Future product suggestion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Future product suggestion

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Future product suggestion

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Future product suggestion - 3/16/2001 4:34:00 AM

Darrin

Posts: 16
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Canadian in Sweden
Status: offline

A startegic WWII in europe game. I could see a big market for that one. No good ones out there now (or ever). Darrin

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 3/16/2001 6:46:00 AM

Grumble

Posts: 471
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Omaha, NE, USA
Status: offline

In another thread, folks were discussing the impending release of ADG's "World in Flames" as a computer game. The first release is without AI; that's supposed to show up sometime next year.

_____________________________

"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 2

- 3/16/2001 5:17:00 PM

Darrin

Posts: 16
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Canadian in Sweden
Status: offline

I've played WiF and it is a good game but way too big and long. And too much player interaction to allow a true computer wargame to develop. Just a suggestion. Darrin

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 3

- 3/16/2001 7:30:00 PM

bpolarsk

Posts: 198
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline

I will already be happy with the mediteranean game which is scheduled after battleline. Meantime, you will have to rely on the antic 'high command'.

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 4

- 3/16/2001 9:05:00 PM

MindSpy

Posts: 272
Joined: 5/13/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Darrin: A startegic WWII in europe game. I could see a big market for that one. No good ones out there now (or ever). Darrin

MINDSPY No Strategic games out there and never been. Oh man DARRIN what are you on? I ahe RISK don't u? MIDNSPY

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 5

- 3/17/2001 4:51:00 AM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by MindSpy: No Strategic games out there and never been.

There are several, but none particularly good.

quote:

Oh man DARRIN what are you on?

Darrin's question was perfectly valid. Perhaps you should have directed this comment to yourself?

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 6

- 3/17/2001 1:48:00 PM

Darrin

Posts: 16
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Canadian in Sweden
Status: offline

Thanks Ed, I saw he was a fellow canadian and thought I should take pitty on him :) Darrin

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 7

- 3/18/2001 4:16:00 PM

Bozman

Posts: 2
Joined: 3/10/2001
From: Queidersbach, Rheinland Pfalz, GE
Status: offline

I hope the reference to RISK as a strategic "wargame" was a typo. What I think most folks are looking for (including me) is a game with a valid diplomatic and economic model, such as AH's Third Reich, but expanded upon using today's technology.

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 8

- 3/18/2001 4:56:00 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Bozman: I hope the reference to RISK as a strategic "wargame" was a typo. What I think most folks are looking for (including me) is a game with a valid diplomatic and economic model, such as AH's Third Reich, but expanded upon using today's technology.

Well, not *too* much like 3R, since 3R wasn't a good computer game. If they had not been so literal in the conversion, or had chosen to computerize "Advanced Third Reich" instead, things could be very different.

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 9

- 3/19/2001 2:19:00 AM

Darrin

Posts: 16
Joined: 9/10/2000
From: Canadian in Sweden
Status: offline

I just downloaded WIR 3.0. I was thinking something along those lines but all of europe. With production, diplomatic and staegic options. Hopefully something a bit more complex than the old third riech. Something similar to Advanced third riech would be better. Darrin

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 10

- 3/19/2001 8:04:00 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I think if GG ever did a full European war 39-45 using his West Front/War in Russia system it would be the game of all time!!! The system is easy to understand, the units or the right size. Of course he would have to add naval units. I think many players would like to start in 1934 so they could build the German military the way they want, me too(only I would rebuild French first) (if game came with an editor every one could try out their pet therories.)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 11

- 3/19/2001 11:17:00 AM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Mogami: The system is easy to understand, the units or the right size. Of course he would have to add naval units.

I don't know about this. Wir isn't exactly easy to understand, and its an operational type game, not strategic. If it were up to me, I'd junk the "HQ" units as they just don't fit well in a strategic level game, and they add a level of complexity. I'd rather have independent corps and air fleets, something like 3R/A3R. Divisions and independent battalions would still be the building blocks for the corps, except the corps would display their strength as a dynamic number on the face of their counter. Their strength rating would be calculated from the units in the corps whenever something happens that affects or might affect the corps strength, which would mean a lot less fiddling with units since you can tell at a glance whether a unit is ready to be used or needs some rest. Something like what COS did, but no army units, corps only. I would still like to see air units split by function, i.e., fighter, fighter-bomber, tac-bomber, bomber, strategic bomber. But as independent units that are counters which are visible on the map. Basing capacity and stacking (for air units, not ground units) would become an important issue for air units. I don't have any specific idea for the naval system except to say it should be something more detailed, unlike the naval system in COS or 3R.

