RE: Enough already! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


Alexander Seil -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 3:40:30 PM)

quote:


Johan said it was 200,000 with 60,000 in USA


I remember 500,000 rather distinctly (from a recent article/interview), although I can't find the interview where it cropped up, it's possible the numbers were given at different times. In any case, at 200,000, it may still be the best selling wargame of all times.

What did the original TOAWs sell? I think it was around 20,000? That's the only number I ever heard at least.

quote:


Except what was told above, also reviewers are a little bit guilty. If there is a review of a wargame (hexes, turns) in some non-wargaming magazine or portal, then it's most often starts with the words: "Another hardcore title for veterans from XXX company (...)". There is also a lot of words like hard, challenge, complicated etc.
I'm not suprised that regular player baypasses strategy genre.


Lame excuses for poor marketing [8|] Being described as "challenging" is better than not being described at all. Besides, I have never seen "depth" being a reason for a low rating. Poor tutorials, incomprehensible interfaces, rampant bugs and ugly graphics do that. "Depth" ends up being a positive characteristics in any mainstream review, and simplicity often gets blasted (take a look at any review for Spore).

Also, a big hint - the reason hexes get blasted is because they are a throwback to boardgames that PCs are supposed to be able to transcend. Incidentally, Airborne Assault games demonstrate clearly that they can. Turn-based mechanics don't get any negative ratings if they make sense in the context of the game, but then there is no rule that says that a wargame has to be turn-based (or hex-based).




Anthropoid -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 4:25:32 PM)

Here is an idea for you guys to mull over: "Vietnam: The Anglo-French Campaigns in Southeast Asia."

There are already a couple of very good Vietnam 'scenarios' for TOAWIII, but they are a pretty much operational military engine only. Moreover, since the TOAWIII engine is a general one, in the last incarnation of the Vietnam scenarios I played, there were some historical and military dimensions to that conflict which had to be scripted in through events and victory rules and such which just seemed a bit awkward.

A good Vietnam game, one which actually allowed for alternate historical outcomes, highlighted the importance of military policy, social foreign policy, domestic policy, public relations, etc., would have to be just about the most innovative, genre-busting game ever.

Imagine a game that is: part BoB (for airborne, airmobile, air-to-ground and air-to-air ops), part TOAWIII (for basic operational level combat), part Civilization [but MUCH better by being focused on only one historical period] (for espionage, diplomacy, resource acquisition and utilization, and unit and infrastructure building), part Hired Guns (for Tactical level battles), part Crown of Glory/FoF (diplomacy model, container model, promotions model).

Imagine if you are in the shoes of Eisenhower, playing the "Post War Period" campaign. The French (AI) is bogged down in Indochina against the Vietminh forces of Ho Chi Minh. The engine would need to be cleverly balanced so that a player in any given campaign would have a small to medium-sized array of at least slightly differing options in terms of decisions for policy (military size and training, technologies on which to focus, diplomatic relations, espionage and foreign policy actions and statements, transparency with the press, and speeches [ohh! imagine if something like the CoG diplomacy engine was used to create a cut-n-paste "public statement" engine . . . mapping out all the various permutations and pieces would be a bit complex, but I have no doubt with all the brain power at Matrix it could be done!]. What general path do you want to take for the next four years Ike? What piece will your Vietnam policy play in your overall policy? Will you get reelected? Decide to cryptically send in a team of Green Berets to try to assassinate Ho Chi Minh? Take control of the operation in either/or the Tactical or Operational level engine. Be careful in case a covert op you authorize gets exposed and you take the negative PR hit and risk not getting elected for a second term!

So you managed to win the election for that second term? How do you change your policies now? Do you think in terms of a long-term vision that will set up your predecessor for long-term victory (but perhaps cause you to achieve only a "Stalemate" victory condition for this campaign section?) or do you go for broke and try to change the course of history dramatically and early in the conflict. The engine would need to weigh things like troop deployment levels, operational doctrine effects (e.g., free-fire zones, full-scale bombing, etc.), psyops and propaganda as well as military-press relations and in-country diplomatic actions and weigh these against casualties in generating media reactions, public and congressional reactions, and the ratio of victory points.

