.com.unity Forums - Blogs

Making Combat Bloodier In Hold The Line

S.R. Krol — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:06:15 GMT

Richard Borg’s Commands and Colors system, first introduced in Battle Cry, has been an immensely popular system. As such it has influenced many other games, from the home brewed (creative gamers had already created fantasy and ancient warfare systems long before Battlelore and Ancients) to the professional works of Gio games of Italy and Worthington Games.

Worthington Games launched their company with Clash For A Continent, a Revolutionary War game with a strong Commands and Colors feel. Their system was not a direct copy of Borg’s though, substituting a die based activation system for card play, and a “to hit” based combat resolution rather than iconic dice. Other aspects of the game, from the steadily decreasing number of strength points in a unit to the variable map creation, were pretty much standard Borg fare.

Recently Worthington Games released Hold The Line, essentially an upgunned version of Clash For A Continent with much better production values. While not an exact copy (most noticeably in the choice of scenarios, most of which do not appear in Clash and those that do have been reworked) it is close enough that if you’ve played the earlier game you can dive right into the new title.

While Hold The Line is enjoyable my fellow gamers and myself found the combat system to be rather lacking. It works, but it’s not very bloody. Not to mention that close assaults are rather peculiar affairs, with absolutely no risk to the assaulting unit. Oh, and there’s also the lack of retreating (except in close assault combat).

Rather than reinventing the wheel we decided to experiment with lifting Borg’s combat system, making a few tweaks specific for Hold The Line, and seeing how it would fare since both game systems are so similar. And if it didn’t we could always use Blitzkrieg rules, right?*

Not surprisingly Borg’s mechanics fit like a glove with Hold The Line. In fact, we found the game to be much more enjoyable with them in place. And with that I wanted to share the changes.

The only thing from Battle Cry that you’ll need are the dice. We did not want to change how Hold The Line’s units were activated, so card play is still out and Action Points in. If you do not own Battle Cry it is easy enough to use a standard d6 for a Battle Cry die. Just keep a table nearby of what each side of the die refers to.

For reference a Battle Cry die includes the following sides: Infantry x2, Cavalry, Artillery, Flag, and Crossed Sabers.

STANDARD COMBAT

Infantry – Range of 3 hexes. Reduce the number of combat dice rolled for each hex away from the firing unit as in Battle Cry. If you are not familiar with Battle Cry when a unit attacks another unit at one hex away roll three dice, at two hexes away two dice, and at three hexes away one die.

Artillery – Range of 4 hexes. Reduce the number of combat dice rolled for each hex away from the firing unit as in Battle Cry. If you are not familiar with Battle Cry when a unit attacks another unit at one hex away roll four dice, at two hexes away three dice, and at three hexes away two dice, and at four hexes one die.

Cavalry – Range of 1 hex. Three combat dice are always thrown at adjacent units.

Leaders – Add one additional die when attached to a unit.

Terrain Modifications - Substitute die roll modifiers for dice modifications. So, a unit being attacked in woods would cause the attacker to lose one die.

NOTE: Remember, action point usage remains unchanged, so you can still only move or fire (besides special exceptions such as with Dragoons).

ANOTHER NOTE IF YOU DO NOT PLAY BATTLE CRY: Hits are scored on units by matching the unit’s symbol on the die face. So, if you roll one die and it shows an Infantry, the targeted unit loses one infantry figure. A Flag represents a retreat. For each Flag rolled the targeted unit must retreat one hex, losing one figure per hex they cannot retreat. Crossed Sabers are “wild”, hitting Infantry, Cavalry, or Artillery.

CLOSE COMBAT

Close Combat is modified as follows.

The initiating player must spend 2 APs to initiate a Close Combat. Both the attacking unit and the defending unit must make a morale check. If the defender fails but the attacker passes then only the attacker will roll his combat dice. If the attacker fails but the defender passes only the defender will roll his combat dice. If both sides fail then nothing occurs; the attacking unit’s move is over and the 2 APs have been lost. If both attacker and defender pass then combat is simultaneous.

Assuming both sides pass morale each unit will roll one die per figure, with Elite units receiving a bonus of one die. Damage is taken simultaneously. If one side failed then they do not roll any combat dice, but are on the receiving end of their opponent’s Close Combat roll.

