RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? - 1/21/2011 10:12:56 PM

warishere

Posts: 53
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

quote:

I'm not sure what the final OOBs were througout the course of the war but I can imagine it being pretty close to even...

Before we go any further here, let me get this right...

While Germany is struggling vs the immense numbers and manpower from Russia, while at the same time under harsh penalties due to multiple fronts & flanks vs the allies, you still argue that things were pretty even?

Does the same go for the French in their defeats a century earlier as well?

*gulp*

uhhhhhh.... hmmmm....

I am referring to the very begining of the war and shortly after Italy and Japan formed an alliance with Germany. From that moment, it was pretty evenly matched. The germans had a very sizeable military when they invaded Poland. But as the war progressed it started to favor the allies in terms of overall numbers but that was mainly because the allies were winning battles. The most succesful operations for Germany happened early in the war when they had numbers and supperior technology. From about 1940-1942 it was a very evenly matched war, it could have gone either way but the axis made too many strategic errors and this allowed the allies to gain the upper hand. Not to mention that winning the battle of the atlantic was a HUGE turning point in the war. At that time germany figured the best alternative was operation barbarossa. Which in theory, could have worked for germany but Hitler made several strategic errors in this campaign. At any rate, I'm sure you know what happened, no point in giving out a history lesson on it.

My main point is, if you combine all of the OOBs for Italy, Japan and Germany from 1939 to 1943, you have a pretty evenly matched war. However, I'm not totally positive on this since I can't find any overall total OOBs for WWII on google. So, I am going by my own knowledge of WWII.

If anyone can post it, it would be an interesting read.

(in reply to Obsolete)

Post #: 61

RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? - 1/21/2011 10:23:38 PM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

If a war game does not have a reasonable level of historical accuracy which can lead only to plausible events, then I have no interest in it. I see no point in hanging out in a forum and bad mouthing a game because it does not suit my taste. I have done that a very few times in the OT forum, but only as a response to someone making an absurd comparison or inaccurate statement about a game. There are some that thrive on that behavior-bad mouthing games they have never even played (based upon their own grossly inaccurate statements).

Posting playability complaints should be viewed as a duty by players-assuming they want a better game in the future. To not say anything about glaring errors or bugs is a strange idea-it might upset someone?

As the programmer mentioned in this thread, the method of pointing out the problem is important-no need to be a punk. If the game just totally sucks, what is the point in trying to change it? Then it is time to move on.

_____________________________

Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.

Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 62

RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? - 1/21/2011 10:23:39 PM

warishere

Posts: 53
Joined: 2/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Obsolete

quote:

...would anyone enjoy playing a game based on Operation Desert Storm? I wouldn't because it was a total massacre for one side.

This actually has been done, I remember now in my collection of 90's wargames, I have Semper FI.

Re-reading the back labeling though it seems to describe scenarios for South America, but IIRC the scenarios are exact replica scenarios for O-D-S (but tweaked more for balance).� Perhaps the publisher (Magic Interactive) didn't want to offend anyone so changed the descriptions?

Anyhow, I actually started to really like that wargame, but there were only a limited number of scenarios sadly, and there isn't any ladder clubs still around for it.

I do remember a few games, both wargames and arcade games, that came out based on ODS. I doubt they were very popular though. And why would that one game include a south american scenario?

The thing is, I wouldn't want to play a ODS game because the Abrams is such an advanced tank that it would be pointless to play a game based on that operation. If I rememmber correctly, the Americans only lost like 3 tanks, thats right ONLY 3, in that operation. The Iraqi tank commanders were just commiting suicide in that war. They had no chance at all to win.

(in reply to Obsolete)

Post #: 63

RE: Criticism: Is it improving or killing our games? - 1/21/2011 11:52:20 PM

Obsolete

Posts: 1492
Joined: 9/4/2007
Status: offline

I'll try to dig out the manual somewhere from my library and get more into details on that one. The game may not have been WIDELY KNOWN, but it was for a brief time in the wargaming community before it just disappeared like the way of Talonsoft :P We do realize that not every title can be a Panzer General classic. Anyhow, it was developed by Stanley Associates, I'll get back with more details later on.

_____________________________