As a very important conflict which COULD have gone either way, and was exceedingly complicated in involving larger foreign policy issues, domestic issues, a myriad of different political and military historical figures, fascinating military technology, doctrine, and hardware, etc., I think a game that _really_ tried to convey the Vietnam era would be an absolutely incredible game. I bet if Matrix got behind a project, and harnessed the knowledge, enthusiasm and expertise of some of the forum regulars who are modders for Vietnam scenarios for TOAWIII (e.g., Boonierats, but there are other guys too I know) in a year or two you guys could make an astoundingly good game.

Whats more, I think we are far enough past that era that the world might be ready for it. There are still a lot of living Vietnam vets; many of whom were very traumatized by their experiences, but I think many of whom would LOVE the chance to 'redo things the right way' and not forsake victory. I'm not saying it should be a game in which the US playe can make whatever decisions he needs to make to achieve victory. The give-and-take and the constraints of being a Democratically elected commander in chief in a spooled rotten nation with a hyper-active press and media should mean that it is ALWAYS a challenge to achieve a victory, or for that matter even to do as well as the historical leaders did. What is more, the transition from leader to leader, and the chance that you get alternate Presidents (as well as alternate S. Viet. leaders) would absolutely need to be modelled in there. But even if it was very hard to 'win' a big campaign, it would be an awesome game.

Not to mention the younger generation guys like me who were just being born as the war was winding down. We all grew up sitting on the living room carpet watching the last few images of that conflict on the news when we were toddlers, and our whole lives we have been inundated wtih rhetoric about that war. Plus the even younger Generation Y and Netgen segments of the market . . . WWII is true "history" to almost all of us, and CW, Nappy, WWI, etc. is definitely full-fledged history to all of us.

Vietnam is something we all (or at least Gen X and prior) have some realworld connection to. Granted, there remain quite strong opinions, and quite probably tender wounds that have never fully healed, and probably never will. But I don't think that that is a reason NOT to make a great game. Indeed, I think it is an even bigger reason to make a great game. I think if done as good as Matrix can do a game, if all the best ideas and best resources at your disposal were carefully marshaled, and you started with a visionary "break with convention and let the nature of the topic define the 'rules' for the engine and game design" kind of strategy, you guys could make a game that would cause an Earthquake in the gaming industry and quite likely revolutionize strategy wargaming. Plus, you'd probably make a bundle of $$ . . .

The industry/hobby is getting a bit full of hacks and cliche pulp fiction at this point (which was the original point of this thread), and I think that this is what it needs.




Anthropoid -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 4:37:12 PM)

Well said Alexander.

quote:

Lame excuses for poor marketing [8|] Being described as "challenging" is better than not being described at all. Besides, I have never seen "depth" being a reason for a low rating. Poor tutorials, incomprehensible interfaces, rampant bugs and ugly graphics do that. "Depth" ends up being a positive characteristics in any mainstream review, and simplicity often gets blasted (take a look at any review for Spore).

Also, a big hint - the reason hexes get blasted is because they are a throwback to boardgames that PCs are supposed to be able to transcend. Incidentally, Airborne Assault games demonstrate clearly that they can. Turn-based mechanics don't get any negative ratings if they make sense in the context of the game, but then there is no rule that says that a wargame has to be turn-based (or hex-based).




oldspec4 -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 4:55:50 PM)

As a 'Nam era army vet, I personally have no desire to replay that conflict. OTOH, it may be an appealing wargame setting for others [;)].





Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 8:10:07 PM)

Know what publishers tell developers when asked about the relative desirability of subject matter?

It goes somethlng like this:

"Take your best shot. Aim for the biggest audience. This may be your last chance. If you make enough profit, you can do stuff that you're interested in later on."

I believe that's the thinking that drives developers to do Bulge games. The USA is still the biggest audience for this sort of software, and marketing a game that focuses on nothing but Germans and Russians is poison of a sort. Among USA, Bulge is to WW2 what Gettysburg is to the ACW. Hence, the plethora of games about the Ardennes 1944.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)




Lützow -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 8:28:36 PM)

Why do some people always refer to 'the market' in order to emphasize their position? I don't care how many copies a game sell, because I neither maintain a dev studio nor do I own shares of a big entertainment company. I'm a hobbiest, willing to spend some money for my leisure occupation and would be perfectly fine if solely 100 people play a certain title beside me, as long as it meets my demands. However, I rather take the 100th East Front game before I would pick something about African civil wars or another 'esoteric' theatre I have no affiliation to.




jackx -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 8:59:33 PM)

Versatile engines, powerful editors and thus the ability for the community to create mods with relative ease seems to be the best answer to the situation.
I don't think it's that much extra effort for the developers if they plan their game to be moddable from the outset, and it'll allow them to do "mainstream" while the community can then do "exotic" or "overlooked" or anything else it wants. In many cases, that happens already anyways, and with wargames, modding is also quite a lot easier as you usually don't need people that can deliver professional-quality eye-candy, and are willing to do so for free.

