Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
|
ravinhood: I'm not so against these games as you seem to be, mostly because I don't see a real difference between their timing and turn-based. I haven't bought either game for the same reason you have in that they're not my area of interest. I prefer something grander and was thinking of suggesting that very thing. I'm also not interested in airborne actions. They're fine as part of a grander scheme, but not as the entire point of a small battle IMO.
One thing I do have to say though about this pause-time sort of game. I definitely don't see any problem going through all my units as I would with turn-based and I definitely enjoy a "limited" amount of intelligence on my troops part. Take for example one of the differences between SPWAW and winSPWW2. In winSPWW2 it is possible that as you try to pull out a badly damaged tank, being practically the only thing holding back an entire 2 platoons of enemy tanks in a weakened sector, that as the first hex is pulled out, one of the enemy tanks reacts and fires at it (common to SPWAW at this point), BUT, the other tank you had further back reacts to that reaction and fires on it destroying it, freeing up the badly damaged one to get away. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Some sort of reaction somewhere beyond the stiff reaction of a single unit moving/firing and every unit gets to fire only on it and it alone. Something that shows they have something of a mind of their own. It can be quite entertaining like that at times, as the enemy might again react to the tank that fired the return fire, whom then might have another unit of mine react to that reaction. Sort of a ping-pong match at times. It's nice to, on occasion, have something occur that yanks the game slightly out of your control. Sort of something that happened between orders that you couldn't tell them quick enough. Of course part of the whole deal is that we want to command and be the driver/gunner of every unit both, but having a small departure as I explained is a welcome respite in my eyes.
The one sort of pause-time game, or whatever you call it, that I cannot stand, is, like you said, seemingly becoming more popular in wargaming circles. I played a game like that once, I think it was called Firefight. Awful graphics, but then it was basically supposed to be, but the guys running around like crazy totally beyond my control, seemingly without reason, was just too much for me to take and I deleted the game. It's true, if I wanted to spend maybe 10 hours grooming that game I might have found some reason to see a method in the madness, but letting my input be only very minimal, instead of their self-reaction being very minimal (if any) is pretty pointless to me. Something like that does have something of a point though, though grogs like us might end up controlling everything anyway. What I'm talking about is if you actually had a really massive army to control, and you couldn't possibly play the entire game giving every single order to every unit, so instead you might give every single order to an entire corp, or division, or what not, and then let the others be set to something of a minimal control on your part with you giving them a basic guideline. Clearly in our minds this sort of thing being the essence to an entire small scale battle is rejected, but being able to have total control to at least a good number of the units is key. If it's entirely a free-for-all then who cares?
One danger I do see, however, with the pause-time sort of game, even if you equivocate that with real-time as I try to, is that since the game can go endlessly without you doing anything, the temptation is to let it do just that. IOW, you can get lazy with it quite easily. Instead of living for the best placement of the units for a start, you live instead for the idea that they will go out and do this or that and that you will intervene only when they get really stupid or get in trouble.
I don't think you have a problem with units totally losing the ability to hear your orders, as we have seen this sort of thing with many common computer wargames (such as routed units being unable) but when you start off a game as I did with Firefight and they're going looney you're about as well off as watching someone else play a turn-based game, as the units do only what somebody else programmed them to do. Unfortuantely such a thing is even worse than watching someone else play turn-based, as at least watching the player of the turn-based he might latch onto a suggestion of yours now and again, but with somebody programming unit reaction largely indifferent to what you told them, you're not even playing the game really.
|
Printable Version
HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 
, but although I have considerable experience with turn based games the only continuous game I have played is HPS Guadalcanal. 
RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 
You know for someone who states things in very emphatic terms you are hyper senstitive when challenged. It would appear that "the whole simulation" is not the only thing you "want total control" over. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread