Wargamer's Corner

Thing is, with WitE2, the historical knowledge is assumed. You are forced to attempt to meet or exceed the marks set in the actual campaign. And if you don't have at least a basic understanding of combined arms warfare, and the different ways that the combatant countries implemented them (Blitzkrieg, Deep Defense, whatever the Americans called their kitchen sink approach), and a decent understanding of the various types of units, effects of terrain and weather, and the logistical tools and issues with them during the campaign... Well, you're gonna need to do a lot of reading. And for most wargamers, that's a selling point...

Of course, that's why the hobby has a rep for argumentative, opinionated, close-minded, irascible elitists convinced of the superiority of their views... Which is why I stick to solitaire these days...

Great points, Robear. That makes a lot of sense, and I have become study. I'm not 100% there in some ways.

I'm not totally convinced that accessibility is a compromise a designer needs to make in order to achieve an accurate simulation. I think you could take a Grigsby game and make it a more inviting experience. So while I can see how things have come to be this way, I'm not sure it has to be this way.

I go back to Aaron D.'s post that started the discussion. Here's a guy who genuinely wants to engage with the genre and who enjoys the complexity and of Paradox titles, yet hasn't had success in engaging with wargames. To me that speaks of a structural flaw in how the genre presents itself to the world and invites new fans.

I wish I had an explanation, but there's always been a limited supply of actual *teaching* wargames like Battle Academy. I think there's an aspect to the hobby that demands that it retain its applicability to study for history and military science students. But I can't say for sure.

Many of the folks who do this work also do "serious" wargaming work for the military and the IC. So that may be part of it, along with the desire of many wargamers to work with "the real thing". Look at the popularity of the COIN games; they came out of the CIA and were absolutely mobbed by the Grognards. The beauty of that system is that it was designed to build training and thought model games, so the COIN games are both insightful and accessible, as games as well as professional tools. When you play, you can get a good idea of the major concerns of the various powers in the place and time they take place. But they are not simulations, and that's an important difference. Most wargames strive to simulate a conflict rather than produce insights for the players (except in the very limited sense of allowing learning in highly specialized military skills).

But the majority of wargame designers who do DoD or IC work base their open market games on the systems they developed for professionals, and it tends to show in the complexity and required knowledge needed to play them.

And yes, wargaming is well-known for it's general refusal to go mainstream. The hobby has dwindled and become tied to particular demographics, and will probably remain niche even as designs get better and more accurate over time.

It's an interesting topic, for sure.

I think the military integration and simulation focus of the genre's history help explain a lot, to be honest. The demographics are likely a huge part of it as well.

It sounds like a lot of the designers are skilled at and focused on modeling conflict simulation. In a sense, they are military simulators first and game designers second. That would explain a lot of the clunky UI issues and arguably a lack of design innovation in the genre, especially revolving around expanding the base. These are issues they probably just aren't interested in as much as they want to "make an amazing simulation for people who they know will like it".

It seems to me that there would be a niche for more wargames that could bridge the gap. When I think of these games, things like Unity of Command and PanzerCorps come to mind.

Great discussion.

Since Aaron D already has experience with Paradox games, why not HOI 4? It's definitely a wargame. It's definitely a paradox game. It has counters. And, it has the nice "front painter" or whatever they call the fronts/orders mechanism. I feel like that's a nice place to start with strategic wargames because you can give broad, sweeping orders to your army and the AI will deal with the fiddly bits of moving the counters around.

Great conversation on accessibility and assumed baseline knowledge.

To be fair, when I mentioned enjoying Paradox grand-strat titles, that's with the assumed understanding that I spent dozens of hours both playing and watching tutorial videos before I became comfortable with the format.

And even before that the stage had to be set in order for me to even consider taking on Paradox. An ever-increasing escalation of complexity from SimCity to XCOM to Civilization etc., all stepping stones to Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis.

So I can totally respect how "exclusive club" wargaming can be, esp. given Robear's thoughts on its origins as military training material. Doesn't feel much different than other big-brain titles like CDDA, Dwarf Fortress, etc. that ask a lot from the player upfront.

But then I consider something similar like Kerbal Space Program and how gently & effectively it teaches new players complex principles of physics, engineering, orbital mechanics, and such. I mean it won't earn you a MSc, but it'll teach you the ground-floor basics.