Though I guess you could argue against that too, because in the long run, if there are well-done quality community mods available for free, it limits the developers' options for future games...





Anthropoid -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 9:08:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Why do some people always refer to 'the market' in order to emphasize their position? I don't care how many copies a game sell, because I neither maintain a dev studio nor do I own shares of a big entertainment company. I'm a hobbiest, willing to spend some money for my leisure occupation and would be perfectly fine if solely 100 people play a certain title beside me, as long as it meets my demands. However, I rather take the 100th East Front game before I would pick something about African civil wars or another 'esoteric' theatre I have no affiliation to.


Unfortunately, games require "companies" to get made, supported, and improve over time. A company that makes a game(s) that sells only 100 copies is not going to be in business very long. While an open-source game could conceivably live on through fan/modding community, it would seem that having the parent producer remain alive too would be better for us hobbiests overall.

While each of us may have his/her personal preferences, the logic of the market is simply inescapable. If the exceedingly complex Vietnam sheme I outline above is not going to make anyone money, then all my ravings about how great it would be are irrelevant. It is not going to get made. I like to think (biased by my own personal view) that such a game would sell, but who knows . . .




V22 Osprey -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 9:09:37 PM)

The answer is to make a game like John Tiller's Campaign Series or Steel Panthers.With both games, you get full editors, hundreds of scenarios and campaigns, and can make any scenario with practicly any country you desire.This way the developers can satisfy everyone in one game.This is why I think SPWAW and JTCS has survived over all those years, because you can make any battle you want.You can fight Battle of Bulge in JTCS, but I could just as easily play Winter War.[&o]




SireChaos -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 9:24:03 PM)

I think the problem with having (almost) nothing but WW2 titles is a vicious circle of sorts.

- Companies produce nothing but WW2 games because that´s what they think will sell
- Gamers buy the WW2 games because there´s nothing else on the market and playing the umpteenth Bulge game is better than nothing
- Seeing that WW2 games sell, companies produce more WW2 games
- Well what do you think gamers buy now?

Actually, sure, it´s not just WW2, but in my personal and underinformed opinion something like 90% of all wargames seem to be WW2, and of the rest, 40% each are ACW and Napoleonics. And that´s if you count the Total War series and such as wargames rather than mainstream strategy titles.




Alexander Seil -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 10:37:54 PM)

Again, I contend that the "hardcore" part of the market is a lot more conservative in their preferences than the mainstream that could be tapped with the right marketing (and understandable game mechanics - which doesn't mean stupid game mechanics, by the way).

Basically the wargaming companies need to start understanding the concept of hype (see, again, Paradox's much-covered presence at E3), and of how to create it. At that point your options regarding subject matter expand greatly, because the average PC gamer is a lot more open to new ideas than the average "hobbyist" or "grognard." Sure, WW2 still sells more no matter what, but its advantage is greatly diminished in the general market.

If we change genres, take BioShock as an example of how unusual settings can be leveraged for great market success. I mean, come on, a FPS/RPG hybrid set in an underwater 1960's city inspired by Ayn Rand?! "But that will never sell!" says Joe the Dimwitted Marketing Manager [8|]




V22 Osprey -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 10:46:13 PM)

Well, adding to what I said above, COTA is a great game no doubt, but being just about Crete and Malta is very limited.It would be better to give us the Airborne Assualt engine game that covers a whole war, or entire front(like the indiviual games in the Campaign Series).If they did a title that maybe covers the entire East/West/Pacific Front Panthers games would have all my money.But I'll stick with JTCS since I can play any battle I want.




Mike Parker -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 11:15:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SireChaos

I think the problem with having (almost) nothing but WW2 titles is a vicious circle of sorts.

- Companies produce nothing but WW2 games because that´s what they think will sell
- Gamers buy the WW2 games because there´s nothing else on the market and playing the umpteenth Bulge game is better than nothing
- Seeing that WW2 games sell, companies produce more WW2 games
- Well what do you think gamers buy now?

