Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Bomb Alley??

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Bomb Alley?? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 1:54:14 PM   
GBS

 

Posts: 903
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Southeastern USA
Status: offline
Haven't been around here much but this is the first I've heard of "Bomb Alley". Where can I find some info on this game? Thanks.
Post #: 1
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 2:07:13 PM   
tiredoftryingnames


Posts: 1919
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Chesapeake, Virginia
Status: offline
It's a board game by Avalanche Press games.

What you've seen around here is hopeful speculation that it'll be the next in the series of UV and WITP as most want to move to the MED with the game engine. There has been no decision that the testers are aware of (at least I'm not) that a decision has been made on the next title. Last I heard when we asked was Gary and company were still debating. Of course they might have decided and are hush hush.

(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 2
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 2:46:01 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2524
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
I remember more than one person from Matrix confirming that UV-MED was next after WitP or at least it was a firm project.

(in reply to tiredoftryingnames)
Post #: 3
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 2:56:58 PM   
Spooky


Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline
Here is a short description of the "old" Bomb Alley computer Game (http://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v9n9/179_Strategy_games_and_simula.php) :
Bomb Alley

The year is 1942, and even with Russia and the United States in the war, Adolf Hitler's dream of world conquest could still come true. His hopes are pinned on the Afrika Corps commanded by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the master tank commander known as The Desert Fox. Standing in his way to the Suez Canal and an eventual linkup with the Japanese is the British Eighth Army and an island sitting astride Rommel's air and sea supply lanes--Malta.

In Gary Grigsby's Bomb Alley, the Axis player has one important job: to keep British convoys from resupplying their "unsinkable aircraft carrier,' Malta. In this monster-sized naval/air strategic-level simulation the players have at their disposal virtually all of the ships and planes which took part in the actual campaign between June and late August, 1942. The Axis player commands over 150 ships, from cruisers to motor torpedo boats. The British player has a similarly diverse collection, numbering over 160 vessels.

The game control system is essentially the same as used in Grigsby's other "monster' game, Guadalcanal Campaign. Each player may have as many as eight task forces on the map at any time on a variety of missions including bombardment (to support--or attack-- invading Nazi ground troops on Malta), transport, combat, submarine, emergency resupply and evacuation.

Waves of bombers pound ships and shore installations. Other planes are used to search for enemy convoys. Submarines lurk in the waters through which the enemy must pass. British convoys of transport ships are heavily escorted by cruisers and destroyers, intended to draw the bombers and subs away from the transports.

The key to the game is the proper use and convervation of air power. The planes simulated in Bomb Alley represent a wide range of the many types flown during the war. The Axis player intercepts British bombing missions with high performance Messerschmidt Me 109 fighters. The British player counters with nimble Spitfires. Alongside other classic planes like the deadly Ju87 Stuka divebomber, the Do17 bomber and the Ju52 trimotor transport are such lesser known planes as the Fairey Fulmar, the biplane Swordfish torpedo plane, and the deadly Italian bomber, the SIAI Marchetti SM 79.

The action in Bomb Alley is fast and complex. Unlike Guadalcanal, in which combat is infrequent (carrier task forces spend many game turns in harbor refitting and reforming, reflecting the way the real campaign was fought), Bomb Alley offers combat almost every turn.

The main campaign scenario is 164 turns long, covering the period from June 11 to August 31, 1942. That is a formidable gaming challenge in itself. For those with less time and patience, there are two shorter scenarios. One is a re-creation of the last-ditch attempt to resupply the island, "Operation Pedestal,' the other is a re-creation of the German invasion of Crete.

The strong point the three scenarios share is realism. They faithfully recreate the strategic choices the commanders faced and the dilemmas they had to resolve. The ships and the planes all perform according to historical fact. Add to this the non-stop action and you have a formula for great strategic wargaming.

_____________________________


(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 4
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 3:02:51 PM   
tiredoftryingnames


Posts: 1919
Joined: 12/10/2001
From: Chesapeake, Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I remember more than one person from Matrix confirming that UV-MED was next after WitP or at least it was a firm project.


I'm not denying it's not a project as it is. When we asked I believe there were several projects they mentioned they have. The comment was made they have more projects they want to do than time. But only one can be next. To my knowledge it was never said the Med would be next but as I stated I might have missed it if they did. A Med game gets the most support in the forums so I wouldn't doubt it that it's next. I was just saying it's not official as far as I know.

(in reply to Drex)
Post #: 5
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 4:16:05 PM   
ZOOMIE1980

 

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tiredoftryingnames

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drex

I remember more than one person from Matrix confirming that UV-MED was next after WitP or at least it was a firm project.


I'm not denying it's not a project as it is. When we asked I believe there were several projects they mentioned they have. The comment was made they have more projects they want to do than time. But only one can be next. To my knowledge it was never said the Med would be next but as I stated I might have missed it if they did. A Med game gets the most support in the forums so I wouldn't doubt it that it's next. I was just saying it's not official as far as I know.


There's a lot of sentiment for a redo of the old WIR game, as well. But that, I believe, would probably not be a very good fit for the WitP game engine.....

(in reply to tiredoftryingnames)
Post #: 6
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 6:00:24 PM   
Stavka_lite


Posts: 171
Joined: 3/15/2004
From: Tucson
Status: offline
If my vote or opinion amounts to anything I would vote for a WiR game. The WitP engine appears to be a good fit for that. Ultimately I would like to see a War in Europe game released.

_____________________________

Yes, it is a dry heat... but so is a bloody blast furnace!

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)
Post #: 7
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 6:02:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Personally, i would prefer UV-Med, otherwise known as "The almost 20 years in coming update to SSI's "Bomb Alley"

After that: update of Warship!

_____________________________


(in reply to Stavka_lite)
Post #: 8
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 6:06:16 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline
Bomb Alley
WIR later

my two cents

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 6:13:46 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
You guys really think Bomb Alley fits with a 24 hour turn or does it need to be more tactical?

I'd be looking for a more tactical level of control for something that short. With WitP, we are about 20 times as long so the 1-3 day turns fit.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 10
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 6:14:51 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
24 hour turns would work fine for a game covering 1940 - 44

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 11
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 7:28:21 PM   
Jaypea

 

Posts: 262
Joined: 4/29/2004
From: New Jersey, USA
Status: offline
I was thinking 1939 - 1944

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 12
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 10:46:56 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

Personally, i would prefer UV-Med, otherwise known as "The almost 20 years in coming update to SSI's "Bomb Alley"


Actually, there is a Version 2.0 of Bomb Alley out there. (It used to be on an Apple emulator web-site.) The bad news is it is still an Apple II game, although in ProDOS rather than SSi's RDOS, and unsupported by Gary Grigsby or SSI.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 13
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 11:05:37 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
If WiR were redone, I would like to see a new system/engine created for it. I do not think WitP land combat routines would do it justice. From a business point of view, it would only make sense to do UV-Med next.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 14
RE: Bomb Alley?? - 6/16/2004 11:08:42 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
as long as the "supply the panzer corp" by airlift only so that it can go galavanting off into the russian hinterland cutting rail links hundreds of miles behind the lines is eliminated

_____________________________


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 15
Med Game - 6/19/2004 9:29:22 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Since I don't think long games scare war gamers I think the Med game should go from June 10 1940 to 1 Dec 1942. Because night combat was so important I'd have 3 turns per day.
If we use maps the same size as those in WITP only change the scale from 60 to 10 miles per hex we cover an area 1480 by 1480 miles. (It is 800 miles from El-Agheila to Port Said)
Only the land combat routines from WITP would need extensive revision. The Air and Naval routines could be brought over mostly unchanged. (except for scale) Because of the 10 mile per hex scale I would use Bn sized units. (The combat in North Africa would be very tactical in nature limited by the logistics)

I use the period from Italy's entry into war to USA landings because once the USA arrives the Germans have lost so they have to win the game prior to that. (The great German retreat began in Nov 1942)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 16
RE: Med Game - 6/19/2004 9:45:41 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Since I don't think long games scare war gamers I think the Med game should go from June 10 1940 to 1 Dec 1942.


