RE: CHS Release 1.02 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

Theng -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/10/2005 4:33:30 PM)

I just download CHS 1.02 and the USS Utah in Pearl Harbor has no data in it. The ship is in harbor but nothing else (fuel, ammo, weapons, etc) is there



Terminus -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/10/2005 4:42:03 PM)

By 1941, the Utah had been converted into a target ship without weapons. They put it in to soak up Japanese bombs.



EasilyConfused -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 9:52:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

By 1941, the Utah had been converted into a target ship without weapons. They put it in to soak up Japanese bombs.


As it did historically.



Terminus -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 1:10:43 PM)

Yup...



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 1:58:46 PM)

You know this kind of "logic" makes me shake my head in amazement every time (even though I say to myself I will not get into CHS threads *anymore* - obviously I am not a man who honors his word [;)], that much I admit)

Both navies - no ALL navies had tons of ancient rusting hulks relegated to "target ship" duty. Conway lists tons of ships that ended up as targets. Yet only some of them get to be modelled by CHS.

Which ones?

You got it: Those that serve to "soak up Japanese bombs" as its so clearly stated above.

I see a need for new ship class here - BS. Bomb soaker, of course. [:'(]

CHS dudes, who constantly whine they have no slots to add anything, still manage to find place for Utah and Dewey dry dock [8|]

As they say in those courtroom movies "I rest my case".

O.



Terminus -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 2:57:23 PM)

Calm down, Oleg... Remember your blood pressure.[;)]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 6:53:54 PM)

Hey Oleg.

I wonder if the dead sailors on the Utah and Dewey Dock would agree with you? Man, you just don't get it. The opening turn is pretty important in the context of the game, but has the unfortunate problem of all the BS opening move crap by players in the know, both Japanese and Allied (compared to their historical counterparts who knew squat). You don't bitch about the game mechanics which allow crap like Japan's first turn bonus being universal, when in fact it really should only apply to KB, yet you make a huge hubbub over a ship like Utah being in on the first turn PH attack (and it has every right to be considering the it's historical significance at PH).

I don't get it unless you are a huge rabid Jap fanboy. The CHS guys are historical accuracy fanboys...it is not an Allied love in.



Bradley7735 -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 7:11:47 PM)

Yeah!!

And, the only purpose Dewey Dry dock serves is to give the Japanese player 1 point. It will do absolutely nothing else.

Even playing against the AI, I can't get it to safety. It's always sunk.

Don't forget about all those other allied ships put deep in Japanese territory on turn 1. Some more freebie points for the Japanese player.

I have not seen any bias towards either side in the CHS mod.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 7:44:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

all the BS opening move crap



There you go - "bomb soaker" ship class making trouble again [:D]

Come on Ron... since you actually admitted of never playing 1st Jap turn in this game, couple weeks ago, you know you can't be taken seriously. What would you know about any 1st turn Jap bonus except on the receiving end? I was shocked that (former) beta tester actually admits of never playing the crucial first turn of the game he supposedly helped testing.

Have you actually played Jap 1st turn in the meantime?

My experience is that *usually* PH results are worse (for the Japs) than historical. This is my experience, and is no way "scientific" or universal. Of course results may vary wildly, but IME on average they are less damaging than historic.

If CHS guys are so "heavy" on history (which IMO they are not) then I don't see any need for BS class ships in PH (and, being unmovable, they really serve no other purpose than to soak bombs).

O.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 7:58:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Even playing against the AI, I can't get it to safety. It's always sunk.


Thank you for making my point [;)] If it's always sunk then it does its BS duty quite well.

Since it's unmovable, and dies with the harbor, it's actually a "harbor equipment" not a ship.

Just another example of strange logic CHS uses. Of all the dozens of floating docks in the Pacific this one is modelled others are not? [>:] Mishmash approach to wargame scenario design to say the least (if not straightfoward Allied fanboyism but I won't say it this time [8|], no I didn't say it! [:-])

O.



