Enough already!

[SlickWilhelm]

Can we please get game developers to focus on something other than The Battle of the Bulge?

From a personal/military history student/human drama perspective, the bulge is a fascinating subject. My own grandfather was killed in the later stage of the battle(Jan 16).

But from a gaming perspective, I just don't see the attraction of this battle. Whatever grandiose dreams a player may have of succeeding as the Germans and reaching Antwerp, the end result was always going to be a German defeat.

Unless I've fallen asleep at the switch, we've had two new games based on the Bulge released in the past year, and another one coming down the pipeline.

With so many other battles just dying to be recognized with a game devoted to them, I think it's unfortunate that we keep getting game after game of Bulge warfare.

Just a few battles I can think of that have been totally, or in part neglected by developers, that I think would make for a much more enriching battle experience:

- Battle of France, 1940.
- Barbarossa, 1941.
- North Africa, anytime.

And those are just a few.

Oh, how I wish the interesting looking game released yesterday was named "World War Two: Battle of France General" or that Panther Games' upcoming release was "Battles from the Desert" or "Battles from Kursk".

*sigh*

I hate to be negative when the fact that any good wargame produced is a cause for celebration in this market. But still...isn't it time to give the Bulge a rest and move on to other, more balanced battles?

[Erik Rutins]

Sometimes it just works out that way. I can tell you that after BFTB there are no other "Bulge" games on the horizon that I can thing of, so the current crop will have to last a while. [8D]

[killroyishere]

- Battle of France, 1940.

Whatever grandiose dreams a player may have of succeeding as the French and holding off the Germans, the end result is always going to be a French defeat.

- Barbarossa, 1941.

Whatever grandiose dreams a player may have of succeeding as the Germans and reaching Moscow, the end result was always going to be a German defeat.

- North Africa, anytime.

Whatever grandiose dreams a player may have of succeeding as the Germans and reaching Alexandria, the end result was always going to be a German defeat.
 
So, I really don't see these above battles being any different than the Bulge battle. Just different OOB and scenry is about all.

[JudgeDredd]

And strategy.

I think his point about "the end result" was tongue in cheek.

I kind of agree. I mean, I'm very much looking forward to Panther Games new release, but a North African game would be very welcome....or a russian campaign game.

[V22 Osprey]

How about a ''something other than WWII'' Campaign game?[:'(]

Seriously, WWII is getting old now.Which is why I can't wait for modern wars:Vol 1.I love the JTCS engine and it will be great to play the JTCS system with modern units.It seems only Jason Petho and the rest of the JTCS team are only ones trying to make effort to make a game other than WWII here.
[&o]

[Qwixt]

I feel the same way about "A Bridge Too Far" games.

[Lützow]

Modern war games would be solely interesting if they depict actual conflicts, but most dev's shy away from this and don't need any kind of generic campaigns.

[Zakhal]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

Can we please get game developers to focus on something other than The Battle of the Bulge?

Yes. As for choices:

- Battle of France, 1940.

I played 6 years of ww2ol that is based on that. And its only just one of the games that have it.

- Barbarossa, 1941.

Combat mission barbarossa amoing many others.

- North Africa, anytime.

You must be kidding.

[SlickWilhelm]

ORIGINAL: killroyishere



So, I really don't see these above battles being any different than the Bulge battle. Just different OOB and scenry is about all.

Point taken. [:)]

I guess what I really meant by picking those three battles/theatres was that for gamers, there's more of a "chance to change history", being earlier in the war.

I just don't see the point in refighting the Bulge as a gamer, because now that I've beaten the Allies and reached Antwerp....my panzers still run out of fuel. Why? Because by early '45, it was already "game over".

That's why you don't see many/any "Battle of Berlin" games. Sure, it would be fun to play General Wenk or General Busse and hold the Allies at bay....but then what?

To me, it's more fun to fight historic battles where a different outcome could have really changed the course of history. Granted, a German victory in North Africa wouldn't have changed much, but it was early enough in the war to have altered the course of the war's direction, if not the outcome.

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Sometimes it just works out that way. I can tell you that after BFTB there are no other "Bulge" games on the horizon that I can thing of, so the current crop will have to last a while. [8D]

Yes, from MATRIX.... but all those other outfits seem to pop out Bulge games faster than the Octomom pops out babies..

[Hard Sarge]

one issue is, when designers want to work on say a ancient or other time period game, most producers tell them no, there is no market for it

so for the most part, they are encouraged to work on a Nappy game, a CW game, or WWII (and mainly the better known battles, but try to work with a battle that can go either way)(not to knock it, I would like it, but a battle for France would be for HARD core gamers)

[Obsolete]

Hmm, I just realized something...

It's not wise to ever play the Spanish Armadas... Napoleon troops at Waterloo, or German units in Battle of Brittain.  They were all doomed to fail vs the British in the end, so what's the point

Ahh, never mind, seems someone already beat me to that...

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

Oh, how I wish the interesting looking game released yesterday was named "World War Two: Battle of France General"

A few moons ago I had a great 1940 West Front game by A/H that covered that campaign-many hours spent with that. I agree it would make for a great PC game.

[V22 Osprey]

I enjoy HPS Panzer Campaigns: France '40.Currently playing a team PBEM game as Allies.[8D]

[JudgeDredd]

Perhaps we are the victims of our own hobby. Perhaps we are so "grognard" as to point out innacuracies in OOBs etc that it's "easier" to create the "usual" battles because the "usual" battles OOBs are already made. I expect a large chunk of dev time has to go into research. If the OOBs are already out there and done...what the hell - just bang the battle out again with a different interface and mechanics.

Perhaps it's just not worth developers spending all that time on research, only to be told their OOB is incorrect because it says there were 520 men in a regiment
...when there were actually 521
...actually there were 543 bewteen April 2nd 1941 and April 4th 1941
...nope...there were 527 between Feb 19th 1941 and April 4th 1941
...
...
...

[:'(]

Just saying - we've become so demanding of the accuracy of our games, maybe we've forgotten they're games?

I think probably the same can be said for the Flight Sim industry. It's pretty thin on the ground for material of late and the ones that are out there tend to be full on accurate (stduy sim is the term I see used). I mean, take Pacific Fighters. A great big expanse of water - the potential to have navy v navy, Air CAP, torpedo runs, dive bombing runs and Oleg could not make the key aicraft of the region flyable...why? Apparently because he couldn't get hold of the rights to the aircraft...so he couldn't make them "real". Personally I would've jumped into a Zero cockpit to have a flyable Dauntless or Devastator (nb - I can't remember what flyables were in the game - but you know what I mean). But once I had suggested that on a forum, I was almost digitally battered to death!

I'm not saying we should drop realism. Everyone wants to fight "the real thing"...but some knowledgable people from each era and each battle may forget the game they're playing is just that.

I don't think that last statement includes me...I have very little memory retention so reading a particular era or a particular battle doesn't normally stay with me for long - makes reading quite a frustrating hobby!

[Hard Sarge]

not to stray too far from subject, but to reply to Judge

I was on that forum for a long time, it was very Fanboyish, if you disagreed with Olaf, you were a demon, and hounded, which of course let Olaf get away with what ever he wanted, the few HARD Code players who kept at it, finally got him to make changes, admit he was wrong, or cheating with is code (and of course, he never admitted it, he just happened to find out the AI didn't use the same flight model that the player did, gee how did that happpen ?)

I always found that couldn't get the rights arguement strange, since he was able to use the other Aircraft made by that company

but, to be honest, I never felt the lack of some of those planes as flyable was a game stopper, I never wanted to fly the TBD or TBF/M in that game, the radar guided AI controlled Flak guns, would make them one way missions anyway, if you were able to even get close to the target

not sure about the OOB idea, if you know where to look, there are many of them already done (trouble is knowing where to look, I still looking for the mother load, I just keep finding bits and pieces of it)

[Alexander Seil]

There is a very simple reason - certain segments of the wargame market are completely dominated by middle-aged white men raised on board wargames based on the Bulge. Now they want the same thing on the PC.

I personally never played a board wargame, so the obsession with the Bulge is utterly alien to me. If we want to keep it WWII, I'd prefer a serious game about land campaigns in Asia (Burma, for example, dropping the overdone naval component that everyone and his mother already did 5 times).

And if not WWII, why not do a conflict no one ever did before? To my knowledge there was never a computer wargame about the Russian Civil War for example (this is one aspect where I'm seriously disappointed with Victoria), and what's not to love about that - sabres-drawn cavalry charges, lumbering WWI tanks, armored trains racing across the steppe, intricate politics, fluid campaigns. I wish wargame developers weren't perpetually stuck with devoting 80% of their time to recreating the same damn WWII battles time and time again.

[V22 Osprey]

ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil

There is a very simple reason - certain segments of the wargame market are completely dominated by middle-aged white men raised on board wargames based on the Bulge. Now they want the same thing on the PC.

I personally never played a board wargame, so the obsession with the Bulge is utterly alien to me. If we want to keep it WWII, I'd prefer a serious game about land campaigns in Asia (Burma, for example, dropping the overdone naval component that everyone and his mother already did 5 times).

And if not WWII, why not do a conflict no one ever did before? To my knowledge there was never a computer wargame about the Russian Civil War for example (this is one aspect where I'm seriously disappointed with Victoria), and what's not to love about that - sabres-drawn cavalry charges, lumbering WWI tanks, armored trains racing across the steppe, intricate politics, fluid campaigns. I wish wargame developers weren't perpetually stuck with devoting 80% of their time to recreating the same damn WWII battles time and time again.

I completely agree, look how big the WW2 section of the forums are.Not to mention the countless titles that have WW2 in the name.(Advanced Tactics:WW2, WW2 General Commander, WW2 Road to Victory, WW2 Time of Rath, etc)

[Tomus]

I agree as well especially with over done Western Front scenarios...particularly the Bulge which I don't find that massively interesting and a forgone conclusion as well.

I like WWII as an era and want to keep wargaming there but some of the lesser know campaigns would be really welcome. China is never covered, as is Burma, Italy, even the US Island hopping campaign gets relatively little attention.

Some other wars would be welcome...the Falklands is one I have never understood has drawn so little attention. Combined arms, naval and air combat, a touch and go ground campaign, relatively evenly matched forces. This would make a superb wargame.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

... I guess what I really meant by picking those three battles/theatres was that for gamers, there's more of a "chance to change history", being earlier in the war.

Then you're going to trade-in the Bulge for the 'Canal.