Heroes of Stalingrad: What's Next?

[aaatoysandmore]

Guadacanal is the perfect setting imho not the Bulge. [:D] I'll always be more pro Pacific land battles over Eastern, Western even Africa theaters. I just like green for some reason and the Guadacanal map and counters from Avalon Hills version many years ago.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

Guadacanal is the perfect setting imho not the Bulge. [:D] I'll always be more pro Pacific land battles over Eastern, Western even Africa theaters. I just like green for some reason and the Guadacanal map and counters from Avalon Hills version many years ago.

Have you even bought this game yet??? [:D]

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: laska2k4

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well you did buy an east front game...so really I think it's only fair that those who bought this game liked the theater and really would expect some more maps\units on it. I'd be happy with an expansion of just units only and maybe a few more maps..no scenarios needed. We can make them. That way those who gnat something different would get it quicker.

What units and maps are you looking for? Do you have scenarios in mind? I might be able to come up with some more units.....

Is there a Saving Pvt. Ryan in that counter mix? [:)]

[Tom Proudfoot]

There actually is a Saving Private Ryan-esque scenario in Band of Heroes - that's the first scenario I ever played with Mark. [:D]

[Hexagon]

Ummm a title covering Poland-France-Sealion is a good option, in 1st Blitzkrieg game works fine but maybe even with the glamour of french toasters i prefer sand or sake [:D]

Why not "Blitzkrieg in the Pacific"??? here are very interesting scens... you have Burma, battles in China (Hong Kong), Wake, Philipines, hypotetical invasion of Pearl harbour with airborne units... a lot of interesting battles until Guadalcanal.

Maybe to add airborne is not necessary move to the west [8|]

[erichswafford]

WW2 in Europe was won (or lost, depending on your perspective) on the Eastern Front.

Asking "Why would anyone be interested?" is simply beyond asinine.

It was the largest, most cataclysmic military campaign in human history. That good enough for you?

And the characterization of this affair as "Hordes vs High-tech" is not just reductionist, but tells me that the writer has basically zero knowledge about the campaign.
The T-34 was *much* better "tech" than anything the Germans had until late '43.

Try reading some David Glantz sometime. Your knowledge of the Eastern front sounds like state-of-the-art circa 1962, before we had access to Soviet records.

Might want to brush up on your history - it could re-awaken your interest in what many consider to be the most eventful campaign in human history.

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: wodin

You need o expand the unit count and cover the eats front throughout the years..then move onto another theatre\war. I'd be extremely peeved if the East front was now left with no more maps\units to cover other years of the conflict.

Maybe this deserves its own thread in the General discussion area but:

I've been wargaming since 1961 or '62 (I forget) and in all that time I have never really understood the fascination so many wargamers have with the east front. To me its just outnumbered tech guys meet savage hordes.

Could someone enlighten me please...

[markhwalker]

It's gotten beyond tedious now.

There is a LOT of east front stuff out. The problem with the East Front is that there is no one to root for. One was our WW2 enemy, one was our enemy for the next 46 years.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: kondor999

WW2 in Europe was won (or lost, depending on your perspective) on the Eastern Front.

Asking "Why would anyone be interested?" is simply beyond asinine.

It was the largest, most cataclysmic military campaign in human history. That good enough for you?

And the characterization of this affair as "Hordes vs High-tech" is not just reductionist, but tells me that the writer has basically zero knowledge about the campaign.
The T-34 was *much* better "tech" than anything the Germans had until late '43.

Try reading some David Glantz sometime. Your knowledge of the Eastern front sounds like state-of-the-art circa 1962, before we had access to Soviet records.

Might want to brush up on your history - it could re-awaken your interest in what many consider to be the most eventful campaign in human history.

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326

ORIGINAL: wodin

You need o expand the unit count and cover the eats front throughout the years..then move onto another theatre\war. I'd be extremely peeved if the East front was now left with no more maps\units to cover other years of the conflict.

Maybe this deserves its own thread in the General discussion area but:

I've been wargaming since 1961 or '62 (I forget) and in all that time I have never really understood the fascination so many wargamers have with the east front. To me its just outnumbered tech guys meet savage hordes.

Could someone enlighten me please...

How about making your case without being condicending to other peoples opinions?

We all have our favourites, nobody's is more right/important than anyone else's.

[DampSquib]

Vietnam, or a boat load more scens for HOS.
Short of that Korea would be cool....though i don't think you have a board game covering Korea.

[Gizuria]

The safe bet is NWE during 44-45 with US v Germany being the focus. While I love East Front, I suspect that it's not where the real money is. I'd buy any East front expansion for sure and I know I'd buy 44-45 US v Germany too, with the real hope that I'd get a Brit expansion to play with at a later date too.

The Pacific War seems to be sadly neglected and I'd like to play some US marines v Japanese with this game engine in the future as well.

Vietnam seems to be a real US interest but I'm not a big fan and would likely skip that. Same with Korea. In fact, the more modern the era, the more my enthusiasm drops off.

[Rodwonder]

Very good point Mark!
I'd say stay with east and then move on to other theaters... Pacific sounds good but I would take any that you put out.

[markhwalker]

most cataclysmic military campaign in human history

And that would interest me, why? I'm not teaching history, but rather designing a game.

[wodin]

Well you couklld say if you have no interest in history why make wargames set in actual Wars? Why not just make sci fi or fantasy games? Surely you must have to have some interest in the War your designing a game on otherwise it would just end up a fantasy game with a historical skin.

[erichswafford]

Ok, so why did you choose, as your first PC game, an Eastern Front title?

You sound less than enthusiastic about both the subject matter and, really, history in general.

Mark, I've written a lot of complimentary things about LnL HoS (My name is Erich, if that rings a bell), but you're making me start to worry. Is lack of enthusiasm one of the reasons it took so long to get the game out the door?

I realize that LnL is, in many ways, a response to the wonkishness of ASL and its encyclopedic rulebook, but to wash your hands of all interest in the underlying historical subject is going too far.

I'll be frank. LnL HOS, judged purely as a game, ain't all that great. It is nowhere near as viscerally "fun" as something like Battlefield 4 or World of Tanks, nor does it have much mass-market appeal. It is only because of your customers' interest in the history of the simulated conflict that you've sold a single copy, ever. Even Nuklear Winter '68 is alternate history - not just pure fantasy.

Anyway, good luck and hopefully I just caught you in a grumpy