DSWargamer
Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline
|
What do all grand strategy wargames of the second world war have in common?
They are all about the same war, and the same people using the same history.
Last night as I pondered the enigmatic complaint of the above poster, I was too tired to care about a reply. Today I am awake :)
A comment will hold true across a spectrum of game designs, and I might have commented in a consistent fashion while discussing WW2 and grand strategy simulation designs. That consistency though, simply represents that I don't waffle on some concepts, and some notions.
I have played the original SC, and I have played it's rival Commander Europe at War. I have played countless designs that were operational designs that were very near grand strategy simulations. I have played board games that were the source of the ideas for many computer wargames that were emulating a board game experience. I own for instance World in Flames, and I recall the pre Matrix Games software that cWiF will have grown out of. I am aware of the challenges all of the above will have had to face in order to be credible experiences.
And in the end, if the game is to be taken seriously, it can only deviate so far from what you will be watching if you watch a good documentary exploring the war years, before the game is no longer a historical what if simulation, and a complete flight of fantasy.
I don't for instance, have any interest or time for games that expect me to derive any thrill from running bit partners such as Hungary during the war. No offense to people in Hungary of course, but sorry, during WW2, you have no major impact on the global conduct of the conflict.
I am also aware that some objectives are simply illogical science fiction. There is no real worth to me, to participate in a game where Germany invades North America. I prefer to limit that to games such as Civilization V where there is no limit on the ahistorical. As such, some portions of a reasonable game design need to step back from some obsessions. I am not in dire need of a map that renders every portion of the planet to include for instance all of North America. It's a waste of the game designers time and effort (which would be better spent ensuring the portions of the map that do matter, stay the focal point).
Now, if the above seems to have been stated in more than one place........ well the validity yet still remains all the same.
If SC3 has no interest in retaining the credible, then, I suppose my counter comment must be, I would fail to see the point of Hubert making the same game over and over with minor tweaks and yet nothing new actually offered. Aside from getting rid of those ****ty tiles, one needs to ask, why exactly will I 'need' an SC3?
Commander Europe at War IS a good game design.
If a person wants mega detail, a person would be correct in asking, why not just wait to play Gary's game as a unified design instead.
Or potentially, why not just play a proven board game via a computer intermediary program such as the well known vassal.
I often ask myself why I am not doing that already actually.
Given a choice of SC3 or Advanced Third Reich, I'd rather be playing A3R to be honest.
_____________________________
I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.
|
Printable Version
Eventually it is a game and not real life - 
), but it's development has been nothing short of astonishing. 
I can't help thinking, however, that some kind of conflict of interest will emerge. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread