Wargames in comparison
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Posted by Les the Sarge:""War"game to me implies historical context. Command and Conquer is just an arcade toy designed to dupe kids into thinking they understand strategy." I guess you would obviously place Age of Kings into that category, and I would agree with you, but it is still fun to play. However, I'll give you a tweak when it comes to wargame implying historical context. What about chess?
I've got to hand it to Matrix. SPWAW is the hands down winner for me. I still enjoy playing the occasional Panzer Campaign scenario. And I like to play TAOW after I've read a book about a certain battle or campaign (I'm reading The Battle of Kursk right now). However, I always come back to SPWAW. I started with SP1 back in the mid 90s and enjoyed SP 2 also. I was very excited when I read about Matrix and SPWAW in PC Gamer. I really like playing the Campaigns and being able to pick your core units and then upgrade them.
I did enjoy CC 2-4 for awhile. I bought CM but it just didn't do it for me. It was "cool" for a while, but got boring.
I'm going to continue to buy different games, but I'm pretty sure SPWAW will take up the majority of my gaming time.
[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Max VonLoben ]</p>
I did enjoy CC 2-4 for awhile. I bought CM but it just didn't do it for me. It was "cool" for a while, but got boring.
I'm going to continue to buy different games, but I'm pretty sure SPWAW will take up the majority of my gaming time.
[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Max VonLoben ]</p>
-
Brian Rucker
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 8:00 am
I have to confess that I do play more SP: WaW than the other games discussed here but most of them do have their place in my gaming rotation from time to time. I can't help feeling that a game combining the finer points of many of these titles would be the ultimate tactical WW2 title.
The Campaign Series: Graphics.
Close Combat Series: Detailed treatment of individual soldiers and excellent battlefield psychology model. This is perhaps the only tactical game that really plays on psychological factors that tend to get abstracted by other systems. It is possible to get attached to units and individuals to the point that it can affect a player's strategy for other than practical reasons. I agree with the shortcomings already discussed above.
Combat Mission: Fantastic random battle generator and 'believable' AI. Moving into engagements can be a harrowing experience and while the AI's patterns are somewhat predictable over time it sometimes manages to surprise both in behavior and unit placement. While I love the 3D experience, and really haven't had much problem with camera angles, I tend to find the graphics rather bland and in the case of squad units and animations painfully bad. The optimal solution is the one used in Panzer Elite with 3D objects, well detailed, for all units and terrain but the 2D sprite infantry. This allows rendering of entire squads with realistic proportions and dispositions as opposed to 3-man icons with toy soldier proportions so as to accomodate detailed scans of uniforms. Need to distinguish units by uniform? Use the info-bar and color illustrations rather than facial snapshots. Inclusion of star shells and other ambient effects, like on screen aircraft strikes, would also improve presentation.
CM's lack of any campaign options and shallow treatment of individual soldiers also hold it back while the overall ambience of a particular battlefield (within the limited scope of the game) is still the best, most immersive, of any game I've played. The WEGO system works brilliantly and avoids the op-fire problems.
Airborne 101: The Airborne Invasion of Normandy - While this is a man-to-man system it deserves mention. The individual systems really don't correspond to anything at the scale of SP:WaW but it does have some good ideas for how realistic wargames can also be fantastic adventure games for a more general public. The sequel, All American, is due out eventually from Shrapnel Games. A more detailed treatment of this game is off topic but I encourage you to find reviews.
SP: WaW: The scope is staggering. The package is perfect with handmade missions, handmade campaigns, random battles and a variety of random campaign options. The graphics are decent and the fidelity of the actual combat, while varying depending on which patch you're on, tends to be excellent. As a baseline for all other tactical WW II games to measure up to, SP: WaW is it. The main weak spot for me is the rather bad AI placement and operations in the random campaign mode. They generally all play out the same way with few surprises. I'd hope that if Matrix does continue with SP:WaW after releasing their own engines that this problem is dealt with. SP: WW2 seems to have done some work with this and perhaps some cross-pollination wouldn't hurt.
The Campaign Series: Graphics.
Close Combat Series: Detailed treatment of individual soldiers and excellent battlefield psychology model. This is perhaps the only tactical game that really plays on psychological factors that tend to get abstracted by other systems. It is possible to get attached to units and individuals to the point that it can affect a player's strategy for other than practical reasons. I agree with the shortcomings already discussed above.
