Korsun Pocket is a the second game using the award winning SSG Decisive Battles game engine. Korsun Pocket recreates the desperate German attempt to escape encirclement on the Russian Front early in 1944. The battle is a tense and exciting struggle, with neither side having a decisive advantage, as the Russians struggle to form the pocket, then try to resist successive German rescue efforts and last ditch attempts at breakout.
Originally posted by Capitaine But this is a Matrix forum and I don't think we should get into a ******* match here where some inevitably will make an unfavorable argument against the publisher's product, heaven forbid.
lol
I also appreciate the civility around here. The boyz at the Battlefront forums are up for a fight at any chance by comparison.
________________________ www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>
but the most amazing thing about that game that made it worth its money (or at least one of the series games) was the novel concept of turn/time usage. ... Placed in a better game system, I think that could be a killer mechanism!
TOAW was a game was a game of thrilling scope, lumpy with innovative ideas. It was also as screwy as H*ll. I think, with the single exception of Sid Meier, the best strategy/wargames are the creation of two man teams. One thinks of Steve Grammont and Charles Moylan at Battlefront. You need a visionary and a practical, green eyeshade type and these qualities are rarely united in a single person. Norm Koger, was/is apparentlya one man team, and a somewhat remote and testy one at that. At least that was my impression. Look at the superior sims; Il-Sturmovik, Combat Mission, the Papyrus racing series and you'll notice a certain idealism in evidence and as well as a close developer/fan base relationship. I think this is in evidence in the Korsun Pocket forum. The developers are engaged and attentive to our opinions. This is a good sign.
I still maintain that Sid Meier's Gettysburg was the most convincing recreation of battle ever created for the PC.
This is off on a ery slopy tangent, but ... what about the old SSG Battlefront/Panzer Battles system? I get the impression most people didn't like it too well, mainly because you didn't have control over individual units. You would give orders to a corps (say), and the computer corps commander would control the divisions. It was too simplistic, and the computer commanders were often frustratingly dumb. But despite that, it remains my favorite computer wargame system.
I liked it partly because it's the only board or PC system I know of which gives me a POV which I can understand. I'm an Army commander; I give orders to my Corps commanders; they execute them, badly or well, but it's not my job to be moving divisions around.
And also because it's an approach which makes the computer do most of the boring work, instead of me.
I think it was a move in the right direction in the transition from cardboard to PC. It was a qualitative change, doing something you couldn't really do with a board game, and something which added (IMO) realism while cutting out labor. I think I'm pretty isolated in that belief, though. It seems that most prefer a completely different direction: finally the PC allows you to do CNA or some other monstrous board game without making you take over the living room for a year.
So you get Grigsby/Koger/Tiller designs which attempt to model things down to the last rifle (and are of course seriously incomplete and rather inconsistent in this modelling), allow/require you to directly control each sub-unit, work like a tax assessor on details over & over again ...
To my mind this is crazy. CNA etc were not bad designs because they lacked the technology to make them workable; they were just bad designs. (Obviously, a totally subjective judgement, I realize.)
I think the DB system is much better, largely because it doesn't aim for an inappropriate, unnecessary and self-defeating level of detail in the modelling. But I'd like it much better if they could graft onto it an updated & improved version of Panzer Battles' control mechanism.
Here's my ideal system: You, the player, have a POV which puts you somewhere in a standard military hierarchy. It can be at the top, or in the middle somewhere. You can jump around and wear more than one "hat" if you want to. You can issue/be issued various operational orders. Where the computer is in charge of a formation, he/she is represented by an AI agent which has routines to execute these orders.
The system includes tools for player-designers to create their own routines for executing standardized operational orders, and to transfer these between game settings - in effect, to create their own "persistent" digital commanders. You can play them off against others; you can do things like create a digital Rommel or Marlborough, or at least your conception of them.
(There was a message on Chris Merchant's board from Keating talking about planned AI upgrades for the Normandy game which seem to be vaguely in this direction.)
