Khornish -> RE: For the love of Grognards (12/10/2005 2:13:17 PM)
|
Although I am pumping life into an older thread, I did want to add my own comments to this. I too want to see an integrated operational/tactical game. I want to be able to "be there" as Commander X and face similar problems in that I'd not have a "god's eye view" or would I be all-knowing. Except, I'd need to have the option to become all-knowing and all-seeing if I wanted to. However, to play the game with the blinders on, the developers would need to provide me with certain tools so that I could interperete the information I do have properly. Let's face it, there's a lot of information and background that an army or corps commander of ca. 1805 would know from experience where today's gamer wouldn't have a clue regardless of experience. To have a true operational game, the developers would have to anticipate the needs after identifying the discrepancies. Additional desires, on my part, to see the interaction between the various types of units and their proper tasks on campaign cause me to have very high expectations from an operational game. For example, I want to see a "proper" usage of light cavalry. So far, in all the games I've played light cavalry has been virtually ignored in it's main role of scouting and screening. There been no way to even attempt to duplicate what Murat accomplished at the outset of the Ulm campaign. In order to pull myself back from another 2 hours of typing this post, I'll cut myself short here and leave you with a few parting thoughts. I want to play Napoleonic campaigns (and fight out the resultant tactical battles) against one or more players via tcp/ip, pbem, and network. I want to be able to attempt to screen my movement and composition of forces by assigning my light cavalry units to such duties. I want to have freedom to manuever my forces over the campaign area, as opposed to doing so between two artificial barriers X# of hexes apart. I want to play with a time scale that would fall more in line with an operational and tactical hybrid. Perhaps 1 operational turn = 6 hours and 1 tactical turn = 15/30 minutes. I don't want to have to deal with the entire economy of my supporting industries. Just give me the numbers I can hope to expect with regards to reinforcements, replacements, ammunition, supplies, etc. And then make it realistic enough that a guarded supply route would deliver more of the stuff to me than an unguarded one. I want to have to deal with the results of battle casualties to my sub-commanders. Meaning I want to be forced to deal with my Lannes dying at a time that I really needed his help. I want a realisitic social/political dynamic that requires me to make the hard decisions as to what my objectives will be for the campaign and what kinds of costs I will have to pay if I fail to achieve my objectives within certain measurable allotements of time. For example, Why wouldn't the Austrian player abandon Ulm and head East to link up with the Advancing Russians? What social/political costs would arise if the Austrian player made such a decision? Okay.. I really have to stop myself, but I think you might get a picture of the type of game I want to play.
|
|
|
|