Things we want in wargames

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Things we want in wargames

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 >> Things we want in wargames

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 5:27:12 PM

Kuokkanen

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

There can be more than one ideal.
So we should share our ideals...
Pool our ideals under one giant tree...

Or in this case, under one giant thread. The kind of things and ideals that makes game developers say: "We could use that."

Many operational scale wargames have units with some special abilities, like reconnaissance in TOAW serie. But TOAW and many other historical operational scale wargames seem to be missing some special abilities that - in my opinion - should be in there but aren't. More precisely, special abilities not part of just units, but nationality. What is first thing that comes to mind? That's right: Blitzkrieg. Operational scale wargame, Operation Barbarossa, we open status window of german panzer division, we see Reconnaissance #, Anti-armor #, but we don't see Blitzkrieg. Could someone make a game that includes Blitzkrieg in there?

What about other nations? Finnish Defense Forces learned Blitzkrieg from Germany and used it in counter attacks with great success. Furthermore by 1944 Finland had developed most advanced artillery fire control system that lands every shell from every weapon within range at the same time with good accuracy under 5 minutes. That special ability for finnish artillery. Though we could substitute it with better experience for finnish artillery units... Partisans of Red Army had one trick up their sleeve to break through encriclements: partisans form 2 columns and charge while shooting suppressive fire. Finnish guerrilla forces adopted that with some delay. USA Army had Tank Destroyer Doctrine, which is perfect fit for USA's tank destroyer battalions.

< Message edited by Matti Kuokkanen -- 5/19/2014 6:29:36 PM >

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

Post #: 1

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 7:25:26 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

There can be more than one ideal.
So we should share our ideals...
Pool our ideals under one giant tree...

Or in this case, under one giant thread. The kind of things and ideals that makes game developers say: "We could use that."

Many operational scale wargames have units with some special abilities, like reconnaissance in TOAW serie. But TOAW and many other historical operational scale wargames seem to be missing some special abilities that - in my opinion - should be in there but aren't. More precisely, special abilities not part of just units, but nationality. What is first thing that comes to mind? That's right: Blitzkrieg. Operational scale wargame, Operation Barbarossa, we open status window of german panzer division, we see Reconnaissance #, Anti-armor #, but we don't see Blitzkrieg. Could someone make a game that includes Blitzkrieg in there?

What about other nations? Finnish Defense Forces learned Blitzkrieg from Germany and used it in counter attacks with great success. Furthermore by 1944 Finland had developed most advanced artillery fire control system that lands every shell from every weapon within range at the same time with good accuracy under 5 minutes. That special ability for finnish artillery. Though we could substitute it with better experience for finnish artillery units... Partisans of Red Army had one trick up their sleeve to break through encriclements: partisans form 2 columns and charge while shooting suppressive fire. Finnish guerrilla forces adopted that with some delay. USA Army had Tank Destroyer Doctrine, which is perfect fit for USA's tank destroyer battalions.

warspite1

1. Whatever the game - please pay attention to aesthetics. Maps and counters are VITAL.
2. Don't clutter the interface and overwhelm players.
3. NATO counter style preferable
4. Easy to read - PON is a classic example of making the script just too damn difficult to read.
5. And above all, remember mr programmer, I am a member of the General Discussion forum - I DON'T UNDERSTAND COMPLEX GAMES. Please keep it real simple for me...

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 2

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 7:28:16 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
5. And above all, remember mr programmer, I am a member of the General Discussion forum - I DON'T UNDERSTAND COMPLEX GAMES. Please keep it real simple for me...

He's right.

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 3

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 7:59:12 PM

Kuokkanen

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

5. And above all, remember mr programmer, I am a member of the General Discussion forum - I DON'T UNDERSTAND COMPLEX GAMES. Please keep it real simple for me...

There are simple games like Panzer Corps. Please don't make make this thread a joke

On otherhand, I'd like to play realistic wargame that has tons of different weapons and statistics in many scenarios, but is still easy to play. TOAW3 is closest thing for that I have found, but I'd like to have some more variables for the units, more realism in general, but with equally simple gameplay. And done it right: in TOAW3 PT-76 Light Amphibious Tank isn't amphibious by default

< Message edited by Matti Kuokkanen -- 5/19/2014 8:59:50 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 4

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 8:15:49 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
but we don't see Blitzkrieg.

Blitzkrieg isn�t really a trait an individual unit should get when you are talking about an operational level wargame. A strategic level wargame makes sense, due to the fact unit scales are so large, but an operational game of division or smaller scale wouldn�t make sense due to the fact units needed help from other unit types to perform a blitzkrieg. After all a blitzkrieg was a combined arms cooperative strategy that saw many different elements of a Corp along with air assets used in the operation.

So I don�t see how giving individual units a blitzkrieg bonus makes sense at operational level as most of the needed unit types are their own separate unit and would have been unable to perform the tactic on their own. I think the ability for units to cooperate is the best way to model blitzkrieg at operational levels, and giving units that are attacking together a blitzkrieg bonus based on nationality and year would make a lot more sense. Of course all needed elements would have to be present for the bonus to apply, but if present it should be a very large bonus in the early years of the war.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 5/20/2014 5:01:06 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 5

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 8:46:45 PM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

Need to get away from historical and more whatif's. That leads to lots of random maps and random army groups made up. But, allow for more than one commander per side so I can take a company or platoon or squad instead of control the whole army. That's why I like Norbsoft's games so much I can be just about any commander I feel like. Be it full army or right down to an artillery detachment, even just a single regiment would be fun to play sometimes. Sometimes I just want to be part of a game/battle not control every aspect of it.

Keep real time real time not 1 sec equals 1 minute or 1 hour or 1 day of real time. If it's going to be an RTS game.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 6

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 8:58:42 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

I want to be able to build my own units. Decide what is in each at all levels. ATG allows that to a degree.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 7

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 9:05:17 PM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I want to be able to build my own units. Decide what is in each at all levels. ATG allows that to a degree.

On that thought I want to be able to do that and name my units and build my squads.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 8

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/19/2014 11:08:13 PM

Max 86

Posts: 699
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline

1. More squad to company level games i.e. squad leader type (before you say COH and LnL, read #4)

2. Release games in better condition. No more 'release and wait for the patch' BS

3. More naval games from all eras, sail, steam and nuclear

4. Make tactical games with a larger focus instead of punishing players with limited OOBs from only two countries (its always Russia and Germany

) and a handful of scenarios (i.e. make games similar to Age of Rifles, Steel Panthers, etc.)

5. Make games moddable and make modding easier instead of the confusing fiasco most games are today. Include both map makers and OOB editors at a minimum.

6. Make games with campaigns where your force carry over from one battle to the next. I have no idea why developers say this is so hard since it was done back in the 1990s!

7. This is a biggie - include a music player in the game that allows you to play a string of song files that you chose instead of adding a music track that gets turned off after the first couple of hours of play.

< Message edited by Max 86 -- 5/20/2014 12:09:13 AM >

_____________________________

No problem Chief!

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 9

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 12:40:06 AM

Perturabo

Posts: 2614
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Need to get away from historical and more whatif's.

Exactly. For example what if Warhammer 40k was real?

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Keep real time real time not 1 sec equals 1 minute or 1 hour or 1 day of real time. If it's going to be an RTS game.

A RTS game with 1 sec = 1 sec scale would be incredibly frustrating with 1 minute of usual RTS game lasting 1 day or a week or something like that.
RTS are strategic games. That is stuff like Empire moved into *compressed* real time with *compressed* scale.

_____________________________

People shouldn't ask themselves why schools get shoot up.
They should ask themselves why people who finish schools burned out due to mobbing aren't receiving high enough compensations to not seek vengeance.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 10

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 12:46:10 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

I do not support real time games. Well with limits. I like HOI and all its incarnations and I enjoy Total war where the strategic is turn based and the battles can be real time.

But most real time games are simply click fests where the game devolves into learning the cheapest reasonably powerful unit to build quickly to swamp the other guy.