Actually, sure, it´s not just WW2, but in my personal and underinformed opinion something like 90% of all wargames seem to be WW2, and of the rest, 40% each are ACW and Napoleonics. And that´s if you count the Total War series and such as wargames rather than mainstream strategy titles.


That is actually unfortunate, but I think very true given my limited experience.

When I want to play a strategy game WWII is a very good subject, because of the expansiveness of the conflict. Napoleonics second. When I want a game about a battle.. well that goes somewhere else.

In my early days of gaming two games hooked me for Strategy AH's Third Reich, and AH's War and Peace. For tactics though, two other games were my favourite, both AH games, Caesar Alesia, and for the life of me I cannot remember the title, but it was Alexander Vrs. Darius on the plains of galgemea (sp?). Both ancient. I also loved Midway an AH classic as well as a few others.

The glut of WWII games is a bit much.




Anthropoid -> RE: Enough already! (7/14/2009 11:53:16 PM)

You should try Hired Guns, a "Matrix Title" that IMO is pretty innovative. But you're right about the hype factor. It amazes me how unhyped Matrix remains about itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil

Again, I contend that the "hardcore" part of the market is a lot more conservative in their preferences than the mainstream that could be tapped with the right marketing (and understandable game mechanics - which doesn't mean stupid game mechanics, by the way).

Basically the wargaming companies need to start understanding the concept of hype (see, again, Paradox's much-covered presence at E3), and of how to create it. At that point your options regarding subject matter expand greatly, because the average PC gamer is a lot more open to new ideas than the average "hobbyist" or "grognard." Sure, WW2 still sells more no matter what, but its advantage is greatly diminished in the general market.

If we change genres, take BioShock as an example of how unusual settings can be leveraged for great market success. I mean, come on, a FPS/RPG hybrid set in an underwater 1960's city inspired by Ayn Rand?! "But that will never sell!" says Joe the Dimwitted Marketing Manager [8|]





Arsan -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 7:55:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: V22 Osprey

Well, adding to what I said above, COTA is a great game no doubt, but being just about Crete and Malta is very limited.It would be better to give us the Airborne Assualt engine game that covers a whole war, or entire front(like the indiviual games in the Campaign Series).If they did a title that maybe covers the entire East/West/Pacific Front Panthers games would have all my money.But I'll stick with JTCS since I can play any battle I want.



COTA is not only about Malta and Crete. [:-]
It also covers both the mainland Greece campaigns (the disastrous Italians vs Greece and the onslaught of the Germans against the allies). And since the last patch it also includes several North african scenarios (with the sexy Afrika korps in them [8D])
Besides there are a bunch of user made scenarios that cover battles as Narvik or Operation Sealion.
Check them here
http://cota.matrixgames.com/downloads/

Having limited gaming time and a lot of cool wargames around to play i prefer quality to quantity. I have the Campaign series games (bought years ago form Talonsoft), but i don't think i played more than 10% of their scenarios.
I only have one life [;)]
They were great games back then and probably they are very good still, but IMHO they can't compare with the most realist and sophisticated wargame engine around: Pather games one [&o]

Cheers




doomtrader -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 8:05:01 AM)

@ Alexander, maybe the excuse is lame, but I think that Matrix is not able to make such much hype as Electronics Arts do. I think there are two zeros (or at least one) of difference in yearly income of both companies.

Another thing is that 99% of forumees here are not average players. For a casual player it's very important to have pure joy from playing the game, and thinking is not always close to that.


I've got nothing against saying that the graphic is few years old (even Paradox' 3D is old), but why every strategy has to be called hardcore?

Other thing is that some of the game have so great modding potential, that it's possible to make it completly different title. Look at the Fallout Mod for Hearts of Iron 2. Look at the mods made for Mount&Blade.

BTW: Paradox games ARE turn based, to say even more, take a look at HoI 3 map, most of the provinces are pentagonal and hexagonal.






Arsan -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 8:14:27 AM)


quote:


BTW: Paradox games ARE turn based, to say even more, take a look at HoI 3 map, most of the provinces are pentagonal and hexagonal.


Really?? [8|]
I must have been distracted since i started playing EU1 in 2001 and never noticed [;)]




doomtrader -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 8:55:21 AM)

@Arsan
Yes it's really turn based but you don't have to click end turn.
There are even few types of turn:
1. Hourly, most of the game mechanics use it.
2. Daily, used especialy for research and events (of course events can be trigerred at specific hour but Paradox is not using this)
3. Some of the game mechanics changes are reloaded only when a country is annexed or game is loaded, so that's why in some of the mods there are offmap countries made especially for that.