I did nab a copy of Battle Academy and out of the gate it looks exactly like what the doctor ordered. The mission briefs are a brilliant addition. "Here's your goals for this map. Go here first. Look out for this. Secure these locations." It provides the structure I need and hopefully I can pick up on the "whys" along the way so I can intuit those strats into other titles.

Makes me wish other titles had built-in mission walkthroughs to use as learning tools, but hey there's always YouTube for that as well.

Thanks again Robear for the BA suggestion. Looks like I'll be ready for War in the East 2 by next week some time, lol.

Yes, great discussion, thanks all. I have many new things to ponder on dog walks this week.

Aaron D. wrote:
Robear wrote:

Aaron, also pick up a copy of Erwin Rommel’s “Infantry Attacks”, which will get you into the mode of thinking of an infantry officer. Exciting read, too.

Huh. It's only $2 on Kindle.

That's a great price.

I just picked this up for my Kindle, thanks.

I love Rommel's writing and his stories teach a lot.

Godzilla Blitz wrote:

It seems to me that there would be a niche for more wargames that could bridge the gap. When I think of these games, things like Unity of Command and PanzerCorps come to mind.

The reason Panzer General was so popular is that it gameified wargames, if that makes sense. It simplified a theater of war into chained operations, and each operation was distilled to essential unit types (tanks, planes, infantry, etc), appropriate terrain (abstracted, of course) and then missions were laid on top of these elements. It turned each map into a sort of puzzle, but with weapons and soldiers. So you are absolutely right, these are gateway games to wargaming.

Thing is, you still have to get the basics down. Typically, at a high level, you want 3-1 attackers to defenders, or more, to be sure to prevail (hence the development of "combat odds" to give commanders an idea of how their force composition helps or hurts in a particular engagement). You want to attack from the sides or the rear (hence, rules for flanking, with attacks from one direction to "pull the nose" and from another to "kick the ass"). You want a mix of weapons types so that all the enemy weapons systems are in danger (so tank-killers to counter tanks, infantry to hold ground, artillery to slaughter infantry, and so forth). You need to learn the oddities - tanks kill infantry at long range with impunity, but infantry will maul tanks in tight spaces like cities. Concealment is not cover. Smoke is great for moving units under fire. And so forth. Battle Academy can be a bit gamey but it makes you *use* the skills you learn in new situations. I love it.

Battle Academy will get you into things like Graviteam Tactics and Combat Mission. WitE2, well, you'll need to adjust your thinking to strategy. That takes a bit. But once you get the bug, you won't mind the learning. And frankly, you could get years out of just those game series. Years of fun.

2by3 Games, the makers of the "Gary Grigsby's ..." games, have made great strides in adding some accessibility to their games. To be clear, they are still "monster" wargames. But WitE2 improves on WitE in many many ways by automating a lot of the administrivia aspects of these games. You can dive down and manage every squadron if you want. But you no longer have to. Similar to support regiments, that is more automated while still letting you go down to the low level and do it yourself if you like. And those are just two easy examples.

WitE was very hard to get into and I have never come close to finishing a grand campaign. WitW was a drastic improvement in automating a lot of tedious aspects of the game (it is also helped by being smaller in scope and number of units relative to the Eastern Front), such that I have actually completed the grand campaign twice as the Allies.

WitE2 appears to have improved on the WitW experience even more. Right now I am playing through smaller campaigns but I can see myself graduating to the grand campaign and maybe even finishing it.

I guess my point, if I have a coherent one, is that these sorts of games are becoming more approachable over time. Even old dogs can learn new tricks sometimes

Really interesting discussion!

Aaron D, I'd begin by seconding Robear's suggestions. I think Battle Academy is a great introduction (glad you are enjoying it so far!), given the elegance with which it depicts core genre concepts (infantry is vulnerable in the open but can ambush armour up close, try to shoot enemy vehicles in their thinner side / rear armour, use AP ammo against tanks and HE ammo against infantry and anti-tank guns, etc). HOI4, as PWAlessi suggested, would also be a great bridge from Paradox -> wargames.

