Board games v Computer games

[Fred98]

I think Veldor has finally hit upon the crux of the difference between board games and computer games.

Board games can be compared to chess. You know exactly the ability of your forces and of your opponent’s forces. And you know exactly where they are on the board.

If you have a group of 4-4-6 armoured units you can throw them against his 1-1-3 infantry and know that victory is near certain. That’s the point Veldor is making in another thread.

But in a computer game, you have Fog of War. It means you have no idea about the location of his 1-1-3 units.

You are aware he has them because you have practised the game from his point of view. But you don’t know where they are. So you must probe. Beginners to the game will stumble around and get their armour units cut off.

Board gamers find this lack of information frustrating.

But the computer gamer will correctly use reconnaissance units and find the location of the enemy. To computer players this makes the game very exciting as both players manoeuvre to find or hide each other’s major units.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Almost true Joe almost.

I have two Double-blind games (that was the actual term used on the boxes in this case). One is for Normandy Invasion, and one is for Market Garden.
You get two map sets (well actually the maps are small, just the size of two standard 8.5 x 11 pages folded out). And you get a methodology for "finding the other guys units". Because you are not allowed to see his map.

No this is not an umpired game, it was designed for face to face with the assumption you would stick a modest barrier btween players (experience has told me, the barrier need not be much for this particular game either).

Up front is a card using game, and it is designed in such a way, that you can not see the board per se as well. That and you are not able to know with certainty what your card draw will be next turn.

Victory the Blocks of War uses upright blocks for counters. That block might be visible in the hex, but if in a port, it could be a naval unit or an air unit, or a land unit. It might be full strength or sucking air and waiting to expire.
This system is also used in the East/West/Med front games by Columbia Games as well. You know something is there, but not what.

That this methodolgy is not used more frequently, is merely due to designer preference in the same manner that some games are made turn based for computer and some are made RTS.
Some are awesome graphics shooters, and some are modest graphics grand strategy turn based board game looking designs.

I think the field of wargaming has not even begun to expend all the variables in some areas yet.

I thought Up Front was one of the best wargame designs to ever grace a shelf. But sadly no one has yet decided to do the modern version of it.

And Victory would sure make a nice game done ala modern as well. Currently it is modelled on WW2 dynamics.

And the double blind games would surely make for nice modern battles as well.

Heck I would do these designs myself if I had the money and the drive and the need for an interesting way to add some cash in my life. I wouldn't be wanting to think i was going to get rich, but I am sure they would sell as well as any other wargame.

Computers have only just barely scratched the surface of their mechanical potential.
I just wish the art of AI design would get the same attention that graphics is getting.

I live for the day when my computer actually says, "You suck Les, want to try that game again?".

[Marc von Martial]

I just wish the art of AI design would get the same attention that graphics is getting.

Well the coders and designers do their best and graphic artists do their best. Nobody interferes with the other, so you can bet both get the same attention. However coding a kickass AI is not the same ballpark then making nice graphics. You can find plenty of talented artists but only so much excellent AI coders.

[brent_2]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
I live for the day when my computer actually says, "You suck Les, want to try that game again?".

heheh

All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction.

What you say!!!

[Brigz]

Originally posted by Joe 98
I think Veldor has finally hit upon the crux of the difference between board games and computer games.

Board games can be compared to chess. You know exactly the ability of your forces and of your opponent’s forces. And you know exactly where they are on the board.

If you have a group of 4-4-6 armoured units you can throw them against his 1-1-3 infantry and know that victory is near certain. That’s the point Veldor is making in another thread.

But in a computer game, you have Fog of War. It means you have no idea about the location of his 1-1-3 units.

You are aware he has them because you have practised the game from his point of view. But you don’t know where they are. So you must probe. Beginners to the game will stumble around and get their armour units cut off.

Board gamers find this lack of information frustrating.

But the computer gamer will correctly use reconnaissance units and find the location of the enemy. To computer players this makes the game very exciting as both players manoeuvre to find or hide each other’s major units.

I guess you haven't played many board wargames. There are hundreds of board wargames that use fog of war. And it can be just as effective as that used on a computer. Board wargamers do not find this frustrating. All the board wargamers I know greatly appreceate fog of war rules. Why would anyone not want to use them?

I play both computer and board wargames. I like both. There is no conflict. But I do prefer computer wargames that play like and are similar in appearance to board wargames.

[CCB]

Originally posted by Dave Briggs
There are hundreds of board wargames that use fog of war.

Did you ever play Victory Games' Ambush or Open Fire? IMHO, those were the ultimate boardgames with FoW and solitaire (AI) play.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by CCB
Did you ever play Victory Games' Ambush or Open Fire? IMHO, those were the ultimate boardgames with FoW and solitaire (AI) play.

The Ambush/Battle Hymn series was, indeed, some of the most fun gaming you can ever have solitaire. I wish someone had picked that up and kept creating modules for it...

Victory Games also created Tokyo Express and Carrier, which were excellent solitaire paper-and-cardboard games simulating surface actions and carrier warfare during the Guadalcanal campaign. These are a fascinating study and highlight how sophisticated boardgame design can be.

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Joe 98
I think Veldor has finally hit upon the crux of the difference between board games and computer games.

Board games can be compared to chess. You know exactly the ability of your forces and of your opponent’s forces. And you know exactly where they are on the board.

If you have a group of 4-4-6 armoured units you can throw them against his 1-1-3 infantry and know that victory is near certain. That’s the point Veldor is making in another thread.

But in a computer game, you have Fog of War. It means you have no idea about the location of his 1-1-3 units.

You are aware he has them because you have practised the game from his point of view. But you don’t know where they are. So you must probe. Beginners to the game will stumble around and get their armour units cut off.

Board gamers find this lack of information frustrating.

But the computer gamer will correctly use reconnaissance units and find the location of the enemy. To computer players this makes the game very exciting as both players manoeuvre to find or hide each other’s major units.

Well, there can be FOW in board games as well and there are computer wargames without FOW or optional FOW. All this has been said already.

The first real difference is that a computer can do all the calculations for you. Nothing special or what is a "computer" for anyhow?

Secondly a computer can provide an artificial opponent. Depends on the coded AI wether this is fun or rather not. Marc already mentioned that a decent AI is way the hardest part of developing a computer game. Since we still have only partial understanding of what real intelligence - some say it exists... - is, there will be a lot to do in that area. Don't hold your breath I'd say.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

When it comes to computers, the ONLY edge they have on board games, and I DO mean the ONLY edge they have, is they are calculating machines, plain and simple.

Fog of War or no, it won't prevent me enjoying the game.

I enjoy chess even though I suck playing it.

I enjoy playing Heroes of Might and Magic mostly because the game does a lot of things out of my knowledge (not FoW specifically, but rather I am not aware what the AI/opponent is up to).

Graphics, no I like a game of Afrika Korps just as much as Steel Panthers. One has a very mono coloured board and specifically undetailed counters, while the other has sounds and animations and a richly detailed board and very artful counters that move for me.

Space considerations, no most of my good wargames can be stored in a space 10"x24"12" (you can stack games that use boards on top of spacers if you think about it, on a shelf), so space it NOT automatically a burden.

Simplicity of use. No that won't get you far automatically. I have plenty of good board games that are easier to learn than some computer wargames.

In the end, all a computer wargame offers, is the same thing a calculator offers, no need to do a lot of math in your head.

And opponents does not count as a reason to champion computer wargames. If you don't think so, read my sig.

[Marc von Martial]

And opponents does not count as a reason to champion computer wargames. If you don't think so, read my sig.

Hmmm, but only with the help of a "calculator"

[The Shadow]

When it comes to computers, the ONLY edge they have on board games, and I DO mean the ONLY edge they have, is they are calculating machines, plain and simple.

I’ve never played board games, being somewhat new to the hobby, but I would think “convenience” would be a major advantage for the PC. Especially if you have curious kids running around. Also, how do you play board games against yourself?

Don’t know about cost. Which are more expensive?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

How do you play games against yourself?

Seems to be a common question. I can only assume you are not from my age group.

When I was a kid I often had to play by myself. And I had to use things like Lego, or toy soldiers, or read a book, build a model.
So playing a board game both sides seems to be perfectly simple for me.

I AM just both sides.

As for convenience, well I am always there when I want to play eh. That sounds very convenient to me:)

True a computer can give me an articifial person (well so can't I actually, I had imaginary friends as a kid too hehe). And I must say, my imaginary buddies were a lot smarter than some of the AIs I have played against.

I am right now playing a Lost Victories Mega Campaign, and it's the first time ever I have had to settle for being fought to a draw consistently.

Winning all the time is incredibly boring.

[The Shadow]

I AM just both sides.

OK les, if you say so. You’re the expert on board games, but playing yourself is just something I don’t think I could get into. Questions like who actually won the battle? Me or myself? I also don’t think I would trust myself not to cheat or at least peek as what I was doing when it was my turn(?) I’m not criticizing, but playing a game against yourself seems for lack of a better phrase “self-defeating”. I don’t feel confident enough to go online yet, so I’ll stick with PC games for now. Although I can see the appeal of board games. Also just out of curiosity, could you play Monopoly, Risk, and Poker etc. against yourself?

Maybe I’m missing something.

Also Les, off topic, but I'm kind of getting into "Age of Sail II: Privateer's Bounty" Really sweet graphics and it seems realistic. Would you, in your opinion consider this a wargame?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Play myself monopoly? hmm , well I am a real jerk when I play monoploy and I don't really care to play with jerks normally hehe.

Poker, well hmm I would only be winning my money off myself (problem I always seem to be broke though).

Risk, well I suppose, but somehow it wouldn't be enough.

I have heard a few people comment on the "Age of this that or the other name", but I have never seen them. So I am at a loss to comment. To far outside of my experience.
I just haven't been paying attention to the Age of games series.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
When it comes to computers, the ONLY edge they have on board games, and I DO mean the ONLY edge they have, is they are calculating machines, plain and simple.

Wrong wrong wrong! Playing my computer wargame I can fight against a player from anywhere on the planet. Indeed I can even have a number of games running concurrently (as I do now...6 PBEMs). These are things that just cannot be done with boardgames.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Raverdave
Wrong wrong wrong! Playing my computer wargame I can fight against a player from anywhere on the planet. Indeed I can even have a number of games running concurrently (as I do now...6 PBEMs). These are things that just cannot be done with boardgames.

Which, of course, says nothing of the quality or the character of the games you're playing. All Les is saying, as I see it, is that board wargames have value, personal warmth, and engaging idiosyncratic characteristics that cannot be reproduced in computer games, so he likes to play them. He also likes to play computer wargames. So do you. So let's not be so shrill. A 9-1 ASL leader deserves his propers.

Both forms of wargaming are fun, is all I'm saying. Let's not try to kill one for the supposed sake of the other. The consumer audiences are small enough for each, and the crossover is very large. When both stay alive, we all get what we want.

Peace on, brothers, or we all lose what we love.

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

When you look at it (not to mention when you look at my sig), the fact that a computer can let me play anyone anywhere anytime, is not the sole domain of the computer wargame.

I can play anyone anywhere anytime a game of ASL via VASL.

Of course you will say "but he has to own ASL".

Well I can say that about computer wargames.

Hands up how many have a copy of "every" computer game playable by online connection/PBEM.

Sure there will be no trouble getting a copy of Steel Panthers, well no problem if you have a DSL line or cable. Oh but you could just buy a Mega Campaign to get the base game....well maybe for a little bit you miiiiiight find Watchtower.

I have several wargames that are considered past favourites by many. And odds are you joe new to wargames gamer will not have much luck finding several of them.
That goes equal for board games as it does computer wargames.

ASL is a currently marketed game, it ain't cheap, but then neither is the P4 system you will need to play next years computer wargames.

Some games like Panzerblitz are considered classics.
Some might be interested to know, that they are producing Panzerblitz II as we speak. Who knows, they might get it out before Combat Leader heheh.
Both games are being produced by people that do something else for a day job when not attending to their wargame business.

Being able to say that computers are NOT nothing more than sophisticated adding machines where wargames are concerned, merely shows a lack of desire to acknowledge, that the hobby exists with them as well as without them equally well.

The list of board game wargames that can be employed through the computer is rising all the time.
The classic Panzerblitz is one of them. Advanced Third Reich is another. Aside from a horrible interface, and sluggish interest World in Flames has also been attempted.
I have seen numerous board games converted. Some napoleonic/Civil war, as well as the more commonplace WW2 settings.

The only person that is really going to genuinely state that computers are better, is the person that hasn't been wargaming since the 60s-70s and doesn't possess an impressive collection of board game wargames.

I have a nice stash of computer wargames. I have an even greater more magnificent collection of board games.
Generally when asked which ones I own, I usually just say, if it was any good I have a copy of it.

[brent_2]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
Generally when asked which ones I own, I usually just say, if it was any good I have a copy of it.

you don't have Close Combat 3 or 5 yet, as far as I know.... :p

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

Not from lack of looking though Brent hehe.

I have found out though, the "free' downloads at Underdogs are red herrings. You get a free download that only results in being told when completed and installed, to "insert cd in drive".

Underdogs therefore does NOT have CC 1 and 2 contrary to the unfortunate assumption that they do.

I have 2 but I am open to checking out the others should I stumble onto them.

Ideally I am hoping Close Assault will relieve me of the need to fret though.

[Veldor]

Board Gaming has one thing going for it that Computer Games in general do not often have... Collectors.

Lots of people who have and continue to buy board games never play them and many more never had intentions to play them when they were first purchased.

I, for instance, sold my entire wargame collection in late '93 at a game convention auction (A nearly complete AH/VG collection plus various other brand titles). It was rather extensive and while I played many of the games, the reason I had most of them is because they were AH/VG titles. I liked many of their games, and bought the rest just as a "collector".

Then, in '02 I ran across a rather large collection of mostly older hard to find AH titles on Ebay. One group of 83 games. I couldn't resist the chance to get a huge headstart on reaquiring the entire collection. I purchased around 25 additional titles shortly after as well.. for a total of well over 100 (not counting ASL titles/components)

Then, thank god, I woke up and realized my renewed sickness. While I certainly enjoyed relooking through all the materials and the "nostalgic" benefit, I realized I had very little desire at all to play most any of the titles.

So I re-auctioned them all individually on Ebay for more than 2.5 Times profit.

Which is ultimately the point I'm making.. Board Gaming can't be dead if I can make that kinda money on Ebay. Many of the titles went for upwards of $75-$100... But then again... I started looking at a lot of the buyers and in some cases asking.... "You actually going to play that Caesar game you just spent $120 for?" NOPE... Sold a VG title to the original game developer who HIMSELF had given away his last copy years ago but couldn't resist the Mint version I had..

So, in my potentially disallusioned mind, you can still sell Board Games and there are people buying board wargames... They just mostly aren't playing them...

Just as many people buy old antiques jars, pots, and so on but tend not to actually "use" them..

"I" personally still play simple social/family boardgames like Acquire, RISK, and so on.. But have no place or purpose for the more serious style offline.. While I don't doubt others do, I do feel as the younger generation gets older sufficient numbers will not step in to fill those shoes.. but rather board wargames will continue to go even more the way of merely a "collector's item".............