The response will be that this is all pie-in-the-sky, too difficult to do the AI etc (even if people wanted it, which maybe they don't.) But I think you could go much further along the way to something like this than happens at the moment. Most wargame AI seems not to have progresed very much since Jim Dunnigan etc sketched out basics 20-30 years ago - objective based, little or no global knowledge base, little or no memory between "turns" ... Very primitive. SSG obviously does far better than most, and I'll be really interested to see what they come up with for the Normandy game.
I loved the old SSG battlefront/panzer battles series.. I liked the frustration of not being able to determine where exactly your units would go.. fantastic!
You can't really knock TOAW. It often devolves into either total predetermination or total randomness, but that's more an issue of pushing the engine past its limits. I think that a lot of TOAW scenarios (whose ease of creating being part of it's magnificence) were really good.
It is often the case where you find people harping over little details until their agenda is theoretically proven. The bottom line is if you approach these games with an open mind and honestly explore them there is no reason why they can't be very enriching experiences. HPS games are made with a high degree of professionalism and are obviously play-tested a lot. You play the game and you can feel the hard work. I have a lot of respect for that. I'm in game development myself (I'm creative director of the upcoming Spider-Man 2 movie game for the consoles) and it's no cup of tea.
Capitaine, here some quotes from your recent posts:
"A PC game must still be a valid game."
".... The worst violations of gaming mechanisms are committed by Tiller designs, without even having to look very hard or deep. .... "
These are some pretty sweeping statements, especially when there is no accompanying explanation of your definitions. I'm certain that a "very hard" or "deep" look into most of these games actually reveals that there are no serious violations of gaming mechanisms. Only the occasional flawed execution of reasonably good ideas. None of which even remotely threatens the game's validity! I'm the first person to say that there are many computer/console games out there that are quite bad... but these wargames that are coming out nowadays are really solid forward moves in the world of operational level games.
It's very likely that many of you have played more board games than myself, but I'm certainly no stranger to them. I just don't have the time for the massive physical/material endeavor that big board war games end up being (not to mention the difficulty of finding people to play with). I spent the better part of a year playing 5th Fleet by myself taking the majority of my room and wishing it was computerized.
All in all I'm really happy with the computer wargame developments in the last few years. It can only improve really. TOAW, HPS, SSG all have one flaw in common though. They all think within the box of boardgames. Once we can break out of that cage who knows where wargames will go. RtM was a good idea, but where is it now? An maybe one day there'll be real AI innovation, but that's a lot to ask.
Tombstone, your view is fine. For you. As for me and others I've discussed these very matters with, we don't share your view and can no longer "tolerate" the deal killers we perceive in the titles being compared here.
FWIW, I approached each of those games, as I do every game pretty much (unless it's just another application of the same system), with an "open mind". Sometimes, my wallet would be better off if I had a "closed mind".
I did not scrutinize in detail the comparison games here b/c (a) I do not desire to rehash things I argued years ago ad nauseum for a second time, ad nauseum; and (b) I do not think it is appropriate to discuss in detail another company's product since it will detract from the very fine product to which this particular forum is dedicated.
In sum, I offered my own opinion on the matters raised by someone else in starting this topic simply to buttress the opinions that were akin to my own. A thread like this is sort of like a glorified poll; little else. The bottom line is that I dislike, now, both the PzC system and the TOAW system, even if there are some "good" things in both that I wish hadn't been marred by loopy design issues in other areas. In my opinion.
So, do you see where I'm coming from here? And more importantly, where I'm not?
Originally posted by Szilard This is off on a ery slopy tangent, but ... what about the old SSG Battlefront/Panzer Battles system? I get the impression most people didn't like it too well, mainly because you didn't have control over individual units. You would give orders to a corps (say), and the computer corps commander would control the divisions. It was too simplistic, and the computer commanders were often frustratingly dumb. But despite that, it remains my favorite computer wargame system.
I liked it partly because it's the only board or PC system I know of which gives me a POV which I can understand. I'm an Army commander; I give orders to my Corps commanders; they execute them, badly or well, but it's not my job to be moving divisions around.
And also because it's an approach which makes the computer do most of the boring work, instead of me.