Combat Mission: Fantastic random battle generator and 'believable' AI. Moving into engagements can be a harrowing experience and while the AI's patterns are somewhat predictable over time it sometimes manages to surprise both in behavior and unit placement. While I love the 3D experience, and really haven't had much problem with camera angles, I tend to find the graphics rather bland and in the case of squad units and animations painfully bad. The optimal solution is the one used in Panzer Elite with 3D objects, well detailed, for all units and terrain but the 2D sprite infantry. This allows rendering of entire squads with realistic proportions and dispositions as opposed to 3-man icons with toy soldier proportions so as to accomodate detailed scans of uniforms. Need to distinguish units by uniform? Use the info-bar and color illustrations rather than facial snapshots. Inclusion of star shells and other ambient effects, like on screen aircraft strikes, would also improve presentation.
CM's lack of any campaign options and shallow treatment of individual soldiers also hold it back while the overall ambience of a particular battlefield (within the limited scope of the game) is still the best, most immersive, of any game I've played. The WEGO system works brilliantly and avoids the op-fire problems.
Airborne 101: The Airborne Invasion of Normandy - While this is a man-to-man system it deserves mention. The individual systems really don't correspond to anything at the scale of SP:WaW but it does have some good ideas for how realistic wargames can also be fantastic adventure games for a more general public. The sequel, All American, is due out eventually from Shrapnel Games. A more detailed treatment of this game is off topic but I encourage you to find reviews.
SP: WaW: The scope is staggering. The package is perfect with handmade missions, handmade campaigns, random battles and a variety of random campaign options. The graphics are decent and the fidelity of the actual combat, while varying depending on which patch you're on, tends to be excellent. As a baseline for all other tactical WW II games to measure up to, SP: WaW is it. The main weak spot for me is the rather bad AI placement and operations in the random campaign mode. They generally all play out the same way with few surprises. I'd hope that if Matrix does continue with SP:WaW after releasing their own engines that this problem is dealt with. SP: WW2 seems to have done some work with this and perhaps some cross-pollination wouldn't hurt.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Yo KG Erwin
In response to your query on Chess. I think its a great game of skill (and I suck playing chess unfortunately). But regardless of its origins, it really doesnt do more than depict strategy in an abstract fashion.
Chess is to Picasso, as SPWaW is to the Mona Lisa. Me I care for the Mona Lisa, in my opinion its art. I wouldnt say I think much of Picasso.
Hope that conveys my thoughts accurately
In response to your query on Chess. I think its a great game of skill (and I suck playing chess unfortunately). But regardless of its origins, it really doesnt do more than depict strategy in an abstract fashion.
Chess is to Picasso, as SPWaW is to the Mona Lisa. Me I care for the Mona Lisa, in my opinion its art. I wouldnt say I think much of Picasso.
Hope that conveys my thoughts accurately
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
SPWAW has to be my hands down davorite. I hope that Combat Leader will surpass this. When I finally bought a new computer, I was gearing back up for enhancing my ASL play. Then a friend turned me on to SPWAW and ASL has been sitting on the shelf mostly.
I was dissapointed with Axis and Allies. Command and conquer was fun on the Playstation for lying in bed at night as simple fun. Chess is still a favorite as is Go which i havn't seen mentioned yet.
Red Baron 2 still gets a lot of time on my machine as does B17-2 even though they are sims.
Also, I enjoyed the Pacific and Russian campaigns by Matrix.
I was dissapointed with Axis and Allies. Command and conquer was fun on the Playstation for lying in bed at night as simple fun. Chess is still a favorite as is Go which i havn't seen mentioned yet.
Red Baron 2 still gets a lot of time on my machine as does B17-2 even though they are sims.
Also, I enjoyed the Pacific and Russian campaigns by Matrix.
SPWAW is really quite engaging and tons of fun. For those of you who think that there is not strategy in a game like command and conquer you are in error. The typical RTS games simply focuses on things other than tactics. They are often about resource management, and there's room for plenty of strategy in that.
Anyways, I think the Panzer Campaigns series of games are really good. They focus on a single large operation so they model that opation as well as they can. The system is very nice for that scale of combat.
