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: Things we want in wargames

 
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: Things we want in wargames Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 9:40:03 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		As for customizing the OOBs to build your own units/formations, SPWAW provides that with the OOB Editor. This how I constructed my own design for a 1942 era USMC Battalion Landing Team (then called a Combat Team). Now, the weapons are all of the time period (so I DON'T allow for the USMC to have Shermans or M1 Garands yet). (Being involved with some of the OOB teams in the 2003-2006 period gives me an advantage, I might add. )

I would venture to call SPWAW a hybrid RTS, as it allows for opportunity fire during the opponent's turns. THIS is why having recon units is so important, especially in terrain with limited visibility (such as the jungles of the South Pacific).

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 5/20/2014 10:46:32 PM >

(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 31
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 9:45:38 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
Unless I have misunderstood meaning of blitzkrieg, there is tactical component that can be part of even tactical scale wargames like in Steel Panthers serie. To my understanding, surprise, speed, shock, and awe are heavily involved with successful blitzkrieg. Accurate and timely use of artillery and dive bombings followed by combined panzer & motorized/mechanized infantry assault are important parts of blitzkrieg in tactical scale. But if we want handwave it away in operational scale wargames, we could just have greater EXP # for counters scenario designer deems qualify for blitzkrieg.


Blitzkrieg was far more complex than just the battles that occurred that saw armored units involved in the fighting. There were many different elements involved in the doctrine and simply giving an attack bonus to an armored unit wouldn’t even come close to simulating the complex tactic of blitzkrieg.

Basically armor and infantry supported by massed close air support and artillery punch a narrow hole in the front lines. The infantry then holds the hole open and armored elements push through into the rear fanning out to the sides and penetrating deep into the rear to disrupt communication lines. The armor favored bypassing the enemy whenever possible to keep pushing on, so simulating that kind of tactic by giving a bonus to armor for its attack rolls makes no sense, the armor did not destroy the units and keep going, it bypassed them and later arriving infantry did the lion’s share of the destruction.

You’d be better off giving a large combined arms cooperation bonus to attack rolls that have all elements necessary involved in the attack to help punch the initial hole, then give armor reduced ZOC penalties to simulate the nature of bypassing enemy units in favor of grabbing more ground. Giving them the ability to destroy units they run into behind the lines instead of bypassing them would be a fantasy scenario, it would eliminate the last step of the blitzkrieg that had the infantry come up and reduce the pockets formed by the mechanized units.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 32
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 9:53:54 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		I'll give Matti a bit of a break, as apparently his exposure to some games is limited. In Korsun Pocket/The Ardennes Offensive, tank & mechanized infantry units have enough movement points available to exploit gaps in the enemy's line. This well demonstrates the weakness of blitzkrieg: not having enough mechanized infantry to protect the armored spearheads from being cut off from the following leg infantry. In a game like SPWAW, tanks racing ahead alone are doing so at their own risk. Remember how Rommel lured British tanks into protective screens of ATGs.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 5/20/2014 10:58:37 PM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 33
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/20/2014 11:34:13 PM   
DSWargamer

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 8/25/2010
Status: offline 		"I was able to download something Squad Leader and granted I can setup the pieces but nothing else happens."

That portion sounded vague, not sure I comprehended it accurately.

If you meant, you downloaded VASL, well VASL is just an interface to allow two people playing the board game, to not need to be in the same room. That is all it is meant to do though. It requires both parties actually have the actual game to a point, as the software is a tool it isn't a game per se.

Now if you meant the old program called Squad Leader...... we don't generally speak of that abomination :)

I think playing anything at all, when no one else in the room is essentially the same as playing alone personally. MMOs for instance, you are not really playing with other people. That's one of the great lies of the modern gaming era. You might hear them on a group audio relay program, you might even have them on some form of video conference, but in the real world, if the person isn't there, you is actually alone :)

I play games solo for about the same reason I read books (which also work fine solo without an AI :) ). But not everyone likes books I suppose as well. Especially dry boring books on history.

_____________________________

I have too many too complicated wargames, and not enough sufficiently interested non wargamer friends.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 34
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 12:21:21 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline 		Not everyone likes people either. Especially dry boring historians on the internet.

(in reply to DSWargamer)
Post #: 35
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 12:40:34 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Not everyone likes people either. Especially dry boring historians on the internet.

After your comments in the Civil war thread I suggest you read a little history.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 36
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 12:44:25 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer
But not everyone likes books I suppose as well. Especially dry boring books on history.


