|
abradley -> Re: Looking for a Strategy (not real time) Game (1/3/2003 8:10:29 AM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yohan
[B]Hi,
I'm trying to find a good Strategic level game (all who count Axis and Allies as strategy please stop reading) for a buddy of mine to play by PBEM.
I'm looking at either WWII or Napoleonic computer games that fit this bill.
Thanks... [/B][/QUOTE]
How about 'High Command', at
http://www.ryanbailey.com/hicom/hicom.html
there is a download of the game and manuals, plus complete instructions for Win 95,98, and 98se install and pbm play.
http://www.pressroom.com/~meb/20tha3.htm#HIGH%20COMMAND
HIGH COMMAND
(I) Colorado Computer Games; Gregg Carter and Joey Nonnast; 1991; ***
Adv/Land-Nav-Air/Op-Str
1-3
THIRD REICH -- the way it should have been done. While the AI came in for much criticism, the game itself was easy to learn and play. Economics, strategic planning and operational warfare yielded one of the more complex simulations in terms of playing well.
HIGH COMMAND
(I) Three Sixty; Gregg Carter and Joey Nonnast; 1993; ***+
Adv/Land-Nav-Air/Op-Str
1-3
The updated SVGA version with improved graphics, yet the AI still seemed to be learning disabled. Altogether, a sequel with substantive improvements, and yet it could have been so much more ...
Probably the best way to review "High Command:1939-45"
(i.e. HC) is to begin by listing the games that it
somewhat compares with/against, using the following
three categories:
1. Scope and realism of historical period.
2. Complexity of strategy and functionality.
3. Playability, breadth of details covered, and
ability to play game against computer or live human.
The games:
PC versions of Axis and Allies and Third Reich, Clash
of Steel, Call to Power 2, Civilization III,
Diplomacy, Risk/Risk II, Empire Earth.
SCOPE: Only High Command, A&A, TR, and CoS cover
EXACTLY the topic of strategic war in Europe during
1939-45+, but only HC covers as much detail (even the
graphics are the best of the bunch).
COMPLEXITY: While a fun diversion, A&A is simply a
kid's game. TR was better as a board game, and as
such, was only a little better than A&A. TR and COS
cut LOTS of corners! Winner: HC, as it pays close
attention to detailed borders, rules, and choices
allowable by the players.
PLAYABILITY: A&A is easy to play, and a fun diversion
for a couple of hours (great for a break), but it's
not very realistic. Only HC comes as close as I've
seen to a real strategic simulation experience. It
does have flaws, however, such as limiting only 2
players (the Axis player controls all Axis countries,
for example), the inability of neutrals to produce,
deploy, or have any impact until actually at war, and
the unrelated action phases that take a little away
from the overall impact (a common flaw with most, if
not all, turn-based wargames, in all fairness). But,
OVERALL, you won't find anything released yet that
seriously challenges it with an AI, and that's since
1993!. (NOTE: Europe in Flames (or World in Flames)
looks promising, but details are sketchy).
Once you realize what is left of the bunch (HC), you
can approach it with a better set of expectations, and
understand that yes, it is DOS-based, and yes, there
are flaws in the game, but there are ways around those
flaws that remedy the game back to an enriching
experience.
Here's a concrete example.
The game was not designed to be played by email, or
over the web, but it is possible. It only requires
honesty from both players, and an understanding that
the Allied player (on his computer) will move first,
and the Axis player (on his computer) will watch the
action happen. Both players' phases happen
separately, and with the exception of the momentary
second it takes to save the game at the start of the
oppenent's phase, and then exit (to then email the
files), there will be no real obstacle to making it
work. There are only 3 files associated with each
scenario that will be changed, and they can be emailed
in a small zip file (typically under 30k, so we are
talking NOTHING in terms of email). Those files are
labeled for the scenario, and end with .aln, .axn, and
.sav. (see details at
[url]www.ryanbailey.com/hicom/hicom.html[/url]).
|
|
|
|