LEADERS

As mentioned earlier attached Leaders give a bonus of one combat die to its unit. Leader casualty checks are done per standard Hold The Line rules. Leaders can rally damaged units by rolling one combat die. If the symbol matches the attached unit, or is the Crossed Sabers, one figure is added to the damaged unit.

MORALE

If a friendly unit has two adjacent friendly units then it may ignore the first Flag rolled against it.

Elite units ignore the first Flag rolled against them.

Militia units must retreat two hexes for each Flag rolled against them.

Rangers/Indians may retreat three hexes for each Flag rolled against them.

And there you go, all the modifications. The fact that units can retreat now makes a world of difference. Likewise, by adding the morale boosting line confidence rules found in Ancients and Battlelore, the battles unfold in a logical manner; with wings being picked away and lines dissolving when the center is crushed. The game, while already fairly fast playing, plays even quicker.

Hopefully you’ll find they add to your experience, and if not the beauty of house rules is picking and choosing what works best for your group.

*This has been a running joke in our gaming group. Many years ago Jim Dunnigan was talking to a fan about The Next War, his monster game on a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, and was surprised to learn that this fan was able to knock out a couple games of The Next War in a single weekend. How could that be?

“Are you playing by the rules?” Dunnigan asked.

The fan responded, “No, we ditched them and substituted the rules and CRTs from Blitzkrieg.”

And so now any time we have a question about a game’s official rule, or want to change something, we say that we can always just play it like Blitzkrieg.

By the way, since Blitzkrieg uses such standard wargaming tropes you can pretty much play any common wargame using its rules.

Dead Snow

S.R. Krol — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:34:10 GMT

Nazi zombies. 'Nuff said.

Do Games Have To Be Gamey?

S.R. Krol — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 02:55:20 GMT

Quote:

“There is a thirsty person outside of Megaton who will accept as much clean water as you can spare, increasing your karma for every bottle. Your robot-butler can give you as much clean water as you need. See where I’m going with this? These thirsty people (there is one outside the Rivet City too) give you a convenient “do whatever you want, then pass some clean water bottles around, and you’re holier than the pope” card.”

--From Vincent Weller’s review of Fallout 3

The problem with most games is the fact that ultimately they are games; restricted by rule sets and mechanics that attempt to shoehorn the players into following the yellow brick road to success. They can promise freedom but never fully deliver on that promise. They may get close…really close…but that’s it.

Fallout 3’s broken karma system is a reminder that all games can be exploited by gamers playing the “gameyness” card. Gameyness (or should it be gaminess?) is essentially the player(s) using a particular mechanic in a way that while perfectly legal is a cheap move.

In computer gaming gameyness is often associated with the practice of exploiting bugs for personal gain, but it should not. Exploiting bugs and exploiting a poorly thought-out mechanic is not the same thing. Take Weller’s above example for instance. The fact that your robot-butler gives you water and the game allows you to increase your karma by giving away the water is not a bug, it’s just a bad design decision.

Gameyness though really has its roots in the world of tabletop gaming, be it board gaming, role playing games, or miniatures. How often have you ever played in a D&D game where detect alignment spells saw more use than fireballs and magic missiles? What about the wargame where players perfectly plan their assault, shifting counters around in a perfect harmonious symphony of number crunching that a real commander could only dream about?

In Fantasy Flight Games’ Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition there is a technological path that allows fighters to become the ultimate weapon: insanely cheap to build, decently armed, and able to swarm far from home (or carrier). While there is nothing inherently wrong with this—after all, the game allows it—when everyone is racing on a path to close the fighter gap it just feels wrong. Cheap. And it is.

But what can you do about gameyness? And more importantly, what can games do about it?

As a gamer a lot of gameyness can be avoided by imposing house rules or through the time honored tradition of peer pressure. If someone in your gaming group insists on taking the fighter route in TI someone needs to toss a blanket over his head while everyone else beats him with their Crown Royal bags filled with dice. If only all of life’s problems could be solved with a black blanket welcome…

The games themselves though have it tough. No one can create a system that isn’t open to at least some sort of exploitation. Some systems will of course be less open to this than others, but in the end it all boils down to how the rule lawyers use and abuse ‘em.

Can games transcend that though? Is it possible to avoid gameyness in gaming? Or, much like how we come to accept the way most computer games behave with their inherent rule systems, is it that we just need to accept that gameyness will always be a part of gaming?