Arsan -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 9:04:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

@Arsan
Yes it's really turn based but you don't have to click end turn.
There are even few types of turn:
1. Hourly, most of the game mechanics use it.
2. Daily, used especialy for research and events (of course events can be trigerred at specific hour but Paradox is not using this)
3. Some of the game mechanics changes are reloaded only when a country is annexed or game is loaded, so that's why in some of the mods there are offmap countries made especially for that.


Well, i guess we call the same thing with different names. [:)]
In my book that is (Pausable) Real Time.
The player don't care much about how the inner game engine calculations are done (every second, every minute, every hour...)
But the gameplay is certainly Real time
Using the same logic a turn based game can be said to be Real time, except that it is auto paused from time to time [:'(]

Cheers!




06 Maestro -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 9:08:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arsan

COTA is not only about Malta and Crete. [:-]
It also covers both the mainland Greece campaigns (the disastrous Italians vs Greece and the onslaught of the Germans against the allies). And since the last patch it also includes several North african scenarios (with the sexy Afrika korps in them [8D])
Besides there are a bunch of user made scenarios that cover battles as Narvik or Operation Sealion.
Check them here
http://cota.matrixgames.com/downloads/

Having limited gaming time and a lot of cool wargames around to play i prefer quality to quantity. I have the Campaign series games (bought years ago form Talonsoft), but i don't think i played more than 10% of their scenarios.
I only have one life [;)]
They were great games back then and probably they are very good still, but IMHO they can't compare with the most realist and sophisticated wargame engine around: Pather games one [&o]

Cheers


Double dittos. What you wrote fits my situation exactly-except that I have been off work for 3 weeks and have another 1 to go. I have plenty of time (currently) to play my nice collection of games, but I still ended up with CotA this evening-again-even though I have some fairly new ones that I have hardly touched. It is a special game.

BTW; there is another new North Africa scenario, Battle Axe. Its not hosted at PG yet, but should be soon. Its very well done-created by one of our more illustrious members, PoE.

Regarding the era's that developers choose; I think it goes without saying that more is known about WW2 than any other war. There is more written about WW2 than any other war. It would follow that more people have read or studied that particular war and thus there are more people interested in gaming that war. Its my experience that playing a game in a setting that one is familiar with is more enjoyable-if one is interested in historical what ifs.

I am currently playing Crown of Glory EE. It is a very well designed game and is enjoyable to play. However, due to my lack of detailed knowledge of that era, I really have little to gage my "successes" in the game. This detracts from the pleasure of playing an otherwise enjoyable game.




06 Maestro -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 9:16:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arsan


quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

@Arsan
Yes it's really turn based but you don't have to click end turn.
There are even few types of turn:
1. Hourly, most of the game mechanics use it.
2. Daily, used especialy for research and events (of course events can be trigerred at specific hour but Paradox is not using this)
3. Some of the game mechanics changes are reloaded only when a country is annexed or game is loaded, so that's why in some of the mods there are offmap countries made especially for that.


Well, i guess we call the same thing with different names. [:)]
In my book that is (Pausable) Real Time.
The player don't care much about how the inner game engine calculations are done (every second, every minute, every hour...)
But the gameplay is certainly Real time
Using the same logic a turn based game can be said to be Real time, except that it is auto paused from time to time [:'(]

Cheers!


[:D] It does not matter how the clock advances, but what is happening while it advances. In RT pause-able both sides are doing things simultaneously. That is how Eu and HoI operate-regardless if you stop the clock every hour, day, or month. WEGO is the nice in-between method-sort of turn based, but sort of not turn based.




doomtrader -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 10:16:58 AM)

Of course guys you are right, this is how I only wanted to show you that something it's not exactly what it looks like.
I've been a Paradox (especially HoI2) modder for a long time and realized it's a 'turn based' when I started to lurk into the files.
To be honest Paradox games are a real Real Time Strategies in my opinion, not those arcade C&C or Starcraft. [;)]




Arsan -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 10:51:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

To be honest Paradox games are a real Real Time Strategies in my opinion, not those arcade C&C or Starcraft. [;)]


Of course! Real Time does not mean standard "build and battle" RTS
We Could use the RRTS acronym ("real" real time strategy) for them [:D]
Cheers




Tomus -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 11:04:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil

quote:


Johan said it was 200,000 with 60,000 in USA


I remember 500,000 rather distinctly (from a recent article/interview), although I can't find the interview where it cropped up, it's possible the numbers were given at different times. In any case, at 200,000, it may still be the best selling wargame of all times.

