Sick of RTS games.. this game looks great..question

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Spinoza

But which is more realistic, or are they in the end just the same ?

As far as any turn-based game can be, they are both equally realistic imho.

[Rob Gjessing]

KP and BIN are far easier to play then TOAW.

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Rob Gjessing

KP and BIN are far easier to play then TOAW.

It's odd really, I bought TOAW2 s/hand about 18 months ago, installed it and just started playing it - it seemed to make sense, I won a few battles against the AI, generally cruised along quite happily. Maybe it's because it reminds me of the old board-wargames I used to play, I dunno[:)]

[wodin]

Many others would find TOAW COW far more in depth than most other wargames. Some scenarios are so big it can take upto 6 hours a turn.

Goto Warfare HQ and read the articles on TOAW COW.

This will give you a feel for the game.

[Kevinugly]

Oh it's not that I don't find it 'deep', it's more that I find it more accessible than KP. Like HTTR, the more you play it the more you discover 'under the hood' - I've been playing these two games more than any other wargame over the last year or two (counting RDOA as well) but I wouldn't say I've 'mastered' either. That's (for me) is the beauty of a true 'classic' game. As yet KP doesn't 'do it' for me but at the same time I can't knock it. Now it's late and I'm starting to ramble[:D]

[marc420]

I bought the original TAOW back when it first came out. (BTW, a search for Norm Koger in google will take you to the website of this good game designer - not sure what he's up to these days, but TAOW and the even older Age of Rifles are classics).

Not sure which is simpler out of the box, TAOW or KP. I've been playing these games for a long time, so some basic concepts I know without thinking. (BTW, that's why RTS never much appealed to me. I was hooked on these games before I tried my first clickfest). I suspect both would be playable out of the box at the level of pushing counters around and fighting battles. And both will have a lot of subtleties to learn later on. However I'd say the battle resolution screen in KP/BIN and the Combat Advisor probably make KP/BIN a little easier to start with.

I'd highly recommend KP and BIN right now. Both are excellent games. (Well, I'm taking it on faith that BIN will be an excellent game. Credit card sitting here ready for when I can buy it and find out for sure!!!! And that's the BEST compliment I can give these guys at SSG.)

In TAOW, Norm Koger created a system which was scalable from anything from von Moltke's battles with the Prussians late in the 19th century to modern warfare with aircraft, helicopters, missiles etc. Pretty impressive when you think about it. Its worth owning just for the range of scenarios that come with it, and which are available on the web.

But admittedly, I haven't played TAOW since I bought BIN.

The one thing I noticed about TAOW is that since the underlying data is so complex, it takes a fair amount of skill to set up a scenario. Thus I've seen scenarios that play nothing like the historical battle because of choices the scenario designer made. But there are a LOT of scenarios out for this system, so there are plenty of good ones.

Steel Panthers is another one to look into. I've usually got SPWAW on my computer. BTW, in case you look at this and get confused, Steel Panthers was the original commercial game. SP1 was WWII. SP2 was Modern conflicts. SP3 they raised the scale from individual tanks to platoons of tanks. It covers both WWII and modern. (some liked it, some don't ... I was in the "liked it" category). After the game system stopped being commercially developed, they let others come in and work on it. So Steel Panthers World at War (SPWAW) is continued development of the game by others. Same I think is true for Steel Panthers Main Battle Tank. I've played and really liked SPWAW. Can't say much about the other as I haven't seen it.

If you see a game called Combat Mission around, its the same sort of game as SP. Same infantry squad/individual vehicle scale. But with 3d graphics and a game system where you give all your orders for the next minute, then watch them execute. Probably a generation of game design beyond SP.

I just bought HTTR. I'm loving trying to learn that game right now. But it probably isn't a beginners game. Kinda assumes you know a bit about oob's and force structures and how military units are organized and what they are supposed to be doing as well as what various equipment is and does. But if you start playing these games, go back and get that one some day.