Why not go from 1 Sept 39, and include hypothetical scenario where Italy enters the war with their German allies - there were plans do to just that. And then Italian Navy gets clobbered by French Navy in the Med before May 40

It would make fine short scenario to get familiar with the game

O.

< Message edited by Oleg Mastruko -- 6/19/2004 8:46:53 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 17
RE: Med Game - 6/19/2004 10:01:57 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Since I don't think long games scare war gamers I think the Med game should go from June 10 1940 to 1 Dec 1942. Because night combat was so important I'd have 3 turns per day.
If we use maps the same size as those in WITP only change the scale from 60 to 10 miles per hex we cover an area 1480 by 1480 miles. (It is 800 miles from El-Agheila to Port Said)
Only the land combat routines from WITP would need extensive revision. The Air and Naval routines could be brought over mostly unchanged. (except for scale) Because of the 10 mile per hex scale I would use Bn sized units. (The combat in North Africa would be very tactical in nature limited by the logistics)

I use the period from Italy's entry into war to USA landings because once the USA arrives the Germans have lost so they have to win the game prior to that. (The great German retreat began in Nov 1942)


Naval routines could do with more work, and mid sea engagements are a must. You are not advocating that the developers skirt the naval detail in a game heavily naval in scope again are you?


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 18
RE: Med Game - 6/19/2004 10:05:29 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, Just the change in game scale and time would require alot of changes to routines. What I meant was the basic frame work (weapons ship class et al) can come over without much effort. A game with 3 turns per day by nature is much more tactical then a game that cover 1 or more days pre turn. I'm still opposed to any mechinism that allows one TF to target another for surface combat. (I advocate making the players achive such interceptions. Since there would be 3 turns per day it is much more likely that you could meet an enemy TF for combat)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 19
RE: Med Game - 6/19/2004 10:12:49 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just the change in game scale and time would require alot of changes to routines. What I meant was the basic frame work (weapons ship class et al) can come over without much effort. A game with 3 turns per day by nature is much more tactical then a game that cover 1 or more days pre turn. I'm still opposed to any mechinism that allows one TF to target another for surface combat. (I advocate making the players achive such interceptions. Since there would be 3 turns per day it is much more likely that you could meet an enemy TF for combat)


Why no ability to shadow/intercept? Happened all the time. We just going to pick a hex and hope for the best? Unacceptable. Forces were too small in the Med to spread them out to force a battle...would give convoys and escorts a huge advantage. Either they don't get intercepted by large enemy TFs due to probability or they engage small ones which they can overwhelm because to engage them, they enemy ships had to spread out. At least have it work like sub contact/attacks when ships pass through same hex.

You have no problem with advocating effort to massive revamp of land combat (agreed), but naval deserves as much attention.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 6/19/2004 3:14:04 PM >


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 20
Land combat in Africa - 6/19/2004 10:14:37 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
The way I see it land combat would resemble naval combat in many ways.
Players would form land TF's (here after called Battle groups (BG)) then he would plot movement the same as presently done for naval TF. The BG speed would depend on the type of units assigned. Mech units being much faster then leg units.
A BG could disband the same way naval TF's disband. (or transfer units between BG's) Disbanded units would be considered part of the base defense force. Of course every hex would require limits on airfield, port, base size)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 21
RE: Med Game - 6/19/2004 10:17:06 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just the change in game scale and time would require alot of changes to routines. What I meant was the basic frame work (weapons ship class et al) can come over without much effort. A game with 3 turns per day by nature is much more tactical then a game that cover 1 or more days pre turn. I'm still opposed to any mechinism that allows one TF to target another for surface combat. (I advocate making the players achive such interceptions. Since there would be 3 turns per day it is much more likely that you could meet an enemy TF for combat)


Why no ability to shadow/intercept? Happened all the time. We just going to pick a hex and hope for the best? Unacceptable. Forces were too small in the Med to spread them out to force a battle...would give convoys and escorts a huge advantage. Either they don't get intercepted by large enemy TFs due to probability or they engage small ones which they can overwhelm because to engage them, they enemy ships had to spread out. At least have it work like sub contact/attacks when ships pass through same hex.

