Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: kafka

Erik,

thanks for your reply. I didn't want to put the value of those upcoming games in question. I'm sure they will provide high quality in regard to what they are designed to be. I explicitly referred to the design decision to make them operational only, what may be valid from your btw the developers' point of view. On other side, from my point of view, it's a disappointment, for none of those games is going to include the strategic layer (i.e. production, research and so on) I was hoping for and what I have enjoyed from their previous games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Guys,

There is a strategic layer in this game - it's similar to the action cards in AT but more historical. Among the things you can do with your PPs is choose among strategic options that affect how the operational battle is setup and unfolds and what the victory conditions are, gain intelligence on enemy strategic actions and things like weather and outright "purchase" additional reinforcements.

Also, this is not the sequel to AT, but it will feel very familiar to AT fans and I think you guys will enjoy it. AT2 is a separate future release.

Regards,

- Erik

quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

Seems like we're back to the preference discussion, and we all know there's no right answer to it . Maybe this discussion should be had in the General forum? It is an interesting one as all developers make their calls during the design process, and it could be interesting for them to hear the arguments for and against the different alternatives.

On the other hand, as Bartheart answered me in another thread in this forum: This is not AT2, so it's probably not 100% fair to compare with AT either?

quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

I applaud this game's operational focus. My regret is more YAGET (Yet Another Game on the European Theater). Why no truly operational WWII Pacific games? (Going beyond the obvious choices of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima to include, for example, standalone games on: Bougainville; Rendova/New Georgia; Solomons Campaign (in general); Papua/New Guinea; Malaysia/Singapore; Burma; Philippines 41-42; Philippines 44-45; and others.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1
Not ditzing the Pacific theatre for operational games, but weren't most of the contests you listed basically slugfests ? Lack maneuver. WOuld be like WWI, western front later in the war ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vasquez

Iam also disappointed about the lack of production. I thought the sequel of AT would be a kinda "Axis High Command Game". Seems we have to wait "a bit" more ;) But Ill buy this one anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kafka

Sorry to say this, but I'm disappointed. Another via matrix publishing developer who has decided to move from strategy to purely operational. After the great disappointment with the new war in the east by 2by3 which has crippled the strategy layer by removing all production, WCS abandonning the great strategic-tactical 2 layers model in favour of a series of a purely operational wargames, now VR Designs which seems to follow the same path. Maybe that's how the business model has to be because of god market allegedly requiring it, I don't know, but I'm getting the impression that's just about producing the greatest possible amount of products from one engine requiring the game design to be reduced to just the operational layer - anyway from my view, sorry I'm not one of those willing to take on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

For me the holy grail of team wargaming would be a system where all players can be doing their turn at the same time, then the files are "merged" into two master files and exchanged, or something similar.  This would solve largest problem with team games, the length of time it takes to get the file back, creating a less than idea turn around time for the files.  IF this could be done via programing, then you could have huge team games, and a chain of command several layers deep, from Theater to Army Group to Army to Corps, with all players trying to execute their higher commander's "intent", truly this would be a land mark game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

For me the holy grail of team wargaming would be a system where all players can be doing their turn at the same time, then the files are "merged" into two master files and exchanged, or something similar.  This would solve largest problem with team games, the length of time it takes to get the file back, creating a less than idea turn around time for the files.  IF this could be done via programing, then you could have huge team games, and a chain of command several layers deep, from Theater to Army Group to Army to Corps, with all players trying to execute their higher commander's "intent", truly this would be a land mark game.

I recall reading a review recently of a game where the PBEM system is handled on a single server and people log into theserver and complete their turn. The server displays the current status, and who's turn is pending. It's great from a visiblity standpoint, no more "who's got the turn" emails. It could also be extended to keeping stats on player response times. So you could know ahead of time who's quick with the turnarounds and who isn't.

The main drawback is of course your game is server based, and if the plug ever get's pulled on the server, or they decide to start charging just for server access, you lose.