Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Hi,
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/on%5Fboard%5F6/
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Hi,
http://www.wargamer.com/articles/on%5Fboard%5F6/
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Interview with Dan Verssen (Down in Flames)
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Classifieds Hot Deals
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Giftzwerg wrote:
> So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
> a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
> when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
> simulator?"
Ok - I'll bite ...
Because the design object is not really to give you a high-fidelity air
combat engine, but to provide you with a fun game (with an air combat
theme) to play against your online buddies.
Another point is that it's a VASSAL game. I'm probably alone on this,
but I see VASSAL as a step forward in wargame design because it allows
non-programmers who can nevertheless design a good board wargame to
create computer wargames.
Now, VASSAL at the moment lacks good documentation, some example
projects and a computer newbie tutorial (I'm sorta counting on Matrix
to pick-up the ball there) but at the moment it's the way to go if
you've got that dream of creating your own computer wargame, but can't
program.
So, in that light Dan Verssen is one of the pioneers in this sub-genre
and his games may turn out to be the classics in 10 years time. I plan
to be around then, but please be so kind as to not confront me with the
stupid beliefs I'm holding today.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg wrote:
> So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
> a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
> when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
> simulator?"
Ok - I'll bite ...
Because the design object is not really to give you a high-fidelity air
combat engine, but to provide you with a fun game (with an air combat
theme) to play against your online buddies.
Another point is that it's a VASSAL game. I'm probably alone on this,
but I see VASSAL as a step forward in wargame design because it allows
non-programmers who can nevertheless design a good board wargame to
create computer wargames.
Now, VASSAL at the moment lacks good documentation, some example
projects and a computer newbie tutorial (I'm sorta counting on Matrix
to pick-up the ball there) but at the moment it's the way to go if
you've got that dream of creating your own computer wargame, but can't
program.
So, in that light Dan Verssen is one of the pioneers in this sub-genre
and his games may turn out to be the classics in 10 years time. I plan
to be around then, but please be so kind as to not confront me with the
stupid beliefs I'm holding today.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:07:30 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <1126514585.221973.199410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
>> http://www.wargamer.com/articles/on%5Fboard%5F6/
>
>Simulating WWI aerial combat via with a card game makes about as much
>sense as simulating deep-sea diving by arranging flowers.
It's really more of a somewhat abstract card game than an attempted
sim of air combat. On the other hand, the old 'storybook' game, Ace of
Aces, does about as good a job as anyone could expect at simulating
air to air combat in a paper wargame enviroment.
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:07:30 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <1126514585.221973.199410@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
>> http://www.wargamer.com/articles/on%5Fboard%5F6/
>
>Simulating WWI aerial combat via with a card game makes about as much
>sense as simulating deep-sea diving by arranging flowers.
It's really more of a somewhat abstract card game than an attempted
sim of air combat. On the other hand, the old 'storybook' game, Ace of
Aces, does about as good a job as anyone could expect at simulating
air to air combat in a paper wargame enviroment.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <tikki1560ud549s3tap0u43n6se7ft197d@4ax.com>, kitch@SPAMOFF
says...
> >Simulating WWI aerial combat via with a card game makes about as much
> >sense as simulating deep-sea diving by arranging flowers.
>
> It's really more of a somewhat abstract card game than an attempted
> sim of air combat. On the other hand, the old 'storybook' game, Ace of
> Aces, does about as good a job as anyone could expect at simulating
> air to air combat in a paper wargame enviroment.
I think the key to this discussion is neatly encapsulated in the need
for the qualifier, "in a paper wargame environment." I would argue that
there's nothing about air combat that's terribly suitable to a "paper
wargame environment" - at least not past the point where PC technology
can give us an IL-2 or STRIKE FIGHTERS for $19.99.
So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
simulator?"
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
In article <tikki1560ud549s3tap0u43n6se7ft197d@4ax.com>, kitch@SPAMOFF
says...
> >Simulating WWI aerial combat via with a card game makes about as much
> >sense as simulating deep-sea diving by arranging flowers.
>
> It's really more of a somewhat abstract card game than an attempted
> sim of air combat. On the other hand, the old 'storybook' game, Ace of
> Aces, does about as good a job as anyone could expect at simulating
> air to air combat in a paper wargame enviroment.
I think the key to this discussion is neatly encapsulated in the need
for the qualifier, "in a paper wargame environment." I would argue that
there's nothing about air combat that's terribly suitable to a "paper
wargame environment" - at least not past the point where PC technology
can give us an IL-2 or STRIKE FIGHTERS for $19.99.
So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
simulator?"
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Giftzwerg wrote:
> I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
> that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
> (and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
> whatever it is being gamed out.
Well, in the first type of game the theme doesn't even matter, it just
adds a bit of flavour to the really important thing : game mechanics
where skill counts, but luck just as well. Game mechanics where no
position is ever totally lost and where the ace up your sleeve triggers
your most evil grin when you play it.
I must confess that I'm a game mechanics junkie - to me a theme is less
important than the underlying engine which ideally should be a toy-box
with all kinds of editors.
> Yeah, but does this encourage innovation and modern development? Or
> serve as a crutch to let game designers continue to do
> hexes/IGOUGO/boards for the next 20 years? I think it's arguable that
> we *want* to encourage game designers to throw out the boards and
> counters and CRTs and start thinking in new ways.
Well, Dan Verssen *is* the guy with the new ideas so I'm promoting his
games a bit in here. Sure you could use VASSAL to make BattleGround
type of games - and some will appear - but as hexes and IGOUGO don't
make sense anymore in a computer online game, I'm counting on
innovation to take over. As in all things in (economic) life : vote
with your wallet
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg wrote:
> I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
> that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
> (and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
> whatever it is being gamed out.
Well, in the first type of game the theme doesn't even matter, it just
adds a bit of flavour to the really important thing : game mechanics
where skill counts, but luck just as well. Game mechanics where no
position is ever totally lost and where the ace up your sleeve triggers
your most evil grin when you play it.
I must confess that I'm a game mechanics junkie - to me a theme is less
important than the underlying engine which ideally should be a toy-box
with all kinds of editors.
> Yeah, but does this encourage innovation and modern development? Or
> serve as a crutch to let game designers continue to do
> hexes/IGOUGO/boards for the next 20 years? I think it's arguable that
> we *want* to encourage game designers to throw out the boards and
> counters and CRTs and start thinking in new ways.
Well, Dan Verssen *is* the guy with the new ideas so I'm promoting his
games a bit in here. Sure you could use VASSAL to make BattleGround
type of games - and some will appear - but as hexes and IGOUGO don't
make sense anymore in a computer online game, I'm counting on
innovation to take over. As in all things in (economic) life : vote
with your wallet
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
> a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
> when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
> simulator?"
>
I'll admit I don't see the appeal of Vassal for this game (other than the
fact that it allows the game to be published at all).
I do however get the Down in Flames card game idea. It is a very popular
series for it's publisher and there is a guy out here that runs these
continually at cons (CSW Expo/Monster Con, Conquest, GMT West) ie from the
moment the doors open until the last geek is forcibly removed, there is a
rotating group of 4-8 players playing out dogfights. Having never played
before I was able to sit down and play with minimal instruction and do
reasonably well in a 3 on 3 dogfight flying a Zero vs P-40's.
Basically you draw a hand based on your plane type and pilot experience.
You maneuver by playing cards, if your opponent can't match your maneuver,
you can find yourself in a poistion to take a shot.
Good game? Yea, pretty good. Sim? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Get an impression of a dogfight? Sure. The difference between IL-2 and DIF
Kuban Bridgehead (sic?) is the differnce between watching a dogfight in the
movie Battle of Britain and reading about one in a pilot's memoirs. Like
all boargames, the second requires a bit more imagination.
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
> a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
> when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
> simulator?"
>
I'll admit I don't see the appeal of Vassal for this game (other than the
fact that it allows the game to be published at all).
I do however get the Down in Flames card game idea. It is a very popular
series for it's publisher and there is a guy out here that runs these
continually at cons (CSW Expo/Monster Con, Conquest, GMT West) ie from the
moment the doors open until the last geek is forcibly removed, there is a
rotating group of 4-8 players playing out dogfights. Having never played
before I was able to sit down and play with minimal instruction and do
reasonably well in a 3 on 3 dogfight flying a Zero vs P-40's.
Basically you draw a hand based on your plane type and pilot experience.
You maneuver by playing cards, if your opponent can't match your maneuver,
you can find yourself in a poistion to take a shot.
Good game? Yea, pretty good. Sim? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Get an impression of a dogfight? Sure. The difference between IL-2 and DIF
Kuban Bridgehead (sic?) is the differnce between watching a dogfight in the
movie Battle of Britain and reading about one in a pilot's memoirs. Like
all boargames, the second requires a bit more imagination.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Giftzwerg wrote:
> But the concept at the core of what Verssen is doing - a tabletop card
> game - is a very old idea. The only thing "new" here is porting that
> card game to PC/net format using VASSAL.
Well, he is a boardgame developer pioneering this new format - showing
the way for others so to speak.
> My point is that this can be a double-edged sword. Sure, some designers
> with no programming experience will bring cool boardgame designs to
> PC/net play using VASSAL. But other designers might take *only* their
> cool designs to PC/net play using the VASSAL shortcut - instead of
> throwing in with programmers and doing the game right.
Well, that last thing doesn't happen IRL - wargame programmers nowadays
are at the same time their own game developers. Whether this is an ego
thing (*I'm* programming the game *I* want to make) or simply that the
matching mechanisms are lousy I don't know, but I suspect the latter.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, I think the average wargame programmer has
more ideas than he can possibly program in his lifetime.
>
> And (you'll have to forgive my ignorance here, because I'm not all that
> familiar with VASSAL) it almost seems like you'll need considerable
> programming moxie to actually *extend* the VASSAL engine in some truly
> innovative new direction ...
Correct - if you want to extend it - you could use it as it is
> Hmmm. I'm counting on laziness and sloppiness and avarice to take over.
> Like they always do. And I'm counting on the sheeple to buy their
> sausages right-on-schedule, like they do now. Maybe I'm just cynical,
> but people tend to make a buck the easiest way they can.
Surprisingly enough (and lucky for us) this doesn't hold true for
some/most wargame developers. Practically all of them could make more
money, more easily by becoming corporate database
programmers/developers. On the other hand, I like to think that "reward
for work" goes beyond money. Recognition, sense of having achieved
something, wargame programming being more interesting than database
programming, etc. must also be taken into account.
It's essentially the "reward for work" beta-testers get - and there's
no shortage of wargamers willing to do some work for "free" so I'm not
alone in this.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg wrote:
> But the concept at the core of what Verssen is doing - a tabletop card
> game - is a very old idea. The only thing "new" here is porting that
> card game to PC/net format using VASSAL.
Well, he is a boardgame developer pioneering this new format - showing
the way for others so to speak.
> My point is that this can be a double-edged sword. Sure, some designers
> with no programming experience will bring cool boardgame designs to
> PC/net play using VASSAL. But other designers might take *only* their
> cool designs to PC/net play using the VASSAL shortcut - instead of
> throwing in with programmers and doing the game right.
Well, that last thing doesn't happen IRL - wargame programmers nowadays
are at the same time their own game developers. Whether this is an ego
thing (*I'm* programming the game *I* want to make) or simply that the
matching mechanisms are lousy I don't know, but I suspect the latter.
Ideas are a dime a dozen, I think the average wargame programmer has
more ideas than he can possibly program in his lifetime.
>
> And (you'll have to forgive my ignorance here, because I'm not all that
> familiar with VASSAL) it almost seems like you'll need considerable
> programming moxie to actually *extend* the VASSAL engine in some truly
> innovative new direction ...
Correct - if you want to extend it - you could use it as it is
> Hmmm. I'm counting on laziness and sloppiness and avarice to take over.
> Like they always do. And I'm counting on the sheeple to buy their
> sausages right-on-schedule, like they do now. Maybe I'm just cynical,
> but people tend to make a buck the easiest way they can.
Surprisingly enough (and lucky for us) this doesn't hold true for
some/most wargame developers. Practically all of them could make more
money, more easily by becoming corporate database
programmers/developers. On the other hand, I like to think that "reward
for work" goes beyond money. Recognition, sense of having achieved
something, wargame programming being more interesting than database
programming, etc. must also be taken into account.
It's essentially the "reward for work" beta-testers get - and there's
no shortage of wargamers willing to do some work for "free" so I'm not
alone in this.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Giftzwerg wrote:
> Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
> don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
> fun.