Games I play all the time still: SPWAW, Operation Flashpoint, TacOps, Counterstrike/TFC, and Operational Art of War.
Tomo
Anyways, I think the Panzer Campaigns series of games are really good. They focus on a single large operation so they model that opation as well as they can. The system is very nice for that scale of combat.
Games I play all the time still: SPWAW, Operation Flashpoint, TacOps, Counterstrike/TFC, and Operational Art of War.
Tomo
I'm mainly a flight sim guy <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> ! flying so high in the air. TOAW was formerly the game I played until I discovered SPWAW. It struck a chord for me in terms of grand strategies and movements. SPWAW always has interesting problems to solve even if you've played the scenario 2 or 3 times. Napoleon In Russia was a long-time favourite because of the combinations of formations and morale.
An interesting note about one of my sims, in LongBow2, your flight was always attached to a troop(A B C D). Sometimes when they advanced, CAS was done to protect them from their reserve position to the advance point. No congratulations for downed enemy helos or destroyed tanks(though necessary) but your troop had to arrive with enough forces to hold the position. It was an awesome feeling when you'd watch them arrive, cut their engines, and signal "objective reached" A great combo of flight sim and ground war.
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
An interesting note about one of my sims, in LongBow2, your flight was always attached to a troop(A B C D). Sometimes when they advanced, CAS was done to protect them from their reserve position to the advance point. No congratulations for downed enemy helos or destroyed tanks(though necessary) but your troop had to arrive with enough forces to hold the position. It was an awesome feeling when you'd watch them arrive, cut their engines, and signal "objective reached" A great combo of flight sim and ground war.
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
Spwaw still rules...
Hey ... I'm not sure why this was dug up, but Spwaw still compares well with other wargames on the market. It's on a tactical scale, and it is very comprehensive. IMO it hasn't been bettered yet ... but I'm waiting for CL 
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
Gee looking at my last post, this thread must have been recently dug out from under a lot of other threads.
I can add an update on my current thinking.
Being that I am an attention span gamer partially.
Steel Panthers usually only has to compete with Strategic Command lately.
SC is just to fun to play, and it is so easy to run, so easy to get into and so easy to finish an actual complete game.
Sure can't say that about a lot of other wargames regardless of their merits.
I can add an update on my current thinking.
Being that I am an attention span gamer partially.
Steel Panthers usually only has to compete with Strategic Command lately.
SC is just to fun to play, and it is so easy to run, so easy to get into and so easy to finish an actual complete game.
Sure can't say that about a lot of other wargames regardless of their merits.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Played all the Talonsoft games. Fun but limited.
I totally loved the original Panzer General game for PC. hehe. That was a good one with quite a bit of entertainment value.
Close Combat. Fun and not too bad overall.
I have ordered Korsun Pocket for Christmas based on the strength of some phenomenal reviews. Wheew. It will be hard for that game to live up to the lofty reviews I'm reading!!!
Hearts of Iron. Interesting game. I liked it. But, only played it through a couple times and never really got motivated to play it again.
SPWAW. Great Game. I love the campaigns where you can take your troopies all the way from 9-1-39 through the end of the war. Been playing the game for many, many months now. Probably more time in this one game than any other.
I totally loved the original Panzer General game for PC. hehe. That was a good one with quite a bit of entertainment value.
Close Combat. Fun and not too bad overall.
I have ordered Korsun Pocket for Christmas based on the strength of some phenomenal reviews. Wheew. It will be hard for that game to live up to the lofty reviews I'm reading!!!
Hearts of Iron. Interesting game. I liked it. But, only played it through a couple times and never really got motivated to play it again.
SPWAW. Great Game. I love the campaigns where you can take your troopies all the way from 9-1-39 through the end of the war. Been playing the game for many, many months now. Probably more time in this one game than any other.
I played CC a couple of times after I had been playing SP and I thought it was just good eye candy. The game did not seem as fluid as SP. I like SP series because of the huge equipment base it has and the options it lets you play. Lately I've been playing SPMBT because I enjoy modern capabilities more, but I'm hooked on the SP series (at least till CL comes out).
Semper Fi
Randy
The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear
Randy
The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
To add contrast and to keep this thread current with my current thoughts.
