Lost Victories features

[Grenadier]

For future use in designing mega campaigns I want to know what your opinions are of the features found in Lost Victories, like the photos, documents, sound files and the storyline.

[rbrunsman]

Brent, I appreciate all the work you put into those features and I hope you crank out more MCs. Recognizing that you do put so much work into the extra features, I just want to comment that some of the documents are a little long. I don't know how others feel but I won't feel slighted if you cut down on the documentation. A few paragraphs is enough for me. The storyline and the photos are great, though. (The sound never seems to work for me.) Thanks for a great MC.

[Grenadier]

I consider Lost Victories a cross bwtween a wargame and a historical record. It was alway my intention to make as thorough a historical recounting of Barbarossa in the Ukraine as I could and I combined the best of the German and Soviet biased materials available to create a conprehensive record of both sides in the conflict.

Thank you for your comment. It does sadden me to see that only about 25% of those who have viewed this poll have actually voted. The silence tells me that most do not even care enough to tell me they do not care either way about the additional features.
Perhaps it would have been best to simply make up the battles without the additioal features?

[Gen.Hoepner]

Brent,do not say that please! I can tell u that when i'm finishing a battle,(let's say the last 2 turns)my mind has already gone to what will General Henrici say about me.....the Documents are very very appreciated by me.I love the picture and i love that atmosphere of realism!Believe me:this thing you've done called Lost Victories,will remain something very important in the future of many players!
Still thanks for all you've done for us!

[ZoomBoy27]

Excellent work and I must say I got a real chill when I read Hitler's "justification" for the invasion of Russia.
As for lamenting the numer of views vs. poll-takers. There's some MC players who haven't tried this one yet and thus have no comments.


ZoomBoy
Developing a iso-tile 2D RPG with skills, weapons, and adventure. See my old Hex-Tile RPG GAME, character editor, diary, 3D Art resources at Check out my Web-Site

[MrPlow]

I really appreciate the historical background and documents. I've always been interested in the military history of a simulation since Avalon Hill days (even read Liddell-Hart for Tactics II).
Before a LV scenario, I update all the related doc to correct the typos, make myself hauptmann, add a few more zingers between Wirth and Baumann, etc.
The doc really adds value and enjoyment to the game. Keep it coming!

[WhiteRook]

Brent,

I was one of the first voters! I have actualy stoped playing Watchtower to play LV. Normaly I do not care for the Russian
front battles - but danged if I am not haveing a super time in
this MC!
All the doc's are just a great joy and really do add a lot to the
the over all flavor of the whole thing! It's what sets the MC's
head and shoulders above any thing SSI ever put in a SP game!
I have always offered my help with maps and pic's and the such
for WildBill as I could. But then I have always loved doing re-
search!
I think a lot of folks just do not take the time to sound off on an
issue like this and they do not realize how much it can mean to
a designer.
But I for one feel that it would be a mistake to not do them that
way!

Rook

[rich12545]

Brent, just to comment on the lack of responses.

I don't play campaigns so I can't really vote. I looked at the thread out of curiosity. I bought all three megas as my way of paying for the game. There may be many others like me who didn't vote.

[Henri]

I only ordered LV yesterday so I can't vote yet.

But hey, people not voting doesn't mean they don't like it. Besides, asking people how they liked it is a bit akin to your spouse if she or he still loves you -you'll never be satisfied with the answer, there are questions that should never be asked...

Henri

[mao]

I like the documentation; it is true that sometimes I am just in a mood to start the next battle, but sometimes I take the time to read everything and immerse myself in the documents.

My only beef is some documents have large photos which mean you only see a few lines of text at a time... but it's a minor complaint.

Keep up the good work!

I am waiting for MC El Alamein

[mao]

...however, if it was a choice of MC without documents or no MC, I choose MC without documents:)

[Charlie]

Brent, the historical documents are very good and they add a lot of realism to the game. I´m sure i wouldn´t buy a MC without all the historical background. Just my opinion

[ivantheterrible]

I love all these features. In order of preference for me only:
After battle evaluation from the general
detailed pre-battle description
Awards and badges
historical documentation about the battle fought or related events
photos
music and sound
detailed historical OOB/unit composition (I ranked this the lowest as I'm not good with remembering general's names, or unit desination XIV corps, 123 co. etc.

[ivantheterrible]

For the record, I tried to vote several times (first choice - best feature), but kept getting the following error:
vBulletin Message
The action you have attempted could not be performed as your session appears to be invalid. Click the below link to attempt this action again with a new session.
Try this action again!

[AbsntMndedProf]

Speaking as a history buff, as well as an avid wargames player, I find the MCs to be the ultimate PC wargame experience! (At least until CL comes out. Although I'm sure the MCs for SP:WaW will always hold a special place in my heart, and I will continue to enjoy them along with CL.)

I continue to be amazed and impressed by the level of research that must have gone into the multi-media aspects of the MCs! Simply put, Matrix and its games rule!

Eric Maietta

[blueduck]

I play the Megas as much for the history lesson that they give as for the game play itself. I do apprecite the documentation and background that was included with the game. Makes them much more enjoyable than just a bunch of battles with no explanation as to why they were fought. Kind of gives one the feeling of being there int the war, and not just playing a game. Thanks to all the developers for all the research that was put into these campaigns.[&o]

[elliotts]

Thank you for all of your work.

I'm part gamer and part historian, so I appreciate all of the work you put into this MC. I don't just play the games. There is a lot of valuable information here. The pictures are quite fine, too. All of the history helps to make the game.

Please keep up the good work!

[roth]

I've only recently purchased SPWAW General's Edition, so I've had no previous experience with MCs. My vote, though, is please retain all the documentation and historically-based features. I am a historian as much as a gamer, and the historical realism is one of the major features that draw me to any game. I also play as much to learn as to enjoy.

LV is the first MC I intend to take on.

A couple of questions, though:

The General's Edition I have is SPWAW v. 8.403 -- the last one, I believe, before the official release of the Enhanced mod. Am I correct that the MCs will play OK in 8.403? Am I also correct that they will NOT play properly with the Enhanced Mod?

In purchasing initial force, my intention going in would be to try to replicate as closely as possible an historical OB (probably as the Germans) -- that is, not to artificially stack up my forces with units or capabilities that would rarely if ever have been available to a historical commander in my position. Similarly, I would expect to model my forces on a basic line unit rather than an elite unit. Will this approach likely lead either to frustration down the road (I read a lot of talk about "wishing I had chosen my initial forces differently") and/or an early game-death?

In any event, I'm looking forward to the immersion that I have heard the MCs bring. I probably won't be able to start until Christmas is over. Please let me know before then if there are any mods or plans for mods for LV or any of the MCs that will enable them to play properly under the Enhanced mod, or if I will get better results by running LV using an earlier SPWAW version -- say 8.3 or 8.4.

Many thanks

[FlashfyreSP]

Guys, there will be no more work on any MCs, since Matrix has suspended all work on this game.

Most of the MCs were designed using earlier versions of the game (prior to 8.2) and may not work as well under the newest version. You may see weapon and unit data errors, as well as odd combat results due to different ratings used.

[roth]

Flashfyre --

Understood, and thank you.

Is there an optimal version of SPWAW to use for the MCs, or does this vary from MC to MC? I've kept downloads of many older versions and can probably install anything from 8.1 (using your advice of "prior to 8.2") back to the 7.x versions. I'm willing to install one version for the MCs and the Enhanced Mod for everything else, but I'd like to avoid having more than two installs. I had hoped to make do with just a single install and use Modswapper to remove and re-install the later Mods as necessary, but if I go back to a 7.x version (or even 8.1) will Modswapper still work?

Also -- for anyone with MC and especially LV experience -- if I start an LV Megacampaign with a historical (but vanilla) OB for a non-elite German unit, am I simply asking for frustration and a less enjoyable experience down the road? To get the most out of LV, do I need to punch up my core force with an ahistorical mix of forces?

Thanks for any help. I'll shut up now and not hijack this thread any further.