The Art Of Abstraction In Wargaming

S.R. Krol — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:21:55 GMT

When developing a wargame the designer must decide early in the conceptual process on the level of detail that he wishes to include in the game. Deciding on whether to paint in broad strokes or fine lines will impact many aspects of the design: scale, complexity, length of time to play, and ease of learning. A wargame that can be played in a single evening would never have a manual the size of the New York City phone directory, while a game professing to detail every single aspect of modern warfare down to keeping track of how many MREs your troops possess isn’t going to include a rulebook that could fit on a postcard. Abstraction is directly proportional to complexity.

The challenge that designers face is that while abstraction is a necessary tool in their workshop they must carefully balance its use. For example, consider the following idea for a highly abstracted wargame on the European theatre in the Second World War.

Blitzdice: The Abstract Game of the ETO By Scott R. Krol

Two players, one representing the Allies and the other the Axis, are needed along with two d6s. The game is played in a series of seven rounds, each round representing one year. For each round the players roll their d6 modified as below and note their die’s total on a piece of paper. At the end of the seventh round players add up their total rolls and whoever has the highest total wins the war.

Round 1: 1939. Axis +1, Allies –1
Round 2: 1940. Axis +2, Allies 0
Round 3: 1941. Axis +3, Allies 0
Round 4: 1942. Axis +2, Allies +1
Round 5: 1943. Axis +1, Allies +2
Round 6: 1944. Axis 0, Allies +3
Round 7: 1945. Axis –1, Allies +4

There you go, World War II in the European theater, playable in about two minutes.

As you can see it’s not only highly abstracted it’s pretty unentertaining because of it. And yes, this is a pretty extreme example of abstraction so let's consider a couple of more realistic designs.

Say two designers are working on a game about the Eastern Front during WWII covering from 1941 until 1945. Designer number one decides on a scale of armies and corps, with quarterly turns and area based movement. Units are infantry, mechanized, and armor, with airpower represented by air points. Rail movement is handled by a simple strategic movement rule.

For scale designer number two decides to use companies, weekly turns, and hexes at a scale of twenty kilometers across. Units are distinguished by individual type (e.g. Hungarian military police company, Tiger I company, IL-2 squadron) and factors such as supply and morale for each counter is tracked. Every rail line is on the map and the German player must convert the track before being able to use it.

Designer one’s game is playable on a kitchen table in a single evening and has a fifteen page rulebook. Designer two’s game needs a basement, years, and a massive manual.

Now for some wargamers comparing the two systems they would automatically assume that designer two’s title was the “real” wargame considering the amount of detail contained within. After all, how can one reduce the Great Patriotic War down to a three hour game and still make it feel like the historical conflict?

But here’s the secret: if both games were played to conclusion several times, and if both games followed the general historical course of the conflict, why would the first game be any less of a game than the second one?

Essentially you could say the end justifies the means.

As long as the key aspects of a historical conflict is covered that’s all that matters when it comes to abstraction. In an Eastern Front game you don’t need to track every single Elefant, you just need to figure out what some of the pivotal points that shaped the historical events were. So you’d want to make sure that the weather played a part in the game, along with how the Soviet forces evolved over the war and (possibly) the impact of Lend Lease equipment.

If designer one’s game failed to include any of that then his game would really be nothing more than generic units fighting across a generic map gussied up with Russian names. Make sure to include all that though and he ends up with a fast playing game that isn’t mired in unnecessary detail.

I would even argue that the designer who can capture an epic story and strip it down to its raw components is a better designer than one who must obsess over the tiniest detail. The economy of writing rule mechanics is the same as writing fiction. An average writer can tell a story in a thousand pages. A great writer can tell the same story in a hundred pages.

War Plan Pacific (which just went gold and will ship in mid-December) is a game of abstraction. It takes the entire war in the Pacific and makes it playable in a single session, and it does so by focusing on what really matters in a PTO game. Sure, you won’t find tin cans in the game, but at a grand strategic scale does that really lessen the game?

So what matters? Well, for one thing Japan’s need for oil. A strategic Pacific wargame that doesn’t take into account Japan’s resource needs isn’t one that will convey the struggle accurately. War Plan Pacific elegantly handles the oil situation with an easy to understand game mechanic that doesn’t bog gameplay down.

How about the importance of keeping the lines of communication open between Australia and the United States? In War Plan Pacific breaking the lines is one victory condition for Japan.

