|
MrsWargamer -> What's in a name (or game description) (3/25/2016 1:27:22 PM)
|
I ditched my ASL. Might be regretting letting it go if only because I got rid of over 100 maps in the process.
I am not regretting letting go of the manual. Or the charts.
I could have kept the counters I suppose, because I had it all.
I'm not concerned about the scenarios as most of mine were digital from outside of modules. And were somewhat case specific.
I'm looking at the box for Squad Leader. The Game of Infantry Combat in WW II. I think the moment they released Cross of Iron, the emphasis on Infantry combat died. I obtained a set of old Squad Leader modules recently (in a condition that is appalling to a point). I'm pondering ripping out most of the 'not infantry combat' from the experience.
I really liked Steel Panthers. I've played it all in some capacity. But the name was a dead give away. It wasn't about leading Squads. It was focused on driving tanks, and there were infantry units present.
I have not gotten Tigers on the Hunt yet and sadly will miss the sale dang it. But the name, I wonder how it impacts the game play. Is it closer to Squad leading, or tank driving. And why the desperate need to always refer to German nomenclature. Yeah I realize Shermans weren't as awesome, but unless you had an 88 in 1940 a Matilda was a problem. And a Churchill was not an easy target. And a T34/85 was no easy meat target either.
I got distracted there I think.
I wish the market would go back to trying to give us a good war game that wasn't always tank dependent. Up Front is one of the best war games I have ever played. There's armour in it, and I rarely see them used.
Yes it was a war greatly influenced by the tank. But artillery was no small thing either. And so what.
When playing Steel Panthers (any flavour) I found it often a tedious gaming experience moving a zillion forms of vehicle each turn. The only time I really liked the game, was during moments like the Mega Campaign Screaming Eagles. You didn't have a large map or scores of tanks. I found the desert Mega Campaign often a boring process of moving too many vehicles. Not as much need to think. "oh well I still have 100 other vehicles". Every last unit mattered in Screaming Eagles.
I think infantry combat can be more exciting, if our game makers would just make it the focus.
And no, I don't want some real time doodle, I want a board game like feel, not an arcade game experience.
Combat Mission never did it for me.
If I can make the idea work, I'm just going to re write the Squad Leader series manuals, and downplay most of the not infantry combat needs and lessen the need to have a counter for every single permutation of vehicle ever even vaguely considered. I plan to go through the counter mix and just stick all the oddity vehicles and highly unlikely large gun types in a bag as not worth the space in the counter trays.
I'm also going to hand draw some boards that have not a sign of a road on them. Too many roads on the boards some times. I'm going to make some of the boards double wide and some double long. So that you can actually get the feel for actually driving out in the middle of the vastness of Russia. Because the roads are often a bit silly. And yes, it is indeed handy that I have artistic talents.
This ties in with Tigers on the Hunt and the sometimes talked about Steel Tigers (you guys need to let go of the obsession with Tiger tanks and Panther tanks). Because I'm hoping the game is able to escape the terrain bias ASL ended up with. Near the end of my ownership of ASL they had finally tried to generate boards that worked with isomorphic boards, but gave them new configuration possibilities (the end cap boards).
There needs to be more to the game than driving tanks along predictable roads. There needs to be more wilderness, less urban. Yes I realize some parts of Europe are a town every short walk away. What about the parts that are not?
And why do all scenarios need to be saturated in armour. Armour wasn't always present eh.
|
|
|
|
