I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4V and WaW Games.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4V and WaW Games.

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket >> I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4V and WaW Games.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4V an... - 8/12/2003 2:19:12 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Keep your eye out for Battlefields - it is our own "WEGO" operational level game (battalion sized units, 1km per hex, 8 hour turns) - WITH FULL EDITOR and over a dozen VFV-WaW quality scenarios. NOte the use of "clock time" in coordinating the plotting of moves and combat!

http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/

[IMG]http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/images/screenshots/BFScreen0001.JPG[/IMG]

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 31

- 8/12/2003 4:07:53 AM

PeterF

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/10/2003
Status: offline

Looks promising, Paul. I always wondered why wargame developpers were taking so long in adapting Combat Mission's winning, realistic, and PBEM friendly system. And, yes, I know Battlefront wasn't the first, put they did the most to popularize the WEGO format.

I visited the Battlefields forum. The screenshots look cool, but a couple of questions:

1- One of the screenies featured horders of units and mountainous stacks. Can BF avoid the counter inflation that some say plagues the John Tiller clones?

2- Using WEGO, on an operational scale, how does the designer handle the initiative factor?It's possible to imagine, for example, units defending in a front reacting illogically to an attacking force.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 32

- 8/12/2003 5:23:45 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

I look forward to Battlefields.

I was a keen player of W@W and Battlefields is the replacement.

I must say I nevwer enjoyed the large scenarios but if it had a Combat Advisor somthing like Korsun Pocket that woud be fansastic!

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 33

Re: Re: HPS versus V4V/WaW - 8/12/2003 6:14:04 AM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black Cat
[B]Some things I discovered by reading the manual and asking on the various HPS Forums.

First in the opinion department:

1. Your "reasonable amount of time" to complete is someone elses just right.

Which is fine.

2. Some people think the Game is " user friendly" since it`s basically a point and click/drag system.

True.

3. The Game is very fast on a fast machine if you use the F8 key to speed up the AI phase, which usually takes less then 90 seconds in the large HPS Campaign Games .

That does nothing to speed up your turn, moving countless units, which is what I at least was mentioning.

In the facts department:

4. You can let the AI move any or all your units to an objective by 2 clicks of the mouse.

Only until you make contact. Then, unless you want to see some real strange stuff/take huge losses, you have to move them manually.

5. The V4V and WaW games had 1/10 of the units on Map compared to the HPS large scenarios.

Because they had the scale right, operational, instead of trying to mesh two different scales.

6. You can highlight all units within a Formation, and each counter in every formation is color coded according to unit, you can also get the command radius of each HQ with one mouse click.

Yep.

7. Almost all units can breakdown to smaller units and then recombine.

No thanks. To many as is :)

I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4V and WaW Games.

Yep.

[/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 34

Re: Re: Re: HPS versus V4V/WaW - 8/12/2003 6:17:23 AM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dwinston
[B]First in the opinion department:

3. The Game is very fast on a fast machine if you use the F8 key to speed up the AI phase, which usually takes less then 90 seconds in the large HPS Campaign Games.

I use that and it is much quicker - but still slow (of course my machine is only 733mGHZ

In the facts department:

4. You can let the AI move any or all your units to an objective by 2 clicks of the mouse.

How?

Highlight any unit in the organization you want to move. Alt - right click to where you want them to go.

6. You can highlight all units within a Formation, and each counter in every formation is color coded according to unit, you can also get the command radius of each HQ with one mouse click.

I know how to highlight all the units in a formation, but how do you get the command range? The problem is that with all the units it is difficult to see the hightlighted ones, particularly if they are stacked. V4V/WaW mad it much easier to see (of course they had less unites as well).

There's a hot key, can't remember it off the top.

I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4V and WaW Games. [/B][/QUOTE] [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 35

- 8/12/2003 9:47:59 PM

Kent Pfeiffer

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wilhammer
[B]Tiiler's Philosophy:

PzC: Series. A lot like old SPI titles, like Panzer Group Guderian, or Drive on Stalingrad, or even like GDW's Operation Crusader or Suez '73, White Death. [/B][/QUOTE]

If only that were true. The scale of PzC is entirely different than those games. I agree with John Pancoast that Grand Tactical is a poor choice of scale for a World War 2 game.

[/QUOTE][/B]
I hope the KP system gets the long legs of PzC and finally provides us with a steady Operational System for PCs.. [/B][/QUOTE]

Me too.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 36

Re: I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4... - 8/12/2003 10:02:00 PM

dwinston

Posts: 104
Joined: 8/11/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber
[B]Keep your eye out for Battlefields - it is our own "WEGO" operational level game (battalion sized units, 1km per hex, 8 hour turns) - WITH FULL EDITOR and over a dozen VFV-WaW quality scenarios. NOte the use of "clock time" in coordinating the plotting of moves and combat!

http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/

[/B][/QUOTE]

Paul,

This looks a lot like the Operational Art of War - which I thought was good, but not up to WaW. Part of that goes to the ease of the interface and the readability of the graphics. Also there was in WaW a similiar "Combat Advisor" that exists in Korsun. Will that be in battlefields?

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 37

Response... - 8/12/2003 10:35:51 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Gentlemen,

I'd rather not hijack this thread, but if you're interested in Battlefields!, keep an eye open for a website update this week or next, as well as more info on the Battlefields! forum. The existing "sticky" threads on that forum also have much more recent screenshots and a lot of additional info.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeterF
[B]1- One of the screenies featured horders of units and mountainous stacks. Can BF avoid the counter inflation that some say plagues the John Tiller clones?

Well, the unit density really depends on the scenario and the designer. We have a number of small, medium and large scenarios planned for the initial release that should provide something for every wargamer. By far the most common unit type is the battalion, although there is support for companies as well. There is also a realistic stacking limit for each hex based on the unit size, so stacks should not generally be unusually large.

quote:

2- Using WEGO, on an operational scale, how does the designer handle the initiative factor?It's possible to imagine, for example, units defending in a front reacting illogically to an attacking force. [/B][/QUOTE]

General orders tell units how to react when faced with an unexpected enemy. Reserve orders are also in the game, which allow a range and a reaction condition to be set. The range can be from 1km to 5km. The reaction condition can be set to respond to enemy movement, friendly units fighting on defense, friendly units fighting on offense, or a combination.

Thanks for your interest, for more information please check out our forum and keep watch for the upcoming website update. :)

Best Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 38

- 8/12/2003 11:09:22 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Speaking of stacking, which Erik just did, it's a bit too abstract in KP for my liking compared to PzC. An across the board, no pun intended, four units per hex means that four flak btlns are considered to take up as much space as four infantry regiments.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 39

- 8/13/2003 1:19:45 PM

gus

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
[B]Speaking of stacking, which Erik just did, it's a bit too abstract in KP for my liking compared to PzC. An across the board, no pun intended, four units per hex means that four flak btlns are considered to take up as much space as four infantry regiments. [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to agree with elmo3 here in that the stacking rules in KP are a bit too basic and can be quite restrictive in areas where units are densly packed. I would like to see it evolve so that stacking limitations is a function of unit steps rather than simply units, i.e. 16 steps is the stacking limit, the equivalent of 4 fully stepped infantry/armor units in KP terms.

-g

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 40

- 8/13/2003 7:41:54 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

Regarding stacking -- and I could be wrong -- I have always believed that stacking rules such as those in KP try to reflect actual "doctrine" and not physical possibility. In RL, an army would not "waste" space on the front that was already covered adequately by existing forces. Hence, there is some onus on the player to "make the most" of his stack, in order to force historical unit density across the front.

Make no mistake that if you used a pure "stacking point/step" method of stacking, it too would be abused and be unrealistic in its own way. E.g., filling up a hex with more support gun units than you'd ever have seen historically. It's a "choose your poison" approach and, personally, I prefer the methodology of SSG's "Decisive Battles".

