RE: Which wargame has done it best?

RE: Which wargame has done it best? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Zovs -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/12/2019 11:20:03 AM)
Overall the best war game engine that models just about 90% of operational to strategic warfare while remaining true to the board war gaming heritage and having an endless supply of scenarios and a pretty decent AI is hands down the TOAW system.

Simulacra53 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/12/2019 11:20:27 AM)
Decisive Campaigns: The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris I think SC3 War in Europe and World at War do grand strategy pretty well. Both games are a nice balance with enough depth without ever being overwhelming. Looking forward to the WW1 remake as a SC3 title. ATG and TOAW are very flexible, both certainly deserve their pedestal. So many games that bring awe, like JT PzC or WITE and WITW, but they can easily overwhelm the player. I want to give honorable mention to the newer PzB series, which have IMO are pretty impressive in their own right.

Blond_Knight -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/12/2019 1:51:14 PM)
Id like to mention Command Ops 2, AKA: Red Devils over Arnhem Highway to the Reich Conquest of the Aegean Battles from the Bulge The only bad thing I can say about this title is it almost plays itself. And that their new GUI layout doesn't lend itself to playing on a single display.

Kuokkanen -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/12/2019 2:35:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 You need to take the best of the boardgames that you liked and put them into a computer game. What else good are computers other than to save space and take on some of the calculations/resolutions and dice rolling? But for some reason the good to great games of the past aren't so much getting this treatment, rather we are getting tons of flimsy/buggy/overthought games. Plenty can post here offering up compromises, but thirty years on and there is no game that can do it right. It's pathetic I tell you, and I'm fed up with it, and I'm prepared to do something about it ... join with me! Try this. Best and most accurate duplication of BattleTech war game on a computer.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/12/2019 4:24:59 PM)
Oh, I wasn't even talking about Science Fiction. [image]local://upfiles/24850/FD29F1F193BC471DA804253F9EC81E81.jpg[/image]

asl3d -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/12/2019 6:32:02 PM)
Fans of the famous Advanced Squad Leader board game (Avalon Hill Company) may think that Tigers on the Hunt is their equivalent in the computer environment. However, I vote for Heroes of Stalingrad. [image]local://upfiles/56084/4218A95C7D844814BF82FE7B013DB2F5.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/12/2019 7:44:39 PM)
Without any doubt it has to be World In Flames. Don't get me wrong, it is not perfect, but boy does it do a fine job. The game is a strategic level game that covers the entirety of World War II. Why do I say it's done it best? Well the game is designed for either side to win, it's designed so that players can make decisions that were not made in WWII, because of the need to play balance, there are liberties taken with counter values...... and yet... and yet. Despite the above there are five outstanding aspects to the game: - The designers purposely have tried to harmonise the rules and not have a million different individual rules for each side or situation. There is a solid framework in place that, on its own, ensures that every game has a WWII feel. Even if one side heads off to Sweden, or Spain or Turkey, the rules that govern the major powers keep the overall feel on a WWII footing. Very cleverly done. - Whichever Major Power one plays, the game provides the owner with a proper feeling for the strengths, the weaknesses, the opportunities and the threats faced by the leaders of those powers in WWII. The challenges are immense - especially if playing with oil. - I could not believe it when first Planes in Flames and then Ships in Flames came out. This is a strategic game but here I am playing with every aircraft from WWII (and 'what ifs' beside) and every individual ship from light cruiser up. That is mad! It is also fantastic. - The game counters are wonderfully full coloured, bright, easy to read, and sit there just gagging to be played. As someone who prefers understatement this colouring shouldn't be a positive but it is here - it just works, without dumbing down the game. The one area ADG (the board game makers) got wrong was the maps. The CE has improved things quite a bit from the hideous version that went before - but Matrix World In Flames makes no such mistakes and simply provides the war gamer with pure, unadulterated World Map porn. It's just filth. - Last and by no means least the replayability/fun factor. The way the various combat, weather, search, initiative, turn length, turn end and US entry rules are formulated means that replayability is infinite. There are so few guaranteed successes. The game needs to be played a very, very long time before sterility sets in. In some ways linked to this is the game's fun factor. This is a complex game, but what ADG seem to have realised is that you don't have to break a wargamers balls in the interests of realism on every little point. Make a complex game yes sure - but make even the complex aspects of the game FUN! Yes, World In Flames has done it best.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 3:33:44 AM)
quote: Yes, World In Flames has done it best. As much as I have wanted to like World in Flames over the years, I have not. This game has no editor that allows users to modify it and no Computer Opponent. What good is a game if it can't let the computer run the game? And the WiF designer's may be good, but there has to be an editor so that users can make changes, especially for $99! Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, WiF is a complete fail. On a more general note, the size and complexity of WiF would exclude it from being at the top of many gamer's list. It is good for what it is and I'm not trying to disrespect it or its fans, but again I would have to say it is not the best wargame. Edit: And every time I look into the WiF Forum, don't I see them squashing big bugs? That's one of the main problems I was griping about. I know this [bugs] can't be avoided, even V4V and 3R discovered a bug or two after release. But it seems that games in this age are bug-riddled vermin infested embarrassments.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 4:11:43 AM)
quote: For those of you whom haven't tried it or checked it out Advanced Tactics has it all. Another one that I would like to like, it is great for what it is, but [from left to right in the screenshot below] look at the graphics from the 1920's, and its use of generic weapons systems, and CARTOONS !! If this is the best ever, again, we are legitimately so disappointed in what the 2000's has given us. Let me do developer's a big favor and release them from their efforts to make new games. First go back to the 1990's and create what was good about gaming, and then use your talents to improve them ... but only where improvement is needed. Don't create what was never meant to be. Create a boardgame that uses a computer to present itself. Don't worry about attracting the younger generation - Afrika Korps, Tactics II or Panzer Blitz will do that on their own. Were any of us attracted by the fancy boards and counters of the 60's and 70's ? Were any of attracted by the amazing graphics and speed of the 80's computers ? Hella no. We were drawn in by the wonder and amazement of Historical Simulations [&o] [image]local://upfiles/24850/6CDF8C3D10864A49B60D19B9A8B94AAB.jpg[/image]

Twotribes -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 5:45:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 quote: For those of you whom haven't tried it or checked it out Advanced Tactics has it all. Another one that I would like to like, it is great for what it is, but [from left to right in the screenshot below] look at the graphics from the 1920's, and its use of generic weapons systems, and CARTOONS !! If this is the best ever, again, we are legitimately so disappointed in what the 2000's has given us. Let me do developer's a big favor and release them from their efforts to make new games. First go back to the 1990's and create what was good about gaming, and then use your talents to improve them ... but only where improvement is needed. Don't create what was never meant to be. Create a boardgame that uses a computer to present itself. Don't worry about attracting the younger generation - Afrika Korps, Tactics II or Panzer Blitz will do that on their own. Were any of us attracted by the fancy boards and counters of the 60's and 70's ? Were any of attracted by the amazing graphics and speed of the 80's computers ? Hella no. We were drawn in by the wonder and amazement of Historical Simulations [&o] [image]local://upfiles/24850/6CDF8C3D10864A49B60D19B9A8B94AAB.jpg[/image] You are complaining about Graphics? I don't see you ragging on Steel Panthers or the other graphics challenged games mentioned here. As for Cartoon that is low blow. The modding process allows for better graphics the base game delivers the ability to change most everything in the game. And it can be any age any Genre. Now I am not sure you can model Helicopters and the combat engine isnt really designed for line of sight but everything else is possible.

warspite1 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 6:09:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 warspite1 Well we each like games for different reasons and have different requirements. As per my post, my comment was based on the game design and why I believe they've 'done it best' but would respond as follows: quote: This game has no editor that allows users to modify it This seems to be important to many gamers (no idea of the percentage) but certainly not to everyone. I have made use of a small, aesthetic, mod of the original game (Counter colour for the CW, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese) but could easily live without it. I know others have edited certain aspects but no, I don't believe there is a comprehensive editing ability. But World In Flames shouldn't need editing. It is based on a hugely successful board game and just coding the rules - designed for the world of cardboard and not pixels - has been an enormous challenge. If editing games is a must, then I can understand why this would be a no no. For me, I have no ability to edit and, for a game like this, I don't think its necessary so lack of an editor has zero impact for me. quote: Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, WiF is a complete fail. I can't see having an editor was a specific requirement laid out by the OP. It was a question "which wargame has done it best"? This game is at the 'strategy end of the spectrum' but regardless, I think its the best wargame ever. It seeks to allow players to play out World War II and it is, by some margin, the best game to do this. quote: no Computer Opponent. What good is a game if it can't let the computer run the game? This could set in train the old argument about an AI and its value so won't go down that route. I think the game would be difficult to add a meaningful AI (although the programmer begs to differ). If correct, it would be good to have one - if only to boost sales - but I think human vs human is the best way to play games so again, for me personally, I don't have an issue. quote: On a more general note, the size and complexity of WiF would exclude it from being at the top of many gamer's list. Again this is a personal thing but size and complexity shouldn't disqualify a game from such a list - the game either works for a player or it doesn't. WITP-AE is a monster but that has a large following and many players of that will have it as no.1. World In Flames the same. There are plenty of smaller games that I've really enjoyed, really got my money's worth out of - but I know I will never go back to them. WIF however stands the test of time for me and I keep returning to it. It's replayability (added to its sheer fun factor) means it never gets old. quote: And every time I look into the WiF Forum, don't I see them squashing big bugs? I don't know which big bugs you refer to. The game is playable, but yes bugs remain and it remains imperfect - although as you say - sadly that is not something unique to WIF and is an all too common issue with computer wargames.

