Which Game is best for me?

[SLAAKMAN]

Mr Tesuji,
Glad to have you here. For a newblette such as yourself I recommend the following important basic-training simulators;


[:'(]

[sIg3b]

There is a reason why chess has only 16 pieces per side.

Of course, there is a chess variant with 400 pieces for each; it´s just not very playable, like monster wargames. [;)]



Edit: Though, otoh, it´s the only game I know that has a 'Blind Dog' and a 'Chicken General' piece. [X(]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

As to a grand strategic game with few pieces: In principle, it would be possible (army sized units etc).

Why I like smaller scens better: I think the large ones can´t be played in a perfectionist style, or a single game will take years.

I wonder why strategic games almost always have to include moving individual divisions or even brigades.

[andym]

Of course you coild always try and Play "Uckers",on the face of it a very ordinary game that looks exactly like Ludo,but how wrong you can be.I have seen blood shed over a game of uckers,especially after an "8 piece dicking!"

[mbar]

You might look at Conquest Medieval Realms. It's simple and chess like but fun and the maps are random so always new. It may be more turns than what you are looking for though.

[SLAAKMAN]

I wonder why strategic games almost always have to include moving individual divisions or even brigades.

Because they add spice, pomp & circumstance to the counter-density Glory! Dont it make your mouth water?!; [:'(]

[SLAAKMAN]

Tesuji,

Of course, there is a chess variant with 400 pieces for each; it´s just not very playable, like monster wargames.

That 400 piece set does look intriguing. Ill put it on the queue. [:D]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

I wonder why strategic games almost always have to include moving individual divisions or even brigades.

Because they add spice, pomp & circumstance to the counter-density Glory! Dont it make your mouth water?!; [:'(]

No. Especially on computer where apparently monsters like WiTE still calculate combat on much lower level than shown by counters, so having counters for individual brigades or divisions doesn't really add anything besides making the player micromanage way below his command level.

[Larac]

Battlefield Academy I have really enjoyed this game.

Lee

[madgamer2]

I love questions like this. How do you expect us to know if you do not or can not find your own. If you take a sugestion from a poster here and do not like the game they suggest? Do not worry you might get lucky and get one of those rare folks who just LOVE to offer ideas to people.

However good luck in your search
Madgamer2

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: madgamer2

I love questions like this. How do you expect us to know if you do not or can not find your own. If you take a sugestion from a poster here and do not like the game they suggest? Do not worry you might get lucky and get one of those rare folks who just LOVE to offer ideas to people.

However good luck in your search
Madgamer2

I'm more aghast at what people suggest, sometimes. A simple, chess-like game with few moves and doesn't last very long... and people start suggesting Battles for the Bulge and other big games with huge learning curves? Muahahha! That's just crazy. I'd say Conquest! Medieval Realms is the perhaps only somewhat chess-like game here with few moves and little to learn. Battlefield Academy is a stretch even.

[X(]

[madgamer2]

MATRIX does sell less complicated games but very few like you want. Publishing a game that has lots of short battles would not be a money maker....better stick to chess or take up serious war gaming.

Madgamer2

[Hertston]

I'm not really sure what you guys are going on about. Tesuji said nothing about a 'simple chess-like game' What he asked for was;

-Many scenarios
-Low unit density
-Low turn number

In short: relatively few decisions per game, but every single one important, like in Chess.

Since when has 'lots of short battles' not been a money maker? When they aren't included, folks seem to wish they were. Most of the John Tiller games have many short battles, from Squad Battles right up to the ACW/Napoleonic stuff and Panzer Campaigns/Modern Battles. Sure, they have bigger scenarios as well, but you are not obliged to play them. TAOW 3 isn't exactly devoid of small scenarios either. In all those games, even in larger scenarios, they wrong decision can scre*w you up just completely as in any chess game.

[NefariousKoel]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I'm not really sure what you guys are going on about. Tesuji said nothing about a 'simple chess-like game' What he asked for was;

-Many scenarios
-Low unit density
-Low turn number

In short: relatively few decisions per game, but every single one important, like in Chess.

I bolded that quote you quoted in your own quote. For the referenced simile involving chess that's so elusive for you. [;)]

[SLAAKMAN]

Peturbo,

No. Especially on computer where apparently monsters like WiTE still calculate combat on much lower level than shown by counters, so having counters for individual brigades or divisions doesn't really add anything besides making the player micromanage way below his command level.

If you'll notice the maps sir, I was refering to World in Flames where brigades & divisions actually do add modifiers to the combat die roll along with several other facets to the game. You should consider playing it.

[SLAAKMAN]

NefariousKoel

Why arent you on the front lines in Afghanistan yet? [8|]

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

Peturbo,

No. Especially on computer where apparently monsters like WiTE still calculate combat on much lower level than shown by counters, so having counters for individual brigades or divisions doesn't really add anything besides making the player micromanage way below his command level.

If you'll notice the maps sir, I was refering to World in Flames where brigades & divisions actually do add modifiers to the combat die roll along with several other facets to the game.

They could do the same if they existed only on paper and normally would be a part of an army counter.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

In short: relatively few decisions per game, but every single one important, like in Chess.

I bolded that quote you quoted in your own quote. For the referenced simile involving chess that's so elusive for you. [;)]

It's not 'elusive' at all. It is, however, considerably less general than you seem to think as it refers to only one aspect of Chess, and in no way can be extrapolated to include 'simple', 'easy to learn' and/or 'chess-like' in a broader sense. As I stated previously, that same requirement can be found in many Matrix wargame titles.

Returning to chess, it is as far from having "many scenarios" as it is possible to get, having precisely one [FAIL], albeit it playable from both sides. It can frequently have a high number of turns and may take several hours to play [FAIL]. Despite the low unit count ('density'? - fully half the 'map' area is filled when you start! [FAIL]), the history and vast amounts of literature on the game show it to be anything BUT 'simple'.

So, a 'simple chess-like game'. Really? [8|]

[SeaMonkey]

Obviously what is needed here is Strategic Command's many operational campaigns that come with the grand strategy title.  Obviously......again....try the demos before making any decision.......no demo....no sale!

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]