You've got to admit it's a novel concept
> On the other hand, *some* card-games display an almost uncanny fidelity
> to reality:
>
> http://www.brokentoys.org/?p=6849
I may just print these out to annoy some people
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg wrote:
> Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
> don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
> fun.
You've got to admit it's a novel concept
> On the other hand, *some* card-games display an almost uncanny fidelity
> to reality:
>
> http://www.brokentoys.org/?p=6849
I may just print these out to annoy some people
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <1126868560.611383.179560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> > So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
> > a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
> > when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
> > simulator?"
>
> Ok - I'll bite ...
>
> Because the design object is not really to give you a high-fidelity air
> combat engine, but to provide you with a fun game (with an air combat
> theme) to play against your online buddies.
I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
(and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
whatever it is being gamed out.
In other words, you could put a Market-Garden "theme" on the old UNCLE
WIGGILY boardgame[1] - but that wouldn't make it HTTR.
> Another point is that it's a VASSAL game. I'm probably alone on this,
> but I see VASSAL as a step forward in wargame design because it allows
> non-programmers who can nevertheless design a good board wargame to
> create computer wargames.
Yeah, but does this encourage innovation and modern development? Or
serve as a crutch to let game designers continue to do
hexes/IGOUGO/boards for the next 20 years? I think it's arguable that
we *want* to encourage game designers to throw out the boards and
counters and CRTs and start thinking in new ways.
[1] Presumably, the Wibble-Wobble Duck Pond would be the Waal,
Hauptmann Graebner could fill in for the Skilley-Skalley Alligator, and
Dr. Possum's Office being the Arnhem Highway Bridge.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
In article <1126868560.611383.179560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> > So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
> > a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
> > when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
> > simulator?"
>
> Ok - I'll bite ...
>
> Because the design object is not really to give you a high-fidelity air
> combat engine, but to provide you with a fun game (with an air combat
> theme) to play against your online buddies.
I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
(and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
whatever it is being gamed out.
In other words, you could put a Market-Garden "theme" on the old UNCLE
WIGGILY boardgame[1] - but that wouldn't make it HTTR.
> Another point is that it's a VASSAL game. I'm probably alone on this,
> but I see VASSAL as a step forward in wargame design because it allows
> non-programmers who can nevertheless design a good board wargame to
> create computer wargames.
Yeah, but does this encourage innovation and modern development? Or
serve as a crutch to let game designers continue to do
hexes/IGOUGO/boards for the next 20 years? I think it's arguable that
we *want* to encourage game designers to throw out the boards and
counters and CRTs and start thinking in new ways.
[1] Presumably, the Wibble-Wobble Duck Pond would be the Waal,
Hauptmann Graebner could fill in for the Skilley-Skalley Alligator, and
Dr. Possum's Office being the Arnhem Highway Bridge.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <1126880843.932640.102810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> > Yeah, but does this encourage innovation and modern development? Or
> > serve as a crutch to let game designers continue to do
> > hexes/IGOUGO/boards for the next 20 years? I think it's arguable that
> > we *want* to encourage game designers to throw out the boards and
> > counters and CRTs and start thinking in new ways.
>
> Well, Dan Verssen *is* the guy with the new ideas so I'm promoting his
> games a bit in here.
But the concept at the core of what Verssen is doing - a tabletop card
game - is a very old idea. The only thing "new" here is porting that
card game to PC/net format using VASSAL.
My point is that this can be a double-edged sword. Sure, some designers
with no programming experience will bring cool boardgame designs to
PC/net play using VASSAL. But other designers might take *only* their
cool designs to PC/net play using the VASSAL shortcut - instead of
throwing in with programmers and doing the game right.
And (you'll have to forgive my ignorance here, because I'm not all that
familiar with VASSAL) it almost seems like you'll need considerable
programming moxie to actually *extend* the VASSAL engine in some truly
innovative new direction ... but just shaping your design to *fit the
engine that already exists* will be much, much easier.
> Sure you could use VASSAL to make BattleGround
> type of games - and some will appear - but as hexes and IGOUGO don't
> make sense anymore in a computer online game, I'm counting on
> innovation to take over.
Hmmm. I'm counting on laziness and sloppiness and avarice to take over.
