Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

High Command

 
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 >> High Command Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
High Command - 11/10/2000 3:09:00 AM   
spudmeister

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 9/30/2000
From: Cardiff, UNITED KINGDOM
Status: offline 		Anyone at Matrix considered remaking & updating 'High Command'? - it was a really good game. If it had a PBEM option that would be a start.

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 11/15/2000 2:50:00 AM   
Robned

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/11/2000
From: Doylestown, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I agree, High Command would greatly benefit from some bug fixes and the addition of PBEM. No other game that I have played gives you the feel of the overall strategy of the war. Production, R&D, intelliegence, diplomacy... the game offers it all. it just needs some fixes and updates.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 2
- 11/15/2000 5:02:00 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Robned: I agree, High Command would greatly benefit from some bug fixes and the addition of PBEM. No other game that I have played gives you the feel of the overall strategy of the war. Production, R&D, intelliegence, diplomacy... the game offers it all. it just needs some fixes and updates.
Ok folks, I'm goin' out on a limb here, and say I don't want Matrix "remaking" another existing European theater game. We must realize Matrix is not in the business to do remakes of other people's games, if we want them to be here 3-5 years from now, they must create original games AND WE MUST BUY THEM. So I want them to sign up Gary Grigsby and do a grand strategy game of WWII European theater from the ground up. GG had stated in the past that was something he wanted to do, and a lot of GG fans had hoped he would get to do it. So far, no joy. Matrix, sign'em up and do an *original* game, not another remake or update! I'm ready to pay, DO IT!

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 3
- 11/16/2000 3:20:00 AM   
sapperland

 

Posts: 37
Joined: 8/27/2000
From: Albuquerque,NM,USA
Status: offline 		High Command? I dont remember that game. How old is it? Where can I look it up at? Is it fun to play?

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 4
- 11/16/2000 4:57:00 AM   
Grumble

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline 		"Ok folks, I'm goin' out on a limb here, and say I don't want Matrix "remaking" another existing European theater game. We must realize Matrix is not in the business to do remakes of other people's games, if we want them to be here 3-5 years from now, they must create original games AND WE MUST BUY THEM. So I want them to sign up Gary Grigsby and do a grand strategy game of WWII European theater from the ground up. GG had stated in the past that was something he wanted to do, and a lot of GG fans had hoped he would get to do it. So far, no joy. Matrix, sign'em up and do an *original* game, not another remake or update! I'm ready to pay, DO IT!" SHACK!

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 5
- 11/16/2000 5:48:00 AM   
Ohio Redleg

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 11/12/2000
From: Marysville, Ohio, USA
Status: offline 		For those who were attracted by the post but are totally baffled at what everyone is talking about, "High Command" was another amitious wargame which takes up every drop of base memory to play. That said, it made my wife a computer widow as it took so much time for me to play it. It was very well done and comprehensive for its time. It was made by 360 Software-- the makers of Harpoon-- and only took up 2 or 3 3.5 floppies, if I recall correctly. Since it was made by 360, I have to wonder if Creative Magic Software owns the rights to it (as it does Harpoon). I wouldn't mind a remake of this game, but I agree with others who say Matrix needs to stay alive by making original games and selling them to us Grognards (unless we're just a bunch of freeloading bastards ).

_____________________________

"If you start to take Vienna, take Vienna." -- Napoleon

(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 6
- 11/21/2000 2:28:00 AM   
Robned

