RE: Turned flank

RE: Turned flank (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

SMK-at-work -> RE: Turned flank (2/5/2007 12:13:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shunwick quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work VI is, quite frankly, a pain in the butt from this player's pov. It really does nothing to simulate simultaneous movement by both sides - all you really get is alternative movement punctuated by "random" double moves by one side or other. At an extreme you get double moves almost every move!! SMK-at_work, It's supposed to be a pain in the butt. Operationally, I think of it as one commander getting inside the planning cycle of the opposing commander. I agree that it needs refining but it's something that should be a part of any turn-based simulation of war. Real war is not strictly predictable or strictly linear. Indeed it is not, but as you point out games are a simulation of warfare, not the real thing. There are already unexpecteds in the form of combat results and enemy actions (eg interdiction & FOW) that are reasonably realistic and good. I see no reason to add something that has no basis in reality at all other than a gross attempt to make things less predictable. There are better ways. There's almost always a tradeoff between playability and "realism" in games - whether on hte coimputer or figures (I'm mainly a figure gamer & have been for 35 yrs) but I've decided that there is really little or no need for such a tradeoff if designers REALLY put their minds to it (I'm not trying to be smart or personal here[&o] ). For example - player 1 can receive random movement handicaps that in some way mimic the problems player 2 might have - eg a % that any given unit might only get some % of it's maximum movement points this turn. I'd also point out that there is a downside to being player 1 - that is that Player 2 gets to attack units that are depleted from having been in combat and may be in less-than-ideal positions.

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/5/2007 8:13:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work I'd also point out that there is a downside to being player 1 - that is that Player 2 gets to attack units that are depleted from having been in combat and may be in less-than-ideal positions. Ummm...So Player 1 never gets to attack Player 2's units that are "less-than-ideal positions."? You must have been playing a very incompetent Player 2! [:D]

golden delicious -> RE: Turned flank (2/5/2007 2:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shunwick I love VI. It always surprises me when people complain about it. Real war is a mess and it doesn't progress in neat UgoIgo packages. True. But I find Variable Initiative to be a cure that's worse than the problem. Variable initiative all too often switches things such that one side is able to extract itself from an otherwise impossible situation, or else to completely compromise the enemy's. Also, in scenarios where the initiative is split on a knife edge, one consistently finds both sides just getting two turns at a time. Early turn ending is enough to provide for the unexpected in war. Variable Initiative goes too far.

shunwick -> RE: Turned flank (2/5/2007 5:26:17 PM)
GD, I certainly think that it can be improved and I suspect there are more players who dislike it than otherwise. Perhaps the solution is to improve VI and to make it optional for players. That way, everyone wins. Best wishes,

golden delicious -> RE: Turned flank (2/5/2007 6:18:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shunwick GD, I certainly think that it can be improved and I suspect there are more players who dislike it than otherwise. Perhaps the solution is to improve VI and to make it optional for players. That way, everyone wins. Quite. There is little point in removing a feature, even one which doesn't work very well, when it can simply be made optional.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 12:28:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work I'd also point out that there is a downside to being player 1 - that is that Player 2 gets to attack units that are depleted from having been in combat and may be in less-than-ideal positions. Ummm...So Player 1 never gets to attack Player 2's units that are "less-than-ideal positions."? You must have been playing a very incompetent Player 2! [:D] [:'(] O don't believe I ever said anything of the sort, and it is not a logical corollory. However Player 2 gets a turn change after his attacks - hence his units at least have the opportunity to get resupplied and reorganised before player 1 gets to attack them - something player 1 does not get before player 2 attacks.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 12:29:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious quote: ORIGINAL: shunwick I love VI. It always surprises me when people complain about it. Real war is a mess and it doesn't progress in neat UgoIgo packages. True. But I find Variable Initiative to be a cure that's worse than the problem. Variable initiative all too often switches things such that one side is able to extract itself from an otherwise impossible situation, or else to completely compromise the enemy's. Also, in scenarios where the initiative is split on a knife edge, one consistently finds both sides just getting two turns at a time. Early turn ending is enough to provide for the unexpected in war. Variable Initiative goes too far. I agree completely. Just in case anyone was in any doubt as to my thoughts on hte matter [8D]

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 12:44:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work quote: ORIGINAL: Veers quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work I'd also point out that there is a downside to being player 1 - that is that Player 2 gets to attack units that are depleted from having been in combat and may be in less-than-ideal positions. Ummm...So Player 1 never gets to attack Player 2's units that are "less-than-ideal positions."? You must have been playing a very incompetent Player 2! [:D] [:'(] O don't believe I ever said anything of the sort, and it is not a logical corollory. However Player 2 gets a turn change after his attacks - hence his units at least have the opportunity to get resupplied and reorganised before player 1 gets to attack them - something player 1 does not get before player 2 attacks. Yeah, just messin' with ya. [:D] Hopefully, down the road, all (or at least all that can be fixed in an Igo-Ugo game) these player1-2 assymetries will be fixed. :D

SMK-at-work -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 1:07:21 AM)
How about making it a "we-go game like the Combat mission series - both plot attacks, & moves, then resolve them all - and god help hte Soviet infantry division that runs into the Panzers on a road.......

freeboy -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 2:30:13 AM)
lol or vis a virsa in 44 45

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 2:40:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work How about making it a "we-go game like the Combat mission series - both plot attacks, & moves, then resolve them all - and god help hte Soviet infantry division that runs into the Panzers on a road....... That would require an entire re-write of the game.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 2:49:50 AM)
Yeah...and your point is??!! [:D][8D][:'(]

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 4:07:02 AM)
Heh heh. Well, hopefully before they decide to commit several years to re-writing the entire thing they'll patch up the current system so it will be that much more enjoyable. [:)] But, yes, it will be nice when, in the future, the game gets a complete re-write form the ground up.

ralphtricky -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 5:22:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veers Heh heh. Well, hopefully before they decide to commit several years to re-writing the entire thing they'll patch up the current system so it will be that much more enjoyable. [:)] But, yes, it will be nice when, in the future, the game gets a complete re-write form the ground up. I think an RTS would be easier than a WeGo system[:D]. It's a long time before I even think about either one. Actually, something like the Civ system where you can have multiple players playing at once would be the easiest. I'm not sure how the round system would work with something like on-line play, though.

Veers -> RE: Turned flank (2/6/2007 5:31:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ralphtrick quote: ORIGINAL: Veers Heh heh. Well, hopefully before they decide to commit several years to re-writing the entire thing they'll patch up the current system so it will be that much more enjoyable. [:)] But, yes, it will be nice when, in the future, the game gets a complete re-write form the ground up. I think an RTS would be easier than a WeGo system[:D]. It's a long time before I even think about either one. Actually, something like the Civ system where you can have multiple players playing at once would be the easiest. I'm not sure how the round system would work with something like on-line play, though. That could be sweet. I liked the system with Civ III, but combat there was much less complicated.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.312988