I’m currently reading History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. Being inside the mind of a man that lived over 2000 years ago and was himself a participant in the war is both entertaining and fascinating, not dry and boring at all. Far more entertaining that a television show in my mind.

The problem is it makes me long for a computer game covering the same subject that I can delve into between reading sessions. But alas, nothing as yet exists in digital form.

Jim



_____________________________


(in reply to DSWargamer)
Post #: 37
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 12:53:56 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline 		Yep, after reading "Landscape Turned Red" and getting SSI's Battle of Antietam, I became addicted. Read then play.

One thing we don't see a lot of is the option for different AI plans, either selectable or random. Devs promise the game "will never play the same way twice." Maybe...

Even if the AI plan is suicidal, it spices things up. More work for devs, I guess. The CMx2 editor has evolved nicely in this direction, but you really have to test, test, test.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 38
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 6:08:13 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Not everyone likes people either. Especially dry boring historians on the internet.

After your comments in the Civil war thread I suggest you read a little history.


Wouldn't do any good. I don't "believe" everything I read like some nuts do.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 39
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 6:37:10 AM   
Ratzki

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: Chilliwack, British Columbia
Status: offline 		I'd like to see "easy to use" editors in the games. I do not want to battle an afterthought map editor, then scrap with a fussy scenario editor, and finally get slapped around by having to pour over 500 scripts to make a scenario for a game.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 40
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 11:16:54 AM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 8467
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline 		@ Ratzki and the other "simple editors" crowd. Some games already ship with the editors/tools used by the devs. Some have decent documentation some don't. To make "simple" or lets say user friendly highly validated editors, the developers would need to spend additional time and resources to remake these editors to that kind of level. Assuming for a wargame that includes map making, scenarios, campaigns (if applicable), and data/art/sound, you are looking at a package almost as complex to code up as the game. I guess the million dollar question is, would you pay for a "Simple" editor package after the game was released? Another factor to put in this is that many of the developer teams are small "free time" coders. There would be a loss of new game features, bug fixes, and content if the effort shifts to editor support. I guess you could also delay the release 6-12 months to have editors ready day one at an added cost if folks wanted to go that way.

Basically, not as easy at is sounds to make these kind of tools. Some games will be easier than other to do this as well. As a modder from day one back in the 80's I am all about having robust tools if I can get them, but if I have to do it the hard way that is okay too.

_____________________________

OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Ratzki)
Post #: 41
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 5:04:39 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Basically armor and infantry supported by massed close air support and artillery punch a narrow hole in the front lines. The infantry then holds the hole open and armored elements push through into the rear fanning out to the sides and penetrating deep into the rear to disrupt communication lines.

I thought british cruise tanks were supposed to do the pushing through and what comes after, but had little success at best...

quote:

The armor favored bypassing the enemy whenever possible to keep pushing on, so simulating that kind of tactic by giving a bonus to armor for its attack rolls makes no sense, the armor did not destroy the units and keep going, it bypassed them and later arriving infantry did the lion’s share of the destruction.

Wehrmacht did it right, Red Army did not. Operational-strategic wargames need something to make that difference.

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 42
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 5:16:29 PM   
DanSez


Posts: 1023
Joined: 2/5/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

@ Ratzki and the other "simple editors" crowd. Some games already ship with the editors/tools used by the devs. Some have decent documentation some don't. To make "simple" or lets say user friendly highly validated editors, the developers would need to spend additional time and resources to remake these editors to that kind of level. Assuming for a wargame that includes map making, scenarios, campaigns (if applicable), and data/art/sound, you are looking at a package almost as complex to code up as the game. I guess the million dollar question is, would you pay for a "Simple" editor package after the game was released? Another factor to put in this is that many of the developer teams are small "free time" coders. There would be a loss of new game features, bug fixes, and content if the effort shifts to editor support. I guess you could also delay the release 6-12 months to have editors ready day one at an added cost if folks wanted to go that way.

Basically, not as easy at is sounds to make these kind of tools. Some games will be easier than other to do this as well. As a modder from day one back in the 80's I am all about having robust tools if I can get them, but if I have to do it the hard way that is okay too.


That is a good and fair comment about modding tools. I guess from my perspective I would like the initial design of the game to allow LUA or some other scripting access to main factors of the game engine to allow modders easier ways to add new units/create new scenarios and setups.

And that would take some work up front planning and a bit of added work at the end for cleaning up and presenting documentation on flags/handles/routines that drill into the .exe game files.

As consumers, we want it all and want it now --- not very realistic some times. Good communication from the devs and beta testers helps me accept "work in progress" game design. (to take a safe non-Matrix example) I have been a long time fan of the Hearts or Iron series and accept that the game will be released without some promised features working fully and Know that I will be buying additional releases to support the dev team/company as it completes the game. I buy into this mostly because I like the game concept of HoI and the Dev Teams do try and answer questions -- sometimes not the answers I want to hear, but never the less, I still get answers.

You are 100% correct that smaller houses that Paradox can not afford to give away the effort beyond getting the basic game up and running, but the more up front planning and dedicated, communicative dev/beta tester teams do much to keep those games alive and improving. Maybe they make pennies on the hour in the final accounting and I wish the market would reward these people better.



(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 43
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/21/2014 5:17:07 PM   
Rodwonder

 

Posts: 193
Joined: 12/7/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DSWargamer
But not everyone likes books I suppose as well. Especially dry boring books on history.




Well I like those dry boring books... That brought me to those dry boring wargames...


< Message edited by Rodwonder -- 5/21/2014 6:17:45 PM >

(in reply to Kuokkanen)
Post #: 44
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/23/2014 3:01:06 AM   
Rosseau

 

Posts: 2757
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline 		True, I would hate to wait or have more bugs. I would pay for an editor as later dlc, but I bet most would not. However, I rarely create new scenarios, just change existing. So any xml-type modding for slow people like me is always welcome. That's why I love some indie developers. They just leave the files right out there for you to mod.

(in reply to Rodwonder)
Post #: 45
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/23/2014 7:52:40 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline 		Ability to tweak or program our own AI's like Kohan II and Spartan. I made better games out of both of them being able to create or tweak the AI's.

(in reply to Rosseau)
Post #: 46
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/24/2014 9:37:18 PM   
SeaMonkey

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		Here's the game situation; I bring a force, could be an army, smaller scale, a battalion, perhaps an air group or a naval task force to a deployment co-ordinate(hex if you will). Now, I'm not exactly sure what I'll need for the task at hand, so I bring a mix of forces restricted by the deployment conditions. Deployment conditions could exempt certain types of units, like...no airfield, no air units. Mountainous terrain(no roads) no vehicles of a certain type. Logistics and weather will also exempt certain unit types from exercising a designated mission.

Now it's my turn and I examine my force in the deployment location and the surrounding enemy conditions and I decide on a mission and at that time I assemble a battle group from my forces that are availble and designate them to move, attack, defend, recon, whatever. Doesn't have to be all my forces in that deployment, perhaps my indirect fire weapons are low on ammo and I want them for defense only, could be the weather won't allow my aircraft to support the mission, could be I want a larger defense force to remain in prepared conditions. Point being, I decide what my force make up is from the available forces in the deployment location at the time it is my turn.


(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 47
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/24/2014 11:16:52 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Not everyone likes people either. Especially dry boring historians on the internet.

After your comments in the Civil war thread I suggest you read a little history.


Wouldn't do any good. I don't "believe" everything I read like some nuts do.

Actually what you said in the other thread was you don't believe ANY history books. Which is just plain stupid. One reads multiple sources for history and one can determine what might have been fudged if anything. But assuming all history is lies and misinformation is just crazy.

In the Civil war thread you claimed that the North basically lied because they won the war. Then made comments about how you did not know if the generals and politicians of the South survived or not after the war. When in fact they did and any history book would have told you that. Further in the case of the Civil war, WW1, WW2, and every war since there are multiple sources of information from all sides. Any obvious lie or misinformation will be outed by the writers and historians from the other side.

Few wars or historical events only had one side survive so through out history you have views from more then one side. Willfully ignoring the facts and information available makes one ill informed on Historical facts and history in general.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 48
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/24/2014 11:36:01 PM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore


quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes


quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Not everyone likes people either. Especially dry boring historians on the internet.

After your comments in the Civil war thread I suggest you read a little history.


Wouldn't do any good. I don't "believe" everything I read like some nuts do.

Actually what you said in the other thread was you don't believe ANY history books. Which is just plain stupid. One reads multiple sources for history and one can determine what might have been fudged if anything. But assuming all history is lies and misinformation is just crazy.

In the Civil war thread you claimed that the North basically lied because they won the war. Then made comments about how you did not know if the generals and politicians of the South survived or not after the war. When in fact they did and any history book would have told you that. Further in the case of the Civil war, WW1, WW2, and every war since there are multiple sources of information from all sides. Any obvious lie or misinformation will be outed by the writers and historians from the other side.

