Warfare1
Posts: 658
Joined: 10/20/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Keke You don't happen to be Von Rom by any chance? quote:
ORIGINAL: Warfare1 Well, look at the east front scenarios designed for TOAW. Maybe there won't be thousands of counters - but it will be pretty close with both sides included. At the beginning of Barbarossa there were millions of Germans and Soviets on the east front. How many divisions is that? At maximum Soviets had 517 divisions, can't remember the Axis max. number just now. Anyhow when destroyed divisions are counted, then the actual number raises well above one thousand, and could be thousands, I'll give you that. D.McBride's monster-scenarios were at regimental level, btw. quote:
ORIGINAL: Warfare1 Again, most of those units will be redundant since the Germans will be expected to ram through weak Soviet troops in the first few months. A game employing hundreds and/or thousands of counters does not equal a challenging or sophisticated game. It simply means the player is faced with shoving around hundreds of counters. Nothing has to be lost in gameplay; and there is no need to include the name of every single unit that fought on the east front. At corps level, with 2 week or 1 month long turns, with a sophisticated game engine that includes weather, random events, etc, etc. . . could be a very enjoyable, challenging "grog" game. It is obvious that you seek a beer and pretzels type of a game, isn't it? Nothing wrong with that, but such games exist already. What I am looking for is a WITP-type of a game, with lots of scenarios and possibility to play the whole campaign (which it could manage well). FE Kursk with Corps sized units would just be a bore. In ideal game (of my dreams) AI could handle most of the units, and a player could choose how much micromanagement he wants. So one could handle everything by giving orders to Army Group/Front -commanders only or give orders straight to their subordinates down to a division level. quote:
ORIGINAL: Keke You don't happen to be Von Rom by any chance? What are you talking about?? quote:
At maximum Soviets had 517 divisions, can't remember the Axis max. number just now. Anyhow when destroyed divisions are counted, then the actual number raises well above one thousand, and could be thousands, I'll give you that. D.McBride's monster-scenarios were at regimental level, btw. OK, so first you said there would not be thousands of counters, now you admit there will be. That is fine, if people want to play a longggg east front game. But, when I now load up an east front scenario in TOAW, fatigue sets in. Unless a person is retired and with no family, it will be a very difficult game to complete. Let's be realistic here. quote:
It is obvious that you seek a beer and pretzels type of a game, isn't it? Nothing wrong with that, but such games exist already. What I am looking for is a WITP-type of a game, with lots of scenarios and possibility to play the whole campaign (which it could manage well). FE Kursk with Corps sized units would just be a bore. In ideal game (of my dreams) AI could handle most of the units, and a player could choose how much micromanagement he wants. So one could handle everything by giving orders to Army Group/Front -commanders only or give orders straight to their subordinates down to a division level. There you go with the beer & pretezels analogy again. I want a challenging east front game. But that challenge does not mean having thousands of counters; that is pure tedium. Clearly, what you want is different from what I and many others seek. I just don't see how the AI will be up to handling thousands of units, and PBEM for this type of game will be very difficult. While I agree that giving orders to sub-units would be ideal, the AI and no current game system is up to that challenge. I would love to play a good and challenging east front game that utilizes a new game engine and that requires thinking and strategy vs an endless array of counters.
< Message edited by Warfare1 -- 11/10/2004 1:52:59 AM >
|