Don Bowen -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 9:14:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Even playing against the AI, I can't get it to safety. It's always sunk.


Thank you for making my point [;)] If it's always sunk then it does its BS duty quite well.

Since it's unmovable, and dies with the harbor, it's actually a "harbor equipment" not a ship.

Just another example of strange logic CHS uses. Of all the dozens of floating docks in the Pacific this one is modelled others are not? [>:] Mishmash approach to wargame scenario design to say the least (if not straightfoward Allied fanboyism but I won't say it this time [8|], no I didn't say it! [:-])

O.



Oleg, I'm beginning to get the idea that you do not like CHS.






pad152 -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/11/2005 11:18:04 PM)

The only historical things in WITP and CHS are the time frame and name of some places[:D] The first time you click next turn every thing else goes out the window.


Japanese production it works if you feed it, but I'll be damed still if I can figure where things go.[&:]




akdreemer -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 8:53:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

You know this kind of "logic" makes me shake my head in amazement every time (even though I say to myself I will not get into CHS threads *anymore* - obviously I am not a man who honors his word [;)], that much I admit)

Both navies - no ALL navies had tons of ancient rusting hulks relegated to "target ship" duty. Conway lists tons of ships that ended up as targets. Yet only some of them get to be modelled by CHS.

Which ones?

You got it: Those that serve to "soak up Japanese bombs" as its so clearly stated above.

I see a need for new ship class here - BS. Bomb soaker, of course. [:'(]

CHS dudes, who constantly whine they have no slots to add anything, still manage to find place for Utah and Dewey dry dock [8|]

As they say in those courtroom movies "I rest my case".

O.


Actually the Utah did have guns, they were just covered up, because she was a target ship as well as a anti-aircraft school ship. She was capable of propulsion but the CHS designers decided not to give her any. Most starts I have done the Dewey Dock manages to get to Darwin unscathed... And she is an AR thus counts for the AR bonus for ship repair.

In a mod I am working on I am taking the basic CHS v1.02 and adding some of my own ideas. Like the Utah, for instance, she is still a BB at Pearl with all her guns disabled. The Japanese thought she was a BB, so why disappoint them. If she survives she will live on as a PG with basically an asymetrical suite of heavy and light AA guns. I am also thinking about creating a class of floating drydocks... as in real life.

My point is stop bitchin about what is not or is and create your own mod. Let the forum know that you thinks something is stinky, and if they do not buy into it then make the change yourself to your game. That is why they included an editor. After I finish with the Allies I am going to look long and hard at what I can get done for the Japanese. This might include the possibility of producing some additional carriers (another Taiho and maybe a pair of improved - and yeah I know, production might not alow it, but let the Japanese decide that). Who know's???




Sardaukar -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 3:10:01 PM)

I had bit of trouble in CHS 1.01 about aircraft replacements. New Command HQs and Andy's map seemed to give bit strange results in Burma and Australia. Some planes took strange routes to try to joint their parent unit when replacements were created in Command HQ. No biggie, just had to keep an eye on them and move manually.

P-40B very low replacement/production rate caused my AVG to be useless for couple of months too. When unit is in base with less than 20 000 supply it has to move closer to HQ..or HQ has to move closer to upgrade. But..with 0 planes, air units cannot be transferred ! So I had either to ship SEAC HQ closer or wait until unit gets 1 plane. I chose latter and wait was *painful* !!

No big deals, just have to be careful when I start new 1.02 campaign. I seem to recall that some HQ things in that have been changed..or is it only base ownership ??

Cheers,

M.S.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 5:38:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

all the BS opening move crap



There you go - "bomb soaker" ship class making trouble again [:D]

Come on Ron... since you actually admitted of never playing 1st Jap turn in this game, couple weeks ago, you know you can't be taken seriously. What would you know about any 1st turn Jap bonus except on the receiving end? I was shocked that (former) beta tester actually admits of never playing the crucial first turn of the game he supposedly helped testing.

