going operational (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns Series >> Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris



Message

kafka -> going operational (8/13/2010 2:21:22 PM)

Sorry to say this, but I'm disappointed. Another via matrix publishing developer who has decided to move from strategy to purely operational. After the great disappointment with the new war in the east by 2by3 which has crippled the strategy layer by removing all production, WCS abandonning the great strategic-tactical 2 layers model in favour of a series of a purely operational wargames, now VR Designs which seems to follow the same path. Maybe that's how the business model has to be because of god market allegedly requiring it, I don't know, but I'm getting the impression that's just about producing the greatest possible amount of products from one engine requiring the game design to be reduced to just the operational layer - anyway from my view, sorry I'm not one of those willing to take on it.



Erik Rutins -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 4:14:44 PM)

Hi Kafka,

I'm not sure how you've decided all this, but it's simply not the case. Each of the developers you mention made their own decisions.

War in the East will not disappoint you, I guarantee. I'm a huge fan of Gary's previous Eastern Front games and this is without a doubt the best yet, based on my experience with the beta.

Creating a new Civil War battle game based on the original tactical engine for Forge of Freedom has been a long-term wish list item for WCS fans as well as the development team. They are working on multiple projects at the same time and have in no way abandoned the idea of the strategic/tactical combined game simply because they branched out from it.

This game and the others all represent huge investments of development time and resources and none of them are being done "on the cheap". Each of them involves either a complete overhaul of a previous engine with development time equivalent to a ground up new release, or a completely new engine unique to the game.

I'm sorry you see all this as negative, but I had to chime in as from where I'm sitting you are barking up the wrong trees. Personally, I see three new high quality wargames coming here and I'm excited and hopeful that wargamers will get a lot of enjoyment from them.

I believe this (Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris) is going to be a very well received new series on WWII with detailed operational battles and a strategic decision layer. Many wargamers considered Advanced Tactics to have the potential to be the best operational WWII wargame around and I think this release will make a compelling case for that.

I believe War in the East will be the best Eastern Front wargame ever made for the computer. I believe Brother against Brother will be the best tactical ACW game ever made for the computer. This is all my opinion from where I am sitting, having played and tested the beta versions. I hope that after these releases the community will agree with me, but as it stands I'm pretty darned excited about these upcoming releases. Each of these games is being made by excellent design and development teams who had the freedom to make their own decisions on how best to achieve their vision.

Regards,

- Erik



kafka -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 5:07:17 PM)

Erik,

thanks for your reply. I didn't want to put the value of those upcoming games in question. I'm sure they will provide high quality in regard to what they are designed to be. I explicitly referred to the design decision to make them operational only, what may be valid from your btw the developers' point of view. On other side, from my point of view, it's a disappointment, for none of those games is going to include the strategic layer (i.e. production, research and so on) I was hoping for and what I have enjoyed from their previous games.



TPM -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 5:22:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kafka

Erik,

thanks for your reply. I didn't want to put the value of those upcoming games in question. I'm sure they will provide high quality in regard to what they are designed to be. I explicitly referred to the design decision to make them operational only, what may be valid from your btw the developers' point of view. On other side, from my point of view, it's a disappointment, for none of those games is going to include the strategic layer (i.e. production, research and so on) I was hoping for and what I have enjoyed from their previous games.


I tend to agree with the OP...this game looks awesome, and I am a HUGE fan of Advanced Tactics (going back to when it was a free game called People's Tactics), but I'm dissapointed that there won't be any production, etc. I keep waiting for that game that combines the simple elegance of Advanced Tactics with the scope of Hearts of Iron...I think what I want is a "better" Commander-Europe at War or Time of Wrath...anyway, looking forward to this game, but dissapointed that there is no strategic focus.



Erik Rutins -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 6:29:25 PM)

Guys,

There is a strategic layer in this game - it's similar to the action cards in AT but more historical. Among the things you can do with your PPs is choose among strategic options that affect how the operational battle is setup and unfolds and what the victory conditions are, gain intelligence on enemy strategic actions and things like weather and outright "purchase" additional reinforcements.

Also, this is not the sequel to AT, but it will feel very familiar to AT fans and I think you guys will enjoy it. AT2 is a separate future release.

Regards,

- Erik



Widell -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 6:34:20 PM)

Seems like we're back to the preference discussion, and we all know there's no right answer to it [;)]. Maybe this discussion should be had in the General forum? It is an interesting one as all developers make their calls during the design process, and it could be interesting for them to hear the arguments for and against the different alternatives.

