Which wargame has done it best?

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

warspite1

Well we each like games for different reasons and have different requirements. As per my post, my comment was based on the game design and why I believe they've 'done it best' but would respond as follows:

This game has no editor that allows users to modify it

This seems to be important to many gamers (no idea of the percentage) but certainly not to everyone. I have made use of a small, aesthetic, mod of the original game (Counter colour for the CW, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese) but could easily live without it. I know others have edited certain aspects but no, I don't believe there is a comprehensive editing ability. But World In Flames shouldn't need editing. It is based on a hugely successful board game and just coding the rules - designed for the world of cardboard and not pixels - has been an enormous challenge. If editing games is a must, then I can understand why this would be a no no. For me, I have no ability to edit and, for a game like this, I don't think its necessary so lack of an editor has zero impact for me.

Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, WiF is a complete fail.

I can't see having an editor was a specific requirement laid out by the OP. It was a question "which wargame has done it best"? This game is at the 'strategy end of the spectrum' but regardless, I think its the best wargame ever. It seeks to allow players to play out World War II and it is, by some margin, the best game to do this.

no Computer Opponent. What good is a game if it can't let the computer run the game?

This could set in train the old argument about an AI and its value so won't go down that route. I think the game would be difficult to add a meaningful AI (although the programmer begs to differ). If correct, it would be good to have one - if only to boost sales - but I think human vs human is the best way to play games so again, for me personally, I don't have an issue.

On a more general note, the size and complexity of WiF would exclude it from being at the top of many gamer's list.

Again this is a personal thing but size and complexity shouldn't disqualify a game from such a list - the game either works for a player or it doesn't. WITP-AE is a monster but that has a large following and many players of that will have it as no.1. World In Flames the same. There are plenty of smaller games that I've really enjoyed, really got my money's worth out of - but I know I will never go back to them. WIF however stands the test of time for me and I keep returning to it. It's replayability (added to its sheer fun factor) means it never gets old.

And every time I look into the WiF Forum, don't I see them squashing big bugs?

I don't know which big bugs you refer to. The game is playable, but yes bugs remain and it remains imperfect - although as you say - sadly that is not something unique to WIF and is an all too common issue with computer wargames.

[wodin]

come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

warspite1

Well we each like games for different reasons and have different requirements. As per my post, my comment was based on the game design and why I believe they've 'done it best' but would respond as follows:

This game has no editor that allows users to modify it

This seems to be important to many gamers (no idea of the percentage) but certainly not to everyone. I have made use of a small, aesthetic, mod of the original game (Counter colour for the CW, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese) but could easily live without it. I know others have edited certain aspects but no, I don't believe there is a comprehensive editing ability. But World In Flames shouldn't need editing. It is based on a hugely successful board game and just coding the rules - designed for the world of cardboard and not pixels - has been an enormous challenge. If editing games is a must, then I can understand why this would be a no no. For me, I have no ability to edit and, for a game like this, I don't think its necessary so lack of an editor has zero impact for me.

Therefore, for the purposes of this thread, WiF is a complete fail.

I can't see having an editor was a specific requirement laid out by the OP. It was a question "which wargame has done it best"? This game is at the 'strategy end of the spectrum' but regardless, I think its the best wargame ever. It seeks to allow players to play out World War II and it is, by some margin, the best game to do this.

no Computer Opponent. What good is a game if it can't let the computer run the game?

This could set in train the old argument about an AI and its value so won't go down that route. I think the game would be difficult to add a meaningful AI (although the programmer begs to differ). If correct, it would be good to have one - if only to boost sales - but I think human vs human is the best way to play games so again, for me personally, I don't have an issue.

On a more general note, the size and complexity of WiF would exclude it from being at the top of many gamer's list.

Again this is a personal thing but size and complexity shouldn't disqualify a game from such a list - the game either works for a player or it doesn't. WITP-AE is a monster but that has a large following and many players of that will have it as no.1. World In Flames the same. There are plenty of smaller games that I've really enjoyed, really got my money's worth out of - but I know I will never go back to them. WIF however stands the test of time for me and I keep returning to it. It's replayability (added to its sheer fun factor) means it never gets old.

And every time I look into the WiF Forum, don't I see them squashing big bugs?

I don't know which big bugs you refer to. The game is playable, but yes bugs remain and it remains imperfect - although as you say - sadly that is not something unique to WIF and is an all too common issue with computer wargames.

[sPzAbt653]

come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice.

Yes sir, for sure. I'm not against peoples choices, and certainly a thread like this will have many. It's that when people point out what they think is the game that has 'done it best' is one that obviously doesn't, I'm throwing in a quick counter view so that others who aren't aware become better informed. Folks will nominate their passionate choices, but you can't dispute the facts that I post. One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way. However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't see you ragging on Steel Panthers

I didn't need to as it's too obvious to discount this one because it is a Tactical game, and Tactical and Strategic were not part of the question. The question was not 'which do you like and feel is pretty good', the question was which has done it best and are not to the tactical or strategy end of the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[MrsWargamer]

WiF and Steel Panthers, both impressive designs.

But the question was, and remains which did it best. And mentioned that tactical and grand strategy might be a problem.

I don't actually think Advanced Tactics is the greatest wargame ever, but, for purposes of the thread, aced the question easier to a point over WiF AND SP.

TOAW (even TOAW 1) is an incredible accomplishment of delivering more games in a box than I think we can readily count without a bit of time looking. I don't think the design is 'perfect', but, many many many board game equals, many settings, many time periods is a considerable accomplishment.

I am unable to comment much out of of WW2 designs, as I'm not much of a non-WW2 gamer.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

come on now, each to their own. No need to pull apart peoples choice.

Yes sir, for sure. I'm not against peoples choices, and certainly a thread like this will have many. It's that when people point out what they think is the game that has 'done it best' is one that obviously doesn't, I'm throwing in a quick counter view so that others who aren't aware become better informed. Folks will nominate their passionate choices, but you can't dispute the facts that I post. One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way. However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements.

True.


At AWNT first we do try and pick games we moist likely will enjoy. However if it's a turkey it will not get reviewed or people will be warned. Saying that though by turkey I mean rubbish and not cos it's something the reviewer doesn't like rather than a bad game allround.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

warspite1

Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice.

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

One of the issues we have [and have always had] is the difficulty in determining the value of a game. Usually we have to play it, but these days with the internet it shouldn't be this way.

And for many games, it isn't. There are game play videos with commentary for large % of the games and popular ones have lots of it.

However, most 'reviews' are in fact only advertisements.

LOL, no. There are many reviews along the lines: "The game is racist, don't buy it!" Japanese games in particular get this kind of hate. Just look up reviews (English language ones) for Dead or Alive 6.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: wodin

warspite1
Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice.

And to clarify what I said, it was in the context of my original post here, concerning the state of games in general. I was not commenting on anyone's opinion, I was pointing out how my opinion was supported. For example, a game that is 'playable' is considerd by someone to be the best ever. This shows were we are.

[06 Maestro]

Best???

I would go with the one I have played the most TOAW, WOTY, ACOW, TOAW III and soon, I suppose, TOAW IV.

PC Gaming since '99 with dozens of different games including some great ones. However, TOAW is the one that keeps pulling me back. After several years of no gaming, TOAW 3 is one of the first back on my PC.

Still, "best" is a bit subjective.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: wodin

warspite1
Just to be clear I was defending World In Flames and why I stand by my belief that this is the wargame that has 'done it best'. I have not picked apart - nor commented critically upon - anyone's choice.

And to clarify what I said, it was in the context of my original post here, concerning the state of games in general. I was not commenting on anyone's opinion, I was pointing out how my opinion was supported. For example, a game that is 'playable' is considerd by someone to be the best ever. This shows were we are.

You most certainly WERE commenting on Mine and Warspite's opinion, you specifically mentioned the game and then said why it was NOT the best.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Oi! Good to see you around mate. Best game=schmest game discussion. Your presence is required at the Australian Beauties thread. Tootsweet. Bring your infantry officer's bat with you too.

ETA: War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition has clearly done it 'the best'. All other choices are rubbish*





*Kidding. Kidding.

[KingHart]

My choice:

Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

[Zovs]

TOAW all eras (1400-2050), all levels from army to battalion mostly (has capabilities for companies and platoons), politics can be modeled slightly, great way to port board war games into it. Can be modded, no cartoons.

[Alan Sharif]

Another vote for TOAW here too.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: KingHart

My choice:

Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[KingHart]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: KingHart

My choice:

Best Wargame - War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

WITP:AE was released in 2009, and is basically an upgraded WITP, which IIRC came out in 2004. WITE / WITW are more recent games, with more advanced game engines. I am not sure if the land combat model for those games (both European-based games) would work in a Pacific-islands based game. I really don't have a problem with AE's land combat, other than wishing it could be regiment-based, rather than division-based.
My main reason for choosing WITP:AE as 'wargame that does it best' is that for the genre it represents (strategic WWII - Pacific), no other game comes close.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
I do not know the game so forgive me. The naval / air war seems just right. What about land combat ? Will the engine work in the Russian steps ?
The reason I am asking is why the engine was not extended to Europe ? WITE / WITW are just missing the naval aspects.

As a player of both WitE and WitP AE (PBEM and AI), I read many times this statement. And never understood why the land model of the latter would not work in the Russian steppes [&:] Daily turns, you just need to decide what will be the speed of the different units, and there go your counters, what's the problem exactly? If the variables are correct (as per real life), then the armored spearheads should be encircling let's say the Soviet armies deployed in the frontier districts (Barbarossa).

I mean, what cosmic force would stop any player from doing that? [&:]

Not practical? Maybe. Because players might not like daily turns, instead of the WitE weekly turns. But It can work, I'm convinced of that.