With a historical order of battle the Japanese player would do well do try and achieve what the IJN wanted with the United States to decide the fate of the Pacific, a decisive battle. And as the Allied player you’ll need to ensure you keep your carriers afloat and succeed at the art of island hopping.

John Hawkins, developer of War Plan Pacific, is a designer that understands the art of abstraction. His game may not include every single ship and sailor that fought in the war, but it does have what really mattered in the conflict.

Ultimately that’s what’s important. Every detail isn’t important in a wargame. Only the right details.

A New Car Wars From SJG?

S.R. Krol — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 03:05:11 GMT

Don't get too excited. From a thread on Boardgamegeek:

Quote:

Actually, Munchkin may be the only thing that allows us to create a large, modern edition of Car Wars complete with high-quality components. It's not anything scheduled, or actively being worked on, but it's a project that we discuss from time to time.

So it's not scheduled, not being worked on, but at least it gets mentioned once in a while.

Yeah, not really helpful. But hey, hope springs eternal...

State Of War (Comics)

S.R. Krol — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:12:36 GMT

The past month has been a good one for military comics.

Storming Paradise #4 gives us John Wayne being wounded by a grenade during a neighborhood patrol, the German scientists getting closer to delivering Japan an atomic weapon, kamikaze fast boats, Patton and his armor, and a change in attitude amongst one unit towards their interpreter. As has been the case this is really a slick series, although it needs more room to really tell the story. Hopefully the trade will have some expanded content, which seems like the new trend with a lot of the trades coming out.

Garth Ennis’ Battlefields series has been released and it’s a return to his old form. This is pretty much War Stories, but with a different publisher. The series opens with The Night Witches, a three part series about the Soviet all woman 599th Night Bomber Regiment. Opting to also provide an opposing viewpoint to the conflict the story also follows a German infantry squad. The first issue does a good job of portraying the chaotic savagery of the conflict, although having the hard-assed Nazi fanatic in the German squad seems a little too stereotypical. Other than that minor blemish it’s an enjoyable read, about a subject that rarely sees a lot of discussion (the Night Witches, not the Eastern Front…), and is a huge (HUGE) improvement over Ennis’ last war outing.

Finally, Sgt. Rock is back! Sgt. Rock: The Lost Battalion is a six issue series from Billy Tucci. For those that recall Rock as drawn by Kubert you’ll find that his distinctive style is no place to be seen. Rather, the art is quite realistic, and simply some of the best art I’ve seen in comics in a while. The script complements the art, as the over-the-top nature you might have grown up with during the ‘70s and ‘80s has been replaced with a more subdued and proper story. Essentially, it’s Sgt. Rock via Stephen Ambrose or Cornelius Ryan. A definite must read.

Anachronisms In Call Of Duty: World At War

S.R. Krol — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:11:50 GMT

The latest Call of Duty game, World At War, is enjoyable enough but does feel an awful lot like a total conversion mod of Call of Duty 4, right down to some of the same death animations. And I suppose it is pretty much a TC mod, just one with a multi-million dollar budget.

I have noticed a few visual elements that made me scratch my head:

In Stalingrad there are wrecked King Tigers (or if you're British, Royal Tigers). The King Tiger wasn't even in production at that time. Why use it? Saving money on models? But they have a Panzer III model, why not use that?
In Stalingrad waves of FW-200s fly overhead in formation. The FW-200, primarily an anti-shipping aircraft (and called the scourge of the Atlantic by Winston Churchill), was used for transportation in Stalingrad but never as some sort of strategic bomber. And I doubt as a transport they flew in bomber boxes.
In one of the American introductions (I do like the stylized intros in the game) they discuss Midway and show a modern American aircraft carrier and a modern American crusier. Somebody at the developer likes The Final Countdown a little too much me thinks.

None of this affects the game per se, I just don't understand why, out of all the individuals who created the game, tested it, et cetera, no one went, "Hey, wait a second! What the heck is a Tiger II doing in Stalingrad?"

Now You Too Can Be A Computer Wargame Developer!

S.R. Krol — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:57:11 GMT

There is an upcoming book titled Going to War: Creating Computer Wargames by Jason Darby which is a primer on making computer wargames using Multimedia Fusion 2. I've never heard of Multimedia Fusion 2 (although they do have a demo so I will be checking it out), nor have I ever heard of Mr. Darby in the computer wargaming world, but since the book is relatively inexpensive it shouldn't be a big deal getting a copy to see what it offers.