Like they always do. And I'm counting on the sheeple to buy their
sausages right-on-schedule, like they do now. Maybe I'm just cynical,
but people tend to make a buck the easiest way they can.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
In article <1126880843.932640.102810@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> > Yeah, but does this encourage innovation and modern development? Or
> > serve as a crutch to let game designers continue to do
> > hexes/IGOUGO/boards for the next 20 years? I think it's arguable that
> > we *want* to encourage game designers to throw out the boards and
> > counters and CRTs and start thinking in new ways.
>
> Well, Dan Verssen *is* the guy with the new ideas so I'm promoting his
> games a bit in here.
But the concept at the core of what Verssen is doing - a tabletop card
game - is a very old idea. The only thing "new" here is porting that
card game to PC/net format using VASSAL.
My point is that this can be a double-edged sword. Sure, some designers
with no programming experience will bring cool boardgame designs to
PC/net play using VASSAL. But other designers might take *only* their
cool designs to PC/net play using the VASSAL shortcut - instead of
throwing in with programmers and doing the game right.
And (you'll have to forgive my ignorance here, because I'm not all that
familiar with VASSAL) it almost seems like you'll need considerable
programming moxie to actually *extend* the VASSAL engine in some truly
innovative new direction ... but just shaping your design to *fit the
engine that already exists* will be much, much easier.
> Sure you could use VASSAL to make BattleGround
> type of games - and some will appear - but as hexes and IGOUGO don't
> make sense anymore in a computer online game, I'm counting on
> innovation to take over.
Hmmm. I'm counting on laziness and sloppiness and avarice to take over.
Like they always do. And I'm counting on the sheeple to buy their
sausages right-on-schedule, like they do now. Maybe I'm just cynical,
but people tend to make a buck the easiest way they can.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <11ilp83eqmfd282@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
michael@vom.com says...
> Good game? Yea, pretty good. Sim? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
> Get an impression of a dogfight? Sure. The difference between IL-2 and DIF
> Kuban Bridgehead (sic?) is the differnce between watching a dogfight in the
> movie Battle of Britain and reading about one in a pilot's memoirs. Like
> all boargames, the second requires a bit more imagination.
Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
fun.
On the other hand, *some* card-games display an almost uncanny fidelity
to reality:
http://www.brokentoys.org/?p=6849
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
In article <11ilp83eqmfd282@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
michael@vom.com says...
> Good game? Yea, pretty good. Sim? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
> Get an impression of a dogfight? Sure. The difference between IL-2 and DIF
> Kuban Bridgehead (sic?) is the differnce between watching a dogfight in the
> movie Battle of Britain and reading about one in a pilot's memoirs. Like
> all boargames, the second requires a bit more imagination.
Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
fun.
On the other hand, *some* card-games display an almost uncanny fidelity
to reality:
http://www.brokentoys.org/?p=6849
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d94b188c8639bd398a55e@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <11ilp83eqmfd282@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
> michael@vom.com says...
>
> Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
> don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
> fun.
>
Not what I said at all. Fun game does not exclude fidelity to reality.
Sure, in DiF you don't know you are traveling at 143.6mph and have 0.42% of
your fuel remaining, but you do know that if I pull an Immelman and you
can't counter it (miss the move, don't know the move, aren't set up for the
move, whatever you want to imagine to explain it) I will shake you from my
tail.
Mike
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d94b188c8639bd398a55e@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <11ilp83eqmfd282@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
> michael@vom.com says...
>
> Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
> don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
> fun.
>
Not what I said at all. Fun game does not exclude fidelity to reality.
Sure, in DiF you don't know you are traveling at 143.6mph and have 0.42% of
your fuel remaining, but you do know that if I pull an Immelman and you
can't counter it (miss the move, don't know the move, aren't set up for the
move, whatever you want to imagine to explain it) I will shake you from my
tail.
Mike
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <11ilqka4fam27a2@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
michael@vom.com says...
> > Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
> > don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
> > fun.
> Not what I said at all. Fun game does not exclude fidelity to reality.
>
> Sure, in DiF you don't know you are traveling at 143.6mph and have 0.42% of
> your fuel remaining, but you do know that if I pull an Immelman and you
> can't counter it (miss the move, don't know the move, aren't set up for the
> move, whatever you want to imagine to explain it) I will shake you from my
> tail.