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 11

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 1:03:13 AM

Rosseau

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline

Yes, that would be what we don't want in a wargame. There's nothing more frustrating than an RTS with all these stats and depth - and because of the pace, it all comes down to a tank rush. Codename Panzers Cold War - what an awesome TBS game that would have made.

Back on topic, I'd say the option to give orders while paused for RTS-type wargames. Also, an in-game editor like Distant Worlds has is nice. Advanced Tactics Gold probably comes closest to what the OP wants...so far. But its editor is a bit of a bear.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 12

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 1:09:00 AM

Perturabo

Posts: 2614
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

I do not support real time games. Well with limits. I like HOI and all its incarnations and I enjoy Total war where the strategic is turn based and the battles can be real time.

But most real time games are simply click fests where the game devolves into learning the cheapest reasonably powerful unit to build quickly to swamp the other guy.

The main problem with RTS is that the genre has degenerated into bizarre stuff like Dawn of War and Company of Heroes as a way of "increasing realism" (without understanding what RTS is in the first place) instead of moving towards more realism inside its scale - units being in specific size (for example divisions or brigades or even regiments) with known composition down to single squads (like in WiTE) and taking into account stuff like supply, reinforcements, planning, AI commanders, etc.
With time similarly representing some specific period of time.

_____________________________

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 13

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 3:05:01 AM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

5. And above all, remember mr programmer, I am a member of the General Discussion forum - I DON'T UNDERSTAND COMPLEX GAMES. Please keep it real simple for me...

There are simple games like Panzer Corps. Please don't make make this thread a joke

On otherhand, I'd like to play realistic wargame that has tons of different weapons and statistics in many scenarios, but is still easy to play. TOAW3 is closest thing for that I have found, but I'd like to have some more variables for the units, more realism in general, but with equally simple gameplay. And done it right: in TOAW3 PT-76 Light Amphibious Tank isn't amphibious by default

warspite1

I'm not making this thread a joke

I gave four examples that are important to me personally in answer to your question, and one, obviously lighthearted comment, in response to a certain person(s) pathetic self righteousness. I think you can sort out the latter from the former......

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to Kuokkanen)

Post #: 14

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 3:49:49 AM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Need to get away from historical and more whatif's.

Exactly. For example what if Warhammer 40k was real?

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Keep real time real time not 1 sec equals 1 minute or 1 hour or 1 day of real time. If it's going to be an RTS game.

A RTS game with 1 sec = 1 sec scale would be incredibly frustrating with 1 minute of usual RTS game lasting 1 day or a week or something like that.
RTS are strategic games. That is stuff like Empire moved into *compressed* real time with *compressed* scale.

If Norbsoft can do it (scourge of war) then others can as well too. Everything doesn't have to be an empire builder or world war to be played out in a few hours instead of a few days. Besides lots of games take days and months to play anyways, especially empire builders and world war games.

< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 5/20/2014 4:50:52 AM >

(in reply to Perturabo)

Post #: 15

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 8:07:10 AM

NikiAlex

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/15/2014
From: Bulgaria
Status: offline

My perfect one would be:

Easy control of the units and equipment.
Customization, upgrades and experience are very nice features.
At least some basic RPG element for the commanders or key characters.
Intuitive UI.
Some freedom of camera movement.
Challenging AI.
Interesting story line!
Free of game breaking bugs!

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 16

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 9:46:18 AM

Perturabo

Posts: 2614
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

If Norbsoft can do it (scourge of war) then others can as well too. Everything doesn't have to be an empire builder or world war to be played out in a few hours instead of a few days. Besides lots of games take days and months to play anyways, especially empire builders and world war games.

Yeah, but Scourge of War a tactical real time simulation. RTS aren't real time simulations - they are real time strategy. They are strategic games. You know. Production, resources, fighting over production and resources. That kind of stuff. You can't have that sort of stuff happening in 1:1 second time. Otherwise a campaign could last months or years of playing time with nothing interesting happening for whole days of playing time.

By the way, some time ago, I wrote an AAR from my mod for an actual RTS that does some of the stuff (though nowhere near enough) that I was talking about:
http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=711

_____________________________

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 17

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 11:23:15 AM

DSWargamer

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline

KISS principle actually understood.

