Immersion?

[wodin]

On a scale of 1 to 10 how do you rate the immersion. Conquest of the Aegean I rated quite high however many games I find to much like chess and not enough like the conflict they represent.

[Terminus]

6-7.

[tc237]

I also have the same question.

[hank]

I cannot comment on BF since I don't have it yet but the immersion factor for the predecessors was at least a 7 or higher.  Compared to other hex based WWII strategy games I rate KP/BiN higher than toaw and pz campaigns.  (however, I have to admit I really like Volcano Man's color graphics add-ons for PzC's)  It appears to me BF is following suit so I assume the immersion factor is just as good.
 
Plus, the interface is more enjoyable to me than either of the two I mentioned.  I have no problems with Windows games but it seems SSG put together a better GUI than the other two titles maybe because they did not have to work within the limitations of Windows.  (but what do I know, I'm not a game designer ... just a player)
 
My $0.02.

[tc237]

hmm...
I don't think I can feel "immersion" in a Turn/Hex based game.
Not saying the games are bad, just that they feel like my board-wargames to me.
 

[Timmeh]

I guess jumangi is still safe then ??

[rocketman71]

I would say that the immersion factor i rather low, but that should not be taken as a negative. There is definitely suspension when combat is initiated. There is some sense of immersion on a larger scale, especially if you know the historical outcome and strategies of the scenario, but it comes nowhare near the immersion of  games such as the Combat Mission-series.

[JSS]

ORIGINAL: rocketboy

I would say that the immersion factor i rather low, but that should not be taken as a negative. There is definitely suspension when combat is initiated. There is some sense of immersion on a larger scale, especially if you know the historical outcome and strategies of the scenario, but it comes nowhare near the immersion of games such as the Combat Mission-series.

As mentioned above, immersion factor depends on your interests. Combat Mission and Battlefront are such different scales that they can't be compared directly. One combat during one BF turn equates roughly to an entire CM game.

BF will shine in a similar way to the DB series for playing out operations... a series of combats conducted over the course of several days/weeks... not the action on one hill during one two hour period.

As an operational wargame I really think BII of the DB series has the highest immersion factor possible... BF has picked right up on this and increased it for me. I'll post some screenshots of a game I have going to illustrate this point.

[JSS]

Here's a quick look at what's possible.  I'll use the 80 turn BII campaign to illustrate the point (features some superb action available to future BF scenario designs):

Overview... Invasion divisions and landing areas selected...

US sends three infantry divisions to secure Western half of Sicily; BC sends two divisions to secure the Eastern half.  Meanwhile two airborne divisions and two BC divisions invade the narrow section of the Mainland "Toe" in order to prevent re-inforcement of the island.  And BTW, most of the Allied air support is located in Tunisia and Malta... these units cannot support the invasion of the mainland and must be moved quickly to the area of Southern Sicily being invaded first.   Finally, the green highlighted areas on the map show turn 8 supplied areas.

[JSS]

Here's how things look on day 4....  You can see that the 51st Highlander Division has already completed its objectives on Sicily and has moved to the mainland.

[JSS]

Limited Axis response from the South is beaten back during turns 5-7. Here is the situation on turn 8. Notice that a strong Axis response is forming North of the 82d "All Americans" Airborne Division. Hmmm, 16 Pz Div, 3d Pz Gd Div, 29 Pz Gd Div, and 1 Fallschirmjager Divsions are unaccounted for at this point. Pucker factor is sky high right now. Monty is screaming for another division on the Mainland.

[JSS]

Turn 9... well the danger is starting to be defined.   9 (IT) Pasubio Div in the West and 29 Pz Div in East.

[JSS]

Here's a look at both flanks of the Mainland invasion (turn 10)....

[JSS]

Here's final look at the force gathering on the Northern flank (Mainland)...  1 FJ and 16 Pz Div are indentified.  Pucker factor is still really high[X(]

[Duck Doc]

If you consider "immersion" to be "a state of being deeply engaged or involved" (per dictionary.com - I wanted to refresh my recollection of the definition) then I would rate BattleFront & the DBWW2 games over the top. At least they work for me. I can't tell you the hours I've drained into DBWW2. I think JSS captures the flavor very well in his exhibit of the BiI campaign here in response to your question.

