Matrix Games Forums

D-Fend Reloaded is easier to use than Dosbox as it will setup the games for you with a built in wizard. I have both but use D-fend for a lot more of my old dos games.

So many WEGO games chasing the false hope of realism. None has really succeeded. The V for Victory games were a great thing, because they were graphically superior and more complex than previous efforts. Yet in game enjoyment they were deficient to a title like "The Ardennes Offensive" of SSG/SSI which used a combat as you go system that has been so successful for Grigsby's WitE/WitW games today as well. The ease of play and excitement level of these IGO-UGO games simply outweigh any theoretical superiority of WEGO titles.

Can’t really agree with you Capitaine.

I had all the V for Victory and later World at War games from Atomic and put in lots of hours playing them. I do not see The Ardennes Offensive or WITE/WiTW as easier and more exciting. Out of three you IGO UGO games you mentioned only WITE has made me put in the hours.....

But to each their own....

Good thread, I liked the first games that came out because it was all NEW. Just like your first car. I really enjoyed the SSG games in the early days. The War in the East game they had was a classic and was difficult to beat.

Well, on WEGO vs. IGO-UGO the proof is really in the pudding. Which system has flourished more and has more devotees over time? I sense that while WEGO has fans who are passionate about it, IGO-UGO has pretty much won the popularity contest.

[Deleted by Admins]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Well, on WEGO vs. IGO-UGO the proof is really in the pudding. Which system has flourished more and has more devotees over time? I sense that while WEGO has fans who are passionate about it, IGO-UGO has pretty much won the popularity contest.

Have to agree with this though I do like some wego games like the original combat mission series (didn't really like the update to it with that real time mess), igo-ugo reigns supreme still and has a much bigger following in the lines of turn based games.

The problem I had with wego was you basically had to run the turn replay several times to see what happened. Though this is better than rts where you miss 3/4 or more of the entire actions. You can only see a specific spot and miss all the rest.

In a turn based igo-ugo game you see every thing that happens while it happens. Nothing is missed except what you overlooked. For gaming purposes I'll take an igo-ugo turn based game any day.

The box art on Atomic Games were great, as were the games. Not easy.

Ironically, last week started playing SSG's Battles in Italy "The Ardennes Offensive" (TAO5) scenario. The U.S. 8th Regiment, 4th ID had been behind German lines entrenched for seven turns. Then I mistakenly left two arty units unprotected within reach. So it unentrenches, moves over to them and destroys them.

I don't see AI like that in many games today for sure. Games that cost a lot of money, too.

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Well, on WEGO vs. IGO-UGO the proof is really in the pudding. Which system has flourished more and has more devotees over time? I sense that while WEGO has fans who are passionate about it, IGO-UGO has pretty much won the popularity contest.

Ah, well I'm biased, but I hope the reason that IGO-UGO has been triumphant is that the vast majority of games are IGO-UGO [8D].

The Ardennes Offensive (and Korsun pocket etc) are great games, but I think they'd still be great games if they were WEGO. Finally, I don't think the game types are in competition. They're just different mechanics.

I also feel WEGO artificially promotes simultaneous activity when it was not historically the rule. And the requirement to plot moves over a period of time makes WEGO units non-reactive to enemy contacts that arise during the course of the plotted move. The longer the plotted time period, the worse the non-reactivity gets. A lot of ahistorical, unrealistic gameplay for little payoff in the form of simultaneous action.

Real time is what is truly "realistic", if that's what you're after. But then you have the practical issue of commanding too many units for a single human mind to control in constantly moving time. IGO-UGO is simply the best method for solving most of the problems in simulating large scale warfare.

But in war, most activity is simultaneous, not sequential. And reaction is not instantaneous.
Still, as I said, it's not a competition. Neither is perfect. It's just that there's more than one way to skin a cat.[;)]
The old Atomic games were WEGO and they were great, and TAO was IGO-UGO and it was great.

I had one of the V for victory games, but sadly I was really too young to figure it out.

ORIGINAL: KurtC

I had one of the V for victory games, but sadly I was really too young to figure it out.

I was same way; when games don't have 4-4-4 or 8-6-12 on them I didn't understand them. I needed numbers in my face not have to look elsewhere for them like still some games today.