What did the original TOAWs sell? I think it was around 20,000? That's the only number I ever heard at least.

quote:


Except what was told above, also reviewers are a little bit guilty. If there is a review of a wargame (hexes, turns) in some non-wargaming magazine or portal, then it's most often starts with the words: "Another hardcore title for veterans from XXX company (...)". There is also a lot of words like hard, challenge, complicated etc.
I'm not suprised that regular player baypasses strategy genre.


Lame excuses for poor marketing [8|] Being described as "challenging" is better than not being described at all. Besides, I have never seen "depth" being a reason for a low rating. Poor tutorials, incomprehensible interfaces, rampant bugs and ugly graphics do that. "Depth" ends up being a positive characteristics in any mainstream review, and simplicity often gets blasted (take a look at any review for Spore).

Also, a big hint - the reason hexes get blasted is because they are a throwback to boardgames that PCs are supposed to be able to transcend. Incidentally, Airborne Assault games demonstrate clearly that they can. Turn-based mechanics don't get any negative ratings if they make sense in the context of the game, but then there is no rule that says that a wargame has to be turn-based (or hex-based).


Companies have tried to mainstream strategy games with depth, Battlefront with Theatre of War and Combat Mission Shockforce have both opted for decent graphics, smooth interfaces and somewhat hyped releases and they have been forced from the retail market and into download only land.

Even in the FPS world games like Red Orchestra and BF Project Reality despite great word of mouth and superb gameplay are not exactly popular.




Rabbitman -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 11:14:11 AM)

Would I be the only one interested in a serious game based around the Gallipoli campaign??

It's an interesting period of my nation's history and I think it would make for an interesting wargame and I've not seen any game really tackling this campaign yet(well not to my knowledge anyway).




SlickWilhelm -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 2:10:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rabbitman

Would I be the only one interested in a serious game based around the Gallipoli campaign??

It's an interesting period of my nation's history and I think it would make for an interesting wargame and I've not seen any game really tackling this campaign yet(well not to my knowledge anyway).


No, you would not be the only one interested in a Gallipoli campaign. [:)]

Time for a WWI thread!




Lützow -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 2:37:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomus

Companies have tried to mainstream strategy games with depth, Battlefront with Theatre of War and Combat Mission Shockforce have both opted for decent graphics, smooth interfaces and somewhat hyped releases and they have been forced from the retail market and into download only land.


CS:Shockforce is a good example about how a former intriguing series went down the drain, as the dev's decided to target a larger audience by introducing real-time. I did not bother with ToW 2 but according to forum activity sales numbers shouldn't be too high as well.




06 Maestro -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 2:43:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rabbitman

Would I be the only one interested in a serious game based around the Gallipoli campaign??

It's an interesting period of my nation's history and I think it would make for an interesting wargame and I've not seen any game really tackling this campaign yet(well not to my knowledge anyway).


No, you would not be the only one interested in a Gallipoli campaign. [:)]

Time for a WWI thread!


It would certainly look different. The hexes would be in yards and the unit size in Bn's perhaps. I've never seen a game like that.

There is no shortage of interesting battle to model. Gallipoli would certainly be one-although it might get a little boring for many players. Although it was a great scheam that could have had historical implications, it turned into an absurdly crowded and imobile situation. How to make that a fun game would be a challenge in itself.




Anthropoid -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 3:17:25 PM)

Listening to you guys list off all these games that you laud but I've never heard of  (COTA, Red Orchestra, Shockforce . . .) is like being led on a whirlwind tour of the best cat house in Belgium and told 'you can only look, don't touch' . . . RL and the requirement to work and keep wife's happy really bites! [:@]




SireChaos -> RE: Enough already! (7/15/2009 3:30:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

You should try Hired Guns, a "Matrix Title" that IMO is pretty innovative. But you're right about the hype factor. It amazes me how unhyped Matrix remains about itself.


I think a major part of the hype factor is that most mainstream games just plain look lots cooler than most "hardcore" wargames. As far as I can tell, the mass market goes more for shiny looks than for deep subjects.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6601563