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 12

- 3/20/2001 7:36:00 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, I think the HQ's are nessacary. Operations are only the means of carrying out Stratagy. And this system is not tactical. Units get their combat value by adding the different equippment/morale/exp/readiness levels and then comparing to the targets. HQ are the source of supply replacements leadership. (There could be a different method) Independent corps do not reflect how units are employed. In a Grand Stratgic game a whole army is one counter and time passess a month at a time or a season at a time. I think the weekly turns are much better and the player gets to control the operations of his army more. (perhaps too much in this system) Maybe a system of giving the HQ's a target and then having it move its formations (but now you need a good AI) What I really like about a smaller level game is that in the large scale ones they just make the germans 10 and the french 2 and where is the stratagy. France lost because of bad leadership and a bad plan. Not because of bad soldiers or equipment. I would like a game that would show whether France had to fall in 6 weeks, whether a Germany that planned to invade England from the start could make an invasion, or put the Med first plan into effect to see what happens. Not a replay of the War (I know how it went, I want to see how it could have went) For my purpose the scale of West Front/War in Russia is perfect. All I need is a start date and a map of Europe from Spain to the Urals and from Norway to North Africa. Naval rules like Pac War and a set of diplomacy rules for dealing with neutrals. Several scenarios come to mind. 1. Germany tries to conguer the world (they must invade Soviet Union by a certain date unless the Soviet Union invades them first) 2. The germans try to make a strong Germany (They are not required to invade anybody)(However points are awarded to players based on control of resource ect) 3. A free for all where each Nation has a player and they make their own alliances and score points for their team. A free for all where each Nation makes it's own alliances but scores points for them selves. Players are out when they surrender to another nation (of course nations like Germany must score considerably more points then a nation like Poland or France. (I would suggest France get an ally that can help it like Russia) Oh well I am going off to dream land again.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 13

- 3/21/2001 1:06:00 PM

Ed Cogburn

Posts: 1979
Joined: 7/24/2000
From: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Mogami: Hi, I think the HQ's are nessacary. Operations are only the means of carrying out Stratagy. And this system is not tactical. Units get their combat value by adding the different equippment/morale/exp/readiness levels and then comparing to the targets. HQ are the source of supply replacements leadership. (There could be a different method)

Sure, supplies, replacements and leadership come from the higher command, but why does this *require* a separate HQ unit? This is also true of air units, so do we need air force HQs too?

quote:

Independent corps do not reflect how units are employed.

How do they not? Many board and computer games operate at the corps level.

quote:

In a Grand Stratgic game a whole army is one counter and time passess a month at a time or a season at a time.

Says who? 3R is Grand Strategy and its corps based, not one army per unit.

quote:

I think the weekly turns are much better and the player gets to control the operations of his army more.

You mean the player is required to do more micromanagement. If I wanted micromanagement I'd play Alpha Centauri. I want a grand strategy game that doesn't bog me down in an unnecessary operational layer.

quote:

(perhaps too much in this system) Maybe a system of giving the HQ's a target and then having it move its formations (but now you need a good AI)

We have that in Pac and Wir, and how many people actually use the AI to hand off less important chores? Practically none of use, since AIs are generally stupid. Road to Moscow was trying to hide operational complexity by using an AI, instead of forcing the player to do the grunt work, but that is probably the fatal flaw in RtM and why it never materialized.

quote:

What I really like about a smaller level game is that in the large scale ones they just make the germans 10 and the french 2 and where is the stratagy.

My idea would use corps composed of divisions and independent units like WiR, not arbitrary combat values like '3-3' or '4-6'. The game would use supplies, readiness, leadership, and a good strategy to decide campaigns.

quote:

France lost because of bad leadership and a bad plan. Not because of bad soldiers or equipment. I would like a game that would show whether France had to fall in 6 weeks, whether a Germany that planned to invade England from the start could make an invasion, or put the Med first plan into effect to see what happens. Not a replay of the War (I know how it went, I want to see how it could have went) For my purpose the scale of West Front/War in Russia is perfect. All I need is a start date and a map of Europe from Spain to the Urals and from Norway to North Africa. Naval rules like Pac War and a set of diplomacy rules for dealing with neutrals. Several scenarios come to mind. 1. Germany tries to conguer the world (they must invade Soviet Union by a certain date unless the Soviet Union invades them first) 2. The germans try to make a strong Germany (They are not required to invade anybody)(However points are awarded to players based on control of resource ect) 3. A free for all where each Nation has a player and they make their own alliances and score points for their team. A free for all where each Nation makes it's own alliances but scores points for them selves. Players are out when they surrender to another nation (of course nations like Germany must score considerably more points then a nation like Poland or France. (I would suggest France get an ally that can help it like Russia) Oh well I am going off to dream land again.

None of this explains why we have to have physical HQ units. What you're describing is a monster game. One week turns, PacWar rules for naval action, WiR rules for ground action, with a scad of units (ground, air, naval) to move and control: Ouch. I'd buy it, Mogami, but we may be the only two that buy it. :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 14

- 3/26/2001 11:13:00 PM

Joaquim

Posts: 27
Joined: 3/22/2001
From: Portugal
Status: offline

I think that a Monster game WiR/WiP will be... well will have more more buyers than players!.. :) I'll buy it, but have the time to make a turn? Or the patience to play a turn a little bit each day?!... Here in Portugal the wargame comunity is very small... so I become a Hitler's War fan: the game anybody could play!!! I used it to start a good number of fellows in the hobby, good fast fun! My own kind of �monster game� is more like using a map kind of Hitler's War to make a HUGE SP W@W campaign.... wow! :) But anything strategic will have my support!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Darrin)

Post #: 15