Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm**

You would have thought CL was supposed to be something of a SP-IV.

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:51 pm**

ORIGINAL: Keke

The switch makes sense for the long-term success of the game and any other's that might follow it. The basic design of the game has not changed since we worked on it in 2000/2001. It will be a turn-based game with weekly turns and 10 mile hexes. It will not have an execution phase, but instead will have movement and combat all in one phase. We think it will be a relatively easy game to play, although it will be massive in befitting the size of the Eastern Front. One of my favorite games of all time is War in the East from SPI, so I'm really looking forward to being able to work on our own war in the east game, using everything we've learned over the last 10 years regarding interface design, graphics and AI."
[X(]

Well, I'm a grog from way back. But nothing will make my eyes glaze over faster, then to start up an East Front game and see 3,000 unit counters staring back at me.

Spending an hour or more at each turn will get old real fast. In addition, with so many counters, the AI will have a difficult time playing a good game.

And PBEM for so massive a game will be almost an impossibility.

I like playing east front games, but now I am looking into playing more elegant game systems.

For example, Third Reich computer game is elegant without lots of counters. The only thing I would like to have seen would be a Third Reich game with monthly turns, rather than with 3-month turns.

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:31 pm**

Well, there's the beer and pretzels -crowd, who want something in line with Third Reich, and then there are more serious grogs who want another Grigsby design...[;)]

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:02 pm**

He'll also invest some of his time to look into some new ideas that we have regarding a project which we all hope to get to in 2006 or 2007, Steel Panthers IV."

Now That's a bold statement to make in the open here at Matrix Games hehe. I wonder how many saw that?

I am assuming "Steel Panthers IV" is more a turn of phrase than anything else.
I wonder if that was a slip of the tongue that should have been left unuttered hehe.

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:02 pm**

ORIGINAL: Keke

Well, there's the beer and pretzels -crowd, who want something in line with Third Reich, and then there are more serious grogs who want another Grigsby design...[;)]

That's a bit of an arrogant statement.

Like I said, I'm a grog.

But spending hours on each turn, and pushing around thousands of counters, is NOT fun. It's tedium.

Third Reich is an example of a challenging, but steamlined game system.

But it could be made more challenging, with more refinement. . .

I would like to see a system like TR but at monthly turns, and perhaps at the Corps level.

BTW, since Battlefields! has been renamed, isn't the sig under your name redundant now?

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:06 pm**

ORIGINAL: Hexed Gamer

He'll also invest some of his time to look into some new ideas that we have regarding a project which we all hope to get to in 2006 or 2007, Steel Panthers IV."

Now That's a bold statement to make in the open here at Matrix Games hehe. I wonder how many saw that?

I am assuming "Steel Panthers IV" is more a turn of phrase than anything else.
I wonder if that was a slip of the tongue that should have been left unuttered hehe.

I always thought that CL was supposed to be the Next "Steel Panther" game?

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:23 pm**

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

That's a bit of an arrogant statement.

Do not take it too seriously.

Like I said, I'm a grog.

But spending hours on each turn, and pushing around thousands of counters, is NOT fun. It's tedium.

Well, everyone can define themselves as they wish, but I know many who enjoy for example D. McBride's monster scenarios with TOAW, with thousands of counters and all.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1Third Reich is an example of a challenging, but steamlined game system.

But it could be made more challenging, with more refinement. . .

I would like to see a system like TR but at monthly turns, and perhaps at the Corps level.

I find TR enjoyable as well, but it is definitely in the beer and pretzels -category. I have nothing against more refined version of it, but what I really like too see is a divisional level Eastern front -game with all it's "tedious" details...

ORIGINAL: Warfare1BTW, since Battlefields! has been renamed, isn't the sig under your name redundant now?

Unfortunately, I can't change it myself.

Posted: **Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:38 pm**

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

That's a bit of an arrogant statement.

Do not take it too seriously.

Like I said, I'm a grog.

But spending hours on each turn, and pushing around thousands of counters, is NOT fun. It's tedium.

Well, everyone can define themselves as they wish, but I know many who enjoy for example D. McBride's monster scenarios with TOAW, with thousands of counters and all.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1Third Reich is an example of a challenging, but steamlined game system.

But it could be made more challenging, with more refinement. . .

I would like to see a system like TR but at monthly turns, and perhaps at the Corps level.

I find TR enjoyable as well, but it is definitely in the beer and pretzels -category. I have nothing against more refined version of it, but what I really like too see is a divisional level Eastern front -game with all it's "tedious" details...

ORIGINAL: Warfare1BTW, since Battlefields! has been renamed, isn't the sig under your name redundant now?

