an exaggeration. we had games with that level of complexity a decade ago, even before if you consider the modding scene for total annihilation. edit: -1 for being factual and correct, hn crusaders in a nutshell
- simonh 9y ago
  The quote you provide isn't exaggerating anything and you're countering a claim of primacy that isn't there. Your whole post is a snarky non-sequitur.
  - LoSboccacc 9y ago
    how so? total annihilation handled thousand units just fine, both computationally and from an UX point of view, in 3d and with physics to boot parent was specifically talking about computer games: > these would be almost impossible games to really play adequately on a computer you all just skipping an opportunity to learn about gaming history.
    - simonh 9y ago
      The contention isn't that a computer game can't have thousands of units, it's that the thousands of units in that particular game and the ways they are used and interact with each other, terrain etc would be difficult to represent in a game and give a single continuous view of the entire game situation would be hard to do in a computer.
      - LoSboccacc 9y ago
        and again, there are plentiful games that do it. medieval total war had whole Europe as a map and stacks with dozen thousand units running around, circa 2002, but may not fit your idea of continuous game view. supreme ruler 2010 had worldwide combat, c.a. 2005 or so if I recall it correctly. unit moved continuously and fought by the hundreds, as opposed to medieval total war movement by nation. they all had extremely complex interaction with terrain, including movement speed, hiding, defensive positioning and whatnot. there are plentiful war games that have extremely complex engagement rules, to the point implementing whatever you have in mind is just a matter of putting it in writing. basically the computer isn't the limit. the patience of gamers and market audience is the limit and what prevents extremely complex war games surface on the market (as in: complex in rules). that plus the factor that computer can actually simulate the whole environment and unit interaction physically, so no real need to have to approximate it out with rule lists. on the other hand, if you want to go into the indie space, you'll find plenty game with unbelievable depth, like aurora 4x - that got some serious rule lists, up and including combat readiness for crews and the need to ready them with training maneuvers which happen in space as the game actually goes.

by bane 9y ago

KGIII 9y ago

Some trivia: TSR, original makers of Dungeons & Dragons, stood for Tactical Studies Rules. Rules for the study of tactics, specifically military tactics. They made wargames before they published D&D. Somewhere, I should still have a copy of Cavaliers and Roundheads. At least I believe it has survived all the moves.

jaysonelliot 9y ago
Playing at the World by Jon Peterson is a fascinating and comprehensive history of the wargames that led to Dungeons & Dragons, and the early years of the roleplaying hobby. I highly recommend it for anyone that likes painstakingly researched details about the world of games.
- KGIII 9y ago
  It just so happens that I need to go into town on Monday. I'll stop by my local bookstore and see if they have a copy or if they can order it. That probably sounds archaic but I try to purchase all my books there. There aren't many local bookstores left and I'm partial to it, so I hope to help keep them in business. Much thanks for the recommendation. I've never read it and I am almost done with my current nightstand book. (Battle Cry, Leon Uris.) If they don't have it, they should be able to order it.
  - wavefunction 9y ago
    I use Amazon to look up ISBNs so I can order through my local bookseller, unless it turns out to be a book I can only get through Amazon. Good for you!
wavefunction 9y ago
Even more, D&D was actually a lark where these wargamers took a break from their usual 'realistic' wargames and attempted to build a structured fantasy wargame. The role-playing aspect came along later.

ACow_Adonis 9y ago

Kind of on-topic, but Supreme Commander came out in 2007 with two very relevant pieces of technology quite relevant to "whether these would be almost impossible games to really play adequately on a computer". First, strategic zoom: the ability to seamlessly zoom in to the littlest unit and out to the entire battlefield using the scroll wheel of the mouse. As you scrolled out, each unit and building were replaced with strategic icons, but there was no effective concept of a "mini map" needed during play because the whole game space was the one thing. The second thing was native game design for multiple monitors. This let you have the "strategic map" full screen up on one monitor, while you focused in on tactical issues and orders on the second. Because of the first feature though, this was just an arbitrary distinction. As I mentioned, there was no needed conceptually differentiate between the two monitors, as each could be thought of as either a strategic or tactical view (or anything in between) as necessary, and transitioning between the two was so intuitive you basically didn't think about it.

PetitPrince 9y ago
Here is a recent commentary on a 7v7 match, where you can see the zooming feature in very natural fashion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qN3VoZoQEw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qN3VoZoQEw

LoSboccacc 9y ago

> the thousands of pieces each in their individual positions [..] the entire battlefield is overwhelming what an exaggeration. we had games with that level of complexity a decade ago, even before if you consider the modding scene for total annihilation. edit: -1 for being factual and correct, hn crusaders in a nutshell

simonh 9y ago
The quote you provide isn't exaggerating anything and you're countering a claim of primacy that isn't there. Your whole post is a snarky non-sequitur.
- LoSboccacc 9y ago
  how so? total annihilation handled thousand units just fine, both computationally and from an UX point of view, in 3d and with physics to boot parent was specifically talking about computer games: > these would be almost impossible games to really play adequately on a computer you all just skipping an opportunity to learn about gaming history.
  - simonh 9y ago
    The contention isn't that a computer game can't have thousands of units, it's that the thousands of units in that particular game and the ways they are used and interact with each other, terrain etc would be difficult to represent in a game and give a single continuous view of the entire game situation would be hard to do in a computer.
    - LoSboccacc 9y ago
      and again, there are plentiful games that do it. medieval total war had whole Europe as a map and stacks with dozen thousand units running around, circa 2002, but may not fit your idea of continuous game view. supreme ruler 2010 had worldwide combat, c.a. 2005 or so if I recall it correctly. unit moved continuously and fought by the hundreds, as opposed to medieval total war movement by nation. they all had extremely complex interaction with terrain, including movement speed, hiding, defensive positioning and whatnot. there are plentiful war games that have extremely complex engagement rules, to the point implementing whatever you have in mind is just a matter of putting it in writing. basically the computer isn't the limit. the patience of gamers and market audience is the limit and what prevents extremely complex war games surface on the market (as in: complex in rules). that plus the factor that computer can actually simulate the whole environment and unit interaction physically, so no real need to have to approximate it out with rule lists. on the other hand, if you want to go into the indie space, you'll find plenty game with unbelievable depth, like aurora 4x - that got some serious rule lists, up and including combat readiness for crews and the need to ready them with training maneuvers which happen in space as the game actually goes.