|
Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (10/23/2003 2:21:07 AM)
|
Endur I don't understand you :)
I just finished playing a game of SC, or rather I just quit playing that particular campaign heeh. The Russians just attacked me dang it hehe (I clearly messed something up because it's supposed to be me attacking them :) ).
I only just took Norway (thanks to mangled planning) and Yugoslavia just won't frickin Die.
That and I think the Brit unit in Suez in indestructible somehow hehe.
It's May 41 by the way.
Ok clearly I need to get better at my game, but the idea I won't play it the second I win, that seems to me absurd.
I just can't understand the "I beat that game" crowd.
I don't play wargames "just to beat them".
Not sure I fully understand your point on the man who made the original and the man who made the software comments though (at least in respects to WiF). I thought they were one in the same, more or less, or at least it is more or less the same company that makes the board game making the computer version (am I totally wrong there?).
I think your examples Nukes in LotR was a bit extreme hehe :)
I think it will be nice, that the games map will be a unified singular creation though. Getting all my maps to mate up was always a hassle. And being able to see the whole globe might be nice if possible.
I hope they don't fret to long over graphics for counters though.
I saw a post over at Wargamer talking about how a reviewer totally slagged the unit symbols for Korsun Pocket as being to hard to understand (amongst otgher comments thatruined his credibility as a whole). I guess he isn't a wargamer.
I have been using Nato symbology in wargames since the 70s.
I am actually more comfortable with a Nato symbol that a cute animated unit icon.
I won't cry if they add a bit of spice to the units, but anyone claiming they can't understand the units, clearly isn't a wargamer, or has only been one for a couple of months.
That reviewer was about the most wrongest choice of individual to comment on wargame design in my opinion.
I of course don't want the game to stray so far from being the boardgame, that there is no point in using the same name, but I won't be capable of cursing out the designer for being unable to mimic something that is normally a "physical article" and not a "program".
I like boardgames for many reasons. I like computer games for numerous reasons as well.
In some cases, you can't make a boardgame do what a computer game can do. But equally, there are somethings a computer game can't do what a boardgame can do.
|
|
|
|