Few wars or historical events only had one side survive so through out history you have views from more then one side. Willfully ignoring the facts and information available makes one ill informed on Historical facts and history in general.


(sigh) keep on being brainwashed I told you I didn't care. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. When it comes down to it it doesn't matter what you or I believe the truth is in "being there" nothing more nothing less.

Just show me "tangible" proof that you were there and your historians were there on that exact day and time with a newspaper clipping and pictures and I might believe. Otherwise it's all made by maybeso's and possibilities...These are not Proofs. These are speculations and mighthavebeens.

< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 5/25/2014 12:39:45 AM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 49
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/25/2014 5:28:35 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		So we can not know that the North did not try and put to death all surviving Officers from the Civil War? We can not know that the North did not try and put to death all the politicians and CSA Government officials after the war? We can not know that?

And knowing that we can not know that if the North presented a lie as fact that those surviving Officers politicians and Government officials would not object and set the record straight?

You CHOOSE to be ignorant. Do us all a favor and refrain from commenting in threads about history in the future.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 50
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/25/2014 5:47:19 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

So we can not know that the North did not try and put to death all surviving Officers from the Civil War? We can not know that the North did not try and put to death all the politicians and CSA Government officials after the war? We can not know that?

And knowing that we can not know that if the North presented a lie as fact that those surviving Officers politicians and Government officials would not object and set the record straight?

You CHOOSE to be ignorant. Do us all a favor and refrain from commenting in threads about history in the future.


Umm I don't "believe" you sir have the "authority" to tell me what to do in the future. Do you have any proof of that? You're just jealous I know the truth and you only know speculation and what might have been. But, that's ok I feel sorry for you anyway.

Goodday sir!

One thing I will ask you as I discontinue my discussion with you is this: Do you honestly believe all non-fiction has no fiction in it at all? I was a journalist in my youth and my editor told me to be a good reporter that if there was no story to makeup one that the public would be interested in. Do you not think some historian wouldn't do the same to make his published title more interesting and sellable? Just think about that.

Goodday now sir!



< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 5/25/2014 6:51:07 AM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 51
RE: Things we want in wargames - 5/26/2014 5:56:41 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline 		aaatoysandmore & Twotribes, your bickering contributes NOTHING useful to this thread. PLEASE, take it elsewhere, like to private messages

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 52
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/7/2014 2:11:32 PM   
trebcourie

 

Posts: 301
Joined: 2/16/2007
Status: offline 		Here’s what I’m looking for in some new games…



-A good 1980s-era WWIII Cold War operational-level game in Germany (division or brigade level).



-A worldwide resource-based game, think Civilization but focused on the military (resource-gathering, not building). I don’t like RTSs, but I would love something that’s more of a wargame (like the old CommandHQ, but modernized drastically) – and not a 4X.



-A good, but playable, War in the Pacific game. I don’t have time in my life for micro-managing Grigsby-type games.



-I hope Strategic Command 3 is a success. I loved the first one.



-And I want to see all of these (plus others) using a Command Ops-type system. I see real value in the modern wargaming like CO where I issue orders and control the big picture, but the computer works out the details. That way I can focus on the big picture, the way a real commander does, and only delve deep into the micromanagement and details when I want to.



I would love CO on an operational level to fight the entire Eastern Front in WWII, Germany in WWIII Cold War, or the Pacific theater in WWII.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 53
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/7/2014 7:15:48 PM   
Jafele


Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline 		What I want is almost impossible to see because it´s costly in time and money.

1-Dynamic AI (non-scripted)
2-Replayability (balanced scenarios, random maps and battles). Replayability is financially incorrect since most companies are interested to sell short life games. After all it´s business...
3-Fun
4-Nice graphics (not neccesarily spectacular).

In other words: Quality.

< Message edited by Jafele -- 6/7/2014 9:34:23 PM >

(in reply to trebcourie)
Post #: 54
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/8/2014 6:13:23 AM   
InuharikoMu


Posts: 85
Joined: 10/27/2013
From: Duisburg, Germany
Status: offline 		That Dev's in the Slitherine / Matrix Universe agree on a Standard:

No more fixed 1024*768 Resolution Games - EVER
Resolution up to 1920*1080 and TFT Monitor Support out of the Box.

No more Games without Sound Effects - EVER

Better Documentation! No more XBox / PS3 Joke Manuals - EVER
Printable Maps! Printable Key Command Chart!
Modding Support!
Support Successful Mods into a Premium DLC *see ART / Coder Department*

Build up a Cheap STEAMline *HAHAHA* For Games that not hold the 2014 Standard.
A Brand like STEAMTactician (Copyright by Richtschnur)and put Things like "Drums of War" into that.