As for Tiller's HPS games... Yes, after the Normandy game, that was IT for me. It exposed the horrendous blunder of combining tactical fire/counterfire, multihex ranged tactical fire (i.e. non-artillery), and operational design. It doesn't work. On one hand, the scale of the game is too large for correctly modelling the tactical nuances the game utilizes for combat resolution. There are just too many holes that appear just for the sake of that "tactical feel" of guns firing back and forth in combat.

On the other hand, the games are particularly weak in operational concerns (at least they were when last I played them) in their cursory treatment of supply (mainly). And... as many have noted, due to the tactical combat, the necessary brevity of the time for turns (2 hrs.) makes playing out the entire operation a pretty hefty chore (chore = work, not fun). Tiller's games all lack focus, IMO, in the nature of the needed/appropriate game mechanics given the scale that was chosen.

That said, I did find his "Squad Battles" games to be better than the operational ones, but that is not my preferred level of combat so I'm not that excited about the series overall...

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 41

- 8/13/2003 7:53:51 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Capitaine

If you haven't played PzC since Normandy then you've missed out on the system at it's finest. There have been numerous games published since then that are primarily btln level affairs. To be honest Normandy is probably my least favorite title in the series.

Something else you've missed out on are the enhancements to the supply rules. There are three variations to choose from now. The supply system in KP is kind of a cross between Virtual Supply and Explicit Supply in PzC.

I have a little trouble in KP right now figuring out how far I can safely advance without outrunning supply. Sometimes my units appear to be beyond the range of my supply trucks, but next turn they show up green anyway. Guess I need to read the "Bullets and Supply" article at Wacht am Rhein. ;)

elmo3

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 42

- 8/13/2003 9:22:46 PM

Kent Pfeiffer

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elmo3
[B]Capitaine

If you haven't played PzC since Normandy then you've missed out on the system at it's finest. [/B][/QUOTE]

IMO, the system was at its finest in the first game, Smolensk 41, and it has been more or less downhill ever since. The proliferation of company-sized and, in some games, even platoon-sized units is particularly annoying. To his credit, Mr. Tiller has fixed many of the issues people had with the system when it first came out and added many enhancements. Supply is handled much better now, for example. But, some of the fundamental aspects of the design (e.g. 2hr turns, ranged direct fire) are, as Capitaine said, "horrendous blunders" and can't be fixed. If Tiller developed a new series at a higher scale, I might be interested. Then again, if SSG keeps releasing more games in the Decisive Battle series, we won't need a new Tiller series.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 43

- 8/13/2003 9:35:30 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

I'm sure HPS and Matrix hope there is room for more than just two series! :)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 44

- 8/14/2003 1:43:05 PM

Adam Parker

Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B](Re HPS.... ) the horrendous blunder of combining tactical fire/counterfire, multihex ranged tactical fire (i.e. non-artillery), and operational design. It doesn't work. On one hand, the scale of the game is too large for correctly modelling the tactical nuances the game utilizes for combat resolution. There are just too many holes that appear just for the sake of that "tactical feel" of guns firing back and forth in combat.... [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't really see where you're coming from here Capitaine as I quite like managing the battalions comprising a division for both offense, reserve and rotation. Many of the operational texts I've read describe the action at battalion level too. Though there is no arguing from my pov that campaigning Normandy at the Company scale is plain tedious! Hence, the invasion of Sicily shines in "Sicily 43" with Saunders and Blackie as that title's designers, with their different spin on the series than that of Normandy's Wig Graves.

Each to his own.

One thing I noticed right off with Korsun Pocket (and even Ardennes Offensive v3 included on disc), is the prevalence of divisions with 4 regiments. I've really got to look into the designer's and historical notes to see the catalyst for this. Definitely changes the feel of things in TAO!

Btw I do recommend downloading the scenario "Wiking Whiteout". Started playing without reading the rules to see how intuitive the new game/interface would be. Worked out some things and had a ball with the AI's Russians pushing behind my aggressive Landsers! But I'll be honest with you - I do need to read the training manual as I have no idea what an objective looks like!!! :D Didn't stop me having fun!

_____________________________

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 45

- 8/14/2003 10:18:07 PM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

Adam

I`m not sure what he`s talking about either, in Normandy `44 the direct fire is in most cases provided by the Tanks and SP Guns and Heavy Weapons Companies of the American, British, and German Armies using 81mm morters, .50 cal. Brownings, Vickers 303, MG 42`s and 34`s and the Cannon Companies.

All had ranges well in excess of 2000 yrds, which in the scale of the Game Hexes, makes them effective, and it was doctrine to use them that way.

The Vickers and MG 42`s and 34`s in fact had optical sights to enable accurate fire at over 3000 yrds.

His comments on supply are, in view of the upgrades to the supply features rules a bit out of date, and I have to wonder about his desire for more detailed Supply features while not liking the scale and complexity of the Game as is.....

You know folks, the original post requested a camparison of the details and playability and I assume Historical Accuracy of HPS Korsun and SSG Korsun. Though they are different scales and design concepts, that`s a useful debate.

So far it appears that the question has not been addressed in a direct and objective way by people who have _played both_ Games.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 46

- 8/15/2003 12:29:10 AM

Wilhammer

Posts: 449
Joined: 5/24/2002
From: Out in the Sticks of Rockingham County, North Caro
Status: offline

OK, I have played them both.

Different approach, different scales, different solutions, both enjoyable.

Is one better than the other?

The Tiller PzC games are just different, no better, no worse, and the new supply rules are very well done.

If you recall these old games, some admittedly imperfect comparisons:

KP is to SPIs Desert Fox as Tillers Tobruk '41 is to GDW's Operation Crusader (without the si move).

I have played several full campaigns of Desert Fox, but only once did I make it about half way through OC.

I imagine playing Korsun '44 completely would take at least 10 times as long as it does in KP, myself having played just the smaller scenarios. That is really more a result of scale than anything, but KP's combat advisor is a time saving gem of a planning tool - a benchmark feature all wargames should consider.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 47

- 8/15/2003 2:19:22 AM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black Cat [

So far it appears that the question has not been addressed in a direct and objective way by people who have _played both_ Games. [/B][/QUOTE]

I'd say you're mistaken. I haven't played KP yet, but played TAO to death, along with the same for several of the PzC games.

Plenty of direct and objective posts here.
For that matter, since you don't think there is, note the first line of my first post; I mention the PzC games are good games.

Now, since it seems to be such a concern, why don't you post your opinions of both ?

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 48

- 8/15/2003 2:46:17 AM

Black Cat

Posts: 615
Joined: 7/4/2002
Status: offline

Please go away and stop stalking me and my posts John.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 49

- 8/15/2003 7:57:11 AM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Black Cat
[B]Please go away and stop stalking me and my posts John. [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL ! You posted on a public forum, and I replied to your post, just like replies I've made to others.

Whew.......

John

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 50

- 8/15/2003 3:38:21 PM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

I honestly think most of the HPS PzC series detractors out there really missed something fundamental about the game or something. I had a difficult time adjusting to Smolensk 41 when it first came out, but having played TOAW to death it was a fantastic change. (I still like TOAW a lot.) I've played the full campaign games for Smolensk, Korsun, Kharkov, Rhzev, Normandy, most of Bulge and half of Kursk (in it right now). The HPS PzC game series has been some of the best computer wargaming I've experienced. Only SPWAW compares favorably. Due to its complexity I think it's really easy to get frustrated with the system. I'm interested in hearing a more detailed explanation from whoever posted about the game not being a good operational warfare system. As far as actually challenging a player to make operational decisions PzC (and Modern Battles) does it better than any game I've seen. Few games make the ramifications of operational decisions so transparent. Certainly supply is a little abstracted by default, but there is an explicit supply option that changes that completely. Who knows though, I'm biased because I LOVE big wargames. The bigger the better. It is true that the big campaign games of PzC are going to be a little dull if the idea of arranging a tank army's march order along multiple roads for optimal movement and security isn't your cup of tea. For me, there is nowhere else I can find it.

Tomo

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 51

- 8/15/2003 7:35:46 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

All three game systems being compared -- Decisive Battles, PzC, and TOAW -- are boardgame-like applications. Just curious about those making appraisals (I have extensive experience with all three, having played "Smolensk" extensively before seeing the massive holes in the basic premises of the system) if they have a LOT of board wargame experience, or primarily PC wargame experience? And if you do (have board wargame experience), was it limited to a few highly popular titles, or did you buy nearly every game that came out for some period of time?

The reason I ask is that there are certain game mechanisms ("game" mechanisms; not "board" or "PC" mechanisms) that must be understood and respected in a design, and many players of the PC genre [only] are unaware of them, if only because their experience is not broad enough and not all PC titles expose their CRT's and assumptions openly. TOAW does not do this at all.

That is, if PzC, DB and TOAW are pretty much your limit in heavy operational wargames, you are dealing with a severely limited deck.

Now, I'm not the instructor, nor do I want to be, but (somewhat embarrassingly) I have a massive history of board wargames AND PC wargames. The worst violations of gaming mechanisms are committed by Tiller designs, without even having to look very hard or deep. TOAW fares better, but gets caught up in counting individual assets in ascertaining a units "combat rating", which doesn't translate (as most military theorists know) into the actual combat power or effectiveness of a unit. The DB system, with plenty of detail and chrome, albeit more abstract than the other two titles, is the most accurate and meaningful operational [I]system[/I] available since PC wargaming began. That's my own opinion, and that's all I'm offering. Ever.

So, take that opinion for what it's worth. If you enjoy all 3, or only one of the 3, that alright by me. But that's my opinion based on my integrated knowledge of over 30 years of board and PC gaming. I've played monster games, and the actual length of a PzC campaign isn't what makes it bogus, IMO. If it were legit, I'd kind of like it. It's just an invalid model IMO, and YES, due to the scope of the games, they are directly comparable to the DB series. The level of planning and the nature of objectives determine the type of game; not the size of a unit.

Decisive Battles is NOT "wargames lite", it is the best, most sophisticated, and moreover most accurate (as much as you can model accuracy) PC operational wargame that's available. Sometimes "more" is not better; it is worse.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 52

- 8/15/2003 8:18:39 PM

John Pancoast

Posts: 76
Joined: 7/26/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tombstone
[B]I honestly think most of the HPS PzC series detractors out there really missed something fundamental about the game or something. I had a difficult time adjusting to Smolensk 41 when it first came out, but having played TOAW to death it was a fantastic change. (I still like TOAW a lot.) I've played the full campaign games for Smolensk, Korsun, Kharkov, Rhzev, Normandy, most of Bulge and half of Kursk (in it right now). The HPS PzC game series has been some of the best computer wargaming I've experienced. Only SPWAW compares favorably. Due to its complexity I think it's really easy to get frustrated with the system. I'm interested in hearing a more detailed explanation from whoever posted about the game not being a good operational warfare system. As far as actually challenging a player to make operational decisions PzC (and Modern Battles) does it better than any game I've seen. Few games make the ramifications of operational decisions so transparent. Certainly supply is a little abstracted by default, but there is an explicit supply option that changes that completely. Who knows though, I'm biased because I LOVE big wargames. The bigger the better. It is true that the big campaign games of PzC are going to be a little dull if the idea of arranging a tank army's march order along multiple roads for optimal movement and security isn't your cup of tea. For me, there is nowhere else I can find it.

Tomo [/B][/QUOTE]

Good stuff Tomo. Exactly, it's just a matter of taste. For me, I don't enjoy the same things as you list; it's more work than enjoyment then. But that's just me.
Like I said before, they're good games. Just not to my preference for scale, etc.

To reply to the other post, I played boardgames alot, starting in the 70's, and still do for that matter.

