RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST

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 >> RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 7/22/2006 8:40:16 PM

Rainbow7

Posts: 404
Joined: 11/4/2003
From: Ottawa
Status: offline

And just to further those points: by any rational metric, turn-based games are far more 'clickfests' than HttR/CotA. Now, I love turn-based games, but I'm definitely doing a lot more clicking of every unit, for every destination, on every single turn.

Finally, I too think it fair that everyone gets to state an opinion on these public forums. But it's also quite nice that it's so easy to recognize the uninformed ones.

_____________________________

Troubles overcome are good to tell. -Yiddish saying

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 31

RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 7/22/2006 10:20:33 PM

Nauticus

Posts: 10
Joined: 6/23/2006
From: Exeter
Status: offline

quote:

A paradigm shift is required for most tradtional turn based wargamers. It's not easy to break years of habit micromanaging every detail and instead to focus on the big picture and macromanage.

I am really getting into the system of play now with HTTR.

The point is that a Division or Brigade leader does not micromanage, he gives his subordinates orders and hopes they carry them out to the best of their ability. I think HTTR captures this concept very well and it certainly is not a click fest. You do more clicking in turn based games if there are a lot of units on the screen. Perhaps I am a bit lazy [as I said I spent half a century moving units] but I don't mind the A1 playing for me, if it follows my General instructions.

I will have a look into the HTTR forum, and will certainly buy COTA soon, and Battles from the Bulge when it comes out.

Thanks for the advice.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 32

RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 7/23/2006 1:30:25 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

Ok let me rephrase the term click fest. I can take my time clicking in a turn based game. I don't have that time in an rts kiddie clickfest game like HTTR or COTA or any of the other clickfest real time games. I didn't think anyone would get so technical and not know what clickfest meant as far as rts, but, now they do.

(in reply to Nauticus)

Post #: 33

RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 7/23/2006 2:18:37 AM

Rainbow7

Posts: 404
Joined: 11/4/2003
From: Ottawa
Status: offline

Oh, I understood what you were trying to get at, but that opinion still shows no insight into HttR and CotA.� They are as cerebral as strategy games come, and do not require firstperson shooter-like reflexes, as you seem to want to suggest.� And while a few posts back you claimed not to be putting down CotA (just that it was not to your taste),�how could anyone not interpret 'kiddie' as a straight-up derogatory descriptor, especially on a forum of wargame grognards?

What is that line from Elvis Costello?� I used to be disgusted, but now I try and be amused.

< Message edited by Rainbow -- 7/23/2006 2:19:12 AM >

_____________________________

Troubles overcome are good to tell. -Yiddish saying

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 34

RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 7/23/2006 2:27:39 AM

Trigger Happy

Posts: 819
Joined: 3/22/2004
Status: offline

That guy just doesn't know what he's talking about.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rainbow7)

Post #: 35

RE: HIGHWAY OR CONQUEST - 7/23/2006 3:13:15 AM

Hertston

Posts: 3564
Joined: 8/17/2002
From: Cornwall, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

For over 50+ years the boardgame turn based style of wargaming has dominated, it still dominates today. Only in the computer portion of wargaming do designers and developers attempt the thwart that which has been established for years.

I hate to state the obvious, but its only the computer portion of wargaming where anything other than a turn-based style is even possible. In that context, talking about what is "established" is nonsense, there was just no other way to do it. But who would take a Sherman into combat in 2006 when they could have an Abrams?

quote:

They try to turn wargaming into some clickfest or movie of graphics and glitter and take out of the hands of the gamer the reason they play them in the first place (the reason I play them anyway); the TOTAL CONTROL of the combat situaltion.

I disagree on both counts. Firstly, with motivation. Having spent an awful lot of time with the Airborne Assault games and the Prosim games ("graphics and glitter"?!) it seems clear to me that their purpose is in fact to produce the most accurate simulation of warfare for the entertainment market possible, subject to the constraints of ending up with a game that is still enjoyable to play. Secondly, I don't believe "total control" is what most wargamers require, or even particularly want. War isn't like that, and anything that attempts to move the boundary from 'game' to 'simulation' can't be like that either.

quote:

I just don't understand the philosophy of hey lets let the computer play the game and we'll just let the player watch and interact sometimes or if he wants to interact a lot well he'll just have to PAUSE the game or play like a kiddie clickfester game.

I wouldn't understand it either, but I just don't recognise that in any of the games we are talking about. PAUSE is only necessary for two reasons. The first is when the game is being played at an accelerated rate (scale permitting) simply as a practicality. If I had a week to play the Arnhem campaign 'live', PAUSE would not be necessary. The second reason is to allow the player if he chooses to exercise just the sort of control you state you require... not necessarily "total", but that way beyond the capacity of a real commander in the field.

I guess turn-based games do still 'dominate', and there will always be a place for them at the operational and strategic levels. For tactical level games, though, it is my very humble opinion that they are dated, and due for replacement. Games like CotA and Armored Task Force - not to mention the computer Harpoons - are the vanguard of that. They will push aside turn based games because they are far better simulations of the consequences of decisions of real-life commanders in the field, and in my very humble opinion (again) THAT is what the majority of wargamers want. If they didn't, they might as well just play Chess.

< Message edited by Hertston -- 7/23/2006 3:21:39 AM >

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 36