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/11/2000
From: Doylestown, PA, USA
Status: offline 		I would have NO problem paying for a "fixed" or even a redone High Command. I have never understood why games are not periodicly updated/upgraded like other commercial software. Why do another grand strategy game, deal with all the bugs, playablility problems, etc. if there is already a good start in High Command? I would gladly pay something on a periodic basis to keep the games I like current. This way bugs could continually be eliminated and we could get the games closer to the "perfection" we all seem to want.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 7
- 11/21/2000 11:01:00 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Robned: I would have NO problem paying for a "fixed" or even a redone High Command. I have never understood why games are not periodicly updated/upgraded like other commercial software. Why do another grand strategy game, deal with all the bugs, playablility problems, etc. if there is already a good start in High Command? I would gladly pay something on a periodic basis to keep the games I like current. This way bugs could continually be eliminated and we could get the games closer to the "perfection" we all seem to want.
The continual development of a game is what I would prefer. It is the way of Open Source software works, i.e. a program that is popular enough will remain actively developed indefinitely. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in the wargaming community for grand strategy games. They're doesn't seem to be enough of us. I mean, just compare the traffic on the SPWaW forum with the traffic in the WiR and PAC forums. Its been done a few times, like Gary's WiR1 and WiR2, but mainly the commercial companies can't afford to make a remake if it turns out not to be a major improvement over the original. The same people might not buy the second version. And the fact that we are a small audience to begin with means that just about all of us would have to buy the game for it to be considered successful as far as profit goes. One can hope that Matrix will remain interested in strategy games, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out what efforts by Matrix are the most popular so far. I fear they will go the tactical/operational route in the end and pay only a little bit of attention to the strategy genre. Nothing new there. As for High Command, I think we are way ahead of ourselves here, since Matrix probably won't be able to get the rights to update it *and* sell it for profit. At the very least, the current copyright holders will want a big piece of the action, and Matrix will not be able to afford that, as they need to start making some money real soon, and the only way to do that is with their own games. [This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited November 20, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 8
- 11/28/2000 7:41:00 PM   
Hartmann

 

Posts: 888
Joined: 11/28/2000
Status: offline 		High Command was not bad, but had a confusing resources management, which was always beyond me. I would rather like to see a remake of "Clash of Steel", up till now the best game of the "WW2 Grand Strategy" genre imho. I know, there was already the future edition, but it just removed the bugs. There´s still so much room for improvements of the COS engine, it could be a dream come true... Hartmann

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 9
- 11/28/2000 10:42:00 PM   
bpolarsk

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn: They're doesn't seem to be enough of us. I mean, just compare the traffic on the SPWaW forum with the traffic in the WiR and PAC forums. Its been done a few times, like Gary's WiR1 and WiR2, but mainly the commercial companies can't afford to make a remake if it turns out not to be a major improvement over the original.(edited November 20, 2000).]
I am not sure that you taken enough in account the development of internet. It is a sure way to keep active the link between the developper and its fan community. You should definitively develop a game that you keeps on updating with fix and patches. In fact you have already such game, namely SPWAW, unhappily, for strategic lovers, it is a tactical level. You can perfectly imagine a company developing a WWII theatre, totally owned by that compagny and put to sell. Copyright are on the rules, graphics and PBEM engine and the AI is made external open source. There are lot of developpers willing to test their skills to improve or create AI, including thoses folks from gameAI.com etc... In final, this game may become a reference providing its is open enough. May be the most interesting aspect for a company like matrix is that this game must not have at start a sophisticated AI nor multiples scn, as you will rely on the community for completing the tasks that are the most time consuming : AI, Scneario design and play test. Of course this process may take long time, but your expences afterwards are small if not inexistents. Bernie

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 10
- 11/29/2000 1:18:00 AM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by bpolarsk: I am not sure that you taken enough in account the development of internet. It is a sure way to keep active the link between the developper and its fan community. You should definitively develop a game that you keeps on updating with fix and patches. In fact you have already such game, namely SPWAW, unhappily, for strategic lovers, it is a tactical level.
Development on SPWaW, WIR, and PAC will end eventually. These aren't open-ended, open-source projects. Matrix will soon switch focus to its commercial games, like any normal commercial company would. They can't afford to do anything else. Matrix still controls the code for these things (well, partially, as SSI retains copyright as well), and if they ever go bankrupt, SPWaW will almost certainly be abandoned with no future development (development on WIR and PAC is going to end soon anyway). If it were a true open-source project, this would never happen.
quote:

You can perfectly imagine a company developing a WWII theatre, totally owned by that compagny and put to sell. Copyright are on the rules, graphics and PBEM engine and the AI is made external open source. There are lot of developpers willing to test their skills to improve or create AI, including thoses folks from gameAI.com etc... In final, this game may become a reference providing its is open enough.
I don't see the value of the scenario described above. If the only thing that's open source is the AI module, then that isn't an open source project. Some people may get involved, but many, especially the programmers, will only want to work on a true open-source project where their efforts are not used by someone else to make money, where what they create benefits everyone. As with SPWaW, since everything else besides the AI is copyrighted, if the company goes belly up, the game disappears.
quote:

May be the most interesting aspect for a company like matrix is that this game must not have at start a sophisticated AI nor multiples scn, as you will rely on the community for completing the tasks that are the most time consuming : AI, Scneario design and play test. Of course this process may take long time, but your expences afterwards are small if not inexistents.
I'm not going to first pay for a game, then volunteer to help the company complete it. You aren't going to attract much attention that way. Remember that SPWAW, WIR, and PAC don't have a price tag, that is mainly why there is so many people willing to help improve them without being paid. The kind of indefinite development I'm speaking of is only possible if the project is open-source and popular.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 11
- 11/29/2000 2:33:00 AM   
VictorH

 

Posts: 309
Joined: 9/3/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, U.S.
Status: offline 		I wonder if there is any way to persuade SSI to allow WIR and WITP to be "open source"? As they are now, making money off of them is not going to happen. I think this would be a great thing for the computer wargaming world. Many of us who program would apply our skills to these game providing new and innovative ideas that could be incorporated into the commercial side of the market. Think of it as a University Research project that benefits industry.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 12
- 11/29/2000 8:36:00 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by VictorH: I wonder if there is any way to persuade SSI to allow WIR and WITP to be "open source"? As they are now, making money off of them is not going to happen. I think this would be a great thing for the computer wargaming world. Many of us who program would apply our skills to these game providing new and innovative ideas that could be incorporated into the commercial side of the market. Think of it as a University Research project that benefits industry.
I don't know Victor, it would be great if that could happen, but I see a difference between the computer game market and the commercial companies involved in the open source community. Those companies usually have an alterior reason for open sourcing code that they've made. Sun Microsystems open sourced the Startoffice suite of programs, a functional clone of the Microsoft Office, but they did so not because they believe much about the open source community, but because they and everyone else don't see a way to compete with Microsoft in a conventional way. MS dominates the office suite market, due to the leverage they have with the Windows monopoly, so StarOffice as a normal commercial application doesn't have a chance, but as an open source and popular project, StarOffice may become a major competitor. The problem is, I don't see any pressure on the computer gaming market to try open sourcing older games, as there is no reason for them to do so since the open source community is not putting any pressure on them, and there aren't any alterior reasons for them to do so either. As the open source community continues to grow things may change, but for now, the open source community has largely ignored the issue of open source recreational software, and are concentrating on the things that are more important right now, like operating systems, internet web servers, web browsers, application development software, networking software, and major business software like the Abiword word processor, or the late arrival of the StarOffice suite.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 13
- 11/30/2000 10:56:00 PM   
VictorH

 

Posts: 309
Joined: 9/3/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, U.S.
Status: offline 		Ed, How could anyone think software other than computer wargames is more important?

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 14
- 12/10/2000 7:36:00 PM   
nittany

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 11/29/2000
From: Shamokin, PA, USA
Status: offline 		Check out underdogs.com for Clash of Steel:FE download. May have High Command as well. For the quality of games that Matrix put out for free, I would have paid a small price to help defray costs. Also, would like to older (DOS) versions updated to Windows. I would pay a small fee for these games as well. Matrix is doing an update of PacWar by doing WitP. Sorry, just a little rant, thanks for listening.

