Because Combat Mission is an actual video game analogue of Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader instead of a video game version of pushing chits around and rolling dice.
Also, there are several clones of ASL that are published by various wargaming publishers such as Slitherine: Lock'n'Load Tactical, etc.
And Atomic Games' Close Combat before that, originally announced as Beyond Squad Leader, meant to be a digital sequel of Avalon Hill’s Advanced Squad Leader (ASL) board war game franchise. However the relationship failed Atomic and Avalon Hill parted ways. Atomic renamed the project Close Combat, and continued development and released in 1996. Source: https://nodicenoglory.com/2021/03/08/25-year-retrospective-o...
To me, Combat Mission was the 3D successor to 2D Close Combat - so a direct line of inheritance from ASL.
I played a ton of ASL when I was a kid. And I loved Microsoft Close Combat. To me, they haven't been replaced by anything remotely similar.
I just had a look at Combat Mission and it's not the same. I don't want crappy polygons in the shape of tanks and people. I want an overhead map, with maybe hexes, but some kind of overhead map. From what I can tell Combat Mission looks nothing like the glory of hexagonal combat I had with Avalon Hill games as a kid.
I could play via Vassal or some other game engine, but the nice part about having it in a video game is I don't have to know all the rules. And I can play against AIs. Even if the AIs are crappy they let you practice.
So personally I would love a video game version of ASL. I still have fond memories of Close Combat and would love a game like that again.
Combat Mission is generally meant to be played turn-based, and commands given to squads are issued on a grid. You can watch the entire action unfold in replay while determining your next move, so you don’t miss anything.
It’s almost identical in concept, and the simulation is much much deeper than it appears.
I recommend trying a demo instead of judging by looks, it is not at all a pretty game but it’s got a lot going on.
I still have a few Close Combat games installed. They are often on sale on GOG so I play those versions now instead of my old CDROMs. Microsoft Close Combat 2 A Bridge Too Far is still my favorite in the series.
Recently I discovered Armored Brigade that feels in many ways like a modern Close Combat. It has much bigger maps and you will spend most time zoomed out so that units are replaced with NATO map symbols, but when zoomed in it looks a lot like Close Combat and the NATO symbols fade away and are replaced by animated images of little tanks and soldiers. There is a sequel supposedly planned for 2023.
For all its limitations, Close Combat hit a sweet spot of cartoonish realism that made it immersive and fun. Combat mission is a much better simulation, but less joyful.
As for hexagons, my cup of tea was The Operational Art of War - hexagons a couple kilometers wide was plenty enough details and getting down in the weeds with Advanced Squad Leader felt like too much tedium to me... So I'm not a good appreciator of ASL's fine qualities !
I think the main reason is that VASSAL-VASL (https://vasl.info/) has 90% of the features of a video game and is free. It has all the counters, maps, charts and guides -all that is missing is the rules and the scenario cards. MMP sells a searchable pdf version of the rules for cheap online and the vast majority of players are happy to share scenario cards if their opponent doesn't have it.
The ASL community is way too small for a profitable port.
Look at the recent GMT ports from Playdeck and others (Labyrinth, Fort Sumter, Twilight Struggle, the Commands & Colors ports) did any of them make their budgets back?
I'd rather play most of these through VASSAL. You get take backs, plus if you mess up the rules it's your fault, not some anonymous coder who doesn't know the rules either.
I've been playing digital Blood Bowl recently and it really feels terrible compared to playing it on the tabletop or through VASSAL. A 1 in 6 chance your guy falls over while rushing is punishing. But, when you get to roll the dice yourself, even a failure is a moment of tension that ends with in story beat.
Squad leader is the biggest beast of them all in this space. The base rules run over a hundred pages, without including the historical notes. If you are interested in ASL as a tactical, squad-level game, you should start with Starter Kit #1, which is only $28:
If you want something lighter, Memoir '44 is much much lighter, but still good, and there is a whole series of games that use that system. In the middle would be something like Combat Commander: Europe, which is squad-level, but uses cards rather than the detailed rules that ASL does. Here's the BGG list of wargames, ranked: https://boardgamegeek.com/wargames/browse/boardgame
I'd highly recommend Memoir '44. It's a hybrid board war game and card game, in that you have units moving on aboard, but you also draw command cards and use them to play combinations of moves.
Seconded. A lot of success in the game depends on the luck of the draw in where your units are placed and the cards you get, but the games are varied and quick (~45 minutes or so for the first scenarios.) It's not too unusual to play three matches in an evening.
Squad Leader is complicated and IMHO not a good first introduction to board games. I'm sure people can give you other suggestions. How old is your son? What other board games has he played? What computer games does he like?
Well, I was playing wargames around 14 years old. Squad Leader (the original Squad Leader, vs modern Advanced Squad Leader (ASL)), Star Fleet Battles, Russian Campaign, Luftwaffe.
Mind, that's when I was introduced to them, so I probably could have played them earlier. I do recall my brother having the game Kingmaker from Avalon Hill, but we never played it.
I should also note that we played these games, but I can't say we played them well.