John

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 53

- 8/15/2003 8:47:14 PM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B].... The worst violations of gaming mechanisms are committed by Tiller designs, without even having to look very hard or deep. .... [/B][/QUOTE]

Capitaine

I intended to pretty much stay out of this discussion due to my PzC beta tester status. However this statement has me intrigued to say the least. Can you elaborate on it? It's your opinion and I'm not trying to change it, just really interested in how you came to that conclusion. In an effort to keep this on topic I'd be interested in where you think KP got their "gaming mechanisms" right and K44 didn't.

And yes I have ~ 30 years of board game and computer game playing experience, plus a number of computer game designs (as part of a partnership) for Avalon Hill from back in the early 80's.

Thanks,
elmo3

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 54

- 8/15/2003 8:56:54 PM

PeterF

Posts: 62
Joined: 8/10/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]TOAW fares better, but gets caught up in counting individual assets in ascertaining a units "combat rating", which doesn't translate (as most military theorists know) into the actual combat power or effectiveness of a unit. [/QUOTE]

I agree with most of your comments, Capitaine, but I honestly thought TOAW was the worst wargame I've ever seen. I only bought one Tiller clone, the Smolensk one, and though I felt it didn't quite come together had some interesting concepts. The scale was novel, for one thing. They say he's added enhancements with each new iteration, but one toaster oven was enough.

In some ways TOAW was a strikingly original design; you wanted it to succeed. But playing the monster, you never understood fully what was going on and why. It was all 'under the hood' by design. You'd push stacks around, combat ensues, some units retreat, others lose 527 halftracks and 64 AT guns, but don't- or 'evaporate'. The whole affair was wacky, IMO. The mechanics in the Tiller games, by contrast, are commendably transparent. And those rivers down the center of hexes in TOAW represented a retro concept that added a lot of weird tactical distortions. At least Battlefields, to which bears some similiarities, has avoided that mistake.

But the game had its devoted adherents like some religious cult. Everyone now and then Norm Koger would lend his Olympian presence to one of the forums and get hosannahed by the faithful for having produced one of the multiple patches that cured this or that terminal problem. Lessons? Wargames should never be designed by a committe of one.

Sorry to vent, but that blown 39.99 still rankles.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 55

- 8/15/2003 10:26:32 PM

Crimguy

Posts: 1409
Joined: 8/15/2003
From: Cave Creek, AZ
Status: offline

1st Post!! Couldn't help chiming in on this topic. I normally just lurk, being an owner of UV, and now KP, but as an owner of a few Tiller games as well I'm finding this thread too juicy to resist.

I just finished my first game of KP last night and found it to be pretty darn good. It took me a while to get the interface down but I'm figuring it out.

I do not share many of the criticisms of the HPS games that I have seen posted here. I think the basic mechanics of the system are quite good. In particular I appreciate the force strengths being displayed down to the individual man. This combined with fatigue levels/quality gives a good idea of the unit's effectiveness. I also like the scale of Panzer Campaigns. It can get overwhelming, or even dull, at times (it took me 2 weeks to get through 5 turns in the Kursk campaign, but I was being a bit too "thoughtful"), but the immense scale is also it's greatest feature. It terms of OOB I always leave the PzC games feeling there is a certain sense of accuracy involved.

However, PzC has a few things I do not like. First, it really could use a facelift! The maps and counters are drab, and I find the 3D views to be useless. Second, I think command and control is a bit difficult. Keeping units with their HQ's can be tough as the counters look similar even when you have the color coded feature turned on. The supply/Command system I think needs to be revamped. Personally, I'd like it to be more like the W@W series with the ability to have a supply line appear momentarily when clicking on a unit (same with finding your hq). Third, defensive fire can be a bit overdone and sometimes your units don't do their job. Finally, they need to come up with a better way of executing troop movements.

I find a lot of these shortcomings are handled better in KP. Supply is terrific: having the supply ranges appear is a godsend for me. HQ units aren't an issue due I guess to the scale. The graphics in many ways are better. The map shading is actually legible, and it's seems easier to keep your army organized. I find the color choices a bit too busy and it hurts my eyes a bit. The combat advisor is very helpful (the word terrific comes to mind), and gives you plans that you might not have thought of. OTOH who's going to bring that infintry regiment into the battle when he's holding down a defensive line 5 hexes away?

