Gunfreak | 26 Sep 2017 12:47 p.m. PST |
I ended in a rather strange Internet argument. The topic was about the computer game total warhammer 2. I said it's a lot simpler to transfer a fantasy universe(one that already is a game) to a computer game than trying to do it with a historic war. By simulating. I don't mean a true simulator but making a computer game that at least to some degree has it's bases in a real war and gives a quasi realistic result and behaviour in game. I mean warhammer already has stats for each unit. Warhammer is fought with just a few on each side. It's balanced. You simply need to transfer those stats and those few pages of rules into a game and do some tweaking. Now try and do that with say napoleonic wars. First you need to boil it down to some numbers and rules (like you do with with Napoleonic miniature rules) But Napoleonic rules generally aren't made for tournaments or balance. The control and command of the Napoleonic wars are far more complex than warhammer. Even in the miniature world Napoleonic wargames are often much larger than warhammer games. You usually have 20 units in your total war army. This is more than most Warhammer miniature games. But far far far fewer than during the Napoleonic wars. Than You simply have to consider your have to try and model the real world, physics etc. You don't need to make battles appear to have realism in a warhammer game. |
Rudysnelson | 26 Sep 2017 3:24 p.m. PST |
Real warfare has always been harder because you deal with real weapon capabilities and hard facts about their effectiveness. So your rule system design must reflect that. I still remember making notes of the length of time it took troops to conduct certain maneuvers to compare it the napoleonics , SYW and ACW. With historical you always have the sharpshooter in the audience asking questions about the why and rating. With fantasy, you have much more flexibility in rating the capabilities of morale, stremgth and reactions. |
Jlundberg | 26 Sep 2017 3:52 p.m. PST |
Real war needs to be able to replicate actual events. If your rules have the French winning Waterloo 24 out of 25 times they are not a good representation. |
20thmaine | 26 Sep 2017 5:14 p.m. PST |
It's very hard to recreate fantasy warfare from fiction and still have it feel "just like the books". Because, often, armies clash – but the deeds of heroes really matter. That doesn't transfer well into a game. Who wants to paint up hordes of Hyboreans if they are just a backdrop to Conan's duel with their General and their Shamen? |
Herkybird | 26 Sep 2017 5:33 p.m. PST |
Fantasy is harder IMO, mainly due to the difficulty in pinning down troop qualities and morale. Everyone has their own take! |
Gunfreak | 26 Sep 2017 11:03 p.m. PST |
But in warhammer troop quality is already there. Damage, defence. Length of range attack etc. It's already there you just need to transfer it. |
20thmaine | 27 Sep 2017 5:25 a.m. PST |
There's more to fantasy than Warhammer though. |
etotheipi | 27 Sep 2017 10:55 a.m. PST |
1) Simulating fiction is harder than simulating history. Fiction has to be plausible. 2) The comparison in the OP is much more specific than the title. And it is not really a peer-to-peer – it is fantasy skirmish vs. history corps (army? battalion?) level battle. Following 20thmaine, all fantasy is not 20 unit skirmish. Likewise, all history is not Napoleonic combat. If your rules have the French winning Waterloo 24 out of 25 times they are not a good representation. Just because someone won an actual battle in history doesn't mean that they went into the battle with favorable odds. Lots of histories explain how battle outcomes were the outlier chance, not the expected outcome. |
Mick the Metalsmith | 27 Sep 2017 1:05 p.m. PST |
Indeed, the power of hindsight makes the outliers so much less likely to be repeated. That said trying to make games of books where plot pace and tension and climax are fantasy creations is reallly quite hard. Try making a strategic game of the Lord of the Rings. Many valiant failures. |
Gunfreak | 27 Sep 2017 1:25 p.m. PST |
"1) Simulating fiction is harder than simulating history. Fiction has to be plausible." Not really few fantasies are plausible. And since you have less source material to go on (smaller scope) it's less variable and depth to simulate. In all of Tolkiens words related to middle earth. Very few battles are given any descriptions. So you only need to have a computer game that gives a feel close to those few pages writen. Vs thousands of books on say the napoleonic wars. And many fantasies are generic were battles are like those bravehart. Wild meles were the hero slata dozens or even hundreds of enemies. |
