Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Veldor

ORIGINAL: bschulte

Veldor,

Where is the poll going to be located once you're finished? I'd love to see how the Civil War ends up doing.

http://www.mnemonicgames.com/survey.html

I was waiting for at least 500 people to fill it out before posting any results (Pretty close I think though I haven't looked at it recently).

Thanks Veldor. I voted. I see that the format allows you to pick as many time periods as you want. The format of the other survey only allowed you to pick one favorite, so I'm sure that accounts for quite a bit of the difference.

ORIGINAL: Veldor

ORIGINAL: bschulte

Veldor,

From my perspective, it simply seems like the Civil War trails at the very least World War 2 and Napoleonics in interest. There was a poll a while back on one of the Usenet wargaming groups, and I was surprised at how poorly the Civil War fared against the others.

I'm in the process of conducting my own poll of several hundred, and while nearly every respondant did choose WW2, both the Civil War and Napoleonics were close enough to not have any distinguishable difference in interest.

I suppose it depends on who you survey and where they come from. For my part the respondants are made up of mostly Matrix, Wargamer, War-Forums, and Shrapnel members with about 15% coming from the Wargame Newsgroups.

Now the imporant part with both surveys is that they probably represent mostly the interests of wargamers themselves. With retail you'd have to also hope for someone with more general interest in that war to still pick it up. And there are simply far more WW2 and Civil War enthusiasts in the states anyway than Naploenics fans. Just look at our History Channel lineup to get a good feel for that.

Whatever the case, in at least one stores instance, it doesn't seem to matter

If you all were really dedicated MMG fans you'd be down at your local Frye's trying to move copies of the game... [:D]

The poll was nicely done. I'll be waiting to see the results. [&o]

I prefer more "hands-on" when I play and a bit more activity than I found out of MM's BR, the AI does way more than I expected it to do. And being that it does, it ruins a lot of my strategies and tactics.

The player can have as much or as little input in the battle as they like. The Open Play games of the Take Command series allow the player to play as any commander from brigade/battery up to army commander. The player can "Take Command" (ie complete control) of the entire army or a single battery if they so choose.

ORIGINAL: Adam@madminutegames.com

I prefer more "hands-on" when I play and a bit more activity than I found out of MM's BR, the AI does way more than I expected it to do. And being that it does, it ruins a lot of my strategies and tactics.

The player can have as much or as little input in the battle as they like. The Open Play games of the Take Command series allow the player to play as any commander from brigade/battery up to army commander. The player can "Take Command" (ie complete control) of the entire army or a single battery if they so choose.

I think there is definitely a place in the hobby for games that allow you to realistically put yourself in command. I think too many traditional wargamers are addicted to having total control over every combat element, even if no one actually in command of the historical battle had that kind of situational awareness and control over their troops. Yea, it makes for a good game to be able to manueuver every regiment and place every battery (and I'm not objecting... I like that kind of game too) but I've always had a vision of a game that would place you in actual command with access to no more information than you can physically see from your vantage point or are told through messages and reports. I haven't played Bull Run, but I sense that we're on the same page here (and I will get this game eventually).

I can see that there would be a huge frustration factor for a gamer who wants total control so I can understand the frustration that Ravinhood has expressed and stated as his personal opinion on the game. Personally, I think there is a place for your designs and I'm looking forward to trying your "Take command" approach.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I can see that there would be a huge frustration factor for a gamer who wants total control so I can understand the frustration that Ravinhood has expressed and stated as his personal opinion on the game. Personally, I think there is a place for your designs and I'm looking forward to trying your "Take command" approach.

It's hardly an original approach... but MMG must take credit for doing it well . There is certainly a big appeal to many, I think, in avoiding the micromanagement and taking the commander's role on occasion, with all the complications and uncertainties that involves. I still have fond memories of the Peter Turcan games (Amiga, in my case) which were about the first attempt to do it.. although sadly the AI didn't match the rest of the design (I never lost, as I recall). I always thought they would be a great laugh even today, if somebody dug them up and bolted on some HtH.

There's plenty of room for variation in the hobby, and everyone has their own preferences. Bull Run is a game I think most wargamers would enjoy playing for a while, whatever their preference.

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I've always had a vision of a game that would place you in actual command with access to no more information than you can physically see from your vantage point or are told through messages and reports.