Yeah, but in reality the ability to "pull an Immelmann" isn't simply a
matter of having an "Immelmann card" available for play - it's a
fabulously complex matter of energy state, attitude, altitude, roll
rate, turn rate, aircraft mass, wing loading ... I mean, the list goes
on and on and on.
What I meant by the above was that you can design a perfectly fun game
based on air combat that *doesn't* take into account all of these
factors - but to the extent that it starts to leave them out, the
"fidelity to reality" factor begins to slip away. From what I can see
(and, admittedly, I haven't played the game...), DiF is heavily weighted
towards merely having a flavor of air combat - not accurately depicting
it.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
In article <11ilqka4fam27a2@corp.supernews.com>, NoSpamThanks_sch-
michael@vom.com says...
> > Oh, I see what you guys are saying. Games are games, after all, and
> > don't necessarily demand any particular fidelity to reality - just be
> > fun.
> Not what I said at all. Fun game does not exclude fidelity to reality.
>
> Sure, in DiF you don't know you are traveling at 143.6mph and have 0.42% of
> your fuel remaining, but you do know that if I pull an Immelman and you
> can't counter it (miss the move, don't know the move, aren't set up for the
> move, whatever you want to imagine to explain it) I will shake you from my
> tail.
Yeah, but in reality the ability to "pull an Immelmann" isn't simply a
matter of having an "Immelmann card" available for play - it's a
fabulously complex matter of energy state, attitude, altitude, roll
rate, turn rate, aircraft mass, wing loading ... I mean, the list goes
on and on and on.
What I meant by the above was that you can design a perfectly fun game
based on air combat that *doesn't* take into account all of these
factors - but to the extent that it starts to leave them out, the
"fidelity to reality" factor begins to slip away. From what I can see
(and, admittedly, I haven't played the game...), DiF is heavily weighted
towards merely having a flavor of air combat - not accurately depicting
it.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If [New Orleans Mayor] Ray Nagin was half as good at busing poor blacks
to safety as he was busing them to the polls, nobody would have died."
- Andrew Leach
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Yeah, but in reality the ability to "pull an Immelmann" isn't simply a
> matter of having an "Immelmann card" available for play - it's a
> fabulously complex matter of energy state, attitude, altitude, roll
> rate, turn rate, aircraft mass, wing loading ... I mean, the list goes
> on and on and on.
>
> What I meant by the above was that you can design a perfectly fun game
> based on air combat that *doesn't* take into account all of these
> factors - but to the extent that it starts to leave them out, the
> "fidelity to reality" factor begins to slip away. From what I can see
> (and, admittedly, I haven't played the game...), DiF is heavily weighted
> towards merely having a flavor of air combat - not accurately depicting
> it.
>
Fair enough, but as basic and abstract as it is, DiF does factor enough
'reality' to give an impression of decision making during a dogfight.
(Conditions must be met before a card can be played.)
Mike
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Yeah, but in reality the ability to "pull an Immelmann" isn't simply a
> matter of having an "Immelmann card" available for play - it's a
> fabulously complex matter of energy state, attitude, altitude, roll
> rate, turn rate, aircraft mass, wing loading ... I mean, the list goes
> on and on and on.
>
> What I meant by the above was that you can design a perfectly fun game
> based on air combat that *doesn't* take into account all of these
> factors - but to the extent that it starts to leave them out, the
> "fidelity to reality" factor begins to slip away. From what I can see
> (and, admittedly, I haven't played the game...), DiF is heavily weighted
> towards merely having a flavor of air combat - not accurately depicting
> it.
>
Fair enough, but as basic and abstract as it is, DiF does factor enough
'reality' to give an impression of decision making during a dogfight.
(Conditions must be met before a card can be played.)
Mike
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9491fef8d7b11898a55b@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <1126868560.611383.179560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
>> > a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
>> > when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
>> > simulator?"
>>
>> Ok - I'll bite ...
>>
>> Because the design object is not really to give you a high-fidelity air
>> combat engine, but to provide you with a fun game (with an air combat
>> theme) to play against your online buddies.
>
> I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
> that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
> (and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
> whatever it is being gamed out.
Once the term game comes into play whether board or computer game then the
word "reality" should be left out of the description.
