Desert War: Why Didn't You Buy?

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: Erik2
...So maybe regimental versions (with the occasional battalion) of the scenarios would help?
It would take a fair bit of editing, but removing stuff is easier than adding.

Good idea. Will take a crack at this with 1st Alamein in Mods & Scenarios:

tm.asp?m=4474692

[bcgames]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Maybe the larger scenarios would be easier to play if you could order entire formations to move together. Say clicking just on the Bde HQ and moving it, and the subunits all move in formation without needing to move them individually. Sort of like Command Ops for those familiar with that game.

I like this idea as well--but for all scenarios. Like Take Command: Second Manassas. Organization-based movement plotting...anyone else hold a similar view?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: bcgames
I like this idea as well--but for all scenarios. Like Take Command: Second Manassas. Organization-based movement plotting...anyone else hold a similar view?

sure, but I think it would be very difficult to program so that it worked properly?

[johng5155]

Really like the North African theater, but there are couple issues that are keeping me from purchasing:
1. Lack of any sort of campaign. It does not have to be 40-43, but a series of linked battles where losses and experience carry over would do the trick.
2. Reviews of AI in the Beda Fomm scenario. This seems like a pretty straightforward situation. How will it do in a more complex scenario?

[rsallen64]

I beta tested but have not yet bought for the simple reason that at the moment I have about 8 games I have yet to start and I'm feeling a little guilty about that, so I don't want to get another one just yet. I tend to have two types of games I play on an ongoing basis: the deep, really make you think and strain your brain games like this and WITP-AE (a current and long term favorite), and the simple no brainer ones, like Mad Max, etc., that I play after a rough day at work when I don't want to use my brain anymore. [:D]

I love the theatre and the concept and gameplay, though, so it is a definite buy in the near future.

[Kolbex]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Maybe the larger scenarios would be easier to play if you could order entire formations to move together. Say clicking just on the Bde HQ and moving it, and the subunits all move in formation without needing to move them individually. Sort of like Command Ops for those familiar with that game.

I like this idea as well--but for all scenarios. Like Take Command: Second Manassas. Organization-based movement plotting...anyone else hold a similar view?

Hell yes.

Edit: to expand a bit, my view is that the more a game can replicate the sorts of challenges that face an actual commander, the better. There are a handful of games that handle aspects of this. Maybe no game does as many as Command Ops, but I have a soft spot for turn-based games.

"High-level" Command, i.e. not having to order every single unit for it to take action: Command Ops and Campaigns on the Danube.

Fog of War: Campaigns on the Danube and Command Ops model this quite well.

Orders Delay/Command Load: Command Ops and Flashpoint Campaigns, as well as a board game called Redvers' Reverse.

The Fact That Sometimes Your Commanders Won't Do What You Tell Them To: the Take Command/Scourge of War games and the aforementioned Redvers' Reverse, as well as Flashpoint Campaigns to a lesser extent.

After I became aware of these games, I realized the vast majority of war games weren't in any way simulating what it's like to command in war, they were simulating what it's like to play a board game. This is a legacy of their tabletop roots, but computers enable a far more granular simulation, and more games should take advantage of that.

Shout out as well to Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa, which marries a truly (and unfortunately) unique political layer to the otherwise fairly pedestrian chit pushing of the "main" game. I wish every wargame had something like this, although the scope in an operational game would have to be somewhat different. Perhaps in a hypothetical campaign mode the HQs/units under you could be "commanded" by actual names which become more or less likely to obey orders or goldbrick depending on battle results and whether they "feel" like you spent them recklessly or used them well, etc., or just based on "personality" numbers. The human factor applies at all levels of war. I understand the upcoming game Burden of Command will have something like this on a tactical level, incorporating King of Dragon Pass-like text events into battles.

[Searry]

I personally just like grand strategy. The GG series of games are so good, I dislike a "lesser" scope.
A full game simulating the entire desert war period would be a dream come true. Even the GGWITE expansion lacks this as it begins in late '42 IIRC.

I don't care about AI personally as I always play against another person.

I think pasta would go too far. [:D]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: bcgames

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

Maybe the larger scenarios would be easier to play if you could order entire formations to move together. Say clicking just on the Bde HQ and moving it, and the subunits all move in formation without needing to move them individually. Sort of like Command Ops for those familiar with that game.

I like this idea as well--but for all scenarios. Like Take Command: Second Manassas. Organization-based movement plotting...anyone else hold a similar view?

Plotting through an HQ order is good, perhaps with some order options, set road move, tactical move, so not just where they move, but how they move.