Have you actually played Jap 1st turn in the meantime?

My experience is that *usually* PH results are worse (for the Japs) than historical. This is my experience, and is no way "scientific" or universal. Of course results may vary wildly, but IME on average they are less damaging than historic.

If CHS guys are so "heavy" on history (which IMO they are not) then I don't see any need for BS class ships in PH (and, being unmovable, they really serve no other purpose than to soak bombs).

O.



Regarding playing as Japan, I never have played as PBEM Japanese. I played the opening move as Japan a few times times to get a feel for it, but stuck with Allies as this was where I did the majority of ship class detail changes (I was responsible for the Allies with Rich Dionne) and one may as well specialize in a game this size if one wants to catch booboos. We missed a million as it was due to the scope of the game and the relatively small team involved.

Regarding the opening move bonus, just ask Pry whether or not it is too bloody universal. His scenario 16 attempts to bring the bogus timeline back into whack and does a pretty good job considering the mechanics one has to deal with. I will stick to my guns on this...the opening move is BS. Either allow only the KB TF this move, or remove the bonus feature entirely and simply have KB start within range of PH, something I have always thought necessary anyway as PH was the cog in the Japanese opening moves and opting for the Jap player to bomb Manila instead to destroy the subs which were mainly submerged in the harbor historically, or any other BS opening move, is another one of those weird occurences thanks largely to game mechanics and inevitable forseen knowledge of enemy force deployment. The more one reduces the effect of this (like forcing the players to follow historical opening moves...both sides) the better.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 5:57:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Regarding the opening move bonus, just ask Pry whether or not it is too bloody universal. His scenario 16 attempts to bring the bogus timeline back into whack and does a pretty good job considering the mechanics one has to deal with. I will stick to my guns on this...the opening move is BS. Either allow only the KB TF this move, or remove the bonus feature entirely and simply have KB start within range of PH, something I have always thought necessary anyway as PH was the cog in the Japanese opening moves and opting for the Jap player to bomb Manila instead to destroy the subs which were mainly submerged in the harbor historically, or any other BS opening move, is another one of those weird occurences thanks largely to game mechanics and inevitable forseen knowledge of enemy force deployment. The more one reduces the effect of this (like forcing the players to follow historical opening moves...both sides) the better.



What do you mean by "universal bonus"? You mean the surprise bonus on the opening turn?

Personally I have no opinion on this, and I never argued that Japanese bonus should be "universal" so you're talking to the wrong man here...

Anyway... I think it can be dealt with using the house rules. In all my PBEMs there was house rule "only one port attack on turn 1" - so the attacker decides whether to use it on PH, Singapore, Manila or whatever. Or you can play #16 and have post-PH "clean start".

Also, surprise bonus can be turned off altogether in the game preferences, so I don't see what's the fuss?

BUT, if your preferred way of dealing with what you call "universal bonus" is adding rusting hulls as BS class ships (bomb soakers) that is something I think is fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

O.



Sharkosaurus rex -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 6:39:23 PM)

During the PH attack Utah was covered in wooden beams and the Japs mistook her as a CV and that's way they dropped some bombs on it.
But having Utah in PH only make it harder for the Japs to get a good concentration on the BBs.



Captain Cruft -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 6:39:27 PM)

Ron is talking about the 1st turn Japanese naval movement bonus. It would help if people were more specific when they talk about things though :)

As a CHS player I can state quite categorically that it is not biased to the Allies. Nor to the Japanese. It is simply trying to be historical. I have no doubt that, given enough slots, we would have seen all the multidinous "rusting hulks" and floating dry docks that actually existed. The Utah and Dewey are featured because they played a role in history.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 10:10:15 PM)