I think it was a move in the right direction in the transition from cardboard to PC. It was a qualitative change, doing something you couldn't really do with a board game, and something which added (IMO) realism while cutting out labor. I think I'm pretty isolated in that belief, though. It seems that most prefer a completely different direction: finally the PC allows you to do CNA or some other monstrous board game without making you take over the living room for a year.
So you get Grigsby/Koger/Tiller designs which attempt to model things down to the last rifle (and are of course seriously incomplete and rather inconsistent in this modelling), allow/require you to directly control each sub-unit, work like a tax assessor on details over & over again ...
To my mind this is crazy. CNA etc were not bad designs because they lacked the technology to make them workable; they were just bad designs. (Obviously, a totally subjective judgement, I realize.)
I think the DB system is much better, largely because it doesn't aim for an inappropriate, unnecessary and self-defeating level of detail in the modelling. But I'd like it much better if they could graft onto it an updated & improved version of Panzer Battles' control mechanism.
Here's my ideal system: You, the player, have a POV which puts you somewhere in a standard military hierarchy. It can be at the top, or in the middle somewhere. You can jump around and wear more than one "hat" if you want to. You can issue/be issued various operational orders. Where the computer is in charge of a formation, he/she is represented by an AI agent which has routines to execute these orders.
The system includes tools for player-designers to create their own routines for executing standardized operational orders, and to transfer these between game settings - in effect, to create their own "persistent" digital commanders. You can play them off against others; you can do things like create a digital Rommel or Marlborough, or at least your conception of them.
(There was a message on Chris Merchant's board from Keating talking about planned AI upgrades for the Normandy game which seem to be vaguely in this direction.)
The response will be that this is all pie-in-the-sky, too difficult to do the AI etc (even if people wanted it, which maybe they don't.) But I think you could go much further along the way to something like this than happens at the moment. Most wargame AI seems not to have progresed very much since Jim Dunnigan etc sketched out basics 20-30 years ago - objective based, little or no global knowledge base, little or no memory between "turns" ... Very primitive. SSG obviously does far better than most, and I'll be really interested to see what they come up with for the Normandy game.
Good stuff, couldn't agree more. That's the problem I have with the PzC series, and the like. I.e., take Smolensk campaign. In the campaign, you're not Guderian, nor Hoth, if on the German side. You're von Kluge, since both Panzergroups of Army Group Center are represented.
Yet, you're controlling battalions, or smalleer.
I don't think he worried about that scale in reality
A game that does what you like very well (giving orders to the commander and he in turn gives orders to subordinates) is Airborne Assault: Red Devils at Arnhem. Good game mechanics that are only marred in my opinion by too-small a setting.
________________________ www.azcrimes.com
<sig removed because I'm a bandwidth hog>
Originally posted by Crimguy A game that does what you like very well (giving orders to the commander and he in turn gives orders to subordinates) is Airborne Assault: Red Devils at Arnhem. Good game mechanics that are only marred in my opinion by too-small a setting.
Originally posted by Crimguy A game that does what you like very well (giving orders to the commander and he in turn gives orders to subordinates) is Airborne Assault: Red Devils at Arnhem. Good game mechanics that are only marred in my opinion by too-small a setting.
Yes, I'd love to see that system scaled up. At one time the guys at Panther Games were talking about doing an Operation Crusader game with this engine. Anyone know if it is still in the works?
Kent, I hate to disappoint you but it seems the guys at Panther have placed the 'Crusader' game on the back-burner for a while. A revamped AA is the next due up followed by a 'Bulge' game partly due to economics ('Bulge' games generally sell better than Desert campaign games and 'man cannot live by bread alone'.)
I've just read through the whole thread as I was considering acquiring the PzC 'Bulge' game or KP or even both. Fascinating stuff although I'm no nearer making my mind up!
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Originally posted by Kevinugly Kent, I hate to disappoint you but it seems the guys at Panther have placed the 'Crusader' game on the back-burner for a while. A revamped AA is the next due up followed by a 'Bulge' game partly due to economics ('Bulge' games generally sell better than Desert campaign games and 'man cannot live by bread alone'.)
I've just read through the whole thread as I was considering acquiring the PzC 'Bulge' game or KP or even both. Fascinating stuff although I'm no nearer making my mind up!