Unfortunately, I can't change it myself.

I'm a grog: played them all - TOAW, UV, etc, etc. . .

But as I mentioned, monster games after a while get old, unless it hasn't been done before, like WiTP and UV. They are enjoyable.

East Front has been done to death - monster-wise. . .

Your mention of a beer & pretezel game implies easy and dumbed-down. . .

But such need not be the case.

Axis & Allies is a simple game; chess is not. Yet both use few counters in their games.

And surely, chess is not a beer & pretezel game.

Similarly, TR uses an elegant, but challenging system which could be refined to make it more challenging, without the need to throw in thousands of counters (most of them are redundant anyway).

The idea would be to achieve a challenging east front game without the need to employ thousands of counters.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:03 am**

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

East Front has been done to death - monster-wise. . .

No it hasn't! There are absolutely no division scaled "monster" Eastern Front games available anywhere, games that could handle the whole affair!

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
The idea would be to achieve a challenging east front game without the need to employ thousands of counters.

Actually at divisional level for Eastern front, there won't be thousands of counters. Anyhow it depends on the gameplay if it would be tedious or not, but much of interesting detail would be lost with Corps sized abstraction.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:25 am**

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

East Front has been done to death - monster-wise. . .

No it hasn't! There are absolutely no division scaled "monster" Eastern Front games available anywhere, games that could handle the whole affair!

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
The idea would be to achieve a challenging east front game without the need to employ thousands of counters.

Actually at divisional level for Eastern front, there won't be thousands of counters. Anyhow it depends on the gameplay if it would be tedious or not, but much of interesting detail would be lost with Corps sized abstraction.

No division level?

Well, look at the east front scenarios designed for TOAW.

Maybe there won't be thousands of counters - but it will be pretty close with both sides included. At the beginning of Barbarossa there were millions of Germans and Soviets on the east front. How many divisions is that?

Again, most of those units will be redundant since the Germans will be expected to ram through weak Soviet troops in the first few months.

A game employing hundreds and/or thousands of counters does not equal a challenging or sophisticated game. It simply means the player is faced with shoving around hundreds of counters.

Nothing has to be lost in gameplay; and there is no need to include the name of every single unit that fought on the east front.

At corps level, with 2 week or 1 month long turns, with a sophisticated game engine that includes weather, random events, etc, etc. . . could be a very enjoyable, challenging "grog" game.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:36 am**

I always thought that CL was supposed to be the Next "Steel Panther" game?

I have heard many a comment, and made a lots of them myself, to the effect Combat Leader would be the next logical extrapolation of the "Steel Panthers" experience.

The game really is quite a bit different in many ways though.
Although still sort of driving tanks and squads around when you get down to it.

I was originally just basically responding to a comment, that was initially a bit vague

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:59 am**

You don't happen to be Von Rom by any chance? [:-][:D]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

Well, look at the east front scenarios designed for TOAW.

Maybe there won't be thousands of counters - but it will be pretty close with both sides included. At the beginning of Barbarossa there were millions of Germans and Soviets on the east front. How many divisions is that?

At maximum Soviets had 517 divisions, can't remember the Axis max. number just now. Anyhow when destroyed divisions are counted, then the actual number raises well above one thousand, and could be thousands, I'll give you that. D.McBride's monster-scenarios were at regimental level, btw.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
Again, most of those units will be redundant since the Germans will be expected to ram through weak Soviet troops in the first few months.

A game employing hundreds and/or thousands of counters does not equal a challenging or sophisticated game. It simply means the player is faced with shoving around hundreds of counters.

Nothing has to be lost in gameplay; and there is no need to include the name of every single unit that fought on the east front.

At corps level, with 2 week or 1 month long turns, with a sophisticated game engine that includes weather, random events, etc, etc. . . could be a very enjoyable, challenging "grog" game.

It is obvious that you seek a beer and pretzels type of a game, isn't it? Nothing wrong with that, but such games exist already. What I am looking for is a WITP-type of a game, with lots of scenarios and possibility to play the whole campaign (which it could manage well). FE Kursk with Corps sized units would just be a bore.

In ideal game (of my dreams) AI could handle most of the units, and a player could choose how much micromanagement he wants. So one could handle everything by giving orders to Army Group/Front -commanders only or give orders straight to their subordinates down to a division level.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:49 am**

ORIGINAL: Keke

You don't happen to be Von Rom by any chance? [:-][:D]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

Well, look at the east front scenarios designed for TOAW.

Maybe there won't be thousands of counters - but it will be pretty close with both sides included. At the beginning of Barbarossa there were millions of Germans and Soviets on the east front. How many divisions is that?

At maximum Soviets had 517 divisions, can't remember the Axis max. number just now. Anyhow when destroyed divisions are counted, then the actual number raises well above one thousand, and could be thousands, I'll give you that. D.McBride's monster-scenarios were at regimental level, btw.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
Again, most of those units will be redundant since the Germans will be expected to ram through weak Soviet troops in the first few months.

A game employing hundreds and/or thousands of counters does not equal a challenging or sophisticated game. It simply means the player is faced with shoving around hundreds of counters.

Nothing has to be lost in gameplay; and there is no need to include the name of every single unit that fought on the east front.

At corps level, with 2 week or 1 month long turns, with a sophisticated game engine that includes weather, random events, etc, etc. . . could be a very enjoyable, challenging "grog" game.

It is obvious that you seek a beer and pretzels type of a game, isn't it? Nothing wrong with that, but such games exist already. What I am looking for is a WITP-type of a game, with lots of scenarios and possibility to play the whole campaign (which it could manage well). FE Kursk with Corps sized units would just be a bore.

In ideal game (of my dreams) AI could handle most of the units, and a player could choose how much micromanagement he wants. So one could handle everything by giving orders to Army Group/Front -commanders only or give orders straight to their subordinates down to a division level.

ORIGINAL: Keke

You don't happen to be Von Rom by any chance? [:-][:D]

What are you talking about??

At maximum Soviets had 517 divisions, can't remember the Axis max. number just now. Anyhow when destroyed divisions are counted, then the actual number raises well above one thousand, and could be thousands, I'll give you that. D.McBride's monster-scenarios were at regimental level, btw.

OK, so first you said there would not be thousands of counters, now you admit there will be.

That is fine, if people want to play a longggg east front game. But, when I now load up an east front scenario in TOAW, fatigue sets in. Unless a person is retired and with no family, it will be a very difficult game to complete.

Let's be realistic here.

It is obvious that you seek a beer and pretzels type of a game, isn't it? Nothing wrong with that, but such games exist already. What I am looking for is a WITP-type of a game, with lots of scenarios and possibility to play the whole campaign (which it could manage well). FE Kursk with Corps sized units would just be a bore.

In ideal game (of my dreams) AI could handle most of the units, and a player could choose how much micromanagement he wants. So one could handle everything by giving orders to Army Group/Front -commanders only or give orders straight to their subordinates down to a division level.

There you go with the beer & pretezels analogy again. [8|]

I want a challenging east front game. But that challenge does not mean having thousands of counters; that is pure tedium.

Clearly, what you want is different from what I and many others seek.

I just don't see how the AI will be up to handling thousands of units, and PBEM for this type of game will be very difficult.

While I agree that giving orders to sub-units would be ideal, the AI and no current game system is up to that challenge.

I would love to play a good and challenging east front game that utilizes a new game engine and that requires thinking and strategy vs an endless array of counters.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:25 am**

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
What are you talking about??

You don't fool me.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
OK, so first you said there would not be thousands of counters, now you admit there will be.

No, there won't be thousands of counters at any one point. I meant that during the four year campaign, when destroyed divisions are counted, the overall number could well be near 2 thousand.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
That is fine, if people want to play a longggg east front game. But, when I now load up an east front scenario in TOAW, fatigue sets in. Unless a person is retired and with no family, it will be a very difficult game to complete.

Let's be realistic here.

Realistic about what? That you get fatigued with a long Eastern front game?

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
There you go with the beer & pretezels analogy again. [8|]

Is there something wrong with that?

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
I want a challenging east front game. But that challenge does not mean having thousands of counters; that is pure tedium.

For you.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
Clearly, what you want is different from what I and many others seek.

Clearly, many people want to see the Eastern front game from 2by3 Games.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
I just don't see how the AI will be up to handling thousands of units, and PBEM for this type of game will be very difficult.

While I agree that giving orders to sub-units would be ideal, the AI and no current game system is up to that challenge.

I would love to play a good and challenging east front game that utilizes a new game engine and that requires thinking and strategy vs an endless array of counters.

As I mentioned I was just dreaming about sufficient micromanagement reducing AI. Anyhow a great number of counters don't diminish the need for thinking and strategy, rather vice versa.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:47 am**

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
What are you talking about??

You don't fool me.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
OK, so first you said there would not be thousands of counters, now you admit there will be.

No, there won't be thousands of counters at any one point. I meant that during the four year campaign, when destroyed divisions are counted, the overall number could well be near 2 thousand.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
That is fine, if people want to play a longggg east front game. But, when I now load up an east front scenario in TOAW, fatigue sets in. Unless a person is retired and with no family, it will be a very difficult game to complete.

Let's be realistic here.

Realistic about what? That you get fatigued with a long Eastern front game?

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
There you go with the beer & pretezels analogy again. [8|]

Is there something wrong with that?

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
I want a challenging east front game. But that challenge does not mean having thousands of counters; that is pure tedium.

For you.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
Clearly, what you want is different from what I and many others seek.

Clearly, many people want to see the Eastern front game from 2by3 Games.

ORIGINAL: Warfare1
I just don't see how the AI will be up to handling thousands of units, and PBEM for this type of game will be very difficult.

While I agree that giving orders to sub-units would be ideal, the AI and no current game system is up to that challenge.

I would love to play a good and challenging east front game that utilizes a new game engine and that requires thinking and strategy vs an endless array of counters.

As I mentioned I was just dreaming about sufficient micromanagement reducing AI. Anyhow a great number of counters don't diminish the need for thinking and strategy, rather vice versa.

You don't fool me.

What are you talking about?

You now assume I am someone else? [8|]

I am someone who disagrees with what you have said.

Are you now becoming paranoid?

As for the rest:

If some people wish to spend endless hours per day moving hundreds and thousands of counters around, then all the power to them.

If people want to have a foretaste of this, they should download some of the monster east front scenarios for TOAW and try to play them through.

Many of us have jobs, families and other responsibilities, and would love to have an east front game that does not take an endless amount of time to play through.

A good, challenging east front game can be made without the need of including every unit that fought in that war.

Just look at 12 O'Clock High (another Grigsby game). It went into unimaginable detail, and was almost impossible to play through to completion.

You can make any game you want; the question is who will have the time and patience to buy it and play it through?

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:23 am**

I have a friend of mine, local friend, we both wanted a specific board game, both of us knew we would only be playing it against each other.

So we had it ordered into the store, and decided the first with the cash could score the purchase. It was pointless worrying over who got it, as we both knew we would not be playing it with anyone else at any rate.

The game was Fire in the East, and price tag was 100 bucks (Canadian) about 10 years ago.

Maybe it is just as well he grabbed it and not me.

Guess what, in 10 years he has never gotten it set up once.
I suppose he did me a sort of favour, because I doubt I would have ever gotten around to finding the space either.
6 feet by 8 feet is a lot of wargame.

Now if you put that on a computer monitor, sure, fine, you have aced the 6 foot by 8 foot problem.
But whether I move the counter with tweezers or a mouse, I still have to move it.
The game has 10 thousand counters, and it's just the war from 41 till 42.
Whether or not you like to argue over how many divisions existed or would eventually exist, it was a game with 10 thousand identifiable units.
If you cut that down to 1000 just for the hell of it, that's 1000 units all the same.

Now I love some games to death, but pushing around 1000 units each turn is still what it is eh.
Whether the game is as simple and easy as Steel Panthers or Strategic Command is likely not to entirely relevant.
Pushing around 1000 counters is still pushing around 1000 counters

And I highly doubt your "numbers" will ever be entirely impressive when compared to the numbers Hubert Cater will be pleasing with his SC2 design.

I am not afraid of lots of counters in a game.
I love to play my The Longest Day game (board game).
I also have Red Barricades for ASL.

But eventually a person just arbitrarly decides, "ok I have enough games for the eastern front that involve 1000s of counters".
So your real challenge, is finding "numbers" of players not already possessing several eastern front games with 1000s of counters.
It is just foolish to base sales off the easily made comments of guys that will say they want a game, but might not show up on release day.

And most wargamers I have seen, will say they want every wargame on the market.
But just ask David Heath about actual sales of something supposedly popular like Mega Campaigns.
It's an education.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:34 am**

1000 units is not a big deal to move, it's also enjoyable figuring the tactics for your units, no matter how many, all of John Tiller's PzC games have over 1000 units and theyre both easy and fun to play, and yes they are played by grog's....
So each have their own taste you don't need to rationalize why your tastes are superior.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 6:51 am**

ORIGINAL: Hexed Gamer

I have a friend of mine, local friend, we both wanted a specific board game, both of us knew we would only be playing it against each other.

So we had it ordered into the store, and decided the first with the cash could score the purchase. It was pointless worrying over who got it, as we both knew we would not be playing it with anyone else at any rate.

The game was Fire in the East, and price tag was 100 bucks (Canadian) about 10 years ago.

Maybe it is just as well he grabbed it and not me.