The original Squad Leader was notable for having a rich system, but a progressive path to learning through several scenarios that added on more and more of the rules as you proceeded through the scenarios. ASL is much more complicated than that.
But I will also say that the benefit of tactical systems, vs larger strategic games, is that you CAN just learn a little bit of the game. Specifically, you only need to understand the basic mechanics (and for many, the fundamental mechanics are usually pretty basic), and then only the systems you'll be using in a particular scenario. For example, if you're just using squads of men, you don't need to understand all of the armor rules.
Another example is Star Fleet Battles (not known by anyone as an "easy" game). SFB has over a dozen different fleets and powers in the game (Federation, Klingon, Romulan, etc.) with different ships and weapon systems. But if you're just playing with Feds and Klingons, half the rule book vanishes as you don't need to know about the vast array of systems and interactions.
ASL is a complex game, to be sure. But a lot of the complexity is in how it represents the capabilities of the different powers and their orders of battle. But, to be fair, it would take a fairly experienced player to whittle down the essentials necessary for basic play. But you could learn the basics in a 1/2 hour.
However, table top wargaming is VAST in the eras they represent, the battles, the scenarios and conflicts. There's some core mechanics that many games share (movement points, zones of control, odds based combat tables, etc.). Learn those once, and it can carry across a wide variety of games. Some publisher do use a core ruleset even for diverse eras that you can learn once and just focus on the special rules for the games or scenarios.
There are certainly games for novice and young players with simple mechanics that could work, I'm just not the person to recommend them, as I'm particularly out of touch with modern gaming. I'm sure someone on Boardgame Geek could offer modern suggestions.
Games like Ogre do come to mind, the original "Microgame". There's also a large array of games borderline toys that use fantastic miniatures.
I'm an old school grognard. I like pushing square chits around hex grids vs dropping $$$ on, mind, very nice, miniatures and such for a game.
But I can step out and look at someone coming up to a pair of people, staring at blue, plain hexagon map, with a couple of 1/2" counters on it, a few pairs of dice, tables and sheets of paper, and yelling at each other, passionately, over a rules, uh, "discussion" and wonder what the big deal is. At a glance, it certainly isn't necessarily compelling.
> The original Squad Leader was notable for having a rich system, but a progressive path to learning through several scenarios that added on more and more of the rules as you proceeded through the scenarios. ASL is much more complicated than that.
ASL now has a series of "Starter Kits" which provide this progressive path pretty well. There's also Chapter K from the ruleboook, but Starter Kit is a better path, and less expensive.
I randomly started playing/learning ASL at the beginning of the pandemic. Randomly because I’d always disliked hex and counter games; they looked dreadfully boring, couldn’t compete with the latest Kickstarted razzmatazz, and also, only old dudes seemed to play it. Still, somehow..
I bought Starter Kit #1, found an opponent/teacher on Vassal, and was hooked. I finally grokked the idea that beyond all the WWII chrome, this was essentially a puzzle game, which I loved.
I have a PS5 and XBoxX. I don’t want to play ASL on a console, or a computer (although technically I do when on Vassal). There’s something about the head to head play, the tactile natire of the counters, the maps, etc, that’s part of why I enjoy it.
Sure, would a computer version enable things like not needing a 3-ring binder of rules (and supplements), endless cases of counters (storage is a well-known sub-hobby for many)…of course! An AI opponent for solitaire play? Yes! Would it be the same? No.
Part of the ‘skill’ of a given player is just on how well they know the rules, and extremely good ones figure out clever exploits, just like programmers. It takes some doing - as others have mentioned, there’s a lot of rules, they’ve had decades to refine, clarify, specify them; they are mind-bogglingly comprehensive.
The other thing I’ve noticed is that ASL players tend to be collectors. They like the boxes of stuff, the thousands of official, 3rd-party, and home brewed scenarios, the maps covered in tilting piles of cardboard chits. The aforementioned futzing about with storage solutions, and developing opinions on such things as corner-clipping and map-laminating. They attend tournaments to make new friends and see old ones, and to luxuriate in the time spent fighting these paper wars.
How would a computer version improve on any of that?
Of course you'll need new maps, unit tokens, and scenarios custom to your clone.
I know it is easier said than done, but, rightsholders sit on obscure IP like a dragon on a hoard. If they DID make a new game based on this Squad Leader game, it probably wouldn't be the same game.
Quick edit from reading another post: If one just wants to play VASL looks like what one would want. Reimplementation of the rules in another engine, boom.
As much as I like Squad Leader, does it make sense to make a computer version? If you want to play online, you can already use VASL.
On the other hand, there have been very successful computer games inspired by board wargames, most notably probably Panzer General (and its successor Panzer Corps). If I could play ASL like that, I'd definitely buy it.
Because we now have better things, leveraging the power of modern computers? Mius Front, Armored Brigade, Command Ops, Flashpoint Campaigns, Close Combat, ...
from the article, they bought it along with diplomacy as a package, and then diplomacy tanked so there is no reason to suspect they are actively working on it.
Also, there are several clones of ASL that are published by various wargaming publishers such as Slitherine: Lock'n'Load Tactical, etc.