On the other hand, as Bartheart answered me in another thread in this forum: This is not AT2, so it's probably not 100% fair to compare with AT either?



TPM -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 6:38:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Guys,

There is a strategic layer in this game - it's similar to the action cards in AT but more historical. Among the things you can do with your PPs is choose among strategic options that affect how the operational battle is setup and unfolds and what the victory conditions are, gain intelligence on enemy strategic actions and things like weather and outright "purchase" additional reinforcements.

Also, this is not the sequel to AT, but it will feel very familiar to AT fans and I think you guys will enjoy it. AT2 is a separate future release.

Regards,

- Erik


Thanks for the info Erik. Kind of sounds like we're/I'm complaining, which I guess we are, but all that aside, I am HUGE fan Victor's work and I'll most likely buy this game...provided it's not $80 or whatever. Thanks again.



TPM -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 6:40:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

Seems like we're back to the preference discussion, and we all know there's no right answer to it [;)]. Maybe this discussion should be had in the General forum? It is an interesting one as all developers make their calls during the design process, and it could be interesting for them to hear the arguments for and against the different alternatives.

On the other hand, as Bartheart answered me in another thread in this forum: This is not AT2, so it's probably not 100% fair to compare with AT either?


Agreed.



berto -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 6:45:53 PM)

I applaud this game's operational focus. My regret is more YAGET (Yet Another Game on the European Theater). Why no truly operational WWII Pacific games? (Going beyond the obvious choices of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima to include, for example, standalone games on: Bougainville; Rendova/New Georgia; Solomons Campaign (in general); Papua/New Guinea; Malaysia/Singapore; Burma; Philippines 41-42; Philippines 44-45; and others.)



AZKGungHo -> RE: going operational (8/13/2010 7:34:35 PM)

Yeah Baby!!!  This is great and I'm very excited!  AT was fun, but so nonhistorical in many ways.  This sounds great - and if it works well we could have an entire series of games getting better all the time covering the who ETO - and then there's always the Pacific!!

Can't way for this - you guys at Matrix are preparing so many great games that I may have to get a second job to pay for all this!! [&o]



sullafelix -> RE: going operational (8/14/2010 2:06:50 AM)

To me this game could branch out to be the Europa of computer games.

This is one of those few " just one more turn " games.

It is not about the entire situation in 39 or 40 but the separate scenarios that played out then.

This game is also very historical,



scout1 -> RE: going operational (8/14/2010 2:44:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: berto

I applaud this game's operational focus. My regret is more YAGET (Yet Another Game on the European Theater). Why no truly operational WWII Pacific games? (Going beyond the obvious choices of Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima to include, for example, standalone games on: Bougainville; Rendova/New Georgia; Solomons Campaign (in general); Papua/New Guinea; Malaysia/Singapore; Burma; Philippines 41-42; Philippines 44-45; and others.)


Not ditzing the Pacific theatre for operational games, but weren't most of the contests you listed basically slugfests ? Lack maneuver. WOuld be like WWI, western front later in the war ....



berto -> RE: going operational (8/14/2010 4:17:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1
Not ditzing the Pacific theatre for operational games, but weren't most of the contests you listed basically slugfests ? Lack maneuver. WOuld be like WWI, western front later in the war ....

Nope.

It just goes to show how little is remembered about these "forgotten" conflicts. [:(]



JameyCribbs -> RE: going operational (8/14/2010 1:30:55 PM)

I'm actually very happy that this game does not include production. Production was actually the part of AT that I enjoyed the least. Too much micro-management. I want to be the general and move my troops around and fight battles, not a rear-area administrator.

I realize that a lot of players feel the opposite, I just wanted to reply to the OP so that Vic knows that some of us are happy that he did not include production in his latest game.



Vasquez -> RE: going operational (8/14/2010 3:15:43 PM)

Iam also disappointed about the lack of production. I thought the sequel of AT would be a kinda "Axis High Command Game". Seems we have to wait "a bit" more ;) But Ill buy this one anyway.



Josh -> RE: going operational (8/14/2010 7:59:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vasquez

Iam also disappointed about the lack of production. I thought the sequel of AT would be a kinda "Axis High Command Game". Seems we have to wait "a bit" more ;) But Ill buy this one anyway.


