Tiller/HPS Guadalcanal Game

NAVMAN · Post by **NAVMAN** » Tue May 13, 2003 4:29 am

This might not be the right forum, but just noticed that Tiller/HPS
have released a game on the naval battles around Guadalcanal.
Does anyone have any opinions of Tiller's games and specifically,
his naval campaign series?

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:14 am

Yeah I do. I have purchased his military games before and I can't say I like his style but alot of people buy them. I recently purchased his "Jutland" and found it to be a direct ripoff of "Warship" and I can't say it is better. I soon shelved it. He has since come out with Tsushima and Guadalcanal. You can't play pbem but only solitaire or online. The graphics aren't anymore detailed than Warship. Now Naval Warfare Simulations offers Great Naval Battles:Guadalcanal. Has anyone played this? NWS also offers naval board games which I might be willing to try. Sorry this is not the place to discuss other games.

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:49 am

OH NO!

Tillers Jutland was criminally terrible. No it was not terrible it was below that. To paraphrase my favorite film critic Roger Ebert: "this game is not simply bad game, this is an embarrasment".

Tiller today represents everything that's bad in wargames. If I wanted to show to the outsider what is bad in wargames I'd show him Tillers latest work. If I wanted to show him what's GOOD in wargames, I'd show him selected Grigsby, and nearly all of Norm Koger.

BTW, to show you I am not biased, I actually loved Tillers games from his mid-90s Talonsoft days, Campaign series etc. - still play them sometimes. Good, relatively simple games, that can be lotsa fun both in PBEM and solo play. But that was long ago.

After he left Talonsoft - Panzer Campaings were/are bad, but Naval campaigns are simply terrible! JMHO.

O.

NAVMAN · Post by **NAVMAN** » Tue May 13, 2003 5:53 am

Drex/Oleg,
Thx for the replies. As I noted, was not sure of the proper forum
for this, but since it had some relavence to UV as far as the time/place concerned, thought I would try here first.Sorry
for any transgression.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Tue May 13, 2003 7:18 am

Well I don't personally care but the moderator might. Still it was brief so no big deal and it was negative for the other side:)

crsutton · Post by **crsutton** » Tue May 13, 2003 10:55 pm

I disagree with Oleg in that I love Tiller's Panzer Campaigns and play them quite frequently.

However, he is right on the money with Jutland and its sucessors. They are a step back for computer games, with poor graphics and tedious game play. I bought Jutland and played with it for about an hour and have never looked at it since.

Older games such as Fighting Steel and Great Naval Battles II are much better (although buggy as hell) if you want real time action.

JohnK · Post by **JohnK** » Wed May 14, 2003 3:41 am

I got it and was astonished at the absurd simplicity of the damage and gunnery model.

It's a bad sign when UV's damage and gunnery model is about 10 times more detailed and sophisticated than a game that's ONLY supposedly a tactical naval combat game.

It's not that people should really be sending their damage control parties around to parts of a ship or anything, it's just that it has a comically simple "% damage = % speed loss" damage model, etc.

Haven't really bothered playing it since.

I'm really looking forward to Koger's Russo-Japanese War Strategic/Naval tactical game (land warfare is being abstracted.)

http://home.austin.rr.com/normkoger/RJW.html

Don't quite get what the deal is with the game exactly in terms of who is publishing it though.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Wed May 14, 2003 4:14 am

I hope Koger can make the Russo-Japanese war exciting, it was rather one-sided. the land battles were actually where the action was: Mukden and the siege of Port Arthur. Same with the Spanish American War - rather one-sided. However, Naval Warfare Simulations (www.navalwarfare.com) has both WWI and WWII in a computerized tactical setting plus boardgames including our much awaited for Med naval War. Still Matrix will outperform them all as soon as it can these games out.

JohnK · Post by **JohnK** » Wed May 14, 2003 4:24 am

Drex,

Actually the Russo-Japanese war IS well-balanced (both land AND at sea.)

Just because it ended up being an overwhelming Japanese victory doesn't mean that was a foregone conclusion....the Falklands War is a somewhat similar war in that respect.

The Japanese were very close to losing that war. The best Russian admiral, Makarov (who really was very good) was killed by a mine sinking his flagship. That one incident goes differently and the whole war could have been different.

