Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

[zuluhour]

Mr Chicken +1
ps.I got into this thread by mistake, LOL.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Has anybody actually finished War In The Pacific - Admirals Edition ?


I bought it just so I could talk in a deep voice about having the world's biggest wargame but never played it. Once I saw there were over 4,000 pieces to give instructions to for just the first move my heart sank.

Well actually I had a little go at the Attu/Kiska scenario.


I'm down to about two or three hours as my game limit now.

Yes! WiTP:AE can be completed. I've completed a game myself. A typical turn* can easily be completed in two or three hours.




*By typical turn, I mean a day in the war. Now multiply that by 4 (years of war). Now multiply that by 365 and 1/4. [:)]

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: larrybush

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: altipueri

Has anybody actually finished War In The Pacific - Admirals Edition ?


I bought it just so I could talk in a deep voice about having the world's biggest wargame but never played it. Once I saw there were over 4,000 pieces to give instructions to for just the first move my heart sank.

Well actually I had a little go at the Attu/Kiska scenario.


I'm down to about two or three hours as my game limit now.

Yes! WiTP:AE can be completed. I've completed a game myself. A typical turn* can easily be completed in two or three hours.




*By typical turn, I mean a day in the war. Now multiply that by 4 (years of war). Now multiply that by 365 and 1/4. [:)]

You are correct. But man that first turn is a killer! Ha...

Yup. As IJ player, I typically spend 25-30 hours working on that first turn alone. [X(]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: larrybush

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Yes! WiTP:AE can be completed. I've completed a game myself. A typical turn* can easily be completed in two or three hours.

*By typical turn, I mean a day in the war. Now multiply that by 4 (years of war). Now multiply that by 365 and 1/4. [:)]

You are correct. But man that first turn is a killer! Ha...

Yup. As IJ player, I typically spend 25-30 hours working on that first turn alone. [X(]

Someone else said 100 hours. I could see that if it was their first campaign game. The Kull xls is a big help.

[wodin]

Is there a start scenario that has that extremely long first then already set up and ready? Or is it vital you know how it's been set up that you'd be lost not knowing?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: larrybush




You are correct. But man that first turn is a killer! Ha...

Yup. As IJ player, I typically spend 25-30 hours working on that first turn alone. [X(]

Someone else said 100 hours. I could see that if it was their first campaign game. The Kull xls is a big help.

Never used it, but I hear good things about it. It's probably especially useful for 'standard' Sc.1 opening gambits, less so for alternative 'starts'.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Is there a start scenario that has that extremely long first then already set up and ready? Or is it vital you know how it's been set up that you'd be lost not knowing?

There's a "December 8 start" where the attack on PH has already been implemented, invasion convoys en route and so forth. Of course, then your second turn would be an iron-clad ***** instead of the first turn. The 12/8 start date scenario would probably be a pretty sensible idea if you were playing Japanese player vs. Allied AI just to figure out the interface and so forth.

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
Yup. As IJ player, I typically spend 25-30 hours working on that first turn alone. [X(]

This guy made a video of his first turn. It is 9 hours long. [X(]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3onHH-cM0 ... dex=3&t=0s

If you want, you can download it (the link is in the description) and use this save as a “quick start...

[JosephM]

Hello All,

Just thought I’d chime in on this. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, I do see some insults being thrown around. Please do avoid this, as the forums are for friendly chats – debates are encouraged but they must remain civil and avoid personal attacks.

Then onto the topic, I’ll advise what I’ve seen as well as throwing my 2 cents (pence) in. Which is the say that we all enjoy the hobby and the aim of the company is to provide games for all. Wargames as a term doesn’t have a strict definition: technically it is any game about war so does cover CoD, etc. However I’d personally say that Wargames in the traditional sense is simulations, of some form, of the tactical or strategic elements of the wars. Therefore WitE is as much a wargame as Frontline or Panzer Corps.

However I think the key thing is that there is, as you can see in this thread alone, a wider market for all kinds and as a company specialising in these we do try to provide for all. However note that games like WitE are huge Grand Strategy games, which take a lot of development time and balance, but are consequently some of the best simulations of the entire wars. I have certainly read from those invested in the series that they are practically simulations of the war, in the same way that CMANO is a simulation of Naval/Air combat.

These are the games for the most hard-core and we don’t intend to stop catering for these (WitE2 is on the horizon, Steel Tigers, among others). I am a fan of Grand Strategy games (though not really WW2 as a time period personally) and turns in such games can take hours/days and the game itself takes weeks, but this is the investment needed for these. For those who like these and want other suggestions from our catalogue, I’d say the Decisive Campaign series may also suit, and perhaps Advanced Tactics Gold too: lots of HQ elements, covering all elements of the wars from supply, strategic level and in some ways tactical levels.

Then you have what I’d define as mid-range games: Panzer Corps, Order of Battle, Strategic Command, etc. Panzer Corps and Order of Battle are more tactical games, whereas the SC series are Grand Strategy, but a lighter version of WitE nonetheless. These typically remove the wider strategic decisions or elements of supply in order to simplify the game. Here I’d expect turns to last less than an hour, and games can be completed within an evening.

Then there are the lite games: Frontline, the Doctrines, etc. These are very simple, perhaps not even simulating armour flank damage or supply or air combat at all, and if they do it is in a minimal way. Turns take minutes, and a game can be completed within an hour or two.

However all three have their niche. New users would start on the lighter games and then advance up the tiers. Then there are those who do crash through WitE all day but then like a PC or Frontline battle when they just want quick gratification. We do intend to provide for all.

Then again back to my personal experiences: I find I can enjoy both. I’m more a medieval or ancients guy, and I have spents weeks/months on Grand Strategies like Spartan or the Total War series (Medieval Total War 2 being one I’ve recently "completed"). These do take hours. In Medieval 2 recently I would play an hour or two a day/week and took Scotland within the first 5 turns (starting as England). However Hungary or Jerusalem in a “Hold 45 Provinces” game doesn’t take hours, but takes literal days or weeks and 40+ turns. (For those interested, according to Steam 61 hours played and in that time I’ve won one expanded campaign. I bought it in Feb, and only completed it at the weekend – yes I’ve played other games in the meantime, but a GS game takes that length of time.)

Spartan is a game I’ve invested literal years of my life in since it released in 2005, and I don’t view a game as won until I hold the entire map. So I’d have a supply line of garrison troops running from the top left (my best towns for building troops) to the bottom right and doing a turn with that many units (blocks of 6 units, which takes 2 turns to build said block) takes hours in-game, and often I’d play a turn or so a day as a result. But it is a huge investment for the joy of looking at the minimap and seeing it all your colour. Crusader Kings 2 is one which I recently played for the first time, and while it is Medieval Total War 2++, I'm sure I will like getting stuck into it when I grasp the concepts of how to play.

However, I do play P&S or FoG when I want a quick battle, or even games which are more smashy smashy or pew pew when I don’t want to have to think at all. Each has their niche, and none are wrong for playing what they enjoy, so find the games you like to play and enjoy them.



P.S. MrsWargamer, you may like Order of Battle. As I said I'm not a fan of the time period, but did enjoy it. It is PC, but with more supply elements (and other differences), so if you like one you will like the other. And as you say, you can play the first mission of each campaign for free and see if you like this, then pick the campaigns where you prefer to play that part of the war

[TDefender]

"in medio stat virtus" Romans said. Personally, I prefer very detailed and even yes, "complicated" wargame rather than a too simplified engine, on the other hand I really don't like playing monster scenarios, so I could say eventually : " I Like War in the Pacific but I don't like to play the entire Pacific scenario". Unfortunately It's a bit difficult to find this "middle ground" kind of wargames.

PS

Order of Battle series is different and I would say better than PC series , just my opinion of course. Give it a second chance

[wodin]

Great post. Well said.

ORIGINAL: JosephM

Hello All,

Just thought I’d chime in on this. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, I do see some insults being thrown around. Please do avoid this, as the forums are for friendly chats – debates are encouraged but they must remain civil and avoid personal attacks.

Then onto the topic, I’ll advise what I’ve seen as well as throwing my 2 cents (pence) in. Which is the say that we all enjoy the hobby and the aim of the company is to provide games for all. Wargames as a term doesn’t have a strict definition: technically it is any game about war so does cover CoD, etc. However I’d personally say that Wargames in the traditional sense is simulations, of some form, of the tactical or strategic elements of the wars. Therefore WitE is as much a wargame as Frontline or Panzer Corps.

However I think the key thing is that there is, as you can see in this thread alone, a wider market for all kinds and as a company specialising in these we do try to provide for all. However note that games like WitE are huge Grand Strategy games, which take a lot of development time and balance, but are consequently some of the best simulations of the entire wars. I have certainly read from those invested in the series that they are practically simulations of the war, in the same way that CMANO is a simulation of Naval/Air combat.

These are the games for the most hard-core and we don’t intend to stop catering for these (WitE2 is on the horizon, Steel Tigers, among others). I am a fan of Grand Strategy games (though not really WW2 as a time period personally) and turns in such games can take hours/days and the game itself takes weeks, but this is the investment needed for these. For those who like these and want other suggestions from our catalogue, I’d say the Decisive Campaign series may also suit, and perhaps Advanced Tactics Gold too: lots of HQ elements, covering all elements of the wars from supply, strategic level and in some ways tactical levels.

Then you have what I’d define as mid-range games: Panzer Corps, Order of Battle, Strategic Command, etc. Panzer Corps and Order of Battle are more tactical games, whereas the SC series are Grand Strategy, but a lighter version of WitE nonetheless. These typically remove the wider strategic decisions or elements of supply in order to simplify the game. Here I’d expect turns to last less than an hour, and games can be completed within an evening.

Then there are the lite games: Frontline, the Doctrines, etc. These are very simple, perhaps not even simulating armour flank damage or supply or air combat at all, and if they do it is in a minimal way. Turns take minutes, and a game can be completed within an hour or two.

However all three have their niche. New users would start on the lighter games and then advance up the tiers. Then there are those who do crash through WitE all day but then like a PC or Frontline battle when they just want quick gratification. We do intend to provide for all.

Then again back to my personal experiences: I find I can enjoy both. I’m more a medieval or ancients guy, and I have spents weeks/months on Grand Strategies like Spartan or the Total War series (Medieval Total War 2 being one I’ve recently "completed"). These do take hours. In Medieval 2 recently I would play an hour or two a day/week and took Scotland within the first 5 turns (starting as England). However Hungary or Jerusalem in a “Hold 45 Provinces” game doesn’t take hours, but takes literal days or weeks and 40+ turns. (For those interested, according to Steam 61 hours played and in that time I’ve won one expanded campaign. I bought it in Feb, and only completed it at the weekend – yes I’ve played other games in the meantime, but a GS game takes that length of time.)

Spartan is a game I’ve invested literal years of my life in since it released in 2005, and I don’t view a game as won until I hold the entire map. So I’d have a supply line of garrison troops running from the top left (my best towns for building troops) to the bottom right and doing a turn with that many units (blocks of 6 units, which takes 2 turns to build said block) takes hours in-game, and often I’d play a turn or so a day as a result. But it is a huge investment for the joy of looking at the minimap and seeing it all your colour. Crusader Kings 2 is one which I recently played for the first time, and while it is Medieval Total War 2++, I'm sure I will like getting stuck into it when I grasp the concepts of how to play.

However, I do play P&S or FoG when I want a quick battle, or even games which are more smashy smashy or pew pew when I don’t want to have to think at all. Each has their niche, and none are wrong for playing what they enjoy, so find the games you like to play and enjoy them.



P.S. MrsWargamer, you may like Order of Battle. As I said I'm not a fan of the time period, but did enjoy it. It is PC, but with more supply elements (and other differences), so if you like one you will like the other. And as you say, you can play the first mission of each campaign for free and see if you like this, then pick the campaigns where you prefer to play that part of the war

[MrsWargamer]

"P.S. MrsWargamer, you may like Order of Battle. As I said I'm not a fan of the time period, but did enjoy it. It is PC, but with more supply elements (and other differences), so if you like one you will like the other. And as you say, you can play the first mission of each campaign for free and see if you like this, then pick the campaigns where you prefer to play that part of the war"

I'll keep your recommend in mind Joseph.

[Zovs]

Just a side note on OOB, at first I was thinking it was just another clone of PzC, of which I own all the modules sans the Sea Lion one and I was like, huh? But as I asked a few questions over on the Slither-line forums I found it was a very different game (it uses the same idea of showing tanks and infantry figures, like in miniatures, but that is about where the similarities stop). Its pretty fun (you can try the free part for well free) and then decide if you like it, I did and got all the modules sans the Kriegsmarine one).

Personally I mainly only play two games a lot (TOAW and Steel Panthers), but sometimes I'll take a break and do some of the others I have from Matrix (I got like 40 or so of things).

Anyway...

[wodin]

Hmm like what I read regarding Steel Tigers being placed in the hard core section by Joseph.

Music to my ears.

[IslandInland]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Just saying, I bought a couple of titles during the D-Day sale (many thanks), that started at 12 bucks and ended up like 7 bucks (Canadian).

Battle of the Bulge and Drive on Moscow are great little games.
I gave both an install and proceeded to clumsily play a few minutes of each.
I think they are potentially a lot of fun.

Compare them with some powerhouses of our hobby, such as Gary's War in the East and War in the West, and well, yeah, you get massively detailed, brutally complex, highly involved massive doses of time investment. Some serious manuals to read, and quite the printouts too.

I won't say they are not worth the money to anyone wanting them.
But, if I could undo my purchases, and I have made quite a few impulsive purchases too, I'd gladly say "nah, what was I thinking? I don't have the time factors needed any more than I have the table space required for my monster sized board game wargames.

War in the East is about as sizable a 'doable' challenge, as setting up the physical product Fire in the East.

I paid some serious cash to end up with War in the East just the base game purchase.
That game cost me more than Battle of the Bulge, Drive on Moscow, TOAW IV, and Kursk Battle at Prochorovka.

I've pondered Order of Battle DLCs (nice prices). But, it seems too similar in game style to my Panzer Corps collection.