Guess what, in 10 years he has never gotten it set up once.
I suppose he did me a sort of favour, because I doubt I would have ever gotten around to finding the space either.
6 feet by 8 feet is a lot of wargame.

Now if you put that on a computer monitor, sure, fine, you have aced the 6 foot by 8 foot problem.
But whether I move the counter with tweezers or a mouse, I still have to move it.
The game has 10 thousand counters, and it's just the war from 41 till 42.
Whether or not you like to argue over how many divisions existed or would eventually exist, it was a game with 10 thousand identifiable units.
If you cut that down to 1000 just for the hell of it, that's 1000 units all the same.

Now I love some games to death, but pushing around 1000 units each turn is still what it is eh.
Whether the game is as simple and easy as Steel Panthers or Strategic Command is likely not to entirely relevant.
Pushing around 1000 counters is still pushing around 1000 counters

And I highly doubt your "numbers" will ever be entirely impressive when compared to the numbers Hubert Cater will be pleasing with his SC2 design.

I am not afraid of lots of counters in a game.
I love to play my The Longest Day game (board game).
I also have Red Barricades for ASL.

But eventually a person just arbitrarly decides, "ok I have enough games for the eastern front that involve 1000s of counters".
So your real challenge, is finding "numbers" of players not already possessing several eastern front games with 1000s of counters.
It is just foolish to base sales off the easily made comments of guys that will say they want a game, but might not show up on release day.

And most wargamers I have seen, will say they want every wargame on the market.
But just ask David Heath about actual sales of something supposedly popular like Mega Campaigns.
It's an education.

Well said.

In the end though, it all comes down to personal preference.

Still, sometimes less is more, if you know what I mean.

Let me come back to 12 O' Clock High. It is a great game. It has everything in it. Every pilot and plane is modelled in that game. The long campaign is 500-700 turns. Yes, you heard me right.

However, how many copies were sold? How many have actually played the darn thing through to completion and still kept their sanity?

It was simply too much of a good thing. Prudence should have dictated that the game play should have been reduced by several hundred turns, and that certain abstractions should have been used.

I have played long marathon game sessions just like the next guy. And I have played some monster games. But surely there is a better way? Especially for a good, challenging East Front game?

I don't have all the answers for this, but perhaps there is some middle ground between a Third Reich type game and a 12 O' Clock High monster game.

More and more I like what I see in Strategic Command 2. Grogs have been championing Cater's game design. Is there something we can learn from this?

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:10 pm**

Yes 12 O clock high and BoB got to bogged down. Such a shame as there is a good game underneath.

Posted: **Wed Nov 10, 2004 1:48 pm**

The proof of the pudding comes when you tell a person, "ok you have 30 minutes of wargame time, what are you going to play?".

Now 30 minutes is 30 minutes regardless of how you spend it.
In 30 minutes what can you do?

In 30 minutes I can actually complete a lot of the battles in MC-SE. I actually did that a lot last summer during the beta test. Not all of the battles are that short of course.
In 30 minutes I can also make good head way in almost any Steel Panthers game.

In 30 minutes I can likely play several years of a Strategic Command game too if it's just me against the machine. Playing it solo I guess I would be a lot slower (playing more thoroughly).

In 30 minutes though, I am likely unable to get through a complete turn of most operational wargames worthy of mention.
And that just about covers all operational wargames too. The old the new included.

Games like HTTR have a bit better pace of action admittedly.

But the fact remains, operational wargames exist in perhaps the greatest degree of finite niche of our entire hobby.
I own several of these time eating, potentially micromanaged, ultimately detailed behemoths.
And, as the day has not genuinely lengthened, there remains yet still, only so many hours in a day.

So, you pick joe average grog wargamer. He likes em all, the big and the small.
You ask him what wargames he owns.
If he has 3 titles we would qualify as entirely grognard type operational wargames, chances are very good, whether he wants yet another, he won't have any realistic ability to fit yet another wargame into his already mostly booked solid wargame available spare time.

Soo, when a guy tells you "yes I want your wargame" keep in mind, part of him might be reacting the same way people react when they see yet another item of their "favourite hobby" on the shelf.

There's a reason I have hundreds of unread books and hundreds of unbuilt models eh

I wanted them.

Sure you might make a few bucks off of some of us who just don't know when we have enough.
The key is, do you have enough customer potential to make a profit in your game from a company perspective hehe.

I am NOT one of those persons that chants "gotta support the company lest they not be there tomorrow".
Nope, I am a wargamer through and through, but my concern is for Les.
I am not responsible for keeping your company alive.
That's your problem.

Matrix Games Forums

When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started

RE: When will the East Front game get started