wodin -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 9:49:11 AM)
come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice. quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 warspite1 Well we each like games for different reasons and have different requirements. As per my post, my comment was based on the game design and why I believe they've 'done it best' but would respond as follows: quote: This game has no editor that allows users to modify it This seems to be important to many gamers (no idea of the percentage) but certainly not to everyone. I have made use of a small, aesthetic, mod of the original game (Counter colour for the CW, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese) but could easily live without it. I know others have edited certain aspects but no, I don't believe there is a comprehensive editing ability. But World In Flames shouldn't need editing. It is based on a hugely successful board game and just coding the rules - designed for the world of cardboard and not pixels - has been an enormous challenge. If editing games is a must, then I can understand why this would be a no no. For me, I have no ability to edit and, for a game like this, I don't think its necessary so lack of an editor has zero impact for me. quote: Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, WiF is a complete fail. I can't see having an editor was a specific requirement laid out by the OP. It was a question "which wargame has done it best"? This game is at the 'strategy end of the spectrum' but regardless, I think its the best wargame ever. It seeks to allow players to play out World War II and it is, by some margin, the best game to do this. quote: no Computer Opponent. What good is a game if it can't let the computer run the game? This could set in train the old argument about an AI and its value so won't go down that route. I think the game would be difficult to add a meaningful AI (although the programmer begs to differ). If correct, it would be good to have one - if only to boost sales - but I think human vs human is the best way to play games so again, for me personally, I don't have an issue. quote: On a more general note, the size and complexity of WiF would exclude it from being at the top of many gamer's list. Again this is a personal thing but size and complexity shouldn't disqualify a game from such a list - the game either works for a player or it doesn't. WITP-AE is a monster but that has a large following and many players of that will have it as no.1. World In Flames the same. There are plenty of smaller games that I've really enjoyed, really got my money's worth out of - but I know I will never go back to them. WIF however stands the test of time for me and I keep returning to it. It's replayability (added to its sheer fun factor) means it never gets old. quote: And every time I look into the WiF Forum, don't I see them squashing big bugs? I don't know which big bugs you refer to. The game is playable, but yes bugs remain and it remains imperfect - although as you say - sadly that is not something unique to WIF and is an all too common issue with computer wargames.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 11:30:03 AM)
quote: come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice. Yes sir, for sure. I'm not against peoples choices, and certainly a thread like this will have many. It's that when people point out what they think is the game that has 'done it best' is one that obviously doesn't, I'm throwing in a quick counter view so that others who aren't aware become better informed. Folks will nominate their passionate choices, but you can't dispute the facts that I post. One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way. However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 11:41:22 AM)
quote: I don't see you ragging on Steel Panthers I didn't need to as it's too obvious to discount this one because it is a Tactical game, and Tactical and Strategic were not part of the question. The question was not 'which do you like and feel is pretty good', the question was which has done it best and are not to the tactical or strategy end of the spectrum.