The Japanese lost 2 of their 6 battleships in one day to mines. If they'd lost 1-2 more, than everything could have been completely different.

If the Russians had waited to build up strength before launching a ground offensive (they were forced to attack too early by political pressure) they could have done much better on land.

The Japanese were incredibly strained financially by the end of the war and were very close to being in serious trouble.

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Wed May 14, 2003 5:04 am

Exactly John, Makarov was quirky genius, but he was genius, even the Japanese had healthy respect for him. If you think IJN was gifted for complicated and detailed operation plans just read Makarov's instructions to his captains of the (later doomed) First Pacific Escadra:

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/makaroff-instruct.html

I read it from time to time during hard times in UV games

It somehow lifts my spirits.

Quote:
"47. Buckets of cold water are to be placed everywhere for drinking purposes; sand will be spread in places where it is slippery. I shall probably take with me a red Cross ship. Other vessels and torpedo craft will have no time during the action for saving lives."

Here's the biography of the man:

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/makaroff.html

He wore "forked" beard and looked... well... like crazy Russian Tsarist Admiral

Gossip time: it is said his beutiful wife cheated on him in St. Petersburg with no other than Rozhestevenski, later of the Tsushima fame. Rozh. was forever remembered by Tsushima catastrophe, but he too was not bad Admiral at all. Tsushima need not be as one sided as it was historically... Not to mention that First Pacific Squadron should have avoided annihillation at the first place. Then IJN would be in real trouble. Togo's biggest advantage was in that he managed to defeat two Russian squadron in detail.

O.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Wed May 14, 2003 5:09 am

i am unconvinced. I'll have to re-check my history books but I thought both Mukden and Port Arthur were Russian defense operations as they were there first. I think the Japanese navy was qualitatively superior in manpower and ships regardless of who ran into what mines. the Russian aarmy was a match for its Japanese counterpart however, and that is where the main effort was. No fleet that travels half-way around the world is going to be fit to fight a naval battle - especially in 1904. The mystique of the Russo-Japanese war is its location and its pre-dreadnought ships.

Oleg Mastruko · Post by **Oleg Mastruko** » Wed May 14, 2003 5:24 am

Originally posted by Drex
i am unconvinced. I'll have to re-check my history books but I thought both Mukden and Port Arthur were Russian defense operations as they were there first. I think the Japanese navy was qualitatively superior in manpower and ships regardless of who ran into what mines. the Russian aarmy was a match for its Japanese counterpart however, and that is where the main effort was. No fleet that travels half-way around the world is going to be fit to fight a naval battle - especially in 1904. The mystique of the Russo-Japanese war is its location and its pre-dreadnought ships.

That's true (re travelling halfway around world and not being prepared to fight) but it was not their plan to fight at the first place.

Rozhestevenski's original plan was to slip to Vladivostok unnoticed (he even thought about taking a de-tour around Japanese archipelago from the east and north to avoid being seen). Then, in Vladivostok, he would rest his crews, prepare his ships, clean their bottoms, etc. and remain with "fleet in being" as potential threat to IJN. Of course, when he was noticed by IJN scouts in Tsushima strait, everything went out of the window.

If Koger's game manages to simulate broader strategic outwiew, including the option of slipping 2nd Pac Squadron to Vladivostok unnoticed, then we don't have to re-play Tsushima as it was etc.

Koger announced those "broader strategic possibilities" and I find it much more exciting game wise than re-playing Tsushima over and over (just like UV is more exciting for all the possibilities it offers).

Also, Tsar hoped that Port Arthur MIGHT hold until Rozhestevenski arrives. Unfortunatelly for the Russians it wasn't so. Rozhesevenski didn't believe in that as he was pessimist and moody fatalist. But, in game, we may hope, there is always a possibility that PA holds

perhaps with part of Makarov squadron. Then things get really interesting.

O.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Wed May 14, 2003 6:15 am

If Koger is trying out a new game engine, then a simpler palette like R-J War or Spanish-American War is understood but the only modern naval wars of interest to me is WWI and WWII.

Tiller/HPS Guadalcanal Game

Tiller/HPS Guadalcanal Game

Jutland.....

Mythology of the Russo-Japanese War..