The topic is one that I can relate to. I enjoy military history, I grew up playing wargames alongside other strategy games - QQP's Grandest Fleet, SSI's Five-Star General games, the Steel Panthers series, and more - and to this day I love what games like HOI, Shadow Empire, Rule the Waves 2, and Eugen's Wargame series can do. Heck, I'm pretty sure this is the GWJ thread in which I'm most active! Yet I feel ambivalent towards the genre as a whole. I think there are several linked issues for me:

1. The way in which wargame designers conceptualise their subject. It's a very "traditional" view of war: the kinetic aspect of armies bashing into or shooting each other on a hex grid, and in modern / industrial-era games, the logistical aspect of protecting your supply lines while cutting off the enemy's (UoC2 and even Shadow Empire are good examples here). Yet this is a very, very incomplete view of war. I can count on one hand the number of notable COIN games on PC (the Vietnam '65/Afghanistan '11 duology, and Rebel Inc) despite its importance over the last 75, and especially the last 20, years. Look at the strategic / force posture debates happening in different countries, stuff like "how can we rebalance our military from X to Y" (which could be from COIN to peer warfare, or from peacekeeping to homeland defence, or from A2AD to a blue-water navy), and look at how few games other than Rule the Waves engage with similar issues. What other topics could wargames be designed around?

2. The obsession with detail and micromanagement - or, as Bruce Geryk puts it, the attitude that just because a computer can keep track of a set of numbers, it should keep track of a set of numbers. I can understand this in tools intended as professional simulations (CMANO), but it can get ridiculous. Would an Ike, or a Nimitz, or a MacArthur really concern themselves with the level of detail that wargames can include? Or would they have their staff and subordinate commanders handle it?

3. The attitude that all too many wargames (and wargamers) succumb to - that "UI and aesthetics are for filthy casuals". Even on a modest budget, indie games can look and sound fantastic. A distinctive art style is often part of their appeal. Now contrast that with wargames, and the playerbase's obsession with NATO counters as the shibboleth that makes a "true" wargame. Remember the complaints about the unit icons in the original Unity of Command, or the 3D soldiers in HOI4?

There are a few interesting exceptions - the various COIN games, and the Shenandoah iPad trilogy (Bulge -> Drive on Moscow -> Desert Fox) come to mind - but the genre as a whole feels stuck in a very traditional design language to me. How much does that hold back the genre, not just in terms of its ability to draw new blood, but in terms of its potential to engage with defence / military issues and present us with strong, novel experiences?

Mind Elemental, you'll be glad to know that Playdek has converted GMT's "Labyrinth: The War on Terror", the first game in Volko Ruhnke's COIN series of boardgames, into a PC game, now on Steam. It's early access, but similar to their conversion of Twilight Struggle, and playable now.

So there is hope that more of Ruhnke's COIN series will make it onto pc.

Mind, I'm glad that you mentioned CMANO because it's also a really good entry point into Wargaming and a definitive example of a game that also has a professional implementation.

I think that it's a good entry point (even though it can get REALLY complex) is that a) it's real time so it feels more 'realistic' and relatable to me. b) There are TONS of scenarios, lots of tutorials, and a really good and easy to use scenario editor that you can use to experiment with the equipment modelled in the game. It's expensive, but, I think that there are a lot of less expensive "Command:Live" modules that you can grab to try it out. Also, note that War gaming is an expensive hobby in general because it's s niche.

Also mentioned above were the Combat Mission games. They're also expensive, but, I feel like they are some of the best modeled versions of tactical combat. Again, having a very good scenario editor makes it very easy for you to throw a few pieces of equipment on the map and then try lots of different ways to destroy it.

Graviteam Tactics is as good or better than CM (for WW2, anyway) as it functions at a slightly higher level of organization (platoon/company as opposed to squad/platoon) and, more importantly, the AI incorporates accurate doctrine of the period. CM is more of a free-form, try it your way system, while Graviteam is more of a "work within the doctrine your troops understand" game. Both have their strong points, both are worth trying, but for me, for WW2, Graviteam has the edge.

Nothing beats CM: Black Sea for modern land combat, however. CMANO (now called CMO) has land combat but at a higher level of abstraction. Black Sea is a brutal introduction to the high tempo and absolute destructiveness of modern warfare. (And yet, it's still fallen behind as new EW and networked drone capabilities have appeared in recent conflicts in Ukraine, Armenia/Azerbaijan, and Syria. The next series of near-modern period tactical conflict will have a lot of design innovation to do...)

CMO is the best all-around simulation of modern combat at an operational level (and below, down to small unit tactics for naval and air engagements). But players absolutely need to read "Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations" by Capt. Wayne Hughes (Ret) to get a grounding in what the big picture is for commanders behind all the details in the game. It covers various periods and the tactical thinking of the times in a run up to an in-depth look of recent changes based on innovative technologies. Awesome book.