[jjdenver]

I love the Atomic Games Stalingrad and V4V including Op Crusader games so this game is up my alley I think. I'm pretty sure I will purchase it eventually. However the things that threw me off were:
1) I prefer East Front or at least West Front over Desert.
2) Unit density seemed insane(!!). I am a monster game player and I like a lot of units on the map but I prefer them to be more spread out rather than dealing with tall stacks of units that I have to fiddle through. This looked really tedious in screenshots. If the scale were bumped up a level (for example to regiment with maybe some auxiliary bns) OR the map scale was spread out to spread the units out then I'd probably really like the game a lot better and be more eager to purchase and dig in. Any time that I see more than 3 units stacked in a hex my brain says "uh-oh" major commitment required. And this from a brain that plays and has played tons of monsters.
3) I read that the interface was tough to pick up. One preview said that one of the game devs actually got angry (on a forum I think) at someone who didn't get the interface or didn't like the interface. This felt a bit weird and made me think the devs aren't really interested in helping customers enjoy the game so that put me off but just a bit.
4) I mainly PBEM (AI's are usually too easy) and didn't know if I'd find enough PBEM opponents or not.

[laska2k8]

ORIGINAL: laska2k8

considering to buy but still not convinced.
my pros:
- the wego system.
- the scale
- the editor (if allows a complete scenario creation, not only dlc based)

my cons
- theatre, not a fan of desert combat. I prefer western front, I look for "bulge" in every game I buy.

a little cosmetic failure, the chit graphic, as the light coming SE the counter seems recessed.

so I bought the game, the tutorial pdf has been convincing, still not much interested in the desert combat but I like engine and the wego system.
I hope for a western dlc and I wanted to support the Devs for future release.

[Erik2]

A couple of suggestions for small-scale scenarios that may utilize a part of the Compass-map (and OOB).
Operation Brevity, the fore-runner to Battleaxe.
Operation Skorpion, Rommel's counter-attack after Brevity.

And now for something completly different.
I miss the railroad in Egypt. Would add some decor even if there is no rail functionality (which would be nice for transporting units from Alex due west).

[stuart3]

Intending to buy this game eventually, I recently paid more attention than I had previously to the product requirements and was very surprised by the final one, "Desert War also requires Java -1.7 or better to be installed".

I have long since lost count of the number of magazine articles I have read warning of the security vulnerabilities involved with Java and recommending readers to uninstall it from their PCs. I followed that advice a long time ago and won't re-install Java just so that I can add another game to my collection.

[Searry]

If the Java thing is true, I am definitely staying away forever then.

[Saint Ruth]

Oh, java (JRE9) is far more secure than it used to be.
By the by, java is still the most popular business language. In my day job I write java for telecoms. If it's good enough for the major telcos like AT&T it can't be all bad.

But as to the question: if you don't want to install java, then no, you can't play this game.

[zakblood]

ORIGINAL: Searry

If the Java thing is true, I am definitely staying away forever then.

old news and if your on windows xp, 7 or 8 either, it's has more holes and bugs than older previous versions of Java ever did, so having a firewall and AV made by whoever, made no point, if the errors was going past it at the O/S level.

Code: Select all

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/java-security-risk/

old version then maybe i'd agree if i was using xp, win 7 or 8 etc,.

but new version and win 10, nope, not an issue anymore

[stuart3]

Properly used, Java isn't unsafe per se. But it isn't updated often enough and, the last I heard, it still doesn't auto-update. That means that it is a wonderful tool for professionals who have protocols in place to keep all of their applications up to date, and a ticking bomb for ordinary mortals who tend to load their software and leave it running, getting more and more out of date and more and more vulnerable.

I have never read an article about it that said that the operating system makes a difference, and these publications know that most of their readers use win 10.

If you do decide to use it, download it only from it's own site. Don't trust third party sites.

[Saint Ruth]

Unless you disable it, by default it checks for an update once a week.

If you do decide to use it, download it only from it's own site. Don't trust third party sites.

True for java and true for all software! [8D]

[zakblood]

ORIGINAL: stuart3

Properly used, Java isn't unsafe per se. But it isn't updated often enough and, the last I heard, it still doesn't auto-update. That means that it is a wonderful tool for professionals who have protocols in place to keep all of their applications up to date, and a ticking bomb for ordinary mortals who tend to load their software and leave it running, getting more and more out of date and more and more vulnerable.

I have never read an article about it that said that the operating system makes a difference, and these publications know that most of their readers use win 10.

If you do decide to use it, download it only from it's own site. Don't trust third party sites.

Java updates now all the time and is a auto one as long as you don't disable it.

and most who moan about Java being unsafe, still use out of date and unsupported O/S is what i mean, so there opinions don't count [:D]

[stuart3]

and most who moan about Java being unsafe, still use out of date and unsupported O/S

So that would be Vista and previous O/S?

so there opinions don't count

Duly noted that the opinions that I have gained from publications such as Computer Active, Web User, and various other computing magazines don't count. [:D]

[Smirfy]

I have not bought it yet because it is not on Steam. No Steam no buy