_____________________________

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern" Heinz Guderian

(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 15
- 12/13/2000 1:18:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		I liked High Command, for the unique things it offered, but I never played it past the second year. I absolutely loathed Clash of Steel, it was very unhistorical and though High Command wasn't strictly historical either, it sure enjoyed a greater challenge to strategy (more things to manage). For me, I would never compare strategists to tacticians and base it on comparing WIR/PW forums to the SPWAW forum and conclude there are far more tacticians. For one thing, I dabble in both, so it's not like all people are strictly one way or the other. As well, WIR/PW are much older games, which, probably a good deal of the people in the SPWAW forum have played countless times. SPWAW enjoys so much forum activity, firstly because it's remake has been around a lot longer then WIR/PW, and also because the changes and attention that Matirx have given them are a LOT more extensive than WIR/PW have undergone. Want to test my theory? Just wait till the WP remake is put out by Gary and watch the hits to it jump dramatically. WIR/PW have been out far too long and underwent very little change to draw much attention. Myself, I've downloaded both the new WIR/PW. With PW I looked at the graphics and that's been it (have forgotten how to play it, to some extent). With WIR I played it a bit and found graphical errors, which I thought might be corrected with the next release (I didn't like the units colors being put in the drab fashion they were either), so I haven't touched either since then (the later equipment coming out before '42 didn't help matters either). The fact that WIR hadn't changed much, and playwise got worse (too early reinforcements) than the original, left me pretty disinterested. I've probably played through WIR at least 20 times since it originally was released and I can't see what would draw more attention YET. Perhaps my next opportunity to do anything WIRish, is to hope that Shrapnel releases the good ol' RGW 1941-1944 no later than their latest predictions. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited December 12, 2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 16
- 12/13/2000 8:53:00 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: I liked High Command, for the unique things it offered, but I never played it past the second year. I absolutely loathed Clash of Steel, it was very unhistorical and though High Command wasn't strictly historical either, it sure enjoyed a greater challenge to strategy (more things to manage).
Right, I didn't like COS for the same reason.
quote:

[comparing WIR/PW versus SPWAW forums]
You may be right, I don't believe so, but who knows? You're right about WitP though, when that comes out we'll see how many tacticians versus strategists there are on the Matrix forums.
quote:

With WIR I played it a bit and found graphical errors, which I thought might be corrected with the next release (I didn't like the units colors being put in the drab fashion they were either), so I haven't touched either since then (the later equipment coming out before '42 didn't help matters either). The fact that WIR hadn't changed much, and playwise got worse (too early reinforcements) than the original, left me pretty disinterested. I've probably played through WIR at least 20 times since it originally was released and I can't see what would draw more attention YET.
The early equipment arrival problems have been fixed in the current beta of WiR. The next WiR release should make a lot of people happy. As for the graphics, there was an idea to release both the old and new graphics with it, for those who don't like the replacements, but I don't know what's come of it. I don't know, I just got used to the current ones. Besides, WiR isn't about being "pretty".
quote:

Perhaps my next opportunity to do anything WIRish, is to hope that Shrapnel releases the good ol' RGW 1941-1944 no later than their latest predictions.
Why? RGW is yet another operational game which strings together separate, operational battles into a "campaign". We've got to damn many of them as it is. Its not a grand strategic game of the eastern front in USSR like WiR. As far as I know, the only things we can look forward to in the grand strategy department are WitP, Road to Moscow, and World in Flames, and the last two are vaporware that goes *way* back. (Does anyone know of any grand strategy games in development besides the three I mentioned above?)

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 17
- 12/14/2000 2:17:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Ed Cogburn: I agree, in general, that there are more tacticians than strategists, it's just that I wouldn't base it on something as unstable as comparing forum activity. Besides, strategists are probably so consumed with their games, that they can scarcely take to a forum as a tactician might (corny theory). Oh Ed, I think you greatly underestimate RGW, greatly. From what I hear, it will incorporate one of the ALL IMPORTANT aspects of strategy, and that is there's a method whereby your forces are raised or reinforced partially by how quickly you take cities (did you take it quicker than historically?). Yes, there's even a historical tie-in. How much better does it get than that? I understand they're also getting some music from a couple of excellent sources. Oh, if you think it's merely a bunch of operational battles lined up, I wonder how the 2700 units they've spoke about, fits into an operational scheme? I hope I'm right about this and you're wrong, because I can't see them going through the trouble of comparing the rate you take cities, to the rate they were historically taken, and then tying that into your reinforcements and ability to raise new units if it's just a bunch of scenarios, 'lined up', so to speak. You will note, the campaign states it's "176 turns", which to me, indicates a strategic game on option 52. Also, though the game is called operational, note that there aren't 176 scenarios for each week (unless you spend a fixed period on each of the 51 scenarios, and even so, 51 doesn't divide equally into 176, and it certainly sounds as though they're not creating more scenarios). From what I've seen, they've never mentioned what form the 176 turns takes, and I hope it's because that's obvious, because there is a strategic game. On the other hand, ir does worry me a bit, because it seems as though Schwerpunkt has made linked scenarios before and I have to wonder where you got your idea that it is that way. I do recall some of their forum questions regarding option 52, and that was that they wanted to know what scale people wanted it done on. One option was for corps, while there were a couple of others, but it seems they decided on the 10 mile hex with 2700 units. To me, to call something a campaign and debate about whether to use the campaign on a corp level, and then never state that it's linked scenarios, seems quite indicative of a strategic game to me. I hope so. I hope what I've told you has been a pleasant surprise. I suppose something linked might not be too bad as long as it affects the strategic map as well, but anyway. Here's a quote from the forum, and I'll also provide the specific page where the conversation comes up regarding what to do with option 52. You'll note the follwing quote says "2700 unit scenario", not 'scenarios' (though he may had mistyped).
quote:

Thanks to all for your comments. Based on your comments, and emails that I received, there seems to be a consensus. RGW should have a full 176 turn, 2700 unit scenario. I am pleased to hear this, as the game has been designed for that level (10 mile hex, division/brigade operations) and anything else at this stage of development would be a kludge (no relation to the 4th Army Feldmarschall Kluge). Monster games can be fun if you have the time. I am also pleased to hear there is some interest in a corps-level game with fewer units that could be played more quickly. We Schwerpunkt will put that on our list of candidates for games in the future. We have announced a slip in the release date to Computer Games Online. We are looking at a February-March 2001 release. However, it WILL have the 2700 unit Scenario 52. My apologies to the wargaming community, but I want this one to be right. We have hopes of making this a "classic". Ron Dockal Schwerpunkt
Here's the page: http://www.wargamer.com/ubb/Forum50/HTML/000001.html

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 18
- 12/14/2000 2:43:00 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		I'm confused. Schwerpunkt has a game in development called Russo-German War 1941-1944. Are we saying that Shrapnel has one by exactly the same title? In any event, Ed, it is certainly an operational level game, but with a campaign mode that adds a grand strategy element (sort of, maybe, a little). Reinforcements and replacements are introduced at the historical level, which is modified by territorial assets held (ie accelerated or decelerated, I assume). I think it looks interesting. Unfortunately, they seem to have discovered rather late in the development that the Red Army and the Whermacht are sizeable organizations, which has resulted in a delay of about one quarter while they accommodate this may at their 10 miles/hex scale. I didn't know anyone was even mentioning RtM anymore. I had sticks and stones thrown at me on the Wargamer site for calling it vaporware a year and a half ago. My impression (if anyone knows anything real, please jump in) is the nature of this beast requires an A/I the like of which we haven't contemplated. The A/I is necessary not just as a program opponent, but to run your own army. When your depleted panzer battalion gets to a fordable stream, it has to recognize whether the other side is defended by a troop of Young Pioneers with a broken 45mm or a tank corps flush with T-34's. Even with a learning capability, thousands of plans would be required just to start out. Impossible, I think.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 19
- 12/14/2000 4:14:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Paul Goodman: An unfortunate mistake on my part, I easily get the names Schwerpunkt and Shrapnel mixed up, as it is indeed a Schwerpunkt product as you say.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 20
- 12/14/2000 9:34:00 AM   
VictorH

 

Posts: 309
Joined: 9/3/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, U.S.
Status: offline 		Ed is half right with his assesment of Schwerpunkt's RGW. Some time back, I was trying to get ahold of Leneigrad, Kiev, and Izyium. Someone at Schwerpunkt told me those games were no longer being published. But, to wait until RGW was released as they would be included as scenarios in it. Then I was told that RGW would include a complete campaign of the entire Russo-German War. I was not lead to beleive it would be a series of "linked" scenarios. I have Storm in the West and Smolensk to Moscow and they have a very clever combat model, that works well for mechanized warfare at the scale of the games. Of course RGW will not be a game that covers the detail available in WIR.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 21
- 12/14/2000 10:57:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		victorhauser: There are many things I prefer about WIR, as opposed to RGW, but then again, I don't know precisely how RGW is going to work, and certainly the idea of resources being allocated to you strictly based on how long you hold cities is a rather abstract but good idea on putting some meaning into the battles along the way to final victory. One thing I rather dislike about RGW, is the 5-5-6 sort of rating for units. Gary's WIR model that has individual tanks to form combat values, more intricately, I much prefer, but then again, how many wargame makers are doing it Gary's way? Let's see.....there's Gary and ....... So that's why I'm not too disappointed with the more generic rated units in the game, though, if we're really going to be seeing 2700 units, with the added ability to strengthen weak units, disband units, and create new ones from saved points, we may be seeing a system that on a strict RGW vs WIR comparison, that we may prefer the freedoms of RGW to the listing of individual tanks (which we could barely control production for anyway). One huge positive we may be seeing is individual engineer/bridge-laying units and so on, which proved quite fascinating with TOAW. If the entire East Front is truly covered with 10 mile hexes, well, it just blows me away. I understand that also naval forces will be included, something WIR was missing. I do wish, however, that they didn't have the war ending in late '44, and carried it out to it's full length, but given that they would then have to include Germany and perhaps other countries in what must already be a humongous map, perhaps it's better as they're designing it.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 22
- 12/14/2000 3:56:00 PM   
bpolarsk

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Seems that we are back to the question to a successor for WIR. WiTP is fine but we are still waiting for a playable WWII simulation. Schwerpunkt has choosen to limit its game to Russia ans I totally agrees. I am tired of all the games with great potential play, but in practise, are beyond reasonable reach for completion. Even 176 game turns is already too long. Given the reputation of quality of Schverpunkt Games, it is really possible that we are on the verge of seeing a new classic. Only some weeks to wait.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 23
- 12/14/2000 4:05:00 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline 		My apologies Charles, RGW does have a campaign scenario for the whole enchilada. I read what they have on their web site. The article on Computer Games Online called it an operational game and mentioned the scenarios, except for the campaign scenario. Like you though I am concerned. How will the replacement/production/resources work? Are they going to tack on a production system at the last moment because well into the production of the game they decided to include a 176 turn campaign scenario? Will we have any control over that production system? We clearly aren't getting anything like WiR. I also have some big problems with this game. A. Using a six-sided dice to determine combat results? This is a freakin' computer game, we don't need dice! They aren't computerizing a board game, so why *design* a computer game that emulates dice? B. Using fixed numbers for attack/defense/movement on the units? Why not dynamic numbers ala Clash of Steel? C. Stacking allowed as much as four units deep... eek! D. Where is Germany and south-eastern Europe? E. And a scenario with 2700 units? This reminds me of some of those outrageous (read: MASSIVE) Operation Barbarossa scenarios designed for TOAW. For me the scale is too small, and the campaign game is too huge.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 24
- 12/14/2000 9:32:00 PM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Hey everybody, if you can hack out WIR, then 176 turns isn't too long, for WIR is longer than that. Now, maybe, with 2700 units (1350 per side or so?) the turns will take immensely longer, but I doubt it will be too terribly much longer than WIR, for a great many of the units always end up pretty much sitting there after the '41 offensive. Perhaps Schwerpunkt will have a way to give attack orders to an entire corp if you wish, or down to the individual levels. From where I stand, if within the framework of the game, any game, if the trying periods for my side, are rewarded by strength later on (Russia 41-45 for example), then I can hack out those long defensive periods, BUT, if the game is as massive, or larger, than the TOAW Gotterdamerung campaign, where the Germans are weak and have no hope of doing much, then I see it as a waste of time, but at least RGW won't have that problem. Six-sided dice? UGH!!! I hope they scrape that idea. Shoot, at least use 100 factors instead of six. With six, or even 10 factors, it looks to me as though there's just too much potential for a bunch of luck shots. Actually I liked the Barbarossa TOAW campaigns, for the size didn't bother me, for one of them was very much like WIR in number of units and turns. There was one which was corp level, and it didn't have enough units to make a front line; totally not worth playing (though I believe you could split the corps, but then the splits were only generic units, not historic divisions). Actually, the one that was very much like WIR, I had a problem with because it didn't allow the Rumanians to go with Army Group South from 6/22 like WIR did. I don't know what's historically correct, but it's aggravating to see one game that enables you to move them and another that makes them wait like a month. I had thought about what I said about WIR being more detailed with unit strengths and so on, and I do now recall that TOAW did sort of the same thing. As far as the game only being on Russian turf, I guess I don't have a problem with that, if they declared the game as 'the defense of Russia', the only problem, though, is that it's called RGW. RGW didn't end in '44 when Russia was liberated. So what the user will have to do, is imagine when playing the Russians, that the war ended with kicking Germany out. That's sad, but then again, if the game has a massive Russian map as 10 mile hexes suggests, and has such a massive amount of units, then not having anything but Russia would shorten the game a bit. I suppose for all practical purposes, whether the Germans are succeeding or the Russians, by late '44 the war is all but over anyway, but still...