I have never though that by play a flight sim or a card game or any computer
war-game that it would prepare me for the reality of those experiences...
Cheers, Reddog
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d9491fef8d7b11898a55b@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <1126868560.611383.179560@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > So I guess my point is, "Why would anyone opt for a computer version of
>> > a highly-abstracted paper wargame only loosely based on air combat -
>> > when he can, for the same price, own a high-fidelity air combat
>> > simulator?"
>>
>> Ok - I'll bite ...
>>
>> Because the design object is not really to give you a high-fidelity air
>> combat engine, but to provide you with a fun game (with an air combat
>> theme) to play against your online buddies.
>
> I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
> that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
> (and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
> whatever it is being gamed out.
Once the term game comes into play whether board or computer game then the
word "reality" should be left out of the description.
I have never though that by play a flight sim or a card game or any computer
war-game that it would prepare me for the reality of those experiences...
Cheers, Reddog
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
> wargame programmers nowadays
> are at the same time their own game developers. Whether this is an ego
> thing (*I'm* programming the game *I* want to make) or simply that the
> matching mechanisms are lousy I don't know, but I suspect the latter.
There are at least two other possible explanations.
(a) The expected future return isn't large enough to have partners.
(b) Previous experience with coworkers who didn't row as hard or as long
each day as the programmer.
Best regards, Major H.
tacops@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/
> wargame programmers nowadays
> are at the same time their own game developers. Whether this is an ego
> thing (*I'm* programming the game *I* want to make) or simply that the
> matching mechanisms are lousy I don't know, but I suspect the latter.
There are at least two other possible explanations.
(a) The expected future return isn't large enough to have partners.
(b) Previous experience with coworkers who didn't row as hard or as long
each day as the programmer.
Best regards, Major H.
tacops@mac.com
http://www.battlefront.com/
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <IJSdnQHH847sirHeRVn-1Q@rogers.com>,
reddogfivenospam@hotmail.com says...
> > I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
> > that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
> > (and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
> > whatever it is being gamed out.
>
> Once the term game comes into play whether board or computer game then the
> word "reality" should be left out of the description.
>
> I have never though that by play a flight sim or a card game or any computer
> war-game that it would prepare me for the reality of those experiences...
But what are you arguing? That because no simulation or game is
*perfect*, we can't nevertheless identify significant differences in
fidelity to reality between them?
Sure, PACIFIC FIGHTERS isn't going to "prepare me for the reality" of
WW2 air combat - just the fact that I stand no risk of being burned to
death in my Ki-84 attests the truth of that. But having some experience
of real airplanes, I would argue that some aspects of flight simulators
are *more difficult* than their real-world counterparts; I can't "feel"
the ailerons on my digital F4U the way I can on my friend Mark's Cessna
Skylane.
All in all, I'm not sure any number of flight simulators aren't ready
for their Turing test.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around
failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans."
- Mama Moonbat, scaring off the last 11
Democrats who were still paying attention
to her insane bullshit.
In article <IJSdnQHH847sirHeRVn-1Q@rogers.com>,
reddogfivenospam@hotmail.com says...
> > I guess I never understood the draw of a game that merely has a "theme"
> > that I'm interested in - as opposed to a game that actually simulates
> > (and faithfully) the real-world problems faced by someone who had to do
> > whatever it is being gamed out.
>
> Once the term game comes into play whether board or computer game then the
> word "reality" should be left out of the description.
>
> I have never though that by play a flight sim or a card game or any computer
> war-game that it would prepare me for the reality of those experiences...
But what are you arguing? That because no simulation or game is
*perfect*, we can't nevertheless identify significant differences in
fidelity to reality between them?
Sure, PACIFIC FIGHTERS isn't going to "prepare me for the reality" of
WW2 air combat - just the fact that I stand no risk of being burned to
death in my Ki-84 attests the truth of that. But having some experience
of real airplanes, I would argue that some aspects of flight simulators
are *more difficult* than their real-world counterparts; I can't "feel"
the ailerons on my digital F4U the way I can on my friend Mark's Cessna
Skylane.
All in all, I'm not sure any number of flight simulators aren't ready
for their Turing test.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"George Bush needs to stop talking, admit the mistakes of his all around
failed administration, pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans."