While I doubt we will see a flood of computer wargames when it is published, it is at least nice that someone out there saw fit to actually write a book on the subject, so props for that. Even if it turns out to be rubbish, perhaps it will at least influence some young code monkey out there to start down a path of computer consims.

Fright Night Gaming

S.R. Krol — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:52:21 GMT

With many gaming nights falling on Friday or Saturday, and Halloween this year being on Friday, it seems a shame not to put up the panzer divisions for one weekend and do some horror themed gaming instead. With that in mind here are a suggestions for what I think are the best currently available horror themed board games to hit the table with.

Last Night On Earth (Flying Frog Productions)

There have been many, many zombie themed board games over the years, both professional and amateur, but none have been as solid as Last Night On Earth. Oozing with personality and production values, Last Night captures the zombie genre perfectly on the tabletop.

What makes the game work boils down to a couple of things. First of all, you have an actual zombie player (or players, it handles zombie teams quite well). Most games force the zombies to randomly shuffle around, making the gameplay be more about avoiding zombies than having to face down the hordes of rotting undead. By having a player control the zombies, and also giving that player action cards that can be played on the heroes of the game, you have zombies that are actually threatening.

Then you have the fact that the game is scenario based. Escape out of town in your trusty truck…if you could only remember where you put your keys. Defend the house against the corpse mob until dawn. Go on the offensive and burn the zombie nests out. Each scenario requires different strategies, from both the human and the zombie player, and the chaos that ensues from what happens as the scenarios play out will often remind you of a crazy movie unfolding on your table.

A Touch Of Evil (Flying Frog Productions)

The follow up to their first game, Last Night On Earth, A Touch Of Evil is also a horror themed game but it’s not simply Last Night all over again.

Taking place in an early 19th century village that is besieged by evil, Shadowbrook, players take on the roles of monster hunters while the system plays the adversary. So yes, while Last Night was a tactical zombie game this is a pure adventure game (think games like Talisman, basically simplified RPGs played as board games). Players travel the map, collecting loot, killing monsters, investigating the secrets of the town elders (elders being a stretch since you do have a nubile young maid amongst them), all in preparation to confront the Big Bad which can either be a headless horseman, werewolf (a particularly nasty villain), scarecrow, or the quintessential vampire.

The game can be played either competitively or co-operatively, although it still pretty much plays the same, it’s just that bad guy is much tougher in co-op mode, plus you can trade items. Like most adventure games that amount of randomness may be a turn off for some, but personally I think the wacky chaos of adventure games is what makes them special.

Arkham Horror (Fantasy Flight Games)

Arkham Horror is another adventure game. The Fantasy Flight version is actually a new edition, as the game originally was put out in the early eighties.

A Touch Of Evil owes quite a bit to Arkham Horror. Like in that game players are attempting to defeat an ultimate evil before it destroys them (and in most cases, the universe too). Unlike the Hammer-esque horror of Evil though, Arkham Horror is all about Lovecraftian nightmares, jaunts to other worlds, and shattering your sanity.

Characters race through the streets and outskirts of Arkham (or other locations with the many expansion sets), sealing interdimensional gates, battling monsters, collecting ancient tomes, all in an effort to build up enough power to fight the Great Old One threatening the world. While it’s not quite a tabletop version of the Chaosium RPG, Call of Cthulhu, with the proper group it can be just as entertaining from a role-playing aspect.

Arkham Horror does have a few drawbacks. One, you need a table the dimensions of your average aircraft carrier flight deck to hold all the boards, cards, counters, and character cards. Two, it’s long. A game of Evil can be knocked out in a little over an hour, whereas in Arkham Horror you’re probably first getting started after an hour. Finally, this is not a game you should expect to win. While that does stay true to its roots, from a gaming perspective it can be frustrating to some players.

Kevin Zucker Leaves The Industry

S.R. Krol — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:09:54 GMT

Kevin Zucker’s Operational Studies Group is going out of business. You can pick up all current stock for 50% off (take another $7 off if you don’t mind them coming ziplocked).

Zucker is of course one of the--if not the--leading authorities on Napoleonic warfare in the world of wargaming. Not being very big on conflict gaming that doesn’t involve automatic weapons, magic, or tanks I don’t own any OSG titles but that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate his contribution to our hobby. Especially since he’s one of the Old Guard, having begun his career with SPI back in the seventies.

