Regarding hex/turn based games

[Crimguy]

Before I get the "Hexes are dead, long live Panther!" response, I'll point out that I've been a loyal customer of Panther's titles since their inception, and whenever I'm in a discussion of a game, find myself always comparing it to COTA.

However, I reinstalled my copy of HPS' Kursk and was reminded that I also enjoy a mind-bogglingly large turn-based game as well. I also enjoy a lot of the decisions that went into that series regarding turn resolution and gameplay.

What I'm finding frustrating is the interface. I've become very spoiled with COTA's UI and on-screen information. I appreciate the toggling of info on the counters, the lines depicting command and supply, the ability to give orders to the HQ and have them give commands to their subordinates. I also appreciate the sidebar, with tabs for various functions.
'
HPS interface seems to get in the way more than it helps. Information is not readily available, and issuing orders and getting around the map can be tedious. Command heirarchy and unit information is what I find particularly cumbersome, especially when I'm playing the germans and don't understand the abbreviations.

Anyone at Panther ever think of translating some of these lessons learned to a turn-based game? Incidentally, I have TOAW III and largely have the same qualms as with HPS (minus the counter info).

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
However, I reinstalled my copy of HPS' Kursk and

HPS interface seems to get in the way more than it helps.

Information is not readily available, and

issuing orders and getting around the map can be tedious.

Command heirarchy and unit information is what I find particularly cumbersome,

Move to SSG’s Decisive battles series.

The games are hex based and turn based but………..they are designed to take advantage of computers to make wargaming better.

Information is readily available through short cut keys .

Issuing orders and getting around the map is easy

Etc etc



-

[Crimguy]

I had Korsun Pocket at one point.  Great game, but I found it to be a bit too simplistic in some ways.  It was very boardgame like (e.g. the die rolls being visible), was both a positive andnegative.  The screen resolution and lack of zoom drove me nuts too.

[JudgeDredd]

I agree in that I really like the ebb and flow of battle that the Panther engine gives to the player. It is unique and well implemented.

However, I am also a turn based lover. There is room on my shelf for all good games. I've said it many times....if it's good, it's worth having. I've never understood why people would leave a great game off their shelves simply by the way it's implemented.

I generally do not like RTS, but have come to admire Theatre of War and Shock Force. I've always loved hex games and own many TOAW III, Guns of August, Advanced Tactics...but Panther games took command and control of a force to a new level in strategy for me.

I'm glad to see they are at least talking about 3D maps, although when and if they will ever be implemented is a long way off...but I think it would give the gamer an extra level. And I don't mean they should replace the current map system. The 2D maps are beautiful. But use 3D to enhance...so when you place that AT unit on the top of the hill overlooking the crossroads, you can flit to 3D and see what they will be seeing.

I never did get on with the Decisive Battles series. I did install Korsun Pocket many years after I had bought it, but I didn't like the engine that much...and I was more than a little disappointed with content from that developer.

[Crimguy]

What I'm finding is that the hex games may be less realistic, particularly on a tactical level, but they are in some ways more relaxing.  Just pull up a chair, grab a 20oz cup of starbucks, and spend as much time as you like poring over the map and units.  Figuring out your strategy etc.  (I know, hit the pause key in COTA!)

My only comment was that Panther did such a good job with the interface that it's lessons could and should be learned by a few other developers.  Shrapnel and HPS are my main gripes.  GG and WitP is the other one . . . my favorite hex game of all time, but an interface that would kill a cat.

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

My only comment was that Panther did such a good job with the interface that it's lessons could and should be learned by a few other developers.  Shrapnel and HPS are my main gripes.  GG and WitP is the other one . . . my favorite hex game of all time, but an interface that would kill a cat.

The IMO most important thing that other developers should learn from this series is how command is handled. The biggest downside I see in hex turnbased wargames is that the tedious task to move every single icon around on the map. Panther games have solved this by implementing a real chain of command, which works like a charm. If I order two divisions forward I dont want to give movement orders to every single company or even platoon. That makes me lose focus and the game turns into more a chore than a game.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

I had Korsun Pocket at one point.  Great game, but I found it to be a bit too simplistic in some ways.  It was very boardgame like ...

I had that game as well; despite its awards, the AI left something to be desired.

I don't mind a good turn-based game as long as it's WEGO; IGO/UGO is definately passe.

[simovitch]

I still play West Front/East Front via John Tiller's Campaign Series. It's just plain fun, easy going, and visually appealing for a 10 year old game system. It also has tons of scenarios and campaign options.

It's the only hex/turn based game I play.

[Crimguy]

I started with TOAW:  COW again and still find it fun.

But . . . I have been firing COTA up more and more since the patch, and it really is embarrassing how much better the Panther system is in  many respects.

[JeF]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
My only comment was that Panther did such a good job with the interface that it's lessons could and should be learned by a few other developers.

I hear you loud and clear Crimguy.
The interface rocks.
The AI is good.
The basic principles are sound.

I played similar games like AATF, but it doesn't even close in terms of interface.
Which AI can handle your subordinates as well as COTA ? Take Command didn't cut the mustard for me. And most, if not all, turn based game force you to manage and drive each and every unit.
I preached (among others) to have a tactical game like CM (WEGO turn based) with the same principles (chain of command, tactical AI, near perfect route finding) on BF.C forums. To not avail.

I still don't understand...

JeF.

[Grell]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

I still play West Front/East Front via John Tiller's Campaign Series. It's just plain fun, easy going, and visually appealing for a 10 year old game system. It also has tons of scenarios and campaign options.

It's the only hex/turn based game I play.

Him Simovitch,

I adore East/West Front.

I'm so glad Matrix redid them.

Regards,

Grell

[ravinhood]

Yeah me too West Front is the best of the campaign series although I do like Rising Sun Gold as well. I don't play the east front one just never liked that theater. I don't usally want to play the germans or russians. I guess I'm just too much of an American and patriot. I like playing American forces and sometimes the allies as a whole. That's why I want more Pacific war land battle games so's I can shoot up on some Imperial forces.

[jomni]

Are you strictly into WW2?
Try Flashpoint Germany (It's not hex but square, not IGOUGO but WEGO).
It has a slick UI and nice command and control implementation.

[Adam Parker]

There's just nothing though that is perfect in being "complete" that I've found. Going on the recommendations here:
 
1. SSG's Decisive Battles - Battles in Normandy is probably the best game I've played on the Normandy Campaign but we need to remember, there's a lot of abstraction going on to make the game play out with historical pace. No HQ's, no arty organizational restrictions, very mobile units and a game based on plugging the line.
 
2. East Front/West Front - I played this to death but it was totally spoiled imo by Talonsoft's (Jim Rose's) decision to overrule Bob McNamara's request for the direct port of Panzer Blitz/Leader's AFV Overrun and Inf vs AFV rules. Infantry should not be able to fire at an AFV in an adjacent hex! This is an ooold debate now.
 
3. Flashpoint Germany - Very confusing to work out victory progress. If it wasn't for my gripes early on, there'd still be no way to work out which unit was firing at what either.
 
4. HttR - My experiences with this game ran from awe at watching thr AI make some clever moves to boredom in realizing the game could also be "click and forget".
 
I am desperately hoping that BftB can pull it together. There's amazingly just no good Bulge PC game out there right now. DB 1 tried very hard (the version that comes with DB Normandy is just unplayable owing to a really foolish choice of green for the US strong points - a big shame).
 
It's also interesting that I feel Avalon Hill was held back from bringing Area map gaming to the Bulge owing to its sudden demise. It managed to bring us Arnhem, Cassino, Stalingrad and Normandy. Bulge was begging for attention.
 
GMT has filled in the gap this year with a very fresh twist on the theme in "Fast Action Battles: The Bulge" which I'm picking up this weekend. I'm reading the rules now. Very different approach to war gaming and most players are reporting a very fun and tense time. Finger's crossed, because right now what are my Bulge options?
 
1. Squad level - Mark Walker's Lock n' Load Band of Brothers (he's releasing a paper map historical Noville (Bastogne) module soon) and Memoir 44.
 
2. Platoon level - Panzer Leader.
 
3. Regimental Level - AH's Bulge 81.
 
I remember the days of Bulge 65 (I bought mine in 78), when blue and pink counters - about 150 total on a mounted, bland map - was considered the bee's knees, the "nirvana" of war gaming. Smells like a Teen Spirit [;)]

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

4. HttR - My experiences with this game ran from awe at watching thr AI make some clever moves to boredom in realizing the game could also be "click and forget".

Well, that may be the very first impression of many players, no matter if they are more into real time simulations or more into turn-based ones.

I thought that too, well for a few hrs only, hehe. I then figured that it's not just like giving an order to a regiment or division - to attack a big town, for example - and then sit back.

In COTA, if you don't probe the area, if you don't install strong points/road blocks and if you don't watch your flanks, your attack may just face a minimum defense or even an empty town - where you then find out that your supply lines are cut and that you are being flanked by fast moving enemy armor.

In COTA and HttR the focus is on the operational plan, not on single companies or squads, like in so many wargames. In theory, you just issue an attack order and the AI will carry out a sophisticated plan using any given group of units (up to Army level), but you can still define the approach (fastest, covered, safest route etc.), you can define a route manually and set a FUP and you can define ammo consumption and aggro. You can even micro-manage down to single companies - you can detach every unit, so that you have total control even over Artillery/mortar units.
Actually, you get better results if you micromanage to a certain extent (ie. artillery, vital tank units, AT units) at least.

Both games are, in my books, the best approaches regarding operational planning/combat I've ever seen. You have the tools and the intel a commanding general would have. It doesn't take 3D and fancy SFX to simulate this, even today's infantry generals still have to rely on 2D maps and proper recon on the ground. Drones and satellites may enhance intel quality, but the planning/reaction process is still done the old-fashioned way.

A scaled-down modern version (to command let's say a regiment or a battalion) of COTA would be a great addition to the tech tools accessible at West Point, IMHO, because the sophisticated AI and the real time feature offer the most realistic approach.

[Hub]

I've played so many wargames over the last forty years I can't count them. I think out of them all, the Panther presentation has been the best. I will definitely be getting BftB. If it is decided to go with a 3D presentation sometime in the future, that would be icing on the cake, but I'd get the games with or without...

[hank]

I like all three of the basic wargaming engines, IGOUGO, RTS and WEGO.

I've had HttR since it came out and I still play it to this day.  One feature I wish Panther Games would add to their games is pbem.  I have Flashpoint Germany which is WEGO, which acts much like a RTS game with stops that signal the end of each players turn. 

A hypothesis (based on my ignorance since I've never programmed a game but have done quite a bit of VB, C, and Lisp):

As we all know, when you stop and save the game in HttR/CotA, you can exit the game and come back to the same battle and restart it. 

What would it take to set up incremental stops (whatever time period is practical - 2 hr, 4 hr, etc.), then before the game is saved to disk, the game does whatever housekeeping is required to save a file then switch sides and encrypt it so the player sending the pbem file to their opponent can't reopen it? 
The opponent receives the file via email and its set for him to start his move.  (with a replay feature of course)

In non-programming terms, I think this is what Flashpoint Germany does. 

I know this is not going to happen with BFtB and whether BFtB is pbem capable or not is irrelevant to me.  I'm buying it as soon as it hits the airwaves.   ... just a thought for a future release

[Adam Parker]

Things are stll looking up for "Battles From the Bulge" from my perspective.

I bought the new GMT boardgame Fast Action Battles: The Bulge last week and finally got to set it up for play. This must be the most counter-intuitive boardgame I've ever played!

All the guts are there, some of the design decisions very interesting but in play, I just couldn't bring it all together. From the very crammed area map in which you need to place divisional-sized blocks, asset counters and info markers, to the shuffling of 2 rulebooks and finally a CRT that is written in Mesopotamic Hieroglyphics!

Such a shame. So its either back to my 1981 copy of the regimental level "Bulge", my HPS battalion-level, slow playing "Panzer Campaigns Bulge" or off to try L2's "Bitter Woods" at $110 AUD.

Think I'll save my money for BftB. Not looking forward to the supposed 500 page rule book - please keep it intuitive Panther but I trust you're going to pull off a stable and bug-free game.

[Arjuna]

Yes Adam, BFTB is intuitive and yes we won't release till it's rock solid. We will be releasing a set of tutorial movies, that will hopefully cover most aspects of the game play and allow you to get a handle on the game very quickly. We'll also be supplying a detailed reference manual.

[JeffroK]

I love both COTA & HTTR, having played wargames for over 35 years IMHO these are at the leading edge of what a wargamer wants and am really looing forward to BFTB.

But IMHO they share the same problem, the ability to fight the campaign. (At least a Crete campaign)

I would support any efforts in getting these gems onto 1 map, no more click and forget then.

In additon I love many of the hex based games that have appeared over the years, and have just about worn out WITP from Matrix as well as the many board games over the decades. Some situations work on "real time" and others on hex/turn base. Using one or the other doesnt gurantee success.

Adam, funny but I never really took to AH games, except for ANZIO!

Arjuna, is Golf33 still around the Panther tracks, used to chat with him on another world?