Thank you Capt Cruft, the Utah played a fairly huge role, unfortunate for her, and her sacrifice is why she was advocated.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 10:14:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Regarding the opening move bonus, just ask Pry whether or not it is too bloody universal. His scenario 16 attempts to bring the bogus timeline back into whack and does a pretty good job considering the mechanics one has to deal with. I will stick to my guns on this...the opening move is BS. Either allow only the KB TF this move, or remove the bonus feature entirely and simply have KB start within range of PH, something I have always thought necessary anyway as PH was the cog in the Japanese opening moves and opting for the Jap player to bomb Manila instead to destroy the subs which were mainly submerged in the harbor historically, or any other BS opening move, is another one of those weird occurences thanks largely to game mechanics and inevitable forseen knowledge of enemy force deployment. The more one reduces the effect of this (like forcing the players to follow historical opening moves...both sides) the better.



What do you mean by "universal bonus"? You mean the surprise bonus on the opening turn?

Personally I have no opinion on this, and I never argued that Japanese bonus should be "universal" so you're talking to the wrong man here...

Anyway... I think it can be dealt with using the house rules. In all my PBEMs there was house rule "only one port attack on turn 1" - so the attacker decides whether to use it on PH, Singapore, Manila or whatever. Or you can play #16 and have post-PH "clean start".

Also, surprise bonus can be turned off altogether in the game preferences, so I don't see what's the fuss?

BUT, if your preferred way of dealing with what you call "universal bonus" is adding rusting hulls as BS class ships (bomb soakers) that is something I think is fundamentally wrong on so many levels.

O.



Universal bonus was my reference to all naval units Japanese which get the magic carpet ride on the first turn, when historically, it applied to only KB. The game gives the bonus so the IJ player can get KB all the way to Hawaii, but by doing so, completely frigs the game from square one by allowing all TFs the same consideration....major design booboo. This was complained about during Alpha but no joy.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 10:25:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thank you Capt Cruft, the Utah played a fairly huge role, unfortunate for her, and her sacrifice is why she was advocated.


Sorry Ron and Cpt Cruft, but as reason to include target ship in the game, this is the most laughable argument I could imagine.

So, the old target ship fooled couple IJN aviators so what? In confusion of the battle they could have been fooled by nearly anything afloat.

FOW, confusion and bad targeting are already taken care of by the game engine. Who knows how many bombs USN aviators dropped on rusting and unservicable hulls in their bombing of Japanese harbors later in war? Does that mean all those hulls should be researched and modelled?

Well fine, then be comprehensive about it and include them all. Including target ships in the game would IMO only be amateurish approach to wargaming design. Including *only* Utah and Dewey Dock of all the target ships is not only amateurish it is superficial, biased and mish-mash-y too.

Ron, you want to see the game follow history 100%, and will go any length to see it. If Barrack X received 20 bombs you would want Barrack X modelled in the game, even though by any reason it has no place in the OOB otherwise. Sorry this is just completely ridicolous reasoning and approach to wargame design IMO....

O.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 10:30:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Universal bonus was my reference to all naval units Japanese which get the magic carpet ride on the first turn, when historically, it applied to only KB. The game gives the bonus so the IJ player can get KB all the way to Hawaii, but by doing so, completely frigs the game from square one by allowing all TFs the same consideration....major design booboo. This was complained about during Alpha but no joy.


Ah so that is the "universal bonus" you talk about... [X(]

I am no great fan of "magic carpet ride" but it was the designer's way of giving IJN some freedom to choose where to strike on turn 1. That's all, no biggie. I think you'll agree at least about IJN having the "right" to strike first in any Pac War game/simulation? Again, it can be dealt with using the appropriate house rules in PBEM (vs AI who cares anyway).

But I can understand how this, or any other designer's method to give Japs some operational freedom on turn 1 goes against your wish to turn the game into historical Powerpoint slideshow [:D][:D]

Oleg



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/12/2005 11:18:40 PM)

The problem with wargaming is that the players know what their historical counterparts did not. This is why I've advocated for a more stringently historical adherence to opening moves and capability, not less. Once the game has run a few weeks and random reinforcements options are chosen, the players can experience the lack of intel etc which their counterparts did...at least to a fair degree. By allowing this opening move bonus, we all see Japan making these complete BS moves all over the place to capture undefended islands etc.