I would rate only one game marginally higher for immersion & that would be Sid Meier's Civilization but it only wins because of its peculiar addiction factor & I'm no longer playing it. SSG's games have longer legs because of the built in ability to design scenarios & I will be playing them forever. There is already an additional scenario for BF for PBEM play & there will be a bunch more later.

I have only a short time with BattleFront & I am totally engrossed. I'm still ascending the learning curve but have started a PBEM game. I find it difficult to leave alone for my other PBEM responsibilities & the first one I go back to. It is rich & deep & completely suspends any disbelief or skepticism I have. It is a game I will probably never master but will continually improve & evolve as I play. It is that rich & deep.

A long winded answer to a short question... The short version: a "Ten"!

ORIGINAL: wodin

On a scale of 1 to 10 how do you rate the immersion. Conquest of the Aegean I rated quite high however many games I find to much like chess and not enough like the conflict they represent.

[Johnus]

I think "immersion" as used in this context means that the game immerses you in the event, time, place, battle, campaign, etc. With respect to operational games, DBWWII (I own all three) and Battlefront are the most immersive there are. I improve the immersion by turning the music off and playing the large "WWII" play list I have assembled in the background.

[ydejin]

For me SSG's Decisive Battles series is easily the most immersive of the operational level wargames. Definitely much more so than say TOAW. The thing that really makes a difference for me is the unit insignias on the counters. It seems like a small thing, but it makes the whole game much more personal. The fact that the regiments in the 1st Infantry Division all have the Big Red One insignia, or the regiments in the 101st all have the Screaming Eagle insignia on their unit counters makes the counters feel much more unique and not just interchangeable counters.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: ydejin

For me SSG's Decisive Battles series is easily the most immersive of the operational level wargames. Definitely much more so than say TOAW. The thing that really makes a difference for me is the unit insignias on the counters. It seems like a small thing, but it makes the whole game much more personal. The fact that the regiments in the 1st Infantry Division all have the Big Red One insignia, or the regiments in the 101st all have the Screaming Eagle insignia on their unit counters makes the counters feel much more unique and not just interchangeable counters.

Totally agree with this....it was the first thing I noticed when playing The Ardennes Offensive. Those insignias give a real cool flavor to the game, as well as being pretty helpful--you can spot the units of the division quickly without having to click on them, etc. (as in most other wargames, TOAW, etc.).

[Awac835]

I think immersion has much to do with the scenario and setting. I loved BiN and HTTR becouse im more of a europe kinda guy when it comes to my WW2.

sadly i couldnt get into BiI or COTA, since i knew nothing about italy during WW2, ofc i could learn but it just dont drag me in like the normandy landing etc. Ofc this also have to do with the movies and books ive read about it. Which i can say i have nothing on the war in italy.
Im also a bit reluctant to buy BF since i know next to none of the scenarios, and it means alot to me ive found that i know the setting, or else its just not fun to move little icons around the map [:)]

[Gen Alexandra]

Likewise Awac, I had never really researched the Italian Campaigns, but since JSS & Myself started the game referenced in his posts earlier, I have looked on the web at various battles on the Italian Mainland.

As an Immersion factor, I would now say that BiI has the edge over BiN with me, I sit waiting for JSS to return his moves with baited breath, I only wish I had seen the creenshots earlier and seen how weak he was in the North, then I would have hit him with my Panzers, instead of letting them re-fuel first.

As for Battlefront Immersion, IMO most people are still coming to terms with the game, learning what tactics are going to work on different senarios shipped with the game, IMO the Immersion factor will become higher once people have fathomed out the mechanics and the best tactics to use.

IMO the immersion factor will grow and grow in BF. As more interesting senarios are created as add ons.

already we have a Crusader add-on and that before I ahve managed to finish one Gazala game against the AI. Already we see a vast amount of PBEM games in progress and I expect Tournaments to come along fairly quickly.

One small point is I do not think the AI is much of an opposition as it is easily fooled into making strategic errors very easily, but it does provide an opponent.

GIve BF time, it is a great game (well done SSG) and in time it will be as immersion rated as Bin/BiI.