It's not the sequel to AT, we will have to wait for that one just a little bit longer.



Widell -> RE: going operational (8/14/2010 10:04:34 PM)

LOL - I think Matrix and Vic will have to make an official stickied statement soon - "This is not AT2" - It was definitely not clear to me when I first read the announcement on the Matrix home page.....



Sheytan -> RE: going operational (8/15/2010 6:02:08 AM)

WHA! This isnt the case with TBWTP, the real operational constraint is supply allocation in repect to the HQ chain. Yes formations and the "weight" of each formation married to a HQ has a effect but this IS NOT a operational game. You will have to decide which regiments to allocated to the attack and which to withhold for the breakthrough. This is not Battles of the Bulge, and that is not to denigrate that title. It is the old style SPI style boardgame in spirit with some nice bells and whistles thrown in. The game will really shine when you have AARs running about a multi sided match.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kafka

Sorry to say this, but I'm disappointed. Another via matrix publishing developer who has decided to move from strategy to purely operational. After the great disappointment with the new war in the east by 2by3 which has crippled the strategy layer by removing all production, WCS abandonning the great strategic-tactical 2 layers model in favour of a series of a purely operational wargames, now VR Designs which seems to follow the same path. Maybe that's how the business model has to be because of god market allegedly requiring it, I don't know, but I'm getting the impression that's just about producing the greatest possible amount of products from one engine requiring the game design to be reduced to just the operational layer - anyway from my view, sorry I'm not one of those willing to take on it.




Hexagon -> RE: going operational (8/16/2010 10:24:24 AM)

I prefer tactical/operational games over grand strategy games but i am a little bored of WWII, maybe this serie could cover other wars like Spanish civil war or travel to the Pacific, yes, is WWII but is different [:'(]



Widell -> RE: going operational (8/16/2010 9:39:30 PM)

Hexagon - I think you should check out AT first if you are looking for that flexibility and the range of scenarios. When you have done that, start waiting for AT2 with (hopefully) many of the features from this series.

You won't be disappointed with AT, and if you manage to convince guys like Grymme and the other scenario makers, they'll throw out almost anything you can imagine with good quality in all aspects! Waiting for anything beyond WWII here will be a very long wait I'm afraid :-)



Ola Berli -> RE: going operational (8/16/2010 11:21:38 PM)

Hexagon is dreaming of a Spanish Civil War title that is a niche product [:D]



Hexagon -> RE: going operational (8/17/2010 11:18:04 AM)

I have AT some time ago but i dont find today the point to the game, i am a slow wargamer and need my time to asume game features, not allways, but usually i need turn on my light to love a game [:D]

Hehehehe of course, allways support niche products if i find then interesting but need a little more than an interesting war (for example there is the SB Spanish Civil war but i dont like SB series and dont buy it i prefer PzC/WW1 engine).

I am going to wait a little and see the game evolution, first of all i see the price and then if is interesting i see the moddeable options because no editor dont necessary means no custom scens [:'(]



Ola Berli -> RE: going operational (8/17/2010 3:54:55 PM)

Hexagon only friendly teasing my spanish friend [:'(]

Yes agree with You I also like niche products. If HPS had made a Spanish Civil War game close to PZC I certainly had picked it up! But looks like they are afraid of the market for such games. Nowaday few people outside spain have heard about the fight for Madrid, Bandera, International Brigades.........




Hexagon -> RE: going operational (8/17/2010 5:45:13 PM)

Hahahaha teasing is the national sport in some countries [:D]

Of course forgotten wars arent for all tastes for example i start not with WW2, my first game cover American civil war, then arrive the WW2 fever and now i try all (ancient, napoleonic, sales wars hehehe) but have some special preferences from my years as student hehehe. Well, talking about the game i think that this game can cover forgotten episodes of WW2 because see a good Pacific game is hard and this game is based on pack different campaigns in a single game and maybe can find a forgotten battles serie [;)]

PD:For Spanish civil war in HPS is prefer WW1 engine arty use is more close to real use but PzC is a great engine too and works fine at least in the Jarama37 mod.




Grymme -> RE: going operational (8/17/2010 7:43:42 PM)

Hexagon. There actually is a Spanish Civil War scenario downloadable for Advanced Tactics. I dont remember how historical it is since it was a year or two since i made it, but you can always look it up.



