Norway
Posted: Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:50 pm
Very much looking forward to this game. It looks like the one. I’ve read every post here and am quite confident that this development team is making something special.
WW2 Strategic games are my favorite genre. I have played most of them (seriously most) and have strong opinions about each. I also believe that most fall short.
Paper games (AWAW,A3R, AETO/APTO, WiF, and literally dozens more) have come close to meeting my expectations but each one, in its own way, is just slightly short of what I’d like to see. {note: AWAW is okay...there, I said it..it’s just okay]. On the computer side, the options have always been far worse. Most are just plain garbage in my opinion. Not going to pick on any of them in particular because some folks really seem to like many of them but to each his own, right?
Over the years I have found a few events that, to me, often indicate the failure or success of a game’s engine. It’s kind of like a canary in a coal mine I guess.
Often I have observed that many of these games are incapable of modeling certain events. Since I usually play 1939-45 campaigns, I typically hit the first snag in early 1940. This one is usually the make or break feature for me since it tells me early on how the rest of the game is going to go.
So, let’s say I’m the Axis player: why am I invading Norway and what does it look like? If you are familiar with this campaign you will know what I’m talking about. If you don’t understand that question, let those who do answer. Conversely, let’s say I’m the Allied player: what are my motivations with Norway?
Weserubung is my canary in the coal mine. I find that strategic level games more often than not cannot model it reasonably. Either the reasons for the operation are not realistic or the operation itself plays out in a bizarre fashion (e.g. it is tough to model such an operation at corps level).
There are other canaries, but because this one will typically be early game, it is critical to me to understand how it is going to play out.
Again, I am very much looking forward to this title. Thanks for any response.
WW2 Strategic games are my favorite genre. I have played most of them (seriously most) and have strong opinions about each. I also believe that most fall short.
Paper games (AWAW,A3R, AETO/APTO, WiF, and literally dozens more) have come close to meeting my expectations but each one, in its own way, is just slightly short of what I’d like to see. {note: AWAW is okay...there, I said it..it’s just okay]. On the computer side, the options have always been far worse. Most are just plain garbage in my opinion. Not going to pick on any of them in particular because some folks really seem to like many of them but to each his own, right?
Over the years I have found a few events that, to me, often indicate the failure or success of a game’s engine. It’s kind of like a canary in a coal mine I guess.
Often I have observed that many of these games are incapable of modeling certain events. Since I usually play 1939-45 campaigns, I typically hit the first snag in early 1940. This one is usually the make or break feature for me since it tells me early on how the rest of the game is going to go.
So, let’s say I’m the Axis player: why am I invading Norway and what does it look like? If you are familiar with this campaign you will know what I’m talking about. If you don’t understand that question, let those who do answer. Conversely, let’s say I’m the Allied player: what are my motivations with Norway?
Weserubung is my canary in the coal mine. I find that strategic level games more often than not cannot model it reasonably. Either the reasons for the operation are not realistic or the operation itself plays out in a bizarre fashion (e.g. it is tough to model such an operation at corps level).
There are other canaries, but because this one will typically be early game, it is critical to me to understand how it is going to play out.
Again, I am very much looking forward to this title. Thanks for any response.