UV and WITP are both complex games and rather obtuse in their UI and design. I've got UV, but haven't bought WITP yet. Not quite sure that I want to play the War in the Pacific on 1 day turns yet. Love the concept, so I keep coming back to these games. But seems like it could be done better.

For a lot of these games, extensive "after action reports" are up on these forums. These are articles written by players who are playing the game. So its about like looking over their shoulder as they play. Reading the threads that say "AAR" can be a very good way to learn what these games are about, especially since most don't have demos available.

BTW, for most companies out there today, I try to always get a Demo first. But, for SSG I'd waive that rule. They seem to put out good quality games, and they don't seem to release buggy games that require patches to play the way other companies do. Its a short list of whom I'm willing to send money to blind these days for a game, but SSG is on that list.

To me, KP/BIN are pretty much state of the art these days. Especially for a game that manages to be a combination of historically accurate, fun to play, and relatively easy to learn. Well easy to learn at first. I just lost my first PBEM game, so I've obviously still got some more learning to do. The KP/BIN system comes across to me as very subtle. But as I learn it I'm more and more impressed with what they've done. KP/BIN don't overwhelm you with a lot of details and choices. But the way the choices that you are given are used is the part that's very subtle. That's where I just lost my PBEM game, on the subtle little details that I missed and my opponent didn't.

[benpark]

Wodin said-"Some scenarios are so big it can take upto 6 hours a turn."

...and that's just for the computer to process the supply!
[:'(]

I think KP is by far the best place to start for computer wargames. It is so good that even with repeated play, it still is a great game all around.

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: Rob Gjessing

KP and BIN are far easier to play then TOAW.

It's odd really, I bought TOAW2 s/hand about 18 months ago, installed it and just started playing it - it seemed to make sense, I won a few battles against the AI, generally cruised along quite happily. Maybe it's because it reminds me of the old board-wargames I used to play, I dunno[:)]

Yes like I said before, every person has elements or features in a game that "catch them" or float their boat. For me the Decisive Battles series - TAO and KP, as well as Combat Mission were both games that immediately "grabbed" me, harking back to the old Avalon Hill days of boardgaming. Neither RDOA nor TOAW nor SP nor John Tiller's games(only tried Smolensk) did it for me, no matter how much I tried to get into them.

Each game has a myriad of features, whether simply the UI or 'flow' of battle, that set them apart from the other. I know from experience trying to get my nephews interested in wargaming, most of the things we take as granted as wargamers are totally incomprehensible to them, yet I show them a game like Combat Mission and they have an interest and willingness to play, even if initially that was simply related to the 'coolness' of the 3D environment, it progressed towards a more traditional tactical/strategic nature.

I am a strong proponent of demos for wargames, no matter the 'opinions' expressed here by the Matrix staff stating the so-called reasons otherwise. Yes we oldtimers with 20+ years of wargaming will buy games "sight unseen" for the most part but how else will new blood be introduced and established into the hobby?

Anyways slightly off-topic here! [:)]



Ron

[Hartford688]

[deleted]

[marc420]

Well, for me "demos" are a matter of trust. How much do I trust this game company? I've spent way too much money through my life on computer games that were complete turkeys, thus I always try to remind myself as I'm about to make an impulse buy to do the following.

-- read reviews of the game
-- read the forums associated with the game
-- download a demo and play it.
-- don't impulse buy a computer game

Now with SSG, I know the company and the basics of the game engine well enough to know I'm going to buy this game without seeing a demo. There's a very short list of other companies I feel the same about.

So, for example, I feel pretty good that SSG (and Matrix also) wouldn't release a buggy, incomplete version of a game just to get it on the market by Christmas. But many other game companies will do just that. I've had several games where I'm anxiously awaiting patches in March that will finally make a christmas game playable. So for me, its getting close to a date where I'll start being very, VERY careful about what I buy. Again, this doesn't apply to SSG and Matrix.

So, yes, I think its a very good idea to do demos. But that's because I've been burned and ripped over and over by game companies that are less ethical than these guys.