RE: COTA.....wow

RE: COTA.....wow (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

ravinhood -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/27/2007 4:30:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undercovergeek quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood I'm going to give my own informed opinion of matters at hand. I'll buy it, load it, play it one time and uninstall and put in the collectors bin Just as matter of curiosity how can these two sentences be in the same post? on another note, just in a friendly 'passing this thread by and stopped for a look' kind of way, if you werent interested in the game, why would you come here and tell everybody - 'hey, do you know what? this game doesnt interest me at all?' what baffles me is the time people actually take from their day to come here and express a 'not interested' kind of opinion - almost a non-opinion. Like people who call phone polls with 'dont know' as their answer. Is it because its easy to come here and do it - do these people (not you in particular) phone Marmite and tell them they dont like their yeasty pish of a spread, do they mail Ford and say your cars are rubbish, im not buying it because i like Toyotas, and if not, why come here and tell Matrix theyre not buying their game because they dont like it? Because playing it ONE time for me could be a 48 hour marathon....I'm retried I can do most what I want, most when I want and as much as I want as long as my eyelids will hold out. ;) Read my INTIAL post undercover. It had NOTHING to do with COTA/HTTR, Judge Dread and others especially Arjuna brought up that other crap about COTA/HTTR being this and that. My INTIAL comment had nothing to do with whether I liked them or not. But, since they attacked ME first I felt obligated to oblidge my defense of the matter. ;) On the last part you betcha, I probably shoot an email off to Walmarts and McDonalds once a month if not more often complaining about this or that. Hey, it's led to changes and I get discount coupons on future purchases by voicing my opinions. Do you realize there are actually companies out there that pay for others opinions? It's not like it's just blowing smoke, even here at Matrix for quite some time I complained about "no printed manuals" with these games....well, look what we have now with ALL future games and even past games as they have time. Do you think these "changes" would come about if some of us didn't "suggest changes"? ;) Arjuna may never change his design, but, my opinion may and perhaps have influence on up and coming developers who would see that perhaps turn based and time to think games are more fun and enjoyable than real time or pausable real time (lol that still makes no difference because you can pause a RTS game just as well). I'm just about getting my opinion heard like anyone else, good or bad, if you noticed I never said HTTR or COTA or CC were BAD games I said because they are rts they suk TO ME. I've even helped sell a game or two of HTTR to others who like that sort of thing. I don't though. ;) It's not like I don't recommend Matrixgames to lots of people. I probably visit more websites and post than most anyone here. I'm all over the web and I give Matrixgames as much advertisting as I do Shrapnel, Mad Minute (man I wish these guys could really take off) and HPS games. :) You can bet though, when I see disrespect for turn based and hex based gaming, then I'm certainly going to get on my political soapbox for turn based and hex based gaming until I pass. ;) It's just what I enjoy most. But, I do play RTS games, but, they are more in a single player element, like rpg's or things of that nature. I must say though I miss the "turn based" rpgs of the old days compared to these newer ones that are certainly getting too rts kiddie clickfesty to me. Diablo 2, Baldur's Gates, Dungeon Sieges, Oblivions, they just move too fast sometimes for how fast I want to think. Playing games should be FUN....not an Excedrin Headache 101. ;)

undercovergeek -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/27/2007 4:36:08 PM)
understood [:)]

Ursa MAior -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/27/2007 8:13:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior Have you tried WEGO? IT DOES simulate initiative. In IGOUGO only the ciomputer can react and in most cases it does not do what you want. 3R and WiF deliberately incorporate the IGOUGO mechanism to provide players with an advantage. It's not a weakness, but something incorporated into the game. A WEGO equivalent would require the disablement of one side, or increased speed of another to simulate initiative. WEGO's great too, but it's also got limitations: the time slot has to be well designed or the I move here, you move there dance which makes a game futile. Bottom line is that the mechanism of turns isn't as important as the soundness of design. I dont like to sit idel while my whole plan is torn apart and I csnt do a damn abou it, or maximum the AI reacts with my units in its twisted way. Hexes do have merits in big scale games that is without question, but I'd like to see games where initiative is more pronounced (even in WEGO games units fight and move in a set order).