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 25
- 12/15/2000 12:30:00 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Ed, you state 'They aren't computerizing a board game'. Well, even though the board game never existed, that is exactly what they are doing, for better or for worse. All their games have this characteristic. Their reinforcement/replacement model is overly simplistic, but has the hugh advantage that it obviously will work since it is simple. That has the overwhelming advantage over numerous games which never made it to the street. They are taking the historical level of reinforcements and of replacements. If things go bad for you, you can eliminate reinforcement units, with their components being moved to the replacement pool. The historical rate of replacement/reinforcement will be modified by a points accumulation where cities are assigned a point value. I assume this will be a simple ratio of points obtained vs hitorical points which is then used to accelerate or decelerate the arrivals. I do wonder how this would get untangled relative to, in particular, Rifle Divisions which were historically destroyed and came on as new units, but would not necessarily be destroyed in this game. Also, conversion of Rifle Divisions to Guards Divisions seems tricky. Maybe they would just let the player choose. If you have specific questions, e-mail Ron Dockal at Schwerpunkt. He responds quickly and precisely to questions. No BS, unlike many we can think of. Paul

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 26
- 12/15/2000 12:33:00 AM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		Charles22: Too bad it was simply a mistake on your part. I know of some democratic lawyers who are looking for new clients. Paul

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 27
- 12/15/2000 4:06:00 PM   
Ed Cogburn

 

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: Actually I liked the Barbarossa TOAW campaigns, for the size didn't bother me, for one of them was very much like WIR in number of units and turns. There was one which was corp level, and it didn't have enough units to make a front line; totally not worth playing (though I believe you could split the corps, but then the splits were only generic units, not historic divisions). Actually, the one that was very much like WIR, I had a problem with because it didn't allow the Rumanians to go with Army Group South from 6/22 like WIR did. I don't know what's historically correct, but it's aggravating to see one game that enables you to move them and another that makes them wait like a month.
Do you remember the exact name of the Barbarossa scenario you liked? I've downloaded a couple but can't tell whether they are separate implementations, or just later versions of one another. All of them look intimidating in size. If you can steer me to the best one, I'll give it another go.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 28
- 12/15/2000 10:48:00 PM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Ed Cogburn: Actually, I did and didn't like it at the same time. I didn't like it because the Rumanians were delayed a great deal, but I liked it because it resembled WIR quite a bit. I'm not too sure which one it is anymore, but I'd recognise it really easily by there pretty much being a widespread front for the Axis, resembling the one in WIR (and no corps, but historic divisions instead). It may had been the one called 'War in the East' (it's certainly not the Barbarossa one, for that one lasts only till '42), but I could be mistaken. Unfortunately I'm at work right now, and when I get home I'll see if I can figure out which one it is. PS-You might want to check out the NAfrica 41-43 campaign, though I've never played it past the first three or four turns (haven't gone any further with the WIR campaign in TOAW either, not too much for lack of interest, and certainly not because I don't have enough time, but mainly because I'm still sort of figuring out the system and whether I want to play something that's so wapred in it's treatment of air/sea units). I'm not saying it's not worth the effort, as far as conquering goes, but there's no real strategic tie-in if I recall correctly, but then what TOAW campaign does? I think I pretty much stopped playing TOAW, because I got frustrated with the inadequacy of the treatment of air/sea units and got more interested in SPWAW and currently SE4, though I'm sure I'll probably be toying with TOAW in the not too distant future again.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 29
- 12/16/2000 9:10:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		Ed Cogburn: I've found the WIR similar campaign for TOAW which I spoke of, though the Finns aren't a part. In my files it's called: Russian War PO 1.1.

_____________________________


(in reply to spudmeister)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> High Command 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

1.297