Hi Rhonda,

When I was on the team, we got a chance to input what we thought should go into follow-up games, and "friendly FOW" was definately on my list. If you combine that with Wrangler's "HITS" mod, which essentially puts you in the saddle for field of view, an expanded courier system, the new cavalry functionality (which automates scouting and screening) and throw in multiplayer with an Army commander and a couple corps commanders (3v3)... you would be in for a wild ride!

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

I've always had a vision of a game that would place you in actual command with access to no more information than you can physically see from your vantage point or are told through messages and reports.

Hi Rhonda,

When I was on the team, we got a chance to input what we thought should go into follow-up games, and "friendly FOW" was definately on my list. If you combine that with Wrangler's "HITS" mod, which essentially puts you in the saddle for field of view, an expanded courier system, the new cavalry functionality (which automates scouting and screening) and throw in multiplayer with an Army commander and a couple corps commanders (3v3)... you would be in for a wild ride!

Ray (alias Lava)

Exactly! Back in college for a Computer Simulations in Education class I actually designed a Gettysburg game designed to be played that way over a network between teams of students.

This discussion has me thinking of the novel "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card which I assume many of you have read (if not, you should give consider it along with it's related novels and sequels).

This discussion has me thinking of the novel "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card which I assume many of you have read (if not, you should give consider it along with it's related novels and sequels).

Somehow Hollywood has missed that one. Always thought it would be a sure fire hit if made into a movie.

To everyone, I'm sorry this thread got so out of control. Often I am responsible for that though in this case probably not so much. I of course started this thread only to help promote the game. At the time I had read about it on Frederick's Blog site and didn't even know if the news had been posted elsewhere yet.

I've stated many times that I've only personally purchased one Paradox Title (Diplomacy), and really feel it's gotten an unfair bad rap. Paradox has addressed most any complaint anyone had about it and the majority that talk so bad about it have not even bought the game nor even tried the demo.

It is so weird that some spend so much effort to trash Paradox's Diplomacy game and yet most of us that have bought it are still happily playing it months later. In fact what few negative posts there are are generally from new purchasers over-reacting to whatever installation or internet connection issue they are having (no doubt scared that "Oh My God They Were All Right, it IS a piece of ...")

And, of course, even if it were a dismal failure and disaster... That would have little to do with a MMG title.

Since no one else has said it yet, and I have zero reservations about saying what I think, I think at least some of us are simply disappointed that it wasn't a Matrix Title instead (Especially given that these ARE the Matrix Forums). What's wrong with Matrix Games after all? <sniffle> <sniffle> I know I still love 'em.

Although I'm sure there are just as many over at Paradox Plaza who are thrilled to see the addition to their lineup.

@Veldor

It's a small world mate. You name the company and almost certainly I have bought from them. I'm also looking forward to Strategic Command 2. Doesn't mean I'm not interested in Matrix Games, or I wouldn't be here.

Hope that ain't strike 3..

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)

ORIGINAL: Veldor

Somehow Hollywood has missed that one. Always thought it would be a sure fire hit if made into a movie.

Its currently in (pre)production, with an expected release in 2007. I know Wolfgang (Das Boot) Petersen is directing, but not much more than that.

Personally, its a book I've always considered un-filmable without ruining it. The violence among the kids is absolutely crucial to plot, yet I just don't see how they could film it, or even represent it, in a movie that must be released with a certificate allowing kids to see it to get any audience at all.

It might well be a smash.. but the best I can imagine it being is a "kids save the world" movie with a twist - not Ender's Game.

I thought NWS was going to publish the Civil War game?

ORIGINAL: wodin

I thought NWS was going to publish the Civil War game?

NWS is a retailer, I'm pretty sure they will carry it.

ORIGINAL: wodin

I thought NWS was going to publish the Civil War game?

They self-publish a few mostly boardgame related titles and are working on a few PC ones in-house, but to my knowledge they have never published anything from a 3rd Party, nor are they likely to IMO.

As Marc mentioned they are primarily an online retailer of games and as such I think its a HUGE conflict of interest to start publishing things.

It would be like Matrix Games online store starting to carry Paradox and Battlefront titles.

BUT, I do find it humorous that "publishing" wargames these days now has been apparantly defined by some for usage in a case where little more is being done than being the exclusive online retailer of a game. I completely object to the usage of that term in that situation. It belittles what other publishers are capable of.