James Ward -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/27/2007 9:53:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior Have you tried WEGO? IT DOES simulate initiative. In IGOUGO only the ciomputer can react and in most cases it does not do what you want. 3R and WiF deliberately incorporate the IGOUGO mechanism to provide players with an advantage. It's not a weakness, but something incorporated into the game. A WEGO equivalent would require the disablement of one side, or increased speed of another to simulate initiative. WEGO's great too, but it's also got limitations: the time slot has to be well designed or the I move here, you move there dance which makes a game futile. Bottom line is that the mechanism of turns isn't as important as the soundness of design. I dont like to sit idel while my whole plan is torn apart and I csnt do a damn abou it, or maximum the AI reacts with my units in its twisted way. Hexes do have merits in big scale games that is without question, but I'd like to see games where initiative is more pronounced (even in WEGO games units fight and move in a set order). There are so many systems that to pick ONE as the best is practically impossible. There are games that use initiative to determine when specific units moved, sort of a u go u go i go i go u go i go etc system. There were also games where the turn ended at a random moment so you were not guaranteed to move any units (VG's Civil War used this along with some other systems to make a great game). Kampfgruppe by SPI used a system of continuous movement with a built in delay each time you changed your initial orders.

dinsdale -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/27/2007 11:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior I dont like to sit idel while my whole plan is torn apart and I csnt do a damn abou it, or maximum the AI reacts with my units in its twisted way. I believe those words are on Lord Gort's tombstone ;) quote: Hexes do have merits in big scale games that is without question, but I'd like to see games where initiative is more pronounced (even in WEGO games units fight and move in a set order). Ultimately that means continuous time. Though when you get down to it, continuous is still a series of phases executed without a pause at the end: non pausible WEGO :) Which is why getting hung up on WE/U/THEY/WHOEVERGO or RTS, CTS or anything else is fairly worthless. A great game will be great because it's well designed: the turn style will just be a mechanism in that design.

dinsdale -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/27/2007 11:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: James Ward There are so many systems that to pick ONE as the best is practically impossible. There are games that use initiative to determine when specific units moved, sort of a u go u go i go i go u go i go etc system. There were also games where the turn ended at a random moment so you were not guaranteed to move any units (VG's Civil War used this along with some other systems to make a great game). Kampfgruppe by SPI used a system of continuous movement with a built in delay each time you changed your initial orders. IIRC, didn't VG's Vietnam have special periods within the combat phase where the US would get to perform moves and attacks during the NLF turn? Was it Gulf Strike where the turn could end because of initiative loss, regardless of what the player wanted to do?

James Ward -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/27/2007 11:40:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale quote: ORIGINAL: James Ward There are so many systems that to pick ONE as the best is practically impossible. There are games that use initiative to determine when specific units moved, sort of a u go u go i go i go u go i go etc system. There were also games where the turn ended at a random moment so you were not guaranteed to move any units (VG's Civil War used this along with some other systems to make a great game). Kampfgruppe by SPI used a system of continuous movement with a built in delay each time you changed your initial orders. IIRC, didn't VG's Vietnam have special periods within the combat phase where the US would get to perform moves and attacks during the NLF turn? Was it Gulf Strike where the turn could end because of initiative loss, regardless of what the player wanted to do? I believe in VN the turn lasted until both sides passed. The US determined who had the next 'move'. Another fantastic game system.

dinsdale -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 1:29:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: James Ward I believe in VN the turn lasted until both sides passed. The US determined who had the next 'move'. Another fantastic game system. I was thinking of the reaction combat, where the US could pursue, though maybe I'm remembering another game. It was a great game, and really should have been made for the PC by now. Playing it solitare and throwing NLF units around randomly was generally enough to make life difficult for the US player.

mjk428 -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 2:13:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ravinhood Diablo 2, Baldur's Gates, Dungeon Sieges, Oblivions, they just move too fast sometimes for how fast I want to think. Playing games should be FUN....not an Excedrin Headache 101. ;) By choosing the feedback option "pause at end of turn" the Infinity Engine games become essentially turn based (because they pretty much are turn based under the hood). There's a huge difference between combat in say Baldur's Gate 2 and the Diablo games if you choose some/all of the pause options. To the point that you can honestly call it tactical combat. Diablo is a clickfest. Fun for many, not for me.

cdbeck -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 8:49:40 AM)
While I disagree with your calling COTA an "RTS," which is like saying the Europa Universalis series plays like Command & Conquer, I agree wholeheartedly with the statements on Turn Based Games. It really makes me [8\|] when I see people say "Hex based games are dead" or "turn based games are dead." It is shorted sighted and forgets that there is room enough in the gaming world for all genres. I love Civilization, I also love Europa Universalis: similar purpose of empire building, different execution. I love Korsun Pocket, I also love COTA: again different modes and different execution. To be honest, I LIKE having variety in my games. Sure, I can play Master of Magic then turn around and play Age of Magic: Shadow Magic, but in essence they are the same game with a new engine. It is good to switch it up a bit. I consider RTS fun, but not a "wargame" per se (and I don't consider COTA or Flashpoint Germany "RTS"). If anything they are pauseable clock based turn games. I mean who actually gives their troops orders in COTA or FPG when the clock is running? You could... and I am sure some HardCore players do, but why? EDIT: It is, to me, the same as saying Ultima VII and Diablo are both the same game because they are RPG's. Sure they are, but Diablo is an action RPG. I like both, but I go to one or the other depending on mood (or I would, if Ultima VII ran reasonably on modern day computers). Son of Montfort

shunwick -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 11:44:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UndercoverNotChickenSalad I bought the game I don't like it all that much.� Maybe it will grow on me.� Can I ask why you don't like it? Has it grown on you? Best wishes,

JudgeDredd -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 12:52:20 PM)
quote: Read my INTIAL post undercover. It had NOTHING to do with COTA/HTTR, Judge Dread and others especially Arjuna brought up that other crap about COTA/HTTR being this and that. My INTIAL comment had nothing to do with whether I liked them or not. But, since they attacked ME first I felt obligated to oblidge my defense of the matter. ;) I just couldn't resist... Seriously ravinhood...you are full of it... Not only does your post specifically reference COTA, it's in direct response to a comment I made about IGOUGO and WEGO systems and you suggesting how those systems will now appear better...ergo how the COTA/HTTR engine is somehow inferior which to me seems like an attack on COTA/HTTR which you suggest you did not....and you didn't say "TO ME" as you constantly do thereafter in a cheap attempt to draw the fire from your original snipe. All this on a thread where the initial poster was suggesting that he was blown away by the COTA system. So not only did you directly specify COTA and HTTR, but it was in a post relating to the systems implemented therein. You continually snipe in posts which, more often than not, you would generally have no interest in apart from to annoy. For you information, I have never, in any of my posts, suggested my opinion is better than yours or holds any more water. You, on the other hand, are self obsessed with being right and patting yourself on the back. Recently, Matrix posted they were going to release games on demand with manuals. You single-handedly took it upon yourself to pat yourself on the back and suggest it was all down to you because you had campaigned long and hard for it. Whilst your post may have been in jest, that's what ALL your posts are like...particularly and most definitely when it comes to RTS,PCT,WEGO and IGOUGO systems. And ffs...get your facts right. If you are going to say a game impliments one or the other system, then get it right. If you genuinely tried HTTR and you genuinely thought it was an RTS clickfest, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have continually stated I like various methods of implimentation for wargames. I'm not even sure I have a preference. I own Civilisation IV, Hearts of Iron 2, Europa Universallis III, TOAW III, Close Combat:Cross of Iron, Birth of America, Company of Heroes and Combat Mission (among many, many others) so I think I can hold my hands up and say I have a wide taste and variety in wargames. It is therefore ridiculous to suggest I would be saying a particular system sucks....unlike you, who takes every opportunity to tell people what you think of RTS...the only problem is, you seem to have no idea what an RTS clickfest is and what is not...so you are misrepresenting the game to these people and potentially hurting sales for said company because if that person does not like RTS clickfests, then your remark, which is incorrect in the extreme, may well put them off a purchase! I had the decency to apologise to you for including you in my original post, as I realised it was a mistake to single you out. You, on the other hand have mentioned me constantly in your posts, after this apology and continually spell my sig wrong in a cheap attempt to rile me. I'm not going to apologise for being mentally older than you...life is like that. And yet it is you posting that everybody is picking on poor old ravinhood. Seems to me you've went through life somehow oppressed and realised the internet is a great place to shrug it off and get your own back on society with the benefit of anonimity.

Ursa MAior -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 3:23:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior I dont like to sit idel while my whole plan is torn apart and I csnt do a damn abou it, or maximum the AI reacts with my units in its twisted way. I believe those words are on Lord Gort's tombstone ;) quote: Hexes do have merits in big scale games that is without question, but I'd like to see games where initiative is more pronounced (even in WEGO games units fight and move in a set order). Ultimately that means continuous time. Though when you get down to it, continuous is still a series of phases executed without a pause at the end: non pausible WEGO :) Which is why getting hung up on WE/U/THEY/WHOEVERGO or RTS, CTS or anything else is fairly worthless. A great game will be great because it's well designed: the turn style will just be a mechanism in that design. I agree with you. But I have not seen recently a good IGOUGO game. Whilst agreeing with the above I'd like to see an interruptable (based on initiative) style game where I can react to my opponents' moves.

James Ward -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 3:34:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior I agree with you. But I have not seen recently a good IGOUGO game. The Civ games aren't to shabby [:)]

James Ward -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 3:37:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dinsdale quote: ORIGINAL: James Ward I believe in VN the turn lasted until both sides passed. The US determined who had the next 'move'. Another fantastic game system. I was thinking of the reaction combat, where the US could pursue, though maybe I'm remembering another game. It was a great game, and really should have been made for the PC by now. Playing it solitare and throwing NLF units around randomly was generally enough to make life difficult for the US player. I think you are right the game did have a reaction phase and you could end up actually fighting on the other side of the map with completely different units than you initially started moving. It was a cool game and I think it would make a great computer game.

Ursa MAior -> RE: COTA.....wow (2/28/2007 3:46:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: James Ward quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior I agree with you. But I have not seen recently a good IGOUGO game. The Civ games aren't to shabby [:)] OK I played them a lot too but they are not classical wargames.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.25