Grognard Games Megathread - stop making me want this I do not have $95 bux

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Grognard Games Megathread - stop making me want this I do not have $95 bux

«‹›2 »

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Is Dangerous Waters the best modern naval game? I'd like to play something similar to Naval War: Arctic Circle, but you know, something actually good.

e: wait I didn't realise you only control one unit in Dangerous Waters.

fuf fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 5, 2013

# ¿ Sep 5, 2013 16:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 09:20

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Baloogan posted:

No wait for Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations. Its out on the 24th!

Announcement:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3396641

Product page:
http://matrixgames.com/products/483/details/Command:.Modern.Air/Naval.Operations

AAR you might want to read:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3392507

Am I shilling for this game:
Yes! Naval combat simulations deserve your support too! The world needs more naval combat simulations.

Yeah ok that looks like exactly what I want. Thanks for the heads up.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2013 19:05

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Alchenar posted:

Well now I have a dilemma. I got a $20 discount for Command:Modern Air Operations which comes out tomorrow because I participated in the beta. Except my participation consisted of setting up an FTP program and then going "lol, no" when the dl rate was 5kb/s.

So people who did participate: is this the Command Ops of the Air or... not?

Not in the beta but I have been a little bit obsessed with this game since Baloogan told me about it on the last page. It really does look pretty ground-breaking.

Here's a recent post about some of the lengths they've gone to:
http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1873

The thing is I've never bought a hardcore wargame before so I'm pretty sure it's gonna be the first time I experience that "it costs how much?!" feeling. I probably won't be able to afford it for a while.

And it's not like games like this have steam sales. :v:

# ¿ Sep 23, 2013 20:02

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Ugh, I knew it would be something like that, but I guess I was hoping maybe they'd see some sense.

Oh well, maybe it'll go down in a couple years (and be a better game by then?).

I know it's old news but I really think their business strategy is totally flawed. If they sold it for $15-20 and tried some kind of "hey how about trying a different kind of game, why not?" marketing campaign I bet they would make a killing, and find a whole new audience.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 15:11

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Haha, I actually signed up just so I could get all righteous about the price in this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3397540&mpage=3&key=&#3416029

Obviously a waste of time, but I think we should all do it anyway. :v:

e: oh hey, upen already did.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 15:40

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Baloogan posted:

Well I was planning to make some effort post about Command but I still haven't bought it. Its really quite expensive.

Well I hope someone buys it, just because it would be nice to get a reliable goon opinion.

# ¿ Sep 24, 2013 22:05

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Alchenar posted:

Official Matrix response: "Reviewers are dumb and will just give our games bad reviews".

The constant insistence in that thread that because wargames are a ~special snowflake~ genre basic common sense doesn't apply is pretty infuriating.

Here's a couple of other good lines:

quote:

I doubt that even if they sold Command for $10 that it would make that much of a difference.

quote:

My main issue is if we consider Command an entry-level game for wargaming. Is Matrix passing up that potential market. Just knowing the naval wargaming market a little, I doubt that would be a successful strategy. The documentation and online support would be expensive. In fact, pricing at $80 keeps a lot of the needy new players out. There is sometimes something to be said for pricing at the high end of a market.

Selling more copies might cost Matrix money because they would have to provide "documentation and online support". :psyduck:

Mr. Showtime posted:

hell, give Tim Stone a copy and ask if he might write about it in the Flare Path column on RockPaperShotgun,

Didn't Tim Stone write a column recently complaining about Matrix prices? I think I'll email him.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 16:45

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Was this one of you? Best post in that thread probably.

e: yes it was. Nice work Tomn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn

You know, looking at this argument, it seems the key point is this: If there is a wider available market for wargames, then pricing too high loses sales. If there is not a wider available market for wargames, then pricing too low loses profits. So the question is basically this: Is the market large enough to support a lower price that returns greater profits?

Before we begin that discussion, though, I think it would be useful to define what, exactly, a wargame is, as I think this gets muddled fairly often in such discussions. So what is a wargame? I would suggest that a wargame can most usefully be defined as "a game that attempts to simulate warfare, with a greater emphasis on historical realities than on gameplay requirements." We understand, of course, that any game developer must at some point rely on abstractions unless it is their intent to simulate the entire world at once, yet this seems to me a functional definition that lays down a clear difference between wargames and more mainstream strategy games like, say, Command & Conquer or even Total War.

Is it a requirement, then, that wargames must possess an impenetrable interface, no real tutorial to speak of, lousy documentation and all the accessibility of a spreadsheet? Many modern wargames are like this, true, but if we are to say that a wargame can only be said to be a wargame if it included all these features, it appears that we would have to remove Panzer General and Close Combat and Unity of Command and any number of great hits past and present from the list of wargames. I propose that the above definition is enough to cover wargames in general, and that we might make a subgenre for games that go into such complex detail that it is quite impossible to spare any time or effort whatsoever to improving accessibility - call it "grognard" games, for now.

If we accept this as a definition of wargames, then, can we say that wargames are truly a small niche that would not benefit from a lower pricepoint? Can we say that the amount of those interested in a more realistic strategic depiction of war is too low to support a lower price?

This seems to me unlikely. Why? Well, right at this point in time, on the Steam 100 top-seller list, I can see a game about simulating life as an immigration officer in a dystopic Soviet country, a game simulating being a truck driver in Europe running a truck driving business (realistically enough I might add that it models driver fatigue, among other things), a great many adventure games (which until lately have been thought to be extinct as a genre), and a game simulating the space program in quite explicit detail, where orbital calculations are required to get off the ground and onto the Moon analogue or the Mars analogue or anything else in the solar system. That's just what's on the list RIGHT NOW. Previous top-sellers included train simulators and agricultural tractor simulators, among other oddities. Are we supposed to imagine, then, that games depicting war (one of the single most popular subjects in the world for all of humanity, let alone gamers!) in a realistic fashion are a SMALLER niche than realistic games about the space program or truck driving?

Then, too, let us consider the historical successes of wargames. It is common now to say that wargames are a tiny niche and ever will be a tiny niche, but what of such games as Panzer General or the early Close Combat games? These may not have sold as well as the Warcraft games or Command & Conquer, but neither were they tiny and insignificant - they made and left no small splash on the marketplace in their time. Indeed, was there not a time when wargames were the dominant genre in the games industry, long in a distant past? Was there not a time when companies such as Strategic Simulations Inc. were as well-known as any other?

It seems to me, then, that there almost certainly DOES exist a large market for wargames - for realistic depictions of war. There ARE people interested in games that simulate warfare with more depth than that which goes into common RTS games. If such a market exists, then, wargames CAN benefit from a lower price point, and CAN sell enough copies to recoup any loss of per-product profit. Not only would they make more money overall, they would find more fans and more people willing to enjoy the game, causing a snowballing effect as word of mouth brings in more and more people who earlier on would not have considered joining the hobby, or of paying the current high prices sight unseen. Should the market exist, and as we have seen the evidence point to its existence, high prices do more harm than good to a developer even if they aren't actually ruinous.

But I will concede that there does not, perhaps, exist as great a market for the aforementioned grognard games. In order to reach out to a niche which had previously been untapped, it would be necessary to make it accessible for these newcomers - they must be welcomed and eased into the game, so that they do not quit from frustration and complain to their friends. Games like Unity of Command or Panzer General 2 are proof positive that this can be done, and done successfully, and for games such as these (or even for games only moderately more complex than these!) I believe it can be seen that there should indeed be a market. But for games which are so immensely complex, that model such an incredible amount of detail that it is completely, utterly, and totally impossible to even contemplate trying to ease a new gamer in, that I could agree with as being too small a niche to accept new blood and new money, and which would probably only survive at the currently high prices.

From what I have heard, however, Command is not such a game - I've heard in fact that they've taken pains to improve the interface and try to allow a newcomer to understand it. I wonder, then, if the current pricing is really the best choice for it?

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 19:15

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Tim Stone responded to my email.

quote:

I was intending to share some first impressions of CMANO in this week's FP, but the combination of an extremely slow download (I've given up twice) and some other topical stories (Steel Beasts 3.0 and the end of the DCS WWII kickstarter) means I'll probably hold fire until next week. When I do get round to it, I'm not sure how I can avoid talking about pricing. Where Slitherine/Matrix's business model is concerned I'm always happy to "waste my time".

(I mentioned that in the thread the Matrix guy said we were wasting our time.)

Also this trailer got posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLc-iSbiV5g&feature=youtu.be

# ¿ Sep 25, 2013 20:15

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Mr. Showtime posted:

If you stream more, you should save the videos on Twitch so that those of us who are at work/otherwise busy can watch them after. You'd be my hero

Yeah please do this.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2013 14:53

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

What do people make of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jq3DD2mbf0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jq3DD2mbf0

I like the idea of smooth-zooming all that way, but the other Supreme Ruler games were poo poo, right?

# ¿ Oct 23, 2013 15:49

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

gradenko_2000 posted:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=213776994

For all the poo poo I've slung at Wastelands Interactive, I might buy a Steam copy just to spite Matrix.

So I feel like this is a genuine question. Should we be supporting this (mediocre) game just in the hopes that it might eventually lead to more wargames on steam?

# ¿ Jan 29, 2014 19:37

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

VendoViper posted:

There is really no excuse for that game not having a "ruler" LOS tool.

I swear at least some of the games in the series had this. Or at least you could bring up the "target" line thing in order to check LOS (even when deploying I think). But yeah it was hassle.

e: oops beaten

uPen posted:

Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge.

Yeah it's pretty fun.

I always think the screenshots from this game look so cool, and the idea of delegating to lower-level commanders is appealing, but I watched a Grey Hunter LP and I feel like he spent the whole time manually targeting artillery over and over again. It looked pretty fiddly.

# ¿ Mar 10, 2014 19:48

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Flare Path article on Red Thunder:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/03/28/the-flare-path-a-rumble-of-thunder/

Describes a scenario but doesn't actually talk about the game much.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2014 14:39

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Dark_Swordmaster posted:

This reminds me I believe there's a page on The Internet Archive or SOMEWHERE where you can listen to all the WWII radio broadcasts. Apparently the D-Day one is just a bunch of, "Hold on, we're getting more information. No, sorry, we'll come back when we do." Especially since it was happening at roughly midnight here iirc.

Would love to hear this if you can find it.

vv thank vv

fuf fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Jun 6, 2014

# ¿ Jun 5, 2014 17:08

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Does this count as a grog game?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=202304

quote:

Sub Commander is a free, independently developed roguelike submarine simulator with an emphasis on realism and freedom of choice. Originally, the game was envisioned to be a kind of cross between Dwarf Fortress and the film K-19 The Widowmaker but it is rapidly growing to a full featured submarine warfare simulator. Eventually I plan to simulate all aspects of cold war era naval and aerial combat, so the player's submarine will be in the midst of a dynamic, procedurally generated global war.

Tim Stone has a brief write up:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/04/25/the-flare-path-wharf-fortress/

Looks pretty cool, but I haven't tried it yet.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2014 12:39

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Tomn posted:

A game just came out on Steam called Battleplan: American Civil War. It bills itself as casual, but from appearances it almost feels like it's trying to pull a UoC on the Civil War - and it's only ten bucks. Has anyone given it a shot yet?

Tim Stone wrote a little bit about it yesterday, but he's reserving final judgement:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/07/04/the-flare-path-inspired-by-true-emergencies/

# ¿ Jul 5, 2014 22:49

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Hey what was the name of that game some guy was working on where you manage the crew of a nuclear sub FTL-style?

# ¿ Oct 5, 2014 11:02

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Gotta show you guys my peak grog moment:

Command on three screens :xd:

too bad I have no idea what I'm doing. Hey baloogan what are some easy starter scenarios without too many units?

# ¿ Oct 9, 2014 18:28

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Morholt posted:

Also later in that thread, grogpost.png:

This was the only proper, well-argued post in that whole thread

# ¿ Jan 14, 2015 13:20

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

I got it too. �15 and already on steam? An easy decision for once. Thanks for the tip.

if people feel like posting tips and guides for new players that would be cool. I follow these groggy games with great interest buy my dark secret is that I suck at all of them.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2015 11:02

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Is Battle Fleet 2 a good game?
http://store.steampowered.com/app/332490/

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 12:01

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Roger that thanks.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2015 12:34

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

gradenko_2000 posted:

I have ASL Starter Kit 1 in shipping right now headed to me.

googled this to find out what it was, found this picture of a woman playing it, complete with accusations that it can't possibly be real :v:

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/464933/advanced-squad-leader-starter-kit-1

# ¿ Feb 10, 2015 18:56

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

I think we (well, Grey Hunter) should officially recognise Ultimate General: Gettysburg by adding it to the OP. What a great little game! I love it. And a great introduction to wargames I think. I'd give anything to see a bunch of other battles recreated in the same engine.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2015 20:20

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Anyone else on a WW1 kick might want to keep an eye on Battle of Empires. It's not terrible in my opinion and only �10.

The visuals and atmosphere are pretty good, especially the terrain destruction, and it models a lot of small details.

It's based on the Men of War engine so it's the same weird mix of old-school RTS and insane micromanagement. Like to transfer shells to a gun you have to walk an individual soldier over to the ammo crate, open his backpack, load it with shells, walk him over to the gun, open his backpack again, and transfer them over. And none of these orders can be queued so you have to babysit the whole thing.

There's a lot of stuff to deal with but if you slow the game speed way down it feels pretty legitimately groggy.

The biggest flaw at the moment is the grouping of your units - they're not fixed in groups, so you actually have to order individual guys around rather than just dealing with things at a squad level.

It's still early access so here's hoping.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 17:05

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

It's the same flaw really: forcing the player to deal with individual soldiers rather than at a higher level of abstraction. But it's also the fact that the game models all that low-level detail that makes it a borderline grog game imo. They just need to automate some of it.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 17:32

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Jobbo_Fett posted:

If it uses the Men of War engine, then you should be able to select a squad and give it orders. Selecting a single unit removes them from their attached squad, but selecting the squad and detached unit groups them together again.

Men of War's always been about micromanagement though, so it's really par for the course

Yeah you can give group orders but a "squad" is just whichever group of guys you happen to drag a box around, like in an old RTS. They aren't organised into any kind of normal military structure, which makes things a lot harder.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 23:04

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Jobbo_Fett posted:

When you call them in they come in a squad that makes sense. You can also shift+click to select specific units to group together. I believe Shift + # also creates control groups, rather than the standard ctrl + #, with a selection.

Yeah I know but again this is the old-school RTS way of doing things instead of just dealing with already-formed units with handy NATO symbols like in Combat Mission and most other grog games.

Like if I'm placing an MG I'd much rather deal with a whole MG team with supporting riflemen etc. than having to give endless "hey rifleman #3452, come and stand six feet to the left of this MG" orders.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 23:58

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Big discounts on Graviteam Tactics and DLC right now:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/275290/

I know opinions are mixed but I'm intrigued by the non-WW2 addons because they cover interesting conflicts. Are they any good? Do they address any of the weaknesses of the base game? (I remember people complaining the maps were too big for the number of units, and there were too many night missions?)

# ¿ May 19, 2015 12:25

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

That's really cool. I guess they're finally realising there's a whole massive market of people like me that are happy to take a risk on a game if it's not ridiculously overpriced.

I was stoked to finally get Distant Worlds the other day.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2015 19:22

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

I've been having a lot of fun with CMANO too, but the lack of care taken over the interface does frustrate me a lot.

The game would be improved immeasurably if they would implement some really basic user interface conventions to make all that data more parsable.

I even had a look over the file structure this morning to see how feasible it would be to mod.

Hey Baloogan is there any kind of "CMANO Interface Improvement Project" yet that I can contribute to?

# ¿ Jun 28, 2015 13:29

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Ghost of Mussolini posted:

How many of the scenarios in the new-harpoon game are both small/medium-ish and happen in the past? I don't like fiddling with all the billion options more modern stuff has (or is there a way to automate that sort of thing?). My favourite scenarios in the original games were 70s and 80s stuff where the electronic-warfare aspects are easier to get one's head around and the missiles etc. are a lot dodgier. Are these type of scenarios featured more extensively in the bigbux Command as well (or added by users)? I'd rather not drop 80usd straight away if possible (or is it better to wait for a holiday sale regardless?).

Yeah there are loads of 70s/80s scenarios if you add the community scenarios.

The thing about Command though is that it kinda sucks if you try to play it as an actual game imo. It's more of a sandbox thing where you set up random poo poo and then play around a bit looking at the different stats.

If someone could take the Command database and combat modelling and use them as the basis for an actual game with a proper interface then I'd be in heaven.

# ¿ Sep 21, 2015 21:46

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

man I thought we would have Ultimate General: Waterloo by now.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2015 12:00

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Drone posted:

DC:Case Blue is also 50% off right now on Steam for the Thanksgiving sale.

also noticed:

34% off Commander: The Great War
40% off Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm
85% off Unity of Command (lol)

# ¿ Nov 25, 2015 19:25

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Dark_Swordmaster posted:

Steam currently doesn't have a "Grognard" tag for all these games. I've taken it upon myself to start tagging these games with that for easier organization/searching. If enough of us do it it should show up as a legit tag. Just sayin'.

Is there a grog "curator" on steam somewhere? I couldn't find one. It would be useful to have a list of all the grog games available.

Also I just happened to read some of your SoW Waterloo performance thread and one of the developers claimed that the FPS problems might be caused by people having too much dust inside their PCs. :negative:

# ¿ Nov 28, 2015 17:15

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Baloogan posted:

yo dog I heard you like tankers

more features for the next patch Command 1.11

I wish you guys would spend some time improving the lovely UI instead of adding stuff like this.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2016 16:16

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Anyone know what's going on here? It looks like there should be more options visible to the right and below but I can't resize the window.

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 17:47

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Thanks, that worked

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 18:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 09:20

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Sorry, another Command question:

Just now I had a jet on a patrol mission and I wanted to redirect it to engage a couple of planes that popped up outside the patrol area. I added a new "Air Intercept" mission with the two planes as targets, then took my jet off the patrol mission and assigned it to the new strike mission.

Instead of moving to engage the planes his status changed to "RTB (Mission Over)" and he flew all the way home and wasn't available for hours. I tried getting him to engage manually with F1 but he was determined to RTB.

What should I have done instead? I guess I could have moved the patrol mission reference points to encompass the new targets but I wanted to keep other planes in the original area.

e: also, is there a way to see a plane on the ground's status and "Time to ready" without having to scroll over to its airbase and clicking the "aircraft" button? I wish that info was on the mission editor screen.

fuf fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 29, 2017

# ¿ Mar 29, 2017 18:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Grognard Games Megathread - stop making me want this I do not have $95 bux

«‹›2 »