I think wargaming might soon be best known for three types of game (if we are lucky in my viewpoint).
Steel Panthers/Strategic Command style ie tactical/grand strategy but turn based and not worried over graphics so much as structured and reasonably reliable accurate historical models.
Close Combat/Airborne Assault style ie nonturn, but down in a way that it is not a pain to actually run.
And lastly WWII Online style, ie the real time is actually real, and the graphics actually have some value being in 3d.
Sure there might occasionally be games that might actually be well enough done, but I think for my own opinion I would rather seen computer wargaming stick with the above three categories more or less.
I think the computer wargaming trend where graphics is concerned is being mostly wasted on the RTS scene. The games are a joke thanks to the simple fact a computer AI is never going to be a serious opponent any time soon.
The AIs in turn using games are no better, but turn using games lend themselves to hotseat play a lot more readily thus allowing a solo playing wargamer to get the fun of playing solo (if they must insist on doing so) without being roped into playing the AI regardless if they wish to or not.
I think wargaming might soon be best known for three types of game (if we are lucky in my viewpoint).
Steel Panthers/Strategic Command style ie tactical/grand strategy but turn based and not worried over graphics so much as structured and reasonably reliable accurate historical models.
Close Combat/Airborne Assault style ie nonturn, but down in a way that it is not a pain to actually run.
And lastly WWII Online style, ie the real time is actually real, and the graphics actually have some value being in 3d.
Sure there might occasionally be games that might actually be well enough done, but I think for my own opinion I would rather seen computer wargaming stick with the above three categories more or less.
I think the computer wargaming trend where graphics is concerned is being mostly wasted on the RTS scene. The games are a joke thanks to the simple fact a computer AI is never going to be a serious opponent any time soon.
The AIs in turn using games are no better, but turn using games lend themselves to hotseat play a lot more readily thus allowing a solo playing wargamer to get the fun of playing solo (if they must insist on doing so) without being roped into playing the AI regardless if they wish to or not.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
junk2drive
- Posts: 12856
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Arizona West Coast
I just bought Combat Mission BB. love it. to me it is sp series with 3d. just my opinion. i am not a fan of east front but really enjoy the game.
i dont mind 3 men representing a squad, i read the info screen. a lot of the game is abstract, i dont mind that at all. imo good los model. seems easy to mod. i have cc2 and two mods, cc5 and okinawa mod. cm is easier to mod and install graphics, but i dont see other front mods being done like cc series.
I dl'd the demo for cmbo again, now that i have a faster puter and agp video card, what a difference! then i read forum comments all over the place. bought cmbb based on cmbo demo and user comments (especially the people here at matrixgames forums). i had been following eysa, decided it would be too much like cc series, to much stress for me.
gave up on ts rising sun, too clunky compaired to sp.
on drive now: spwaw spwawh2h spwaw-wtmc spww2 cc2 cc5 cmbb
next purchase? cmak
i dont mind 3 men representing a squad, i read the info screen. a lot of the game is abstract, i dont mind that at all. imo good los model. seems easy to mod. i have cc2 and two mods, cc5 and okinawa mod. cm is easier to mod and install graphics, but i dont see other front mods being done like cc series.
I dl'd the demo for cmbo again, now that i have a faster puter and agp video card, what a difference! then i read forum comments all over the place. bought cmbb based on cmbo demo and user comments (especially the people here at matrixgames forums). i had been following eysa, decided it would be too much like cc series, to much stress for me.
gave up on ts rising sun, too clunky compaired to sp.
on drive now: spwaw spwawh2h spwaw-wtmc spww2 cc2 cc5 cmbb
next purchase? cmak
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
-
junk2drive
- Posts: 12856
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Arizona West Coast
Thanks Les
I think you would like CMBB, they fixed a lot since CMBO. u do need a better computer and video card than some older games, but BFC seems to keep the requirements down for people without the latest high tech stuff.
the biggest complaints i see in forums are about things being abstract or compromises made for sake of balance. those of us use to boardgames and turn based dont have a problem with this.
I think you would like CMBB, they fixed a lot since CMBO. u do need a better computer and video card than some older games, but BFC seems to keep the requirements down for people without the latest high tech stuff.
the biggest complaints i see in forums are about things being abstract or compromises made for sake of balance. those of us use to boardgames and turn based dont have a problem with this.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
Les, I think about this a lot. My brother and I like the Panzer/Allied General games, but SPWAW has taught me that they are nicely modelled aggregate systems. (id est, as I've said before, an identically set-up Panzer General and SPWAW game will end in pretty much the same result, but PG does it more... overall-ly or average-ly.)Les the Sarge 9-1 wrote: "War"game to me implies historical context. Command and Conquer is just an arcade toy designed to dupe kids into thinking they understand strategy.
Yeah thats harsh, let me explain. ...
Each and every RTS game I have encountered has been nothing better than a toy destined to fill a need for low patience thresshold children (who would choke on their pop if you actually expected them to read the whole rules book first before actually playing the game).
As for the others...
Look at even the minor nations in SPWAW. You have close-combat units, long-range units, fast, slow, armored, light, artillery--all sorts of units, because in the real world there are all sorts of situations. These "Command-and-Conquer" or "Warcraft" (the lie is in the name!!) games have two flaws.
Flaw #1: Unit Invariation
There are few units of few types, or there are many units/types, but the differences are minor. eg, their "variety of tanks" is like looking at the M4 or PzIII series. Sure, there are a variety of them, and you have some better against armor, some with rockets... but that's not really a variety as compared to having Mae West, M3 (both M3 classes), M4's, M7's, GMC's, etc. For units in general, they do not have the proper variety of weaponry. "Engineers" make something go boom. "Infantry" pour out in droves. "Close Combat" have almost no range. There is no concept of "outdated weaponry" (eg, when the StuG44 comes around, everyone and their uncle suddenly gets one). In some cases, there is an attempt made to fix this, but it's really not executed well. "We can just make it flashier and the kiddies will buy it!"
Flaw #2: The Broken Game
The "Broken Game" is a game-design principle. One of the solutions to game balance is to leave something unbalanced or "broken." For example, anyone who plunked quarters on the Street Fighter games knows that in the first one there are a few characters who are intrinsically better than the rest, and a few who are intrinsically sucky. In the second, others are great and sucky. Some characters have attacks which are nigh indefensible, some have defenses nigh impregnible. By the time the majority figures out these characters and moves, the company produces another sequel, broken in new ways. It isn't a BAD thing, per se (which means "by itself", BTW).
What's bad is when people try to apply this to what they want to be a "serious wargame." I've noticed entire USEFUL classifications of weapons missing! No carbines for crews or urban combat, no SMG's for urban and close combat. Or things like the "machinegun" either being a bullet-hose as accurate as a sniper rifle, or something more like a shotgun with no choke.
The only games I've really seen that avoid these problems are: games modelled on reality.
As to other wargames...
My brother and I like Conflict: Middle East. Very nice game of the Yom Kippur war. They handled supply lines and unit readiness in a simple yet overall clever manner.
I like Operation Flashpoint as well. It's real-time, small-unit tactics. Oh, it can be an action game too; thing is, it excells at both. The only complaint I have is that the Pact and NATO weapons seemed to be balanced to each other (eg, AK47 operates and behaves the same as an M16, it just has a full-auto option). That's pretty minor, though.
Overall... you all know what I love. The game that pisses off my fiancee for stealing me away from her... good ol' SPWAW.
-
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
- Posts: 3943
- Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am
My ONLY beef with CM is the camera angle issue. I mean it is an annoying quality of 3d games in general I suppose.
Some counter that Steel Panthers requires to much clicking on individual units altogether to often.
I suppose it comes down to being an acquired skill. I don't notice the mouse clicking in Steel Panthers at all.
But I found controlling units in CM to be a task.
Regarding abstractions, nah I have no problem with abstractions. If 3 3d guys actually are not 3 literal individuals I could care less.
The game's graphics don't look state of the art any more, but that isn't a plus always. I have seen games with "awesome" graphics, that were lousy games.
I have not given up on CM, I have just had enough of my old favourites to keep me busy still is all. A person will always go with their number one choice after all .
I have learned that RTS is a term that definitely means the Command and Conquer style, and a lot of newer designs as well, but is not automatically relevant to each and every design that does NOT use turns.
But the designs that have no turns and simply keep on running are, that are good, are VERY few indeed.
Close Combat probably got it right first.
I think the next best example will be Airborne Assault.
I have not seen enough of Close Assault to have a voice on it.
But these designs are not in 3d.
I have not yet been sold on 3d in real time.
Some counter that Steel Panthers requires to much clicking on individual units altogether to often.
I suppose it comes down to being an acquired skill. I don't notice the mouse clicking in Steel Panthers at all.
But I found controlling units in CM to be a task.
Regarding abstractions, nah I have no problem with abstractions. If 3 3d guys actually are not 3 literal individuals I could care less.
The game's graphics don't look state of the art any more, but that isn't a plus always. I have seen games with "awesome" graphics, that were lousy games.
I have not given up on CM, I have just had enough of my old favourites to keep me busy still is all. A person will always go with their number one choice after all
.I have learned that RTS is a term that definitely means the Command and Conquer style, and a lot of newer designs as well, but is not automatically relevant to each and every design that does NOT use turns.
But the designs that have no turns and simply keep on running are, that are good, are VERY few indeed.
Close Combat probably got it right first.
I think the next best example will be Airborne Assault.
I have not seen enough of Close Assault to have a voice on it.
But these designs are not in 3d.
I have not yet been sold on 3d in real time.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
-
junk2drive
- Posts: 12856
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 7:27 am
- Location: Arizona West Coast
CM Camera
CMBB camera control is quite different in BB than in BO.
Mouse pointer bottom side scrolls rt to lt, top side turns view rt to lt, numberpad keys are diff than keyboard keys i e + and - , fine tuning available thru [ and ] and arrow keys.
I use 1-9 for view levels, or onscreen icons, and + - to cycle thru my troops as in n and p in spwaw.
Mouse pointer bottom side scrolls rt to lt, top side turns view rt to lt, numberpad keys are diff than keyboard keys i e + and - , fine tuning available thru [ and ] and arrow keys.
I use 1-9 for view levels, or onscreen icons, and + - to cycle thru my troops as in n and p in spwaw.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
Irinami: nice comments. I tend to agree with just about all that stuff.
I like fun and challenge in my wargames.
I like a game that does offer some variety among the units. Ya, I'm not interested in getting the new tank has 2 machinegun instead of 3 and 5 more mm of frontal armor and carries 35 ap rounds instead of 32 and that is all. hehe, that is not too much of a difference.
I like a game that is not too simple, but, not so hard that I need to read 50 pages from a manual before I can even start the first turn. I'm willing to continue reading the manual as I go along -- I just don't like to read tons of stuff just because the designers do things weirdly for no reason.
I like historical start ups -- I like for things to be the exact way it was at a particular point in history and then I will make my own history from that point forward. I want to feel like I'm the guy in charge.
I like for my games to be different each time if I use different strategy/tactics.
I like for the enemy AI to surprise me occasionally -- sometimes I like to say "wow" that was really kool!
Again, I like for my games to be entertaining. I have a boring job and I want to have fun in my make-believe world. Cost really isn't an issue to me -- I'll pay $25, or $50, or $150 for the game if it it is fun to play and if it is crafted well.
I like fun and challenge in my wargames.
I like a game that does offer some variety among the units. Ya, I'm not interested in getting the new tank has 2 machinegun instead of 3 and 5 more mm of frontal armor and carries 35 ap rounds instead of 32 and that is all. hehe, that is not too much of a difference.
I like a game that is not too simple, but, not so hard that I need to read 50 pages from a manual before I can even start the first turn. I'm willing to continue reading the manual as I go along -- I just don't like to read tons of stuff just because the designers do things weirdly for no reason.
I like historical start ups -- I like for things to be the exact way it was at a particular point in history and then I will make my own history from that point forward. I want to feel like I'm the guy in charge.
I like for my games to be different each time if I use different strategy/tactics.
I like for the enemy AI to surprise me occasionally -- sometimes I like to say "wow" that was really kool!
Again, I like for my games to be entertaining. I have a boring job and I want to have fun in my make-believe world. Cost really isn't an issue to me -- I'll pay $25, or $50, or $150 for the game if it it is fun to play and if it is crafted well.