Movement is easier for me. I get real tired of hearing the system chime every time I move the Royal Fusiliers up a mountainside in PzC because I don't have enough movement points.

I do find that I'm fighting with the interface a bit, in terms of understanding the information it's displaying. It is much easier to assess your unit's strength in PzC, and getting the info you want is pretty straightforward, and I'm finding that getting this information is a bit jumbledin KP. For example, you don't know a unit has the ability to blow up a bridge without first right-clicking on a hex and bringing your mouse over the unit (unless your next to the bridge of course)? The unit information is just given in a more concise manner in HPS' games. The combat display is a bit jumbled as well. Finally, It would be nice if the counters had bumper numbers on them in KP.

In one area I'm a bit disappointed with in both series is in the "in the box" experience. On one hand, KP doesn't have too many battles in the box (throwing in the Ardennes was nice of them, though), but has a scenario editor - I expect you guys to get to work!! However, HPS' games have many scenarios, with both historical and fictitious variants, and battles of all sizes. Yet they don't have a real scenario editor (i.e. your stuck with the map they gave you). I feel like KP could have thrown a few more scenarios into the box - as it is, it remindes me of how Airborne Assault was when first released.

I really like them both a lot. They are just what I've been looking for actually (until Uncommon Valor came out, I hadn't touched a hex-based game since Operation Crusader in 1992 or so). I'd like both designers to take note of what the other is doing in terms of UI, because both could use a little bit of work.

For anyone who wants to see what PzC is up to these days, I'm finding Sicily '43 to be one of the best. It's not too big, unlike Kursk, and the new features and historical variants make it a very fun game. Not to mention it isn't a worn out topic like Normandy.

BTW, does board game experience really make anyone's opinion more valid? The designers should take into consideration the mechanics of the board games , but take advantage of what they can do with the computer, not just ape Avalon Hill board games and use the cpu to roll dice. I'm not saying SSG or HPS are doing that (PzC might be more guilty of it than KP for the most part). I just don't think its a particularly valid point. Board games gave us hex maps and lots of fun, and I'm thankful for that, but there is more than one way to do combat resolution.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong . . .:p

Matt
-Aside from a bit of ASL in college, Monopoly and Clue were my favorites.

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 56

- 8/15/2003 11:03:59 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

Good, nonflaming replies gentlemen. One thing about my comments about "board wargaming" was that the genre in and of itself is not superior, but by digesting so many sets of rules, and applying them manually, you actually learn "game concepts" and "game mechanisms" rather than boardgame "conventions". A PC game must still be a valid game. In the historical context, this means an understanding of how certain difficult-to-quantify matters can be handled satisfactorily.

I said I would not elaborate much on particular "gripes" because this is opinion, and I've seen such arguments go round and round without anyone ever being convinced.

One fundamental thing, though, that I'll throw out (since elmo3 asked for something tangible) about "Tiller failings" is the inappropriateness of the scale for "direct fire" multi-hex ranged combat. It cannot be argued seriously that the detail of PzC maps, @ 1km/hex, can depict effectively all the features that could obscure a LOS. Other than in the desert, or on completely flat plains, routine direct fire in excess of 1km (the 2-hex range means fire anywhere from 1.000001km to 2.99999km) cannot be modelled with any possible realism. In fact, to try to do so (as Tiller has done) is, IMO, folly. What a unit [I]could[/I] do, and what a unit's [I]maximum range[/I] might be, are completely different from what units did 95% of the time, and what a unit's [I]effective range[/I] is in actual combat. I've found that Tiller routinely has extreme difficulty translating raw data into realistic game mechanics.

Anyway, I agree that TOAW's map mechanics essentially ruined that game -- the lack of hexside features??? What on earth!! -- but the most amazing thing about that game that made it worth its money (or at least one of the series games) was the novel concept of turn/time usage. The way combat used up time, and permitted a variety of tactical nuances was fascinating. Its relative unpredictability was interesting as well. Really forced realistic planning IMO while adding that exciting "unknown" element in a fairly realistic fashion. Placed in a better game system, I think that could be a killer mechanism!

Also, Norm affirmatively stated his realization that proper "operational" game modelling meant no multi-hex ranged direct fire could, or should, be modelled. He got that right, so his scales were appropriate. But don't get me started with the Pandora's Box of his multiple scale system .

I do agree, though, that it was difficult to get a lot of meaning from the game. Things happened, but unless you just trusted Norm's knowledge, you weren't sure exactly why things were happening as they were.

To me, this is what PC-only gamers do not mind: Being cooped up in the "black box" with the "illusion" of not knowing more than the historical commander (or so they believe; the historical commander had reality as a guide, while the gamer only has Norm's codified consciousness).

So, for all the right things "out in the open", for being the correct operational scale, and for abstracting things to the proper degree while still including a lot of detail, and particularly by enabling the player focus on strategy while still working within the framework of hard logistics, "Decisive Battles" towers head and shoulders over the other two systems.

But I've said this very thing for years. Nothing new. :) ;)

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 57

- 8/16/2003 4:16:15 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capitaine
[B]....One fundamental thing, though, that I'll throw out (since elmo3 asked for something tangible) about "Tiller failings" is the inappropriateness of the scale for "direct fire" multi-hex ranged combat. It cannot be argued seriously that the detail of PzC maps, @ 1km/hex, can depict effectively all the features that could obscure a LOS. Other than in the desert, or on completely flat plains, routine direct fire in excess of 1km (the 2-hex range means fire anywhere from 1.000001km to 2.99999km) cannot be modelled with any possible realism. In fact, to try to do so (as Tiller has done) is, IMO, folly. What a unit [I]could[/I] do, and what a unit's [I]maximum range[/I] might be, are completely different from what units did 95% of the time, and what a unit's [I]effective range[/I] is in actual combat. I've found that Tiller routinely has extreme difficulty translating raw data into realistic game mechanics....[/B][/QUOTE]

Capitaine

FWIW here is my rebuttal. Not that many weapons in Panzer Campaigns (PzC) have a two hex direct fire range. German 88's are an example of one that does. On both the steppes of Russia and the desert of North Africa they could and did effectively engage targets at 2km (2 hex) range. As one example, I recall recently reading in Rommel's North Africa Campaign by Jack Greene that the 88 could penetrate the armor on a Matilda at 2km range.

Does PzC give these weapons the same effectiveness at 2 hexes as at 1 hex range? Nope, and if it did I'd be complaining right along with you :). It is game specific but in most if not all games in the series a weapon is 1/3 as effective at the 2 hex range. That would reflect not only the reduced penetration value at that range but the difficulty in aquiring a target due to intervening terrain. I'm sure the max range of an 88 is considerably more than 2km, but that is the limit in all PzC games for that weapon IIRC. So for my money the game system quite realistically models the way 88's and similar long range direct fire weapons could reach out and touch someone.

There isn't much here to compare with KP due to the scale differences. Do you have any other game mechanisms that you are unhappy with in PzC that relate to KP so that we can keep this more on topic?

elmo3

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 58

- 8/16/2003 5:24:48 AM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

No elmo3, just one of many. I don't want to frag Tiller more than necessary. Obviously he hits the spot for certain gamers. But this is a Matrix forum and I don't think we should get into a ******* match here where some inevitably will make an unfavorable argument against the publisher's product, heaven forbid.

Just know that my view(s) are not "kneejerk", but come after a lot of thought and analysis. If you've done the same and reach a different conclusion, I salute you. :cool:

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 59

- 8/16/2003 6:35:03 AM

elmo3

Posts: 5820
Joined: 1/22/2002
Status: offline

Fair enough. There is room for both Tiller and Matrix games on my hard drive. Now if I could just stop rolling those **** 1's against Wilhammer in Wiking Whiteout...

(in reply to coach3play4)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Korsun Pocket >> I too would like to see Matrix republish the old V4V and WaW Games.