You have no problem with advocating effort to massive revamp of land combat (agreed), but naval deserves as much attention.


There would be abilty to shadow and intercept. The players would alter their TF movement to achive this. I'm just opposed to the system doing the work for the player. If one TF is trying to intercept it reasons the other is trying to evade.
In both UV and WITP I am able to arrange open sea battles. (and I'm caught by the enemy as well when I don't want such a battle) So this already exists.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 22
RE: Med Game - 6/19/2004 10:26:38 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Just the change in game scale and time would require alot of changes to routines. What I meant was the basic frame work (weapons ship class et al) can come over without much effort. A game with 3 turns per day by nature is much more tactical then a game that cover 1 or more days pre turn. I'm still opposed to any mechinism that allows one TF to target another for surface combat. (I advocate making the players achive such interceptions. Since there would be 3 turns per day it is much more likely that you could meet an enemy TF for combat)


Why no ability to shadow/intercept? Happened all the time. We just going to pick a hex and hope for the best? Unacceptable. Forces were too small in the Med to spread them out to force a battle...would give convoys and escorts a huge advantage. Either they don't get intercepted by large enemy TFs due to probability or they engage small ones which they can overwhelm because to engage them, they enemy ships had to spread out. At least have it work like sub contact/attacks when ships pass through same hex.

You have no problem with advocating effort to massive revamp of land combat (agreed), but naval deserves as much attention.


There would be abilty to shadow and intercept. The players would alter their TF movement to achive this. I'm just opposed to the system doing the work for the player. If one TF is trying to intercept it reasons the other is trying to evade.
In both UV and WITP I am able to arrange open sea battles. (and I'm caught by the enemy as well when I don't want such a battle) So this already exists.


But is it not the design teams intention to make this a strategic game and have the system take care of the tactical? I know, I know, this is confusing in both UV and WITP, where we can set CAP, range, altitude levels but not assign target priority for air groups etc.

I don't disagree with the ability to instigate open sea meetings in UV and WITP, but it is an awkward luck issue that allowes TFs to pass by each other, exchanging hexes no less, with no contact. Not exactly optimal. And not wanting a battle is not in ones power if the enemy has the speed to close the range.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 6/19/2004 3:28:23 PM >


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 23
RE: Med Game - 6/19/2004 10:40:06 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, I think in Naval History more TF's have been able to evade battle then TF have been able to force battle. Even when one side had "shadow" ships the TF trying to evade was able to do so. Good TF leaders have always been able to out manouver the enemy.

It is awkward it actually is. Many TF have came within the same hex and not had a battle. (depending on conditions TF can be quite close and never see one another, this is how ships collide and how TF's collide producing a battle) Just because you pass within 60 miles does not mean you have any idea where the other TF is. Now the system grants you an automatic battle if you end movement in the same hex. If your TF has a speed advantage it is really easy to figure out where to move to. (Unless the enemy TF knows you are stalking it and takes evasive action) It's actually a lot of fun.

But if the Med game uses 3 turns per 24 hours then it is much easier to arrange a battle.

The Allies know where Axis TF's are going. They are bringing supplies and material to Axis forces in Africa. It should be easy to sit on the supply routes. (enemy airpower allowing)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 24
RE: Med Game - 6/20/2004 7:45:16 AM   
dudalb_slith