It appears that he’s closing down wargaming to go into aroma/vibrational therapy. Seriously.

While completely changing career paths/trying to find meaning in the universe/the need for something new isn’t unusual I do wonder what the roots are of leaving the wargaming world behind. Has he burned out on it? Bothered by the direction it’s taking, with plastic soldiers replacing counters and history lessons reduced to Cliff Notes? Frustrated with sales?

Regardless of the reasons behind the move the result is the same: another giant in the industry is gone. For an old time gamer it’s hard not to feel a slight pang. So many names we grew up with have fallen in the past year. Worst, the majority of those didn’t simply choose to exit out of the industry like Zucker, but rather were struck down by age and/or disease. Zucker at least could always re-enter the fold.

We keep getting older and so do our heroes. Ten years from now will people remember the greats?

Fear Of Offending The Religion Of Peace

S.R. Krol — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:28:02 GMT

LittleBigPlanet for the PS3 was slated to release this week but has been delayed. The reason? Apparently two of the music tracks are offensive to Muslims.

Here's the news story on it and the developer's blog entry on the subject.

Quote:

The delayed release was welcomed by some Muslim commentators, with Manzoor Moghal of the Muslim Forum think-tank telling the BBC that the game's developers should be praised for "taking decisive action by withdrawing these games immediately, and releasing a version that is not offensive to Muslims."

Sony was forced to apologise in June 2007 when it emerged that one of its video games, "Resistance: Fall of Man", featured a violent shootout inside a building that resembled an Anglican cathedral in Manchester, northern England.

The news was condemned by Anglican leaders, who demanded that the game be removed from store shelves, a request Sony refused. (Emphasis added)

So, when the Christian church is critical of a game element nothing happens but when Muslims are offended the game has to be yanked and reissued? Gee, wonder why that is?

Hey, Shouldn't There Be More In This Box?

S.R. Krol — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:09:21 GMT

People who know me (and now you too!) are aware of my dislike for Decision Games. While there are many factors that contribute to this the primary one is their quality control. Moreso, their complete lack of it.

The tipping point for me was Krieg!. In the box there were a few pieces of errata for the counters. Nothing too excessive. Then I went online to see if there was any other errata.

Oh boy, was there.

There was errata in the manual. Errata on the cards. Errata on the maps. Pretty much the only thing that came through unscathed were the dice.

Look, a mistake or two will always slip through, but I can tell you I've never had to reprint an entire game from GMT or MMP.

So last week knowing my feelings towards Decision a friend told me about his recent purchase of Highway to the Reich, the new edition of the old SPI monster game.

It included no maps.

None. :doh:

Mind you, this is a game that retails for $160. For $160 I'd expect maps to be included.

Turns out it wasn't just a freak copy either, as every single copy that originally shipped had no maps. They had to recall them from the distributors and resellers to resend them.

Considering how angry gamers can get I wonder if the Decision office got sacked by a horde of bearded middle aged men wearing Squad Leader t-shirts?

The Eternal Struggle Against The Gaming Media

S.R. Krol — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:08:31 GMT

Introversion, the folks behind those stick figure/TRON games all ending in –winia, are apparently in a tizzy that their latest game has only received four reviews since it launched three weeks ago.

Quote:

“Of the reviews we have arranged with websites and magazines, less than 20% of them have been published at this time. One British games magazine has declined to review Multiwinia at all – ever.”

Oh gee, you’re finding out that getting an indie game reviewed is tough? What other revelations are next? Water is wet? Fire is hot?

And it’s not like they haven’t enjoyed the spotlight before. Darwinia won the 2006 IGF main competition, beating out—grrrrr---Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space.

Two of our best reviewed games (and by best, I mean both from a standpoint of acclaim and also penetration) have been Dominions 3: The Awakening and Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space. Everyone on the freaking planet wanted to review them. And if every game we published received the same level of response from the media we’d be some happy campers. But unfortunately that’s not the reality.

Our last game, Scallywag: In the Lair of the Medusa, should have gotten a helluva lot more exposure than it did. At first glance it’s a graphical Rogue-like dungeoncrawl. It’s not a Diablo III-killer, but it’s fun, with some cool new twists to the standard Rogue formula. Your source of light, a lantern, plays a part in your strategy, and the game is more aimed at being a speed crawl as you race for the exit in each level than a slay and loot style game.

What really sets Scallywag apart though, and what we thought would quickly bring a high level of interest to it, is the fact that at its core the game is a tool kit. Anyone can mod the game to their heart’s content straight out of the box with little more than what you already have on your system. If you do have some technical skills you can mod it even further, but for the most part Joe Gamer can transform the game into something else without needing those skills.

On the review front though we ended up with sadly four reviews. Three from online sites, one from a print magazine. All of them were positive reviews. All of them highlighted what we thought set the game apart and made it cool.

But that was it. Four reviews. In the past year. And no, it’s not like we only provided copies to those four, we provided copies to many, many more publications. Even assuming that only a quarter of the sites we let have review copies would put up a review we should have seen at least a dozen more reviews.

Glancing at Metacritic I just clicked on the lowest rated game currently on the site, Racing Team Manager. Even that one with a Metacritic score of 28 has five reviews already posted!

The sad fact of the matter is that despite the whole Web 2.0 deal, despite the fact that there are probably more sites covering games than ever before, indie games for the most part garner absolutely no press attention. Cliff of Positech games in a QT3 thread highlights the problem:

Quote:

“What does get on my tits is the way sites will print "no news" about a AAA game rather than even mention that an indie game, with a demo you can try NOW, is actually released that day. Apparently “Triple A game set to announce collectors edition sleeve notes next week” is a bigger headline than "Indie studio releases brand new game today". That sucks...You would think games site editors would be crying out to cover games that their readers didn't already know about.”

How very true. If you look at the number of indie exclusive sites though and compare the number from now to five years ago there really hasn’t been much change. Some have fallen and others have taken their place, but it’s not like there has been a real revolution in the world of the gaming press when it comes to covering indie titles. It’s still a tremendous uphill battle, one of which seems like victory can only measured in not how far we can push upwards, but how we can manage to avoid being pushed too far downhill.

What’s really sad is the developers who are finally realizing their dream of making a game that they want to make only to be crushed by the fact that no one seems to give a damn about their work. Without mentioning specific developers it’s not uncommon for an indie developer to come from the AAA industry, burned out and wanting to do something good, to then be driven back into that soulless industry because there at least even the crappiest game will sell 500,000 copies and end up on fifty different websites.

I don’t see the problem with the press changing any time soon. If it was going to change it would have happened a couple of years ago, when indie games did end up gaining a little more traction in the media’s eyes. Instead as budgets on non-indie games continues to reach astronomical proportions marketing will continue to ensure that those titles are the ones getting the coverage.

So what to do? Well, while the media in general may not be an indie publisher’s best friend there are still those within that are friends to indies. That helps. Of course they are still beholden to their EICs, so even if they do champion an indie game there is no telling that anyone else at their site/magazine will want them to cover it. Still, any help is better than no help.

One of the most effective tools though remains the customer for getting the word out. Countless times we’ll see someone pop in on the forum saying that they discovered such-and-such game by way of someone speaking of it on some other forum, or blog, or just friends getting together. The downside is that while highly effective this is a very slow method.

If you enjoy what we have to offer please tell someone. Point them to a demo. I’ve found often that people don’t even know how much fun an indie game can offer because they’ve never experienced one, but once they do there’s no turning back. Remember your first time? Bring that joy to someone else.

In the meantime maybe if we starting bribing editors with cases of booze we’ll start seeing more reviews…

Dominions IV To Be Released In Eighty Standalone Installments

S.R. Krol — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:00:55 GMT

A sneak peek for all you blog readers. Dominions IV: The Profiteering will feature eighty playable nations, and since that's way too much game to fit on one disc it will be broken up into eighty full games. Furthermore, Dominions IV: The Profiteering will introduce the concept of the collectible manual! Each copy will feature ten pages of the manual. Collect all games to get the full manual!

Expect episode one, EA Ulm, to ship Q4 2009, with episode eighty, LA R'lyeh to hit the streets Q2 2017.

Thanks Blizzard, couldn't think of this without you!

Computer Wargaming In An Era Of TMZ, American Idol, and Sound Bite Politics

S.R. Krol — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 22:03:12 GMT

So Steve Butts over at IGN has a couple of suggestions on how to improve computer wargames. To quote him:

Quote:

“So our plea to wargame developers is simply this: First, take a chance and branch out from the standard formats. Unit chits and hex maps definitely have their place in the genre, but they're not the only approach you can take to simulating a battlefield. Second, make sure that you're trying your best to ease new players into the genre by including comprehensible and accessible tutorials and not simply relying on players to figure it out for themselves.”