Hexagon -> RE: going operational (8/18/2010 12:08:00 PM)

I know the scen Grymme, i buy the game thanks to an AAR based on this scenario but is a "fast food" scen, in TOAW are more and better scens covering this war, even i play one by PBEM dont end it (only play until the begining of 1937) but was a funny game [:D]

Maybe TOAW is better to cover full wars, dont have production but is the only bad thing that this game have... i search now more operational games because i rarelly play my full wars games i have some waiting their turn.

PD: one of the interesting features in the game is the 9 player support because i am looking for a team game, play as a small god is [>:] and want a little more of human feeling [;)]



Widell -> RE: going operational (8/18/2010 10:35:20 PM)

Hmm, have a look at the epic AT AAR of the George vs Seille game: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1866376. Agreeable, this is not the Spanish Civil War, and AT (as TOAW) is flexible to create both "fast food" as well as "grog" scenarios. Both systems (AT and TOAW) have their pro's and con's, so let's not go into a discussion about which system covers what best. At the end of the day, it's down to individual taste, and the implementation of each scenario in the context of what is possible with each game.

If AT2 comes out, and someone put time and effort into the Spanish Civil War (or any other scenario you can think of) it will most likely satisfy any need we can think of given the endless flexibility such a game would have!



Zemke -> RE: going operational (8/25/2010 3:06:43 AM)

I cannot wait for WitE and WTP to come out!  I am particularly interested in the "Team Play" features in WTP, which having played some very long games of HPS Danube 85 as team games, I am very curious to see how team play is handled in this game.  Team play gaming represents the most realistic way to play.  In real life all commanders had to deal with real humans who may or may not be as competent or cooperative.  As a professional Army Officer, much of your time if is not the war fighting part, but working with and for other commanders and trying to get everyone (staffs and commanders) on the same page, and everyone to clearly understand the orders given and the purpose behind those orders.  If only humans were computers, then planning and fighting wars would be a lot easier....lol.

For me the holy grail of team wargaming would be a system where all players can be doing their turn at the same time, then the files are "merged" into two master files and exchanged, or something similar.  This would solve largest problem with team games, the length of time it takes to get the file back, creating a less than idea turn around time for the files.  IF this could be done via programing, then you could have huge team games, and a chain of command several layers deep, from Theater to Army Group to Army to Corps, with all players trying to execute their higher commander's "intent", truly this would be a land mark game.



Jeffrey H. -> RE: going operational (8/25/2010 7:43:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

For me the holy grail of team wargaming would be a system where all players can be doing their turn at the same time, then the files are "merged" into two master files and exchanged, or something similar.  This would solve largest problem with team games, the length of time it takes to get the file back, creating a less than idea turn around time for the files.  IF this could be done via programing, then you could have huge team games, and a chain of command several layers deep, from Theater to Army Group to Army to Corps, with all players trying to execute their higher commander's "intent", truly this would be a land mark game.



I recall reading a review recently of a game where the PBEM system is handled on a single server and people log into theserver and complete their turn. The server displays the current status, and who's turn is pending. It's great from a visiblity standpoint, no more "who's got the turn" emails. It could also be extended to keeping stats on player response times. So you could know ahead of time who's quick with the turnarounds and who isn't.

The main drawback is of course your game is server based, and if the plug ever get's pulled on the server, or they decide to start charging just for server access, you lose.




Zemke -> RE: going operational (8/26/2010 3:27:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

For me the holy grail of team wargaming would be a system where all players can be doing their turn at the same time, then the files are "merged" into two master files and exchanged, or something similar.  This would solve largest problem with team games, the length of time it takes to get the file back, creating a less than idea turn around time for the files.  IF this could be done via programing, then you could have huge team games, and a chain of command several layers deep, from Theater to Army Group to Army to Corps, with all players trying to execute their higher commander's "intent", truly this would be a land mark game.



I recall reading a review recently of a game where the PBEM system is handled on a single server and people log into theserver and complete their turn. The server displays the current status, and who's turn is pending. It's great from a visiblity standpoint, no more "who's got the turn" emails. It could also be extended to keeping stats on player response times. So you could know ahead of time who's quick with the turnarounds and who isn't.

The main drawback is of course your game is server based, and if the plug ever get's pulled on the server, or they decide to start charging just for server access, you lose.



I will do a google search, but do you have any further information on this game, the name or where the review was? I would be very interested in taking a look.

I think a game that could do this would revolutionize PBEM team games forever!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.4375