Matrix Games Forums

It must be a game that was mass produced for commercial use; not made for military use. The reason for this is that those made for the military have too many resources(money) available to them. It would be unfair to class them with the commercial games.

Playability of a game should not be a reason for your selection.
Judge which game best brought the sense of that particular war or battle to a level of realism beyoubd all other games.

My choice would be Avalon Hills "The Third Riech".

Limit your choice to one or two games at the most.

1) CMBB

2) CMAK

War of the Lance

Battles of Napoleon

Hmmm... I'd have to consider the terms of reference here. Can any game above tactical level be "realistic" at all in any meaningful way?

It's hard to comment not being a miltary man, but it would be hard to argue against Sarge's choices. I think, as best I can judge, that the Prosim Armored Task Force series is also pretty good in that respect. I've played 'Falklands 1982' and 'The Star and the Crescent' a fair bit and they always seem to pan out in a suitably realistic and historical fashion.

I couldnt really say.

HTTR is pretty realistic I expect at operational/tactical level.

ASL must be the most realistic tactical game made.

For direct game play its CM. These games are really well done IMHO...

For campaign play (operational/strategic) I really, really think BII is the best. The games play out extremely well. No other game compares in terms of getting the historical feel of a campaign. Take Battle of the Bulge for example... lots of historical discussion as to whether Patton's idea of attacking at the shoulders to cut off the entire Bulge was possible. BII (or BiN or even KP) lets you get a feel for just how hard this would have been to accomplish.

Honorable mention goes to Combined Arms. Sounds like the combat mechanism will be phenomenal... plus its WEGO... perfect for a grand tactical game.

Honorable mention goes to Combined Arms. Sounds like the combat mechanism will be phenomenal... plus its WEGO... perfect for a grand tactical game.

Hard to give Honorable Mention to a game that will never see the light of day ....

Though I sure wish it would [:D]

Does Operation flashpoint count?
Vehicle damage was a bit chincy, But otherwise a great combined arms tactical game with pretty good AI.

ORIGINAL: scout1

Hard to give Honorable Mention to a game that will never see the light of day ....

Though I sure wish it would [:D]

Oooooh, I think it will. Sure looks like the basic game engine is in place. Can take awhile to do the AI.

Certainly hope they get the AI to do something reasonable (without crashing), claim victory, and release it[:D]

Sure would like to see a WEGO system. Has alot of potential ...

I think you could make mention of any level game Operational/tactical.

To answer your question Herston. It may be difficult to realize it at operational level. But I guess what the operational level game should accomplish is giving one a sense of 1 or several of these: logistics difficuties/realistic battle results/political influences/a sense of tide and flow of battle (or war if the game is on a grand scale.

Are we talking Operational [&:]

If so I would imagine HTTR ranks with the best of them, but hell I have no idea or experience in what it takes in the real world to move anything above modern Squad level in a tactical situation , E5 is about the level of my experience.

So I guess I would be unqualified as any of ya [:D]

Sarge, operational level commentas are acceptable, its only from the gamers perspective I had in mind when I made the post. You don't have to be a world leader or a General with combat experience to put in your 2cents worth[:D]
But your right, tactical level is best to give an opion on.
How ya doing!

All said about the comments that wargames (operational) can't be realistic.

Operational games can give some sense of how a battle or War goes. I buy my games with the hope the developer will try and bring that sense of history) to an operational game. At least, that was (I thought )the goal of the early wargame developers, right?

I think the AA:RDOA etc series. When those aircraft drop their bombs, you really think about hiding under the desk. Also, when you set artillery on at max rate of fire and see it hitting, you tend to think "Bugger!! What have I done!?" lol

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

I think the AA:RDOA etc series. When those aircraft drop their bombs, you really think about hiding under the desk. Also, when you set artillery on at max rate of fire and see it hitting, you tend to think "Bugger!! What have I done!?" lol

Agreed completely. I have played many games in the last 35 years. Nothing has given me the fear of Arty like the Airborne Assault series ... people tend to forget just how high of a percentage of total firepower of an army comes from her big guns ...

I remember once where I tried to hide a bunch of units in some woods only to have every one of them decimated by some heavy guns. Cost me over 70% of my troops! [:(]

Perhaps in slightly different genres here but I would certainly count in games such as Steel Beasts and Falcon 4.0; these are more along the lines of simulations than actual war games though both encompass fairly substantial planning and forethought.

Also, I think I must nominate Flashpoint Germany ... but perhaps I am a little biased in that regard [;)]

ASL without question.

.......

Generaly Speaking operational leval games are so wattered down that they leave me wanting, they are so generalised by their very scope as to be inhearently unrealistic. WiTP despite the fact I love it dearly is very Unrealistc on many levals, it is a great game but Icant take it to seriously. ASL I took and do take very seriously howeaver.

Harpoon

Dangerous Waters