Frankly, I think my money was better used on the smaller, more manageable/playable, more completable designs regardless of whether they might be lighter on hyper levels of detail and simulation.

I have War in the East and War in the West, as well as World in Flames, installed on my system.
To be honest though, the thoughts in my head to the effect "oh I'm going to get around to them eventually" sound like the same bullshyte I hear in my head when thinking of my large board game wargames.

I like the Panzer Corps design for the ease of getting into them.
I like the Battle Academy design, for the ease of getting into them as well.
I can sit down, and play the game, and likely have the current activity conclude with a completed game session.

When I first got into wargames in the 70s, a wargame wasn't something that used an entire day to play a turn.

I want more of what Battle of the Bulge or Kursk Battle at Prochorovka is offering.

I'm currently waiting on Steel Tigers. I'm worried that it's going to try and beat Steel Panthers a design that was polished for 20 years, on its opening release.
I'm not sure of the opening price, likely in the 60 buck range.
To be honest, I'd rather buy it the way Order of Battle is sold. A free base game, and a whole lot of DLC goodies for 10 bucks or so.

I'm beginning to shy away from the 80 dollar mega games.
I'm even getting shy with the 45 dollar games on sale for 35 bucks.
I'm getting tired I suppose, of mega designs that require mega time, and mega commitment just to begin playing them.

I've got more than a few titles I'd gladly sell if it was even possible.
But we all know, once registered, it's yours for good.

Part of me wants to throw out the printed manuals/books and delete the installers, and just pretend I never bought them.

Ive bought a number of the tablet-based wargames from Joni Nuutinen. The only real downside is once you get over the thrill of having handheld wargames, you realize, it's just no fun looking at a screen less than 10 inches in size. And carrying around a 10"+ sized tablet is a lot of weight in a purse.

Are you designers listening out there?
Stop pretending your wargame needs to be the most complete, most detailed mega experience.
I'd rather you made 5 decent sized simpler titles you could conceivably use a common software basis for, and charge 15 bucks for, than just one title trying to be perfect for 50 bucks. And it's basic math, 5x15 is more money too.

There are a LOT of good battles to choose from. I'd be getting Desert Fox from Shenandoah if not for the fact it's only an iOS title. I might grab Korsun from Yobo even though the battle isn't one of my favourites routinely.

I'm planning to start insisting on both Shenandoah and Yobo to release more content.
I'm going to see if Joni Nuutinen might do something to make his titles into a PC release.

I completely disagree with you. 'Big and complicated' is exactly what I like.

Same goes whether it's wargames or women.

[:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

warspite1

Personally I enjoy games - whether mid range or large - that provide sufficient detail to allow immersion in the subject, to provide a challenge and that need thought and effort. But they have to be fun too.

There's been a few games at what I would term mid-range that I've played and enjoyed since coming here in 2008. There have been one or two stinkers too. I've certainly felt I've got my monies worth with CTGW, DC Barbarossa, DC Blitzkrieg, TOAWIV, SCWWII in Europe and a few others. But these games are unlikely to be re-visited; huge fun but with a limited shelf life. But the one game I keep coming back to is World In Flames. Its Big, and Complicated and Super Detailed and huge fun. When playing the board version back in the day I used to love the planning, the poring over the maps, the thinking that went into the game, almost as much as playing itself - it was all part and parcel of the game.

But that doesn't mean big, and complicated and super detailed is necessarily for me. Each game is different. I've tried all three of the GG monsters but, as much as I want to like them, I want to play them (if you like naval warfare then The Pacific War is the ultimate and if you like land warfare then the Eastern Front is the ultimate and if you want to play the Commonwealth and get your hands on your favourite units then War in the West post 1943 is the ultimate) but having tried - really tried - I have to accept the game mechanics are simply not for me. They scratch a lot of itches but the factor that is missing is the 'fun' factor.

So do I like Big and Complicated and Super Detailed? Yes, but only if the game is right for me, otherwise not - and that is the same for every category of game right? It's the game that is important not the category.

Anyway, when is someone going to make what is truly the ultimate air, sea and land wargame: War in the Mediterranean June 1940-September 1943? or an air, land and sea game about Guadalcanal August 1942 - February 1943.

I guess it must be economics because, otherwise I've no idea why these two are consistently ignored. Periods of the war that are finely balanced, either side can win, all arms involved and, in the case of the former, so many political what-if's to make the game infinitely re-playable.

[Greybriar]

Some of us enjoy games that are big and complicated and super detailed. (I believe they are referred to as grognards. [;)]) But I don't feel that a game has to be big and complicated and super detailed to be enjoyable.

I have been a gamer nearly all my life and a PC gamer for thirty years. One of the things I have learned about PC games is that no matter how good a game is it will have its detractors and no matter how bad a game is it will have its fans.

The one thing I believe all gamers have in common is that they play games to have fun. It is simply a matter of personal preference.