Originally posted by Kevinugly Kent, I hate to disappoint you but it seems the guys at Panther have placed the 'Crusader' game on the back-burner for a while. A revamped AA is the next due up followed by a 'Bulge' game partly due to economics ('Bulge' games generally sell better than Desert campaign games and 'man cannot live by bread alone'.)
I've just read through the whole thread as I was considering acquiring the PzC 'Bulge' game or KP or even both. Fascinating stuff although I'm no nearer making my mind up!
Is the Bulge game going to be at the same scale as AA?
Buy KP if you want a great-playing Bulge game. Buy Bulge 44 if you want to know the OOB's down to battalion/company level.
Originally posted by Kevinugly I've just read through the whole thread as I was considering acquiring the PzC 'Bulge' game or KP or even both. Fascinating stuff although I'm no nearer making my mind up!
Kev, here's a way to decide and I'm in the school of acquiring both.
Regardless of the hiccups KP is showing with its new design both it and HPS's Panzer Campaigns series are solid conceptual offerings. Therefore 1 question kicks the issue off:
Do you want to play at the regimental level with 3km hexes and 12 hours turns? - Go KP/TAO3.
Do you want to play at the Battalion level with 1km hexes and 2 hour turns (4 hours at night)? - Go Panzer Campaigns.
The next issues - relating to AI, breadth of scenario coverage, ease of DYO etc then can be asked but this is where you should start things off.
Thanks Adam and John - I'm probably gonna go for both and 'suck it and see' so to speak. I was board and figure wargaming some 25 years ago and am a recent convert to computer wargaming - maybe I'm going through a second childhood if I ever left the first;) . You'll probably find me posting regularly up here once I've played them both much as I do with Airborne Assault.
Cheers again:)
Thankyou for using the World Wide Web. British designed, given freely to the World.
Talking about operational level games: I am a bit surprised that nobody has mentioned Schwerpunkt's 'Russo-German War (41-44)' (http://www.ghg.net/schwerpt/index.htm).
Very much a boardgame based design, but done quite well (including rules for Command/Control, Reserves, Armor ZOCS etc).
Not quite as sophisticated as KP, with a lesser AI (although better than the braindead PzC AI); *very* basic map which, however, is more 'readable' than the overly busy KP maps.
50 Scenarios covering the Eastern Front 41-44, including the (pretty unplayable) full Campaign and a scen for each year.
The real meat and the scen level the system is geared towards are the short operational maps; everything from Barbarossa (full or part of the operation), via Kiev Pocket, Leningrad, Moscow 41 to KHarkov 42 (43), STalingrad etc etc up to the invasion of Rumania and Bagration 44.
Talk about value for money!
Schwerpunkt are working on a follow-up game covering the Western Front - I am very much looking forward to that one.
von Schmidt
(now back to Wiking Wipeout - the Mighty Red Army *will* prevail!)
Yes, but, IIRC, it suffers from the same deformation as TOAW, to wit, no hex side features; rivers run through the center of hexes. IMO, this doomed TOAW beyond all redemption despite its innovative features. This is an OK implementation for a tactical game but at the operational+ scale there's simply no excuse.
Question. If opposing units are adjacent but astride the SAME river is there a combat penalty? Think about it.....
Originally posted by PeterF Yes, but, IIRC, it suffers from the same deformation as TOAW, to wit, no hex side features; rivers run through the center of hexes. IMO, this doomed TOAW beyond all redemption despite its innovative features. This is an OK implementation for a tactical game but at the operational+ scale there's simply no excuse.
Question. If opposing units are adjacent but astride the SAME river is there a combat penalty? Think about it.....
And because of the poor AI you almost have to play by email. The problem here is the air rules are not suited for PBEM.
I stuck with it through about 6 months of constant improvemnets but when I gasve up it was seriously lacking. Maybe the latest patch(s) have improved some of it.
For those of us old timers who spent moany hours pushing cardboard counters around a paper map it sure brought back memories - and the stacks of units don't fall over like they did with cardboard counters.
I do agree though with von Schmidt, the KP map is a little busy for the size of the (too small) hexes.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