Great analysis, Mind Elemental!

Thanks, everyone!

Robear, unfortunately I refunded the Steam version of Labyrinth back when it came out - I was very keen on the theme, but I could not work out how to play the game. (If you remember our discussion of Twilight Struggle further back in the thread, Labyrinth was very similar - I found it too abstract and "boardgamey" to understand.)

PWAlessi, yep, I own / have played CMANO! From a mechanical perspective, this is something else that I bounced off. I did enjoy it as an educational experience though - for example, the "God of War" scenario in the Chains of War DLC depicts a near-future Chinese first strike against Vietnam, and I found it interesting to see/learn how a modern military would tackle that particular challenge (use cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons to attrite air defences, follow it up with SEAD aircraft, shoot down any modern fighters that manage to sortie, and then clean up the remnants at your leisure).

BTW, anyone else interested in the upcoming Microprose titles? They're visually / aesthetically vibrant, and some look quite imaginative (check out the dieselpunk airship game). With luck, they'll execute on their promise

I'll have to see how they intro the system for Labyrinth these days. There's no way anyone can learn their first COIN game in under an hour, much less get a feel for how they play, so you're probably wise to have returned it. I've played the boardgames ("Cuba Libre" is about a perfect small intro game for the system, and the games have software "bots" so you can play solitaire or short-handed - the games are designed for 3 factions, mostly) so that's an advantage in learning. The reason I thought you'd like it is that it is designed to teach analysts how to think about the uses and limitations of power - resources, time, goals - in the context of particular factions in particular conflicts. The COIN system gives players resources (troops, funding, recruiting, diplomatic relationships, propaganda, etc) and forces them to prioritize their use and collection according to their objectives. Nation-states may have lots of military resources, but they can't just pave a province with bombs and troops because their opponents hide among them. Rebels may have plenty of sympathy in certain areas, but how do they turn that into actual force? And what do both sides do when events pop up? How do they take advantage of them, or mitigate them?

So COIN shows war from a geopolitical and social perspective, more than technological, and that means that resources are represented as currencies and players have to think at a very high level of abstraction. Not only does this teach analysts how to evaluate the firehouse of information they have access to, it happens to produce some wonderful asymmetric resource management games complete with emergent situations, tipping points and a vivid depiction of both hard and soft power in conflicts.

If you have a group near you who plays ftf, that might be the best way to learn.

I am very much interested in the Microprose branded games, although they have nothing to do with the old Microprose designers. How they turn out is the question. They should be fun, insightful and relatively easy to learn.

Mind Elemental wrote:

Robear, unfortunately I refunded the Steam version of Labyrinth back when it came out - I was very keen on the theme, but I could not work out how to play the game. (If you remember our discussion of Twilight Struggle further back in the thread, Labyrinth was very similar - I found it too abstract and "boardgamey" to understand.)

I've played Labyrinth ftf and via Steam (I can't refuse anything Playdek), and I *still* don't understand the game. I love Volko's Wilderness War and it makes sense to me, but Labyrinth...not so much. Certain designs are funny that way...I have a ton of affection for Sekigahara, but a friend played it with me via Yucata and my brain melted. I guess I need to really read the rules for both games again.

Robear wrote:

I'll have to see how they intro the system for Labyrinth these days. There's no way anyone can learn their first COIN game in under an hour, much less get a feel for how they play, so you're probably wise to have returned it.

Is Labyrinth a COIN game? I always thought it was more akin to Twilight Struggle.

Pretty sure Labyrinth was the first COIN game... But I see the various descriptions don't mention it. I've read the rules and played a bit, and yeah, it is kind of like TS... Maybe I just combined the two in my head. I'm sorry if I misled anyone with that confusion.

Still, the comment on how long it takes to learn definitely stands.

Edit - Yeah, the box does not mention COIN and I bought it before the others, so I just assumed. Sorry. The COIN system is awesome, I promise. I've played three of those in person and looking forward to getting more off the shelf. (Cuba Libre, Colonial Twilight and the American Revolution one).

Robear wrote:

The COIN system is awesome, I promise. I've played three of those in person and looking forward to getting more off the shelf. (Cuba Libre, Colonial Twilight and the American Revolution one).

