What Strat/Wargame would you like to see done?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'd expect it's because they're not as well known as WWII or the ACW...

That's no excuse.

In marketing terms... you bet your ass it's an excuse!

[Moltke71]

Terminus,

Too true, unfortunately.

m10Bob,

Altough the original AoR engine would need work on handling Prussian open order formations and correcting the Chassepot's values, you're right on a tactical level. The true brillance of Moltke, however, was operational.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

Some ideas for turn-based strategy games:

1) The Roman Empire from birth to death - the whole shebang... would be great to play.

3) A History of the World game. Build an empire through economics, politics and warfare...

I like those two. You can have #2, never cared for the Victorian age except for "Zulu Wars" and "ACW".

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck

Terminus,

Too true, unfortunately.

m10Bob,

Altough the original AoR engine would need work on handling Prussian open order formations and correcting the Chassepot's values, you're right on a tactical level. The true brillance of Moltke, however, was operational.

von Molke and Frederick were legends...but then , I feel that way about von Steuben auch......[;)]

[Flannel]

As a gamer both board and computer(30 years) I would like to see some in depth naval games and have just ordered a submarine game 'Silent War' (Compass Games.com) which covers the American subs in the Pacific. It had the highest rating ever on Boardgamegeek and a 'brill' review in the 'Wargamer' and Consim Games. This type perhaps, is one Matrix could look at.
Other games such as 'Alesia', 'Punic Wars', 'Crimea' there are so many era's such as the Campaigns of Alexander.

Flannel

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Flannel

Other games such as 'Alesia', 'Punic Wars', 'Crimea' there are so many era's such as the Campaigns of Alexander.

Hmmm... got me thinking. Maybe a suggestion better suited to the "what old games should Matrix dig up next" thread [;)], but how about a remake/re-issue of the I-Magic Great Battles series which were ports of the GMT boardgames? I'd jump at buying a re-hash of the 'Collectors Edition' (Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar and the editor) that was fully XP and Vista compatible and with a suitable graphics make-over.

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Flannel

Other games such as 'Alesia', 'Punic Wars', 'Crimea' there are so many era's such as the Campaigns of Alexander.

Hmmm... got me thinking. Maybe a suggestion better suited to the "what old games should Matrix dig up next" thread [;)], but how about a remake/re-issue of the I-Magic Great Battles series which were ports of the GMT boardgames? I'd jump at buying a re-hash of the 'Collectors Edition' (Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar and the editor) that was fully XP and Vista compatible and with a suitable graphics make-over.

I STILL have this installed on my PC -- the only game that I know of that shows dead bodies (and dead horses) on the battlefield, besides John Tiller's US Civil War Battleground games.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

Some ideas for turn-based strategy games:

1) The Roman Empire from birth to death - the whole shebang... would be great to play.

2) Imperialism game from 1830 to 1913.

3) A History of the World game. Build an empire through economics, politics and warfare...

I'll vote for #3, if it includes video clips from the Mel Brooks version (History of the World, Part I).

[:D]

[rhondabrwn]

Seriously, now...

I would like to see a "Civilization" type game, done with a HUGE detailed map of the world (like 10 times bigger than Civ II), accurate graphics (not the animated cartoony type), and real military units with command, organization, and logistical support built in.

In other words, a world game that plays as easily as Civilization II, with colonization, economic development, cultural and scientific research, but with the military detail of TOAW or BII.

When I say "plays as easily as CIV II" I mean a technology tree that isn't as intimidating to manage as in HOI Doomsday and it's kin. A game that captures the sweep of world history without getting bogged down in the detail.

I love the concept of Europa Universalis, Victoria, HOI etc but, darn it, they are just not that much fun to play. A little too abstract, too many pop up windows, too much going on too fast... I don't know... I've been trying to get into Victoria Revolutions, but just keep bogging down. I want something realistic that feels more like a traditional wargame, but with that added level of strategic complexity.

That's why Civ II remains a game that can still hook me for hours on end even when I tire of it's successors. It just has the right "feel" and that's what I would like to see in a new game. One that focuses on real military tactics and not just flashy graphics and animated tanks and soldiers marching across the map.

[gunny]

I would like to see a game featuring squad level play right down to individual fire teams and soldiers. The battlefield would hold a platoon plus, in linked 500m grids to form an AO.
The era would be vietnam. The maps would be 3D with eye pleasing rivers, swamps and foliage, highlands, paddies, grass hut villages and elephant grass.
A finite platoon of soldiers would patrol from small fire base in an Area of Operation consisting of linked grids. Defending the fire base while patrolling the maps would be the ongoing mission. Prestige points would be spent on fast air support and replacement troops. Should the player opt not to patrol the AO, then the enemy will mass an NVA battalion for an all out assault on the firebase. Gameover.[;)]

[hueglin]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Did I mention AGE OF RIFLES?[:D]

But also add an operational level to the game so that a series of battles can be fought - and your losses in one battle carry over into the next - that way you need to think about economy of force - not just all or nothing.

On a related note, I think any tactical/operational level game needs to focus on leadership, morale, training, supply, and equipment (in that order). I'd love to see a game that allows you the flexibility that real commanders have to form provisional commands, change officers and detach elements. It should also model the different levels of command and the probability (based on the leader) that some of your orders will not be carried out fully or at all.

As to time period, the Ages of Rifles - 1800 to 1900 would be my first choice.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Seriously, now...

I would like to see a "Civilization" type game, done with a HUGE detailed map of the world (like 10 times bigger than Civ II), accurate graphics (not the animated cartoony type), and real military units with command, organization, and logistical support built in.

In other words, a world game that plays as easily as Civilization II, with colonization, economic development, cultural and scientific research, but with the military detail of TOAW or BII.

When I say "plays as easily as CIV II" I mean a technology tree that isn't as intimidating to manage as in HOI Doomsday and it's kin. A game that captures the sweep of world history without getting bogged down in the detail.

I love the concept of Europa Universalis, Victoria, HOI etc but, darn it, they are just not that much fun to play. A little too abstract, too many pop up windows, too much going on too fast... I don't know... I've been trying to get into Victoria Revolutions, but just keep bogging down. I want something realistic that feels more like a traditional wargame, but with that added level of strategic complexity.

That's why Civ II remains a game that can still hook me for hours on end even when I tire of it's successors. It just has the right "feel" and that's what I would like to see in a new game. One that focuses on real military tactics and not just flashy graphics and animated tanks and soldiers marching across the map.

You have hit the proverbial "nail on the head" for me with these comments.

I still play and mod civ II MORE than any other game. Here was a game that broke the mold for ease of play, for simplicity of design, for intuitive interface, for ease of modding, for ability to create any type of scenario, and for just sheer fun....

I don't think Matrix needs to always make wargames. It could also do games that have a "civ" or "strategy" feel about them, but which also takes in a wider concept of the world.

I always marvel at game designers who cannot make an intuitive game interface. All they need to do is play civ II for a few hours and they will know what needs to be done.

This game was streamlined; yet it was difficult to master - if you know what I mean.

I, too, would like to see changes made in a Civ II-type game, but without going to the Civ IV level of extreme.

The units could be represented by "chess-like" pieces that are similar to those found in MTW. Simple but elegant.

[elcidce]

Have you tried to play the Squad Battles games? If so do they meet your requirements? I havent played the Vietnam versions but I like the ww2 ones I do have.

[Rooster]

30 Years War would be good.  There were some awesome generals in that period... and warfare was such an interesting mixture of the old and the new.

[KG Erwin]

Economics, politics, warfare? A game like this DOES exist -- "Medieval:Total War". The basic version has been modded to give it a better historical veneer. In play, though, it seems more like "Risk on Steroids". You build huge armies/fleets and capture provinces. Diplomacy and economics are all geared towards one goal -- dominating Europe, European Russia, North Africa and the Middle East. It's a World War fought between 1087 and 1453.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Economics, politics, warfare? A game like this DOES exist -- "Medieval:Total War".

In that case you can count at least Shogun: Total War, Rome: Total War, Lords of the Realms 3 and maybe Hearts of Iron serie.

[Hertston]

Warfare, certainly.  Whether any of the TW games do more than play at politics, economics or diplomacy is a rather different question.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Economics, politics, warfare? A game like this DOES exist -- "Medieval:Total War".

In that case you can count at least Shogun: Total War, Rome: Total War, Lords of the Realms 3 and maybe Hearts of Iron serie.

Currently, I'm getting my "Roman Empire" game fix by playing the Fall of Rome Mod for the original MTW. Having a blast...

Although, I would like to see a strategic Roman Empire game.

[Capt. Harlock]

As has been said many a time before: the Mediterranean Theater during WWII. A really good game should give the possibility of French units fighting on the Axis side, and Italians fighting on the Allied side. (A full campaign game would continue until the fall of Rome, or the seizure of the Suez canal.)

[EUBanana]

A good WW3 nuclear war sim.  The only game out there that lets you have nuclear war is Civilisation!

I dunno how it would be done exactly, but it'd need a fairly solid political system and some sort of rules on escalation.  With conventional and nuclear strategies available, grand strategy style.  First strike, riding out attacks, etc, all that stuff I read about in Cold War era strategy books that never got used and probably never will.  And none of this "if the nukes start flying its game over.".  I wanna see the fallout zones and post-atomic deserts and a readout on how many millions died and if I "won" or not!

I suppose it'd look a bit like Hearts of Iron but more detailed and maybe not real time?

...am I ghoulish?

"Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!"