Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Call the Shot

 
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] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Call the Shot Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Call the Shot - 5/16/2000 12:14:00 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Jon J just asked about hypotheticals. What is your preference? Do you like hypothetical or historical scenarios? Of course, there is always hypothesis in every scenario. Who knows really how many rounds of ammo each tank or each squad had in a battle, or the names of all the squad leaders, or how many trees or shell-holes were on the battlefield? But which do you prefer? Do you like battles that have the feel of history in your hands, or just a good balanced fictional scenario? I'm curious. Of course, you know my preference.. Oh, and while I'm at it, do you like the larger or the smaller battles, Long play - quick play? I'd like to know Wild Bill ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
Post #: 1
- 5/16/2000 8:32:00 PM   
Seth

 

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline 		I'd have to say that I prefer the smaller, quicker scenarios. I decided I really didn't like East Front because the battles took forever. I do enjoy campaigns, but that's mostly for the fun of getting everyone riding around in the best tank, etc. I have no real preference for historical vs. theoretical.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 2
- 5/20/2000 1:17:00 PM   
crumply

 

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/19/2000
Status: offline 		small and historical, far and away my favorite. Thanks for making such a good game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 3
- 5/20/2000 1:31:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline 		Good is good, it's no never mind to me, although I lean heavily towards historical fact. The only problem I have with the scenarios in general though , is when to much military jargon is used. Hard to get a quick handle on what the unit is. For example, unit AO=8/60th defcom I like something alittle more to the point AO=Big Bad Ass Tiger ------------------ Hell On Wheels

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 4
- 5/20/2000 2:37:00 PM   
Wittmann44

 

Posts: 12
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Mountlake Terrace, Wa. USA
Status: offline 		I prefer hypothetical scenarios to historical ones. I find that the historical scenarios are either far too difficult, or too damn easy.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 5
- 5/20/2000 3:20:00 PM   
jmo1

 

Posts: 16
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		I prefer small playable scenarios based on historical battles. Scenario maker should make changes (use smaller forces, give better/worse weapons for other side, tweak experience levels etc.) if playability and game balance requires it. History books have always maps with too big scale and battles are told roughly, so scenario maker has usually much freedom. I like to play detailed scenarios, but I guess that scenario makers improvise usually those details. If somebody manage to get information and create almost exactly correct historical scenario (playable or unplayable), it should be mentioned in scenario brieffing. I know it's really hard work and scenario maker should get credit for it. It would be nice to have historical information about battle including maps and references. If somebody work hard to gather all information why not publish it as small historical study You can always put couple extra files into the zip file

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 6
- 5/20/2000 5:42:00 PM   
grockall

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 4/19/2000
Status: offline 		Small and historical. I mainly play campaigns so get the longer games that way.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 7
- 5/20/2000 8:11:00 PM   
Dice4Eyes

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		I like the historical battles the best, but fully understand the difficulti in getting reliable historical data for battles in the Bn/Rgt size so i dont mind if some bits of a scenario isn't correct. The important part is that the scenario feels correct for the situation it is portraing. My personal favorite is the defensive scenarios, for that feeling of hanging on by your fingernails. I can remember a battle in SP1 with me as USMC defending against an japanese assault and i had to call in arty on top of my own position. Its was pure hell, fire and smoke everywere, as soon as i thoght the battle was over a couple of jap sqauds came out of nowhere, i have never had so much fun. I want to thank all the scenario designers for a truly outstanding work on the scenarios and campaigns in W@W. Keep up the good work. Now i am going to play corrigiador as the US against the japanese. Hoping for frantic retreats, counterattacks, arty danger close, fire and smoke everywere. Should be realy fun. Mvh Daniel E.