I agree, COIN is a great system. I have Falling Sky (Roman v Gaul) and Liberty or Death (US Revolution) and they are both great. Take your time to get to know the system, its different from most wargames. But, well worth the effort to get into. It took a few test plays and reading of the rulebook to really get it down. The playbook is great with real play examples.

Once you learn one the rest are pretty easy to pick up.

If any of you play Pendragon -- the COIN game about sub-Roman Britain -- I'd love to hear your impressions! As a devoted Rosemary Sutcliff reader, that's the setting that really appeals to me.

Have it but have not played it, sorry. Not enough un-busy friends...

Mind Elemental wrote:

If any of you play Pendragon -- the COIN game about sub-Roman Britain -- I'd love to hear your impressions! As a devoted Rosemary Sutcliff reader, that's the setting that really appeals to me.

I am not a fan of the whole COIN design aesthetic*, but I loved my one play of Pendragon and then bought it, even though I might never get to play it. Highly recommended if you appreciate that era. Maybe try playing via VASSAL to get a feel for it before you purchase.

* not a fan of COIN, but I own five of them and have ordered a sixth.

I've been playing Unity of Command 2 over the last couple months, originally playing a scenario a day. I put the game down for over a month thinking I gave up on finishing. Do you ever have games that you like, are really well done, but the thought of playing it just tires you out? I don’t know why I’m like that with some games. Today, out of the blue I got the bug and went and rattled off four scenarios - having a great time. Then I get to the Battle of the Bulge and I’m thinking, “Urgg I don’t want to have to deal with that mess”, and I stopped playing. Now I have that feeling that I’m not going to start it back up. It probably wouldn’t even be that bad if I just started playing it, but it just looks like a mess.

I hit mental walls like this all the time.

Feels like it's the nature of sandbox/systems-focused games where there's not much of a narrative to hook & pull you along through a more focused campaign. The upside is that the more open-ended structure of these titles give them longer legs, allowing for pick up & play bursts that can stretch far into the future.

I often find myself picking up system-heavy titles months and even years later after significant downtime. Playing compulsively for a solid 20-something hours as though it were a new release, and then putting it down again after I've gotten my fill. Only to repeat the cycle some time further down the road.

Just did this with a title in another genre, Farming Simulator 19. Hadn't touched it in close to a year, but a burst of inspiration pulled me back in for a couple dozen hours. Felt fresh & new all over again as I revisited the magic of a franchise I dearly love. And then just like that I reached a point where I got my fill and was ready to move on to something else. I'm sure I'll be back again for another round at some point.

Interesting timing on UoC2 though, as the new DLC expansion Barbarossa drops tomorrow! Pretty stoked, personally.

I felt compelled to try UoC 2 Battle of the Bulge scenario and pushed through my reluctance. After a couple of turns I felt pretty good and played it for 2 hours. On the last turn I lost a mandatory objective because I forgot it was a mandatory objective and didn't protect it enough. I think I could have held it, but now the thought of going back any time soon again has just been squashed

Unity of Command is a game I tried to get into a couple of times but didn't quite make it over the hump. I've been meaning to go back to it.

I've been playing a lot of PanzerCorps Gold in the past few months, about halfway through the Allied campaign.

I played through all of the first UoC and enjoyed it. I also liked Panzer Corps, but I think it was just the first main campaign, I didn't buy the subsequent DLC. I think I'm losing interest in large scale engagements and am preferring games where I control 4-10 units. I stalled out on Fantasy War 2 once the unit count and map size grew.

robc wrote:

I played through all of the first UoC and enjoyed it. I also liked Panzer Corps, but I think it was just the first main campaign, I didn't buy the subsequent DLC. I think I'm losing interest in large scale engagements and am preferring games where I control 4-10 units. I stalled out on Fantasy War 2 once the unit count and map size grew.

I feel like that initial jump of getting my brain wrapped around a large-scale battle is often the place where I stall out in these games. That's one of the questions that I wonder about from a game design perspective. I could envision a short video or screen tutorial-like slide show to initiate players into a scenario. (Some games do this better than others already, but most don't bother with it to the detail I'm thinking.)

I envision something about 5 minutes long that sets the scene, outlines objectives, lists challenges, and hints at possible strategies for the battle. It'd be cool.

Seems almost like spoilers, though. Good for beginner games, not so good for players who want the challenge of figuring it all out on the fly.