Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: sterckxe
Be the general, not the secretary.

Well said!

Well, my secretary typed that as I'm busy sorting out the Quartermaster for forgetting a Tiger needs twice the fuel of a PzKw IV. A general's job is never done [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

This is just in : Conquest of the Aegean was voted Wargame of the Year 2006 at The Wargamer

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/reader ... /page7.asp

Congrats to Panther Games

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I did try to emphasize the particular scale of SPWaW, which is (at the most) on a battalion level, and it IS turn-based.

I agree that real-time games (of which Close Combat is one) have their place, but I don't think it would be possible to control a battalion which each of the subunits being squads and individual vehicles. Talk about a click-fest. [X(]

My point is simply that using the complex mix of weapons in WWII-era warfare is handled very well by that old warhorse, which accounts for its continued popularity. To control 200 subunits lends itself to a turn-based game.

Actually you can get most of a Regiment in depending on Country and units. And a single game you can get more than a Regiment. ( Brigade for you army types)

I agree that real-time games (of which Close Combat is one) have their place, but I don't think it would be possible to control a battalion which each of the subunits being squads and individual vehicles. Talk about a click-fest.

Try out Supreme Commander (demo if you can't afford full game). Every unit is individual and maximum unit limit (counting buildings) is... I'm not sure, but somewhere at battalion level I believe. And it's not just about moving and micromanaging your dogs of war, you need take care of economy as well so you have always something to throw at grinder (but no supply unless you count repairs as that). There are lots of tactics available too, but executing combined arms warfare in multiple fronts is just impossible without frequent use of Pause key.

I always felt Combat Mission series was the best myself is easier to get around on the map also and the units and men are modelled very good. Barbarossa being the single best for me.

I'd probably go with Combat Mission too. It's certainly easier on the eyes!

Yep but what many of these games lack is the old fashion role play or immersion into the game. WITP does it and a few others, not really RPG but you know you feel like there is continuation. Games like Combat Mission never made me feel like I was part of the game. Kind of silly I guess.
 
Anyone remember the old simulators in the early 90's? Story driven carrier pilot and such was great fun. No one really makes games like that anymore. Microprose was my favorite company well and SSI, 1942:PAW and EAW and games like the first B-17 (The second was so-so) there was another Pacific pilot game made by the same guys that made "Privateer" (arguably the coolest space-rouge game in history) and "wing commander" that was story driven.
 
Oh and there was that cool WWII surface ship wargame where you got to shoot the guns and move the fleets the name escapes me though but it was great fun.

Oh well off on a tangent there.
 

I got immersed in Intellivisions B-17 Bomber. The voiceovers were pretty good and who can't remember how that Tenn. hick would say B-17 Bomber when the game loaded? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Scott_USN

Oh and there was that cool WWII surface ship wargame where you got to shoot the guns and move the fleets the name escapes me though but it was great fun.

Great Naval Battles I believe. But most of games you listed are simulations, not war strategy (though GNB has it too).

Yeah I was off on a little nostalgia there.