Let’s start off with his second suggestion first, the need for accessible tutorials. Personally I have no problem with the idea of more tutorials, although let’s be honest, poor tutorials are a problem all across the range of computer gaming. Few in any genre ever seem to be useful

In the world of board games probably one of the best innovations was the use of the programmed rulebook and there’s no reason you couldn’t include something like that in a computer game. Yet I don’t see the lack of decent tutorials particularly damning in the world of computer wargames simply because it’s the same effect as RTFM; you’re going to get more people who want to skip the tutorial and jump right in just like you folks don’t want to read the manual.

Really we don’t need better tutorials, we just need better interfaces and more intuitive gameplay elements. In the world of board games one look at the stats on a counter and the sequence of play will tell me how a game pretty much plays out without even needing to look at the manual. Why? Because there’s enough standardization in the world of tabletop gaming that you can jump from game to game without much of an issue. Not so in the world of computer gaming where developers think like programmers, not players, creating arcane GUIs. Better, cleaner interfaces along with plenty of pop-up help (heck, maybe even something like the Office paperclip popping up when playing for the first time to offer suggestions on where your schwerpunkt should be) would do more for the genre than more tutorials.

Onto his first suggestion now, abandoning counters and hex maps.

While I agree in principal to what he’s saying there is still a part of me that gets irked every time I see someone championing the need for something NEW! DIFFERENT! IMPROVED! when applied to a genre, especially when it involves making things look more purdy. As you’d expect he uses Combat Mission as an example of how shifting to 3D made such a difference.

Quote:

“…Battlefront's superlative Combat Mission trilogy, which essentially took the exciting gameplay concepts of Advanced Squad Leader and matched them with an immediately comprehensible visual element. In other words, rather than looking at unit symbols sliding from hex to hex, you actually got to see tanks rumbling down the streets of a quaint European village.”

But if it was a top down view with counters and hexes would the game really have been that much different? Did the 3D view really make the average Dew-chugging Halo player throw down his 360 controller and play Combat Mission? When there are probably more polygons being pushed in one infantryman in Brothers In Arms: Hell’s Highway than a Tiger tank in Combat Mission is anyone outside of the wargaming community going to be impressed?

There is also a question of how far can you push before a computer wargame isn’t a wargame anymore? Butts comments on this by saying:

Quote:

“Of course, some people will say that once you move to 3D graphics or real-time resolution, you're not dealing with a wargame anymore, but that's simply not the case. What makes a game a true wargame is its standard of accuracy, both in terms of unit performance and combat modeling.”

Partially true, as accuracy of unit performance and combat modeling is more of what makes a simulation than a pure wargame. For example, the ProSIM line of titles are simulations and not truly wargames in the strictest sense of the word.

A simulation attempts to replicate reality. A game on the other hand strives yes, to replicate reality, but at the certain expenses in the name of playability. That’s why in a CRT whole armies can be eliminated although in reality some are killed, some are mobility kills, some desert, some are wounded, some are demoralized, and so forth. Armies don’t vanish in real life like they do on the tabletop, but for the sake of playability no one keeps track of 20,000 men in a counter. If it was a simulation though, that’s a different story.

When you label a board game a wargame everyone has an understanding of what to expect: counters, hexes, CRTs. When it comes to computer games though it gets a little fuzzy. For old schoolers, those raised on board games, a computer wargame evokes that board game feel. But very often any computer game that happens to involve some sort of military action gets labeled a wargame. I’ve seen everything from Warcraft to Flash games involving blowing stuff up labeled as wargames.

So yes, a computer wargame can be a wargame still if it’s in 3D or real-time but cannot simply be called one because the game involves two armies duking it out. Accuracy is important but so is promoting the standards of wargaming: zones of control, supply lines, morale, command and control, armor penetration, suppressive fire, et cetera. Strip away the basic building blocks of what differentiated wargaming from Risk and you no longer have a wargame.

Ultimately though I think Butts is addressing the wrong issue. As I’ve said many times in the past wargames aren’t the problem rather it’s the audience. Adding flashy graphics and making your game real time won’t bring back wargaming to its original dominance on the computer simply because the audience is completely different today. Wargames are primarily meant to either relive historical events or postulate future ones and in an era driven by ignorance towards history (including sadly current events) what chance do wargames have for a larger market penetration?