- Mama Moonbat, scaring off the last 11
Democrats who were still paying attention
to her insane bullshit.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
"Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in message
news:11iodguclb7bn46@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Yeah, but in reality the ability to "pull an Immelmann" isn't simply a
> > matter of having an "Immelmann card" available for play - it's a
> > fabulously complex matter of energy state, attitude, altitude, roll
> > rate, turn rate, aircraft mass, wing loading ... I mean, the list goes
> > on and on and on.
> >
> > What I meant by the above was that you can design a perfectly fun game
> > based on air combat that *doesn't* take into account all of these
> > factors - but to the extent that it starts to leave them out, the
> > "fidelity to reality" factor begins to slip away. From what I can see
> > (and, admittedly, I haven't played the game...), DiF is heavily weighted
> > towards merely having a flavor of air combat - not accurately depicting
> > it.
> >
>
> Fair enough, but as basic and abstract as it is, DiF does factor enough
> 'reality' to give an impression of decision making during a dogfight.
> (Conditions must be met before a card can be played.)
>
> Mike
>
>
you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall card.
he tries to block with cite card.
"Mike Cox" <NoSpamThanks_sch-michael@vom.com> wrote in message
news:11iodguclb7bn46@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Yeah, but in reality the ability to "pull an Immelmann" isn't simply a
> > matter of having an "Immelmann card" available for play - it's a
> > fabulously complex matter of energy state, attitude, altitude, roll
> > rate, turn rate, aircraft mass, wing loading ... I mean, the list goes
> > on and on and on.
> >
> > What I meant by the above was that you can design a perfectly fun game
> > based on air combat that *doesn't* take into account all of these
> > factors - but to the extent that it starts to leave them out, the
> > "fidelity to reality" factor begins to slip away. From what I can see
> > (and, admittedly, I haven't played the game...), DiF is heavily weighted
> > towards merely having a flavor of air combat - not accurately depicting
> > it.
> >
>
> Fair enough, but as basic and abstract as it is, DiF does factor enough
> 'reality' to give an impression of decision making during a dogfight.
> (Conditions must be met before a card can be played.)
>
> Mike
>
>
you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall card.
he tries to block with cite card.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
In article <aKadnc0iMtDHmrDeRVn-sg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
> you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall card.
> he tries to block with cite card.
TRANSLATION: "As always, I don't have a cite for my latest shithead
remark. I just made it up."
--
Giftzwerg
***
***
"The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq-now, over
1,800 deaths-is generally devoid of context. Here's some context:
between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died
accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286
per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly
two to one."
- John Hinderaker
In article <aKadnc0iMtDHmrDeRVn-sg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
> you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall card.
> he tries to block with cite card.
TRANSLATION: "As always, I don't have a cite for my latest shithead
remark. I just made it up."
--
Giftzwerg
***
***
"The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq-now, over
1,800 deaths-is generally devoid of context. Here's some context:
between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died
accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286
per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly
two to one."
- John Hinderaker
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d972648e254960498a50b@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <aKadnc0iMtDHmrDeRVn-sg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
>
> > you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall
card.
> > he tries to block with cite card.
>
> TRANSLATION: "As always, I don't have a cite for my latest shithead
> remark. I just made it up."
translation, gifty has ignored every cite and he is too stupid to find
things on the net.
"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d972648e254960498a50b@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <aKadnc0iMtDHmrDeRVn-sg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
>
> > you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall
card.
> > he tries to block with cite card.
>
> TRANSLATION: "As always, I don't have a cite for my latest shithead
> remark. I just made it up."
translation, gifty has ignored every cite and he is too stupid to find
things on the net.
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <aKadnc0iMtDHmrDeRVn-sg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
>
>
>> you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall card.
>>he tries to block with cite card.
>
>
> TRANSLATION: "As always, I don't have a cite for my latest shithead
> remark. I just made it up."
>
You make George Galloway proud ...
Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <aKadnc0iMtDHmrDeRVn-sg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
>
>
>> you're arguing with gifty, time to play the bang head on cement wall card.
>>he tries to block with cite card.
>
>
> TRANSLATION: "As always, I don't have a cite for my latest shithead
> remark. I just made it up."
>
You make George Galloway proud ...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram