Fellow Panzer General (DOS) Enthusiast,
-
Some computer wargame title publishers explicitly refer
to their products as "Campaign Series" titles. In the past, Strategic
Simulations Inc. (SSI) chose NOT to do so. However, it is pretty obvious
that this HAS been the overall marketing thrust of this well established
company all along. It does NOT matter whether one talks about 5 Star
General or Living Battlefield titles. The overwhelming majority of
players of such titles flock to them primarily because of the much
demanded "Campaign Dimension".
-
By focussing on frequent releases of stand alone products
(sequels) instead of simply marketing well thought out "expansion disks",
SSI's marketers have been grooming the consumers of that company's
products to be connoisseurs of the special effects of the moment and very
little else. Apparently, SSI's marketing strategy has aimed at retaining
consumers' loyalties to the company as opposed to any particular game
title framework or system. Consequently, very few hobbyists have ever
managed to play SSI's computer wargame titles at a high enough strategy
quality level. Even the mere mention of chess would have elicited peals
of laughter from SSI's marketing department.....
-
SSI's 5 Star General/Living Battlefield game titles have
been mainly targetted at solitaire play (i.e., against the rather
unsophisticated computer "artificial intelligence" (AI) module, sometimes
also referred to as "programmed opponent" (PO)) and have been SO popular
ONLY because of the EASY Campaigns........ Anything else, including
all-human play, has been peripheral or not even an issue as far as SSI's
marketers are concerned ! First came PG (DOS), the original campaign game
title. Then, SSI released "crypto-expansion disks" containing additional
campaigns which the company marketed as separate titles (i.e., Allied
General, Pacific General and so on). To repeat, PG (DOS), as originally
released by SSI, was primarily directed at hobbyists interested in
slugging it out with the programmed opponent in Campaign mode. Less
thought went into stand alone scenario fighting against the PO. All-human
stand alone scenario play was a fleeting afterthought !!! As for
all-human campaign play, well, it was not even in the "official"
cards......
-
Interestingly enough, SSI computer wargame title
consumers appear to have been sold on the idea that the VERY SAME
scenario should be "appropriate" for play against BOTH the PO in Campaign
play mode AND another human in Stand Alone Scenario play mode !!! The
very few hobbyists who may have enjoyed scenaria specifically designed
for intellectually challenging, all-human, battlefield specific play have
been rather silent or resigned....... Many of SSI's PG (DOS) scenaria
involve "Blitzkrieg" situations exclusively designed for PO defensive
response in Campaign play mode. When the human "attacker" tries to do the
same thing against a reasonably skilled defending human opponent, he
meets with disagreeable resistance.... At that point, the standard
prestige and experience levers are invoked to re-introduce some balance !
Well, the problem is that, more often than not, these scenaria, however
re-balanced, are rather impoverished in non-trivial, alternative
strategic options and approaches (e.g., they call for head-on attacks
with very little maneuvering). There ARE a few exceptions, of
course....
-
Many "play by E-mail" (PBEM) "club members" are,
essentially, PO EMULATORS. Even more fascinating, quite a few PG (DOS)
custom scenario authors have been SSI EMULATORS..... Basically, several
years following the initial release of PG (DOS), SSI's anonymous scenario
authors STILL exercise a stranglehold over the MINDS and PREFERENCES of
many a PG (DOS) custom scenario author !!! It is my view that SSI's
legacy of computer automatism, impoverished scenario authorship
philosophy and primitive PO machinery is irrelevant at best, and, quite
likely, detrimental to QUALITY, ALL-HUMAN PLAY.
-
A few years ago, Norm Koger, the designer of TalonSoft's
"The Operational Art of War" (tOAoW), participated in an interesting
thread over at that company's Discussion Board dedicated to the game
title. His main point was that tOAoW was a very flexible and customisable
computer wargame ENGINE. In other words, any scenaria accompanying that
game title's initial release and any future expansion disks, although
nice, did/should NOT define the game title per se. He also seemed to
suggest that the folks over at SSI (he had worked with them before) have
always been DEAD SET against such an iconoclastic approach........
However, many hobbyists posting messages to TalonSoft's Discussion Pages
appear to have SOME understanding of the need for DIFFERENT scenario
universes, one for play against the PO and another one for all-human
play. To boot, Norm Koger's tOAoW with its "wargame construction set"
philosophy appears to be well suited to service such an eminently logical
bifurcation. YET, many SSI game title supporters (and the company itself)
appear to DISLIKE this flexibility and streamlining with a
PASSION...........
-
With PG (DOS), SSI has marketed a solitaire campaign
computer wargame title, plain and simple. It is up to a few of us to
salvage the game title's programme engine and utilise it in the context
of a new, "virtual boardgame universe" called Armed
Conflict (DOS) . This strategy quality orientation is way beyond
anything that ordinary market forces have been able to deliver to us via
our neighbourhood computer game outlets. This is a not-for-profit,
die-hard, hobbyist venture. I believe that the time has come for some of
us all-human play die-hards to re-invent PG (DOS). Armed with a lot of
experience and technical knowledge, we can now do justice to the
programme's engine. Armed Conflict (DOS) is
the NEW, ALL-HUMAN PLAY PG (DOS). Its UNIQUE, BATTLEFIELD SPECIFIC
scenaria are designed by PBEM veterans and technically knowledgeable
hobbyists SPECIFICALLY for ALL-HUMAN, STAND ALONE scenario play,
die-hards... I expect the Armed Conflict (DOS)
battlefield specific scenario collection to significantly expand in the
months and years to come. In this last regard, SSI's scenaria are just
like any other "joes".... Namely, their eventual inclusion into Armed Conflict (DOS) with minor or major
modifications will hinge on their intrinsic all-human play strategy value
and not on the fact that SSI's developers had something to do with them
!! Yes, SSI's developers are just another bunch of....... hobbyists
around here !
-
At the Centre, we also want to design scenaria that
methodically teach hobbyists "the ropes" necessary for quality,
ALL-HUMAN, BATTLEFIELD SPECIFIC play. THEREFORE, the education and
training objectives here are quite multifaceted. There is no question
that a play-tester learns new things by virtue of playing against another
human. This is equally true in the case of competitive play, PBEM "club"
style. BUT, it is only a component ! The education and training of
OTHERS, including prospective custom scenario authors, are MUCH MORE
important.
-
To repeat, here at the Centre we are not playing PG (DOS)
in the conventional, popular sense that it was intended. Rather, we are
re-designing the game title's scenario universe from scratch EXCLUSIVELY
FOCUSSING on ALL-HUMAN, STAND ALONE scenario play. The new game universe
we call Armed Conflict (DOS) . My long term
goal re: PG (DOS) is to render the game title fully customisable thus
BREAKING its traditional DEFINITION that has been based historically on
the 38 scenaria that originally came with the game title. Norm Koger's
comments seem to provide us with a good explanation for the hostility
some of SSI's "internet friends" have shown towards me, personally, and
the Centre in the not so recent past ! Fortunately, because PG (DOS) has
essentially been dropped from the list of game titles available for
direct purchase from and supported by SSI (a reflection of the fact that
they consider this game title to have essentially made its contribution
to that company's bottom line), it is highly unlikely that we will be
faced with such unpleasantness around here ever again....... Strangely
enough, a "dated", "orphaned" game engine is the perfect "gift" that a
wargame software publisher can make to a bunch of die-hard enthusiasts.
It follows, then, that Armed Conflict (DOS)
NOW makes a lot of sense (at least to me) !!
|