MrsWargamer -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 1:32:51 PM)
WiF and Steel Panthers, both impressive designs. But the question was, and remains which did it best. And mentioned that tactical and grand strategy might be a problem. I don't actually think Advanced Tactics is the greatest wargame ever, but, for purposes of the thread, aced the question easier to a point over WiF AND SP. TOAW (even TOAW 1) is an incredible accomplishment of delivering more games in a box than I think we can readily count without a bit of time looking. I don't think the design is 'perfect', but, many many many board game equals, many settings, many time periods is a considerable accomplishment. I am unable to comment much out of of WW2 designs, as I'm not much of a non-WW2 gamer.

wodin -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 3:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 quote: come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice. Yes sir, for sure. I'm not against peoples choices, and certainly a thread like this will have many. It's that when people point out what they think is the game that has 'done it best' is one that obviously doesn't, I'm throwing in a quick counter view so that others who aren't aware become better informed. Folks will nominate their passionate choices, but you can't dispute the facts that I post. One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way. However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements. True. At AWNT first we do try and pick games we moist likely will enjoy. However if it's a turkey it will not get reviewed or people will be warned. Saying that though by turkey I mean rubbish and not cos it's something the reviewer doesn't like rather than a bad game allround.

warspite1 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 4:34:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wodin warspite1 Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice.

Kuokkanen -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 4:40:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way. And for many games, it isn't. There are game play videos with commentary for large % of the games and popular ones have lots of it. quote: However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements. LOL, no. There are many reviews along the lines: "The game is racist, don't buy it!" Japanese games in particular get this kind of hate. Just look up reviews (English language ones) for Dead or Alive 6.

sPzAbt653 -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/13/2019 6:14:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: wodin warspite1 Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice. And to clarify what I said, it was in the context of my original post here, concerning the state of games in general. I was not commenting on anyone's opinion, I was pointing out how my opinion was supported. For example, a game that is 'playable' is considerd by someone to be the best ever. This shows were we are.

06 Maestro -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/14/2019 11:58:49 PM)
Best??? :) I would go with the one I have played the most TOAW, WOTY, ACOW, TOAW III and soon, I suppose, TOAW IV. PC Gaming since '99 with dozens of different games including some great ones. However, TOAW is the one that keeps pulling me back. After several years of no gaming, TOAW 3 is one of the first back on my PC. Still, "best" is a bit subjective.

Twotribes -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 1:17:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653 quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: wodin warspite1 Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice. And to clarify what I said, it was in the context of my original post here, concerning the state of games in general. I was not commenting on anyone's opinion, I was pointing out how my opinion was supported. For example, a game that is 'playable' is considerd by someone to be the best ever. This shows were we are. You most certainly WERE commenting on Mine and Warspite's opinion, you specifically mentioned the game and then said why it was NOT the best.

Chickenboy -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 2:16:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Oi! Good to see you around mate. Best game=schmest game discussion. Your presence is required at the Australian Beauties thread. Tootsweet. Bring your infantry officer's bat with you too. ETA: War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition has clearly done it 'the best'. All other choices are rubbish* *Kidding. Kidding.

KingHart -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 1:28:49 PM)
My choice: Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Zovs -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 3:14:13 PM)
TOAW all eras (1400-2050), all levels from army to battalion mostly (has capabilities for companies and platoons), politics can be modeled slightly, great way to port board war games into it. Can be modded, no cartoons.

Alan Sharif -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 3:57:53 PM)
Another vote for TOAW here too.

ncc1701e -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 5:25:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KingHart My choice: Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ? The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

KingHart -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 5:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: KingHart My choice: Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ? The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects. WITP:AE was released in 2009, and is basically an upgraded WITP, which IIRC came out in 2004. WITE / WITW are more recent games, with more advanced game engines. I am not sure if the land combat model for those games (both European-based games) would work in a Pacific-islands based game. I really don't have a problem with AE's land combat, other than wishing it could be regiment-based, rather than division-based. My main reason for choosing WITP:AE as 'wargame that does it best' is that for the genre it represents (strategic WWII - Pacific), no other game comes close.

TulliusDetritus -> RE: Which wargame has done it best? (6/15/2019 10:21:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ? The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects. As a player of both WitE and WitP AE (PBEM and AI), I read many times this statement. And never understood why the land model of the latter would not work in the Russian steppes [&:] Daily turns, you just need to decide what will be the speed of the different units, and there go your counters, what's the problem exactly? If the variables are correct (as per real life), then the armored spearheads should be encircling let's say the Soviet armies deployed in the frontier districts (Barbarossa). I mean, what cosmic force would stop any player from doing that? [&:] Not practical? Maybe. Because players might not like daily turns, instead of the WitE weekly turns. But It can work, I'm convinced of that.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8125