I didn't start wargaming with something looking like War in the East or Fire in the East. I began with Tactics II and Third Reich.

Insisting a new game look like a full set of ASL or a fully evolved Steel Panthers on launch is inherently stupid.

Insisting something looking simple makes it dummied down, well A. you are insulting the people responsible for giving the hobby a future and B. it is possible some of our ultra mega sophisticated games are actually the dumb ones.

I'd rather be playing a game of Panzer Corps or Battle Academy knowing I have a chance of finishing it, instead of trying to convince myself playing War in the East or World in Flames won't take so long I can barely expect to play through a game before the next update is released.

Just because you can get enough addicts like myself to buy a copy of the game, doesn't always mean it was a success. It's a success if people are still playing it in 10 years, and it is one of the greats if people are still playing it in 20 years. So until it is 2020 something, the verdict is going to be still out on which games were the better ones :)

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to Perturabo)

Post #: 18

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 12:09:10 PM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

Innovative and new game mechanics. Less of the reskinning the same engine over and over again.

< Message edited by wodin -- 5/20/2014 1:09:50 PM >

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to DSWargamer)

Post #: 19

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 12:31:52 PM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

You know. Production, resources, fighting over production and resources. That kind of stuff.

Perhaps you missed this in my previous statement.

quote:

Everything doesn't have to be an empire builder or world war to be played out in a few hours

If you must be precise then take out strategy in RTS and make it simulated RTS.....no matter how you slice it it's still RTS.

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 20

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 12:35:02 PM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

Insisting a new game look like a full set of ASL or a fully evolved Steel Panthers on launch is inherently stupid.

Your opinion, and don't call me stupid.

Nothing I want more than an actual computer version of Squad Leader or Advance Squad Leader. I see no harm or wrong in wanting that. Don't say it's impossible to make or program because everything is possible given enough time. Even the making of this long overdue game from board to computer.

Playing a game 10-20 years old good to great eh? So that confirms Master of Magic, Master or Orion, X-Com, War of the Lance, Sword of Aragon, Warlords and Civilization are great games?

All my games so I guess I was right.

< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 5/20/2014 1:39:54 PM >

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 21

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 12:35:59 PM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Innovative and new game mechanics. Less of the reskinning the same engine over and over again.

AMEN! to that. (applaud Wodin)

(in reply to wodin)

Post #: 22

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 3:15:57 PM

Perturabo

Posts: 2614
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

quote:

You know. Production, resources, fighting over production and resources. That kind of stuff.

Perhaps you missed this in my previous statement.

quote:

Everything doesn't have to be an empire builder or world war to be played out in a few hours

If you must be precise then take out strategy in RTS and make it simulated RTS.....no matter how you slice it it's still RTS.

You can't take out strategy and still have RTS. Because RTS is Real Time Strategy.

_____________________________

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 23

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 3:18:05 PM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

quote:

You know. Production, resources, fighting over production and resources. That kind of stuff.

Perhaps you missed this in my previous statement.

quote:

Everything doesn't have to be an empire builder or world war to be played out in a few hours

If you must be precise then take out strategy in RTS and make it simulated RTS.....no matter how you slice it it's still RTS.

You can't take out strategy and still have RTS. Because RTS is Real Time Strategy.

What authority says?

I've never read that in my life by anyone of AUTHORITY to describe a game. That RTS HAS to mean real time strategy.

(in reply to Perturabo)

Post #: 24

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 3:35:17 PM

CapnDarwin

Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline

I have to ask based on Wodin's statement, what is new and innovative mechanics? Let's throw graphics out. It's not a mechanic and you can always make things prettier. What specifically would you guys consider as new or innovative?

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 25

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 5:26:35 PM

DanSez

Posts: 1023
Joined: 2/5/2012
Status: offline

The Scale of the game -- I don't think is as much the question as sometimes I like to play a squad/small scale tactical games and others times I want to launch a world conquest strategic level mega campaign.

It is more what keeps you playing a game:

1. Easy of use (ability to execute and understand how to do what you want)
User Interface, readability of colors choices --- jeeze some game screens have black over olive green -- pain in the ass. Simple clear information/click/list with a programmable set of F(keys) or customizable drop down list(s) for mouse/pad games.

2. AI assistants to hand off parts of the game (including move/attack/patrol orders) and as I learn more of the game, I can take more control of these sections if I wish.

3. For the games of larger scope, the ability to custom filter and sort game data. The ability to export game data into excel for the hard core grognards who want to plan the full economy and supply and unit composition on games of that scope.

4. Yes, the ability to mod units/setups/leaders/game values of attack/def/supply - and add new maps.

5. If not RTS, then WEGO format where both sides give orders and then the sheep hits the fan. I prefer WEGO over RTS personally, but IGOUG types is more like stand and slugging each other in the face, one turn at a time. NOTE: I really like the "new" sliding time scale approach of FlashPoint's Red Storm which IMHO merges the best of both WEGO and RTS.

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 26

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 5:32:55 PM

wodin

Posts: 10762
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline

I've mentioned a couple of game ideas..one in particular over the years. Can you PM me your email mate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

I have to ask based on Wodin's statement, what is new and innovative mechanics? Let's throw graphics out. It's not a mechanic and you can always make things prettier. What specifically would you guys consider as new or innovative?

_____________________________

My website

https://www.awargamersneedfulthings.co.uk/

(in reply to CapnDarwin)

Post #: 27

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 5:39:31 PM

Kuokkanen

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Blitzkrieg isn�t really a trait an individual unit should get when you are talking about an operational level wargame. A strategic level wargame makes sense, due to the fact unit scales are so large, but an operational game of division or smaller scale wouldn�t make sense due to the fact units needed help from other unit types to perform a blitzkrieg. After all a blitzkrieg was a combined arms cooperative strategy that saw many different elements of a Corp along with air assets used in the operation.

Unless I have misunderstood meaning of blitzkrieg, there is tactical component that can be part of even tactical scale wargames like in Steel Panthers serie. To my understanding, surprise, speed, shock, and awe are heavily involved with successful blitzkrieg. Accurate and timely use of artillery and dive bombings followed by combined panzer & motorized/mechanized infantry assault are important parts of blitzkrieg in tactical scale. But if we want handwave it away in operational scale wargames, we could just have greater EXP # for counters scenario designer deems qualify for blitzkrieg.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 28

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 7:51:33 PM

DSWargamer

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

quote:

Insisting a new game look like a full set of ASL or a fully evolved Steel Panthers on launch is inherently stupid.

Your opinion, and don't call me stupid. Nothing I want more than an actual computer version of Squad Leader or Advance Squad Leader. I see no harm or wrong in wanting that. Don't say it's impossible to make or program because everything is possible given enough time. Even the making of this long overdue game from board to computer.

Playing a game 10-20 years old good to great eh? So that confirms Master of Magic, Master or Orion, X-Com, War of the Lance, Sword of Aragon, Warlords and Civilization are great games? All my games so I guess I was right.

Key part you missed, ON LAUNCH.

I think if Gary ever does get to relaunch a defacto reborn Steel Panthers, regardless of what label he pins on it, it will be likely some WILL actually expect him to deliver a game that has as much gear, as many scenarios, as many nations, and as many settings as the current in use version of Steel Panthers World at War 8.4.something and have the Mega Campaigns handy.

That is unrealistic expectations.

As for actual computer ASL, actually it already exists, it uses VASL, runs on your computer and is identical to the board game, because it actually is the board game. Given a choice of learning it, or pretending to like a computer version meant to be played solo against a moronic AI which is the inevitable result, well the former is free, and the latter wouldn't interest me if it was offered for free.

The main reason I have not gotten around to learning the VASL program, is I simply prefer my ASL adversary to be in the room with me.

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)

Post #: 29

RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 9:00:15 PM

aaatoysandmore

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline

As many times as I've tried I've never gotten VASL to work. I was able to download something Squad Leader and granted I can setup the pieces but nothing else happens. Unlike you I do like my AI's and there are some good/great ones out there whether you want to play them, admit it or not. To me playing against oneself is the most boring way to play of all, but, see I don't condemn you for playing that way.