20thmaine | 27 Sep 2017 3:41 p.m. PST |
So you only need to have a computer game that gives a feel close to those few pages writen And that is exactly why it's so hard to do. In all of Peter Jackson's 6 film Hobbit/LOTR epic I only really felt in Middle Earth a couple of times (mostly in Fellowship). |
etotheipi | 28 Sep 2017 6:27 a.m. PST |
Not really few fantasies are plausible. They're all plausible. That's why people don't stop reading them. Suspension of disbelief just means that the reader can accept things that are not part of their understanding or experience. This is one of the great struggles of fiction writers – to make things interesting and novel but not so novel that readers pull themselves out of the narrative and thus lose interest. History doesn't have to be plausible. It happened So you only need to have a computer game that gives a feel close to those few pages written Unfortunately, a thousand people reading those few pages will have a thousand and one different feels. The less information there is, the fewer reference points there are to keep people tethered to the analogy. Wild meles were the hero slata dozens or even hundreds of enemies. Which are extremely difficult to do in a game. If I know that Conan pretty much can't die in combat, where's the tension? For either side? The game becomes a minimum participation activity or a movie. |
Gunfreak | 28 Sep 2017 8:33 a.m. PST |
[qoute]Which are extremely difficult to do in a game. If I know that Conan pretty much can't die in combat, where's the tension? For either side? The game becomes a minimum participation activity or a movie. It's actually very easy, hero units in games are easy to make, here the gameplay isn't about making anything realistic. So heroes can destroy whole units in seconds, you just give both sides heroes. All those other units of spearmen/orcs/elves/slaves/rats etc. Are just secondary units to support the hero, those units aren't made to stand up to a hero. And games aren't a 100% transfers of fiction or fantasy, as I said, not a simulator, So naturally a game with Conan, Conan can die, but you would lose. So there is the tension. We know Aragon doesn't die in Lord of the rings, yet he can die in all games you can play as Aragon. They're all plausible. That's why people don't stop reading them. Suspension of disbelief just means that the reader can accept things that are not part of their understanding or experience. Not really, magic isn't plausible, it's something people just accept because it's fantastical/escapism not because it's plausible. You do have plausible fiction, like Master and commander or Hornblower, But not plausible fantasy. |
USAFpilot | 28 Sep 2017 8:59 a.m. PST |
The very question is illogical. Fantasy is not real, it is of the imagination and everyones imagination is different. You simulate based on real facts and circumstances. To simulate fantasy is merely to create more fantasy. |
etotheipi | 28 Sep 2017 9:06 a.m. PST |
It's actually very easy, hero units in games are easy to make, here the gameplay isn't about making anything realistic. It's easy to stat out heroes like that. It's not easy to still make it a game. All those other units of spearmen/orcs/elves/slaves/rats etc. Are just secondary units to support the hero, those units aren't made to stand up to a hero. And again, to stat them out like that is easy. But to make it a game is difficult. This is why lots of games end up having "cheese" in them. Some to a fatal degree. Not really, magic isn't plausible, it's something people just accept because it's fantastical/escapism not because it's plausible. Magic is plausible within the context of the milieu. You know what isn't plausible? The Charge of the Light Brigade. It was stupid. Unbelievably so. And while we have a handful of facts around what happened, there still is no coherent and accepted rationale. But the fact that you can't explain it isn't relevant. It happened. And since history is a one-shot, you have no way to really know how likely it was to happen and what changed circumstances could have changed the events. As long as things that did happen, can happen, that's all you need. |
Old Contemptibles | 29 Sep 2017 11:11 p.m. PST |
Real warfare is impossible to simulate. Historical battles, can be simulated in miniature if everything is done right. Board games do a better job of it. Fantasy is easy, you just make it up. |