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 6/20/2002
Status: offline
"If WiR were redone, I would like to see a new system/engine created for it. I do not think WitP land combat routines would do it justice. From a business point of view, it would only make sense to do UV-Med next"
I agree. The UV/WITP engine is designed for campaigns in which naval power played a major and decisive role. In fact the system details naval and Naval Air combat much more then it does land combat, which is rather simple and abstracted compared to the Naval and Naval Air systems. Naval power played a secondary role in Russia, and to do it justice you would need a much more detailed land combat system and would have little need for a detailed naval system since naval power played so minor a role. A new game engine is the only way to go. The UV system would not fit Russia 41/45. The focus is wrong.
In the meantime Schwerpunkt games has a game called Russo-German War 41-45 which although not perfect is still a pretty good game on the same scale that a new WIR would be.
I have heard the UV/MED game referred to as "The Med" as well as "Bomb Alley". I have a feeling it will be much wider in concept then the original "Bomb Alley" covering the whole Med Theater from 40 to 43 (the war in the Med did not start until Italy entered the war in June of 1940).
Actually, the main problem with the Italian Navy was bad leadership. Better leadership could give the British some real headaches in the Med and it will be interesting to play the Axis.

(in reply to mogami)
Post #: 25
RE: Med Game - 6/20/2004 8:06:10 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Just so everyone knows, back in 2000 we put a lot of time into the database, map and initial design of a new Russian front game. If I remember it right, it was 10 mile hexes and used a system that was turn based with move/attack in the same phase. This was put on the back burner while we finished UV/WitP and then World at War. We felt that World at War had greater sales potential and after all of the time invested in UV/WitP we wanted to work on something a little simpler. If/when we get back to working on a Russian Front game, it will be the one we started work on in 2000. We know what we wanted to do, just didn't have the time to do it and everything else. Once WitP and GGWaW come out, we have at least 5 games we are interested in working on (the only two you guys know about now are Med War and Russian Front). As usual, our eyes are bigger than our stomachs. We'll just have to all wait and see what develops.

(in reply to dudalb_slith)
Post #: 26
RE: Med Game - 6/21/2004 3:38:47 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 948
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: North Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just so everyone knows, back in 2000 we put a lot of time into the database, map and initial design of a new Russian front game. If I remember it right, it was 10 mile hexes and used a system that was turn based with move/attack in the same phase. This was put on the back burner while we finished UV/WitP and then World at War. We felt that World at War had greater sales potential and after all of the time invested in UV/WitP we wanted to work on something a little simpler. If/when we get back to working on a Russian Front game, it will be the one we started work on in 2000. We know what we wanted to do, just didn't have the time to do it and everything else. Once WitP and GGWaW come out, we have at least 5 games we are interested in working on (the only two you guys know about now are Med War and Russian Front). As usual, our eyes are bigger than our stomachs. We'll just have to all wait and see what develops.


Well it will prove interesting regardless Joel. You guys have always been willing to put your money where your mouth is with regards to quality and as WiTP proves, when you set out to do something? It gets done. That says a lot for the character of a company.

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 27
RE: Bomb Alley - 2/2/2015 8:10:01 PM   
Zee

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/2/2015
Status: offline
The last post on this thread was 2004 ,we have a new game War in the West and ???? still no Bomb alley lots of talk , bluster and B/S but not even a scenerio in the new game for what is/was arguably the best Gribsby game ever made .

This game can never get so large as to overwhelm the player like War in the Pacific or War in the West , it is the perfect size and historically more interesting than any part of the Pacific War , the Russian Front or War in the West .
This game (imho) will gross more playing time from gronards than all 3 of those massive games combined and especially when it comes down to player vs player as opposed to playing the computer .... a combination of Bomb Alley and Knights of the desert is way overdue .
The massive games produced War in the Pacific , War in Russia and the latest War in the West are nearly unplayable in 2 player because of their size and scope
Comon Joel and Gary enough time has gone by since 1983 to reproduce this master work for the PC

(in reply to 2Stepper)
Post #: 28
RE: Bomb Alley - 2/8/2015 8:10:02 PM   
Zee

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/2/2015
Status: offline
In order to improve the Naval model for a Bomb alley Scenario in War in the West the first thing would be to reduce the size of hexes to 1 or 2 miles instead of 60. IMHO the games being produced are too complecated , expansive to be fun ... A med game with the historical resources available would be much more manageable and playable , I am not buying anymore of these massively unplayable games



< Message edited by Zee -- 7/9/2015 12:11:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Zee)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Bomb Alley?? Page: [1]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.828