@ the Big Kahunas @ Sli/Mat
Build up an ART Department that support your Freelance Dev's and your Inhouse Dev's
Maybe with Talented People from the Modding Scene *like Darthmod*
Build up an Coder Department to Support Freelance Dev's

Support the Games YOU STILL SELL!

Meaning *Example -> Across the Dnepr 2nd Edition Husky Fix* http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2428891

Therefore:
Build up an Coder Department that works together with Dev's to fix the Older Games in your Portfolio.

Taking Premium Prices means in my Eyes Taking Premium Responsibility (Beat me up Scotty -> My Personal Opinion)

Best Regards from 30 Degree, sunny Germany

_____________________________

“If a man does his best, what else is there?”
― George S. Patton Jr.

(in reply to Jafele)
Post #: 55
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/13/2014 7:14:50 AM   
nicwb

 

Posts: 518
Joined: 4/26/2010
Status: offline 		One thing I find very useful is with down loaded games and electronic rule books - having the ability mid game to minimise the game screen and access the electronic rule book mid game and without closing out of the fame.With larger or complex games this is a must. Command Ops games and WITE have this but it does not yet seem to be a common feature on other games.


(in reply to InuharikoMu)
Post #: 56
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/13/2014 8:08:32 AM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline 		I'd like to see a 3d first person shooter in the image of Oblivion or Skyrim. Where there is no certain set path and missions and things to do abound. But, the catch is I would like this in a Squad format. Like Combat the tv show. Where there are several of us that take on different missions. Nothing scriped or linear. No telling where the enemy will popup or if we get tossed behind enemy lines. Also, being able to give them commands an orders although simple ones at least say you go left and you go right an so n so. You defend, you attack. You get a message to the commander (like in Norbsofts civilwar engine with messengers).

I know there are scripted ones and linear ones out there but that's not what I want. I want the Oblivion/Skyrim world to adventure in and more than 16 square miles too. More like the 150,000 square miles of Daggerfall. I think this would be an awesome idea and game. It'd be like an mmo only solo play. But, I guess it could be an MMO as well. Having others play under MYII command would be awesome as well. I hope I get Warsprite (I'll make him point man ) No wait maybe TwoTribes for point.

(in reply to nicwb)
Post #: 57
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/13/2014 8:27:33 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Shooters in my opinion are not war games.

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 58
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/13/2014 1:10:07 PM   
aaatoysandmore

 

Posts: 2848
Joined: 9/11/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Shooters in my opinion are not war games.


they are if they are based on a war or battle. Just a different way of playing war. Not everyone thinks a game has to have nato chits and turn based to be a wargame. If we want to get real technical real wargames are played 1st peron real time by the army, marines, navy and airforce.

quote:

A wargame (also war game) is a strategy game that deals with military operations of various types, real or fictional. Wargaming is the hobby dedicated to the play of such games, which can also be called conflict simulations, or consims for short. When used professionally by the military to study warfare, "war game" may refer to a simple theoretical study or a full-scale military exercise. Hobby wargamers have traditionally used "wargame", while the military has generally used "war game"; this is not a hard and fast rule. Although there may be disagreements as to whether a particular game qualifies as a wargame or not, a general consensus exists that all such games must explore and represent some feature or aspect of human behaviour directly bearing on the conduct of war, even if the game subject itself does not concern organized violent conflict or warfare.[


quote:

Wargames are generally categorized as historical, hypothetical, fantasy, or science fiction. Historical games by far form the largest group. These games are based upon real events and attempt to represent a reasonable approximation of the actual forces, terrain, and other material factors faced by the actual participants. Hypothetical games are games grounded in historical fact but concern battles or conflicts that did not (or have yet to) actually happen



and the creme della cream:

http://www.unity-games.org/play-all-best-flash-game/war-game-first-person-shooter.html

< Message edited by aaatoysandmore -- 6/13/2014 2:31:43 PM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 59
RE: Things we want in wargames - 6/13/2014 2:15:45 PM   
Kuokkanen

 

Posts: 3545
Joined: 4/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Not everyone thinks a game has to have nato chits and turn based to be a wargame.

Certainly not. Close Combat, Conquest of Aegean, and Total War are war games without turns and NATO symbols. Command & Conquer and Doom are not.

_____________________________

You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars

(in reply to aaatoysandmore)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: Things we want in wargames Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.984