I still don't see how allowing Utah is "amateurish" design. Did it not take the torpedoes and sink with loss of life? Yes. During a critical attack which centred the Japanese opening phase. I contend that allowing a game where Japan does not attack PH is amateurish, as it completely falsifies the opening strategy excercised by Japan. Having Utah in and having people say it dilutes the ability of Japan to sink BBs is wrong...the problem is that the designers failed to model the specifics of the PH attack well enough (ie, only 50% of the BBs were capable of being hit by torps, as was the case with about half the ship classes present).

We can list a whole whack of amateurish design examples which are critical to the games arguable failure as anything approaching a simulation. What me to start? Saying that the inclusion of a historically significant ship is amateurish but I have not heard you criticise the actual game design flaws like the wholly inadequate supply model (this was completely fabricated and hardcoded before any real testing was done to see if it was rubbish or not), land combat, naval combat, air combat, asw combat...this seems rather harsh by you on the CHS guys.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/13/2005 1:08:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
We can list a whole whack of amateurish design examples which are critical to the games arguable failure as anything approaching a simulation. What me to start? Saying that the inclusion of a historically significant ship is amateurish but I have not heard you criticise the actual game design flaws like the wholly inadequate supply model (this was completely fabricated and hardcoded before any real testing was done to see if it was rubbish or not), land combat, naval combat, air combat, asw combat...this seems rather harsh by you on the CHS guys.


Now... this is old Ron we all know and love [;)] But is also an argument worth discussing IMO.

If you use such harsh words to describe WITP ("failure as anything approaching a simulation"), then any mod is already moot before any work is started. You ask me why I criticise CHS, and am silent about apparently bigger design mistakes of the original game? A valid question. But then you have to answer will anything save the game that is so flawed ultimatelly as to represent, well, a failure, in your opinion?

My opinion is exact opposite of yours - despite all glitches, shortcomings and quirks we all know I think WITP is the most historically accurate game I have ever seen. AI vs AI play produces fantastically historic results considering how incredibly complex the game is and how many things can go astray in such design.

To achieve this, TONS of playtesting was needed. To get the PH results approaching history, I guess beta guys and devs did *thousands* of PH runs, until someone said "thats it". OK. (In my opinion, average PH result still falls short of history, but that's just my opinion.) NOW. What do you CHS guys do? You add another bomb soaking ship to the equation to skew the things even more. [&o] And you even admit that the ONLY function of this ridicolous game device is to "soak bombs". It's not a "historic ship" that "sacrificed itself" Ron. It's a game device to skew the results.

You don't do any testing, because simulating historic results of PH strike is not CHS task, your task is to add every possible imagiinable Allied hull in the game, be it as ship, or BSD (bomb soaking device).

Mog said some time ago that in order to comment "wrong-ness" of some design decision, we need to know why it's there at the first place. I assume anything we see in the game is result of TONS of testing by betas, and discussions on the dev and beta boards. It's not there just because someone said "lets put a bomb soaking device here and see what happens".

End result? Simulation of PH strike is skewed. But Utah is there. What's more important for the Pacific war? I rest my case [8D]

Now to answer your question. I like to think I know the reality of modern PC game design (wargame design included) very well. Some issues are simply unrealistic from business/design/man-hour/programmer standpoint, and will never happen, as you have been told so many times. More detailed supply system belongs to this cathegory. You will never see supply divided into food, ammo etc. - considering realities of wargame business it's simply not going to happen. Perhaps I would like to see it like yourself, but unlike you I know this discussion will lead nowhere and that's why I keep my mouth shut. And, it is my opinion, it would not change the mechanics of the game all that much. So any discussion about this is flogging the dead horse.

Utah & co & other CHS incosistencies do not change the mechanics of the game that much either - though they help reduce already less-than-historic-on-average PH strikes even more. I will come to regard them as just plain funny [:D]

O.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/13/2005 1:18:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Thank you Capt Cruft, the Utah played a fairly huge role, unfortunate for her, and her sacrifice is why she was advocated.


BTW, Croat born USN sailor Peter Tomich died on Utah. He received MoH posthumously, and got a WW2 destroyer escort named after him. His relatives in Croatia received a medal (or something related to his MoH, I am not sure) only just recently, it made minor news here.

http://www.medalofhonor.com/PeterTomich.htm

So yes there were sacrifices and I am aware of it. Still, it is not a reason to include the target ship in the game IMO.

O.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/13/2005 1:36:08 AM)

Well, I guess we disagree. You like mediocrity, I don't.



Captain Cruft -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/13/2005 2:06:11 AM)

I can see both sides of the sensible part of this argument ...

To paraphrase (my apologies if this is being presumptuous):

Ron says WitP fails as a simulation of the Pacific War other than at the highest "operational" level = TRUE
Oleg says I don't care, it's still complex and fun = TRUE

Personally, although I do share a lot of the frustrations of the Ron side of the debate I feel that the only way to actually enjoy this thing is to take the Oleg view point. It's an arcade game with the feel of the Pacific War and that's it.

The only things that actually get me down are the apparently "unfixable" bugs, the cranky fixed-size database implementation and general hard-codedness and closed nature of the software.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/13/2005 3:22:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I can see both sides of the sensible part of this argument ...

To paraphrase (my apologies if this is being presumptuous):

Ron says WitP fails as a simulation of the Pacific War other than at the highest "operational" level = TRUE
Oleg says I don't care, it's still complex and fun = TRUE

Personally, although I do share a lot of the frustrations of the Ron side of the debate I feel that the only way to actually enjoy this thing is to take the Oleg view point. It's an arcade game with the feel of the Pacific War and that's it.

The only things that actually get me down are the apparently "unfixable" bugs, the cranky fixed-size database implementation and general hard-codedness and closed nature of the software.



It fails at the operational level as much as anything else, but hey, my pants are getting wet because the wind is blowing in the wrong direction and has been for quite awhile.

Strangely, because it is the only puppy out there, I will continue to play it PBEM when I get my PC back online. Despite all the big booboos, it has some pretty good elements as I've said in between my negative rantings.[;)]



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/13/2005 3:39:51 AM)

Ron what other wargames do you play, if any?

O.



Tankerace -> RE: CHS Release 1.02 (8/13/2005 5:29:36 AM)

Honestly, I don't think any game is perfect, no game can be.

What matters is do you have fun with it. I had a ball of fun with PTO (I, II, and even IV) which are far greater "failures" than WitP. The campaign series (West Front, East Front II, Rising Sun, Divided Ground) all have their flaws, but even today, 7 years after I bought West Front I still have a ball, and am throughly enjoying my current DCG as commander of the 70th Tank Battalion in the Road to Germany Campaign.

War in the Pacific, War Plan Orange, World at War, Hearts of Iron, the Campaign Series, the Operational Art of War, Panzer General, Pacific General, hell any wargame will have its flaws, and all eventually boil down, in some sense, to an arcade game. The old SSI General Series were far from realistic and historic wargames. Yet, they were fun to play. GG's World at War, while taking a somewhat rushed approach to WWII, is fun to play. War in the Pacific, while still being greatly abstracted in many areas (and I think I for one would find its hard codedness a bit of a stifler as much as anybody would), yet it is still by far the most realistic game out there covering this subject, and it is very fun to play.

Other than maybe pong and tetris, I challenge anybody, WitP hater or lover, to name any game that was perfect, that didn't have flaws, that wasn't frustrating, and that was all it could be. That rules out every game I own, hell that rules out the one I am making.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.40625