|
DeadInThrench -> PanzerGruppe Guderian (11/19/2007 9:28:25 PM)
|
Hmmm.... this topic got touched on in another thread and I saw it mentioned in the TOAW3 east front scenarios and, thought I post something on this, for any comments anyone might have.
As I recall, this was an S&T game way back when, and when it came out it was very popular (got it burried away here somewhere).
And I think the thing is, once S&T started putting out a new game every month in the magazine, it started getting to the point where you just played a game once (this is an exageration to make a point) and that was that. In other words, wargaming started getting away from something that existed in the Avalon Hill wargames, that is playing a game many, many times, to the point where you would be into the intricacies and nuances of the game.
And this was something a lot of wargamers at the time were unhappy with. Despite the greater historical accuracy, improved game systems, etc, they just were not getting the same thing out of the newer games that they had gotten out of the Avalon Hill wargames.
And then PanzerGruppe Guderian game out, and a LOT of players were really happy with it. Was an interesting subject and was playtested enough that it didn't have any holes that could lead to easy victory, and thus withstood the test of repeated play, and again a lot of players were thus very happy with it and saw it as a game worth the repeated play like the Avalon Hill games.
Nowadays, things are much more extreme as far as there being a lot of games and scenarios out there, and moreover most of them, at least in computer wargames, are played PBEM which means it takes a LOT longer to play a game that it would face to face.
Direct play was tried by a number of games when the Inet was first here but, never went over well with PBEM being the preferred choice.
So, maybe playing the same game or scenario many times, particularly against the same opponent, is something that is never gonna happen in computer wargames (except against the Elmers of this world).
Whatever. Any comments?
Thanks,
DiT
|
|
|
|