_____________________________

Divide et Impera Daniel E

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 8
- 5/20/2000 10:00:00 PM   
Mark_Ezra

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/6/2000
From: Trabuco Canyon, Ca....USA
Status: offline 		I tend towards Historical battles on the small scale...The battle between small groups of men and machines is why scen about the "Bulge" are so fun for me. The quickie scen especially if VERY tough are great Lunch Time puzzels. The "What if" of a german attack on Washington DC, 1945 was great fun in SPWW2...Goes to show that if a Scen is well scripted and designed it will hold our interest no matter what the genre.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 9
- 5/21/2000 3:50:00 AM   
fdlu

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 5/19/2000
From: germany
Status: offline 		I would like fictional / alternate history scenarios. some suggestions: invasion of great britain, invasion of usa failed / partially successfull d-day, use of experimental weapons etc. as for alternate history: inspiration by the book from s.m. stirling: "marching through georgia", and by david drake:"the choosen", these came to mind. :-))

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 10
- 5/21/2000 5:24:00 AM   
krull

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: USA
Status: offline 		I prefer a little of both. And long is not so bad if its intresting or challenging. Thru i dont play mant pbem games do to work hours so have no exp. in those types for refrence on short or long.

_____________________________

Krull

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 11
- 5/21/2000 6:32:00 AM   
Mjuice

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Thanks to everyone involved in making this incredible game from me as well. I prefer historical battles usually, altough hypothetical ones can be fun sometimes. Sometimes historical accuracy has to be sacrificed in favour of play balance. I think I'm in a minority on this but I actually like big battles a lot. For example I found the Prokhorovka scenario very enjoyable.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 12
- 5/21/2000 6:50:00 AM   
kfbaker

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 4/26/2000
From: Sheffield,UK
Status: offline 		Campaigner myself, based around histry. The main problem I find with scenario's is deployment on both sides is done for you and as such a large part of the battle is desided. It would be nice to have the option to randamize based on the scenario setups, bit like the randamize option in carrier strike. This way you avoid pradictable scanario's, and you can play them again and again.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 13
- 5/21/2000 7:29:00 AM   
Ken Rutsky

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
Status: offline 		This is my first post, so I'll start off by commending you guys on a fantastic job. The new terrain types alone add a lot to gameplay, but the armored combat system: WOW! Not only does the new damage system add realism, but it adds to the game's immersive quality, as well; little details like the optics being knocked out or the radio mast being destroyed just add to the drama. As far as scenarios, I tend to like smaller games. As long as the situations are interesting, it doesn't matter to me whether they are historical or hypothetical; most games on this scale tend to fudge on the details, anyway. Early-war stuff (Poland, France 40, Eastern Front 41) and the 44 Italian campaign tend to be my favorite, though, again, if the situation is interesting, it doesn't matter. The scenario included with SP:WaW that best fits what my idea of what a good scenario should be is the adaptation of the old Cross of Iron scenario Breakout at Borisov. It's at the upper end of the size scale for me, but the situation is very fluid and the battle develops in several areas of the map at once. Each of these areas presents a different type of tactical problem, heightening interest and keeping things from bogging down overall. A very well-designed situation, and an impressive adaptation. Well, those are my thoughts. Hopefully, soon I'll have some time to prepare some scenarios of my own, so I can contribute something to this fantastic game! Ken Rutsky

_____________________________

Though it be broken -- Broken again -- still it's there, The moon on the water Chosu

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 14
- 5/21/2000 9:50:00 AM   
troopie

 

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline 		I prefer both. Give me a historical battle with a few tweaks. Or give me a hypothetical or even fantasy battle (US vs Rumania in the desert, say) and if it's good, I'll take it. Right now I'm playing UK vs Italy in 1945. I've dug the die hards out of an Italian hill town, and now I have to take a castle. It'll be a stiff job to run the Italians out of that. There's not much time left. Then I'm going to the Philippines for some guerrilla fun. troopie

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 15
- 5/21/2000 4:28:00 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline 		Great comments, all. Nice to hear what you guys enjoy without telling you what you enjoy . We'll try to fit the bill. Remember, if an historical battle is done, then the setup will have to be largely done for you to try to recreate as accurately as possible the historical situation. Hypos have their place too, for creating what ifs and setting up the battle you would have like to have seen. So yes, they all have a place in gameplay. Some like 'em quick and easy; others like the big ones. I like 'em both. Depends on my time frame, and my mood. BUT it is nice to have a choice and that is what we try to provide No idle boast, but we do have a top-notch group of designers and they do have YOU in mind. I hope to see some creative juices flowing among you guys as you build your own battles. Making your own war is as much fun as fighting it later Wild Bill ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Wild Bill)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Call the Shot 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

0.984