1. Legend (How to Interpret Ratings and Data)
4. Periods
a. Pre-20th Century:
PART I (A-C),
PART II (D-M), PART III (N-S),
PART IV (T-Z, #)
b. 1900-1950:
PART I (A-B), PART II (C-E), PART III (F-N), PART IV (O-S), PART V (T-Z, #)
c. 1950-2000:
PART I (A-E), PART
II (F-I), PART III (J-R), PART IV
(S-Z, #)
d. 2000-Future:
PART I (A-D), PART
II (E-M), PART III (N-Z, #)
e. Economic
f. Other
(xxx = Data not available)
LINE 1: TITLE
LINE 2: (Machine Format [(A)tari / (C)ommodore / (Ap)ple II / (T)RS-80 / II(GS) / (Am)iga / (ST) / (M)acintosh / (I)BM / CD(- ROM)]); [I CD = only available on CD; I/CD = available on both disk and CD; I-95 (Win 95 only); I/95 (DOS and Win95)](Company/Designer/Date of Publication)
Rating: 0 = Good use as a magnet holder
* = Avoid
** = Marginal
*** = Average to Good
**** = Very Good
***** = Highly Recommended
LINE 3: Difficulty
(Beg)inner/(Int)ermediate/(Adv)anced
Environment (Land)/(Nav)al/(Air)/(Dip)lomatic/(Econ)omic
Level (Tac)tical/(Op)erational/(Str)ategic
# of Players; M(odem)
Tactical : man-to-man up to company level (turns represent
seconds to hours)
Operational: battalion-level to division-level (turns represent hours to weeks)
Strategic : corps-level to theater army or higher (turns represent weeks to years)
Fire Team 2- 3
Squad 9- 12
Platoon 40- 50
Company 120- 150
Battalion 500- 1,000
Brigade 3,000- 5,000
Division 10,000-15,000
Corps 20,000-80,000
Army 100,000-up
PREFACE: Traditionally, boardgame designer Richard Berg's "3-N Theory" of game design held true for almost thirty years -- i.e., "Nazis, Nukes or NATO" had the best marketability prospects. Noted computer wargame designer Ed Bever added the "Bever Corollary", in which the subject matter of pre-20th century subjects had to be limited to feudalism (a la role-playing), American Civil War, Napoleon, and a dash of Rome.
Actually, the pre-20th century had been a period mostly ignored by the computer designer. But with the demise of the Soviet Union and the lack of a viable opponent, the United States Department of Defense and the wargaming community bemoan the lack of "interesting" contemporary simulations (bringing to mind the rationale behind the Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times"). While the military forces of the United States cannot look backward to a distant past, no such restraints fetter the civilian wargamer. Thus, like Barbara Tuchman's Through a Distant Mirror, the wargamer is freer to cast back in history for interesting times and the designers have responded.
Hypothetical Soviet-NATO confrontations simply lack marketability now, while Balkan interventions have the appeal of overripe compost; and if one can come up with a timely topic (e.g., the economic collapse of the Soviet Union a la CRISIS IN THE KREMLIN), actual events can render it obsolete before the code is completed. The "New World Order" is characterized by a lack thereof, and until a viable other world military-industrial complex evolves that is "truly" fearsome, contemporary designs may well avoid strategic perspectives.
World War II offers more titles than any other period; before the Soviet Union imploded, contemporary wargames were gaining rapidly. However, today the only aspect of contemporary wargame emphasis is on simulation-types (e.g., tank, helicopter, airplane). The problem with simulations is that the state-of-the-art changes so rapidly. While one might be able to play and enjoy a two to three year old operational "wargame", a flight simulation of the same age would appear outmoded and archaic. So if computer games age quickly, simulations tend to have the half-lives of fresh fish.
Today, there is no question that the computer market is dominated by the PC. During the 8-bit era, games had to be produced for different machine types, each of which was completely incompatible with its competitors. Eventually, MS-DOS achieved a virtual domination of the market only to be superseded by Windows 95. Windows 95 does not pose the incompatibility problems that MS-DOS had, but many MS-DOS programs no longer run in the Windows 95 environment. Clock speeds increase arithmetically while game size increases exponentially (16K games in the "Old Days" have been replaced by 100 megabyte goliaths). The 5.25"-inch disk has been replaced by the 3.5" disk which has in turn been replaced by the CD. In terms of cost, the gamer must anticipate an annual expenditure of c. $1,000 in order to "stay current"; in effect, a new generation machine is born every 3-5 years.
It is doubtful if the computer world will ever develop its classics like "Monopoly" of the boardgame genre. Those games that do achieve classic status will only be seen by newer generations of users if the simulations are "converted" into newer machine formats.
Please note platform availability; a five-star game on an Atari 800 that is several years old may not possess the same sophistication as a new product designed for a Pentium 200. Of course, designers look askance at ratings; they are intrinsically subjective, and a discriminating reader should be able to temper the author's ratings in order to ascertain the inherent biases.
Pricing data has been omitted, since older games are so heavily discounted, assuming they can be found at all. Prices shift downwards rapidly, and the latest trend has been to produce multiple products ("shovelware") on a single CD, thereby making pricing data even more inaccurate.
The period 2000-? has proven to be the most difficult to define because so many science fiction simulations are role-playing games or arcade "shoot-em-ups". Where a strategy game begins and a "shoot-em-up" or role-playing game ends is an unceasing problem of definition. I have tried to cover those simulations that emphasize the former aspects and do not rely on quick reflexes or intensive role-playing (with certain exceptions, based on editorial and/or personal choice).
Futuristic simulations have a tendency to "blend" into one another; after all, what is the basic difference in a game based on destroying Krellans or Kzinti or whatevers? Modern space simulations are placed in their historical milieu. This still leaves certain "problem" areas -- e.g., STRIKE COMMANDER is futuristic, but the aircraft and flight mechanics are more akin to a contemporary flight simulator. I have placed it in science fiction solely because of its ostensible time frame; the rare fantasy simulation is covered (e.g., DRAGONSTRIKE) simply because it does not fit into another period.
Futuristic simulations must create their own environments. While a historical product has an underlying reality which assists in creating the "mood", the futuristic product must do so by itself without an external reference. This often presents a problem -- an attractive game today can grow obsolete faster than a historical simulation simply because it does not have the intrinsic linchpin of reality. Of course, this also allows the designer a great deal of latitude; how he handles his created world will determine how long-lived a product he develops. Certain "futures" have their own reality (e.g., Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune) due to their literary roots; this can make the "universe" easier to recognize, but simultaneously run the risk of not living up to the user's expectations.
Economic simulations have their own category. While some of these are "historical", if they did not involve military conflict, then they are placed in their own category. Similarly, "other" is a category for anything else, including games which cover several milieus or are conversions from other genres (e.g., boardgames, cardgames, etc.)
Finally, there is the issue of genre "bleed-over". If CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN is considered a wargame (which it was when initially released), then CASTLE WOLFENSTEIN 3-D must be rated as a similar type. Logically, then DOOM and DUKE NUKEM also fall within the selected parameters. Does this mean that QUAKE, DIABLO and the other shooters then must also have to be included? As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once noted, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough" (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 {1927}).
If any readers have additions/corrections/modifications, please e-mail them to me.