|
Kolbex -> RE: Desert War: Why Didn't You Buy? (5/22/2018 9:27:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bcgames
quote:
ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
Maybe the larger scenarios would be easier to play if you could order entire formations to move together. Say clicking just on the Bde HQ and moving it, and the subunits all move in formation without needing to move them individually. Sort of like Command Ops for those familiar with that game.
I like this idea as well--but for all scenarios. Like Take Command: Second Manassas. Organization-based movement plotting...anyone else hold a similar view?
Hell yes.
Edit: to expand a bit, my view is that the more a game can replicate the sorts of challenges that face an actual commander, the better. There are a handful of games that handle aspects of this. Maybe no game does as many as Command Ops, but I have a soft spot for turn-based games.
"High-level" Command, i.e. not having to order every single unit for it to take action: Command Ops and Campaigns on the Danube.
Fog of War: Campaigns on the Danube and Command Ops model this quite well.
Orders Delay/Command Load: Command Ops and Flashpoint Campaigns, as well as a board game called Redvers' Reverse.
The Fact That Sometimes Your Commanders Won't Do What You Tell Them To: the Take Command/Scourge of War games and the aforementioned Redvers' Reverse, as well as Flashpoint Campaigns to a lesser extent.
After I became aware of these games, I realized the vast majority of war games weren't in any way simulating what it's like to command in war, they were simulating what it's like to play a board game. This is a legacy of their tabletop roots, but computers enable a far more granular simulation, and more games should take advantage of that.
Shout out as well to Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, which marries a truly (and unfortunately) unique political layer to the otherwise fairly pedestrian chit pushing of the "main" game. I wish every wargame had something like this, although the scope in an operational game would have to be somewhat different. Perhaps in a hypothetical campaign mode the HQs/units under you could be "commanded" by actual names which become more or less likely to obey orders or goldbrick depending on battle results and whether they "feel" like you spent them recklessly or used them well, etc., or just based on "personality" numbers. The human factor applies at all levels of war. I understand the upcoming game Burden of Command will have something like this on a tactical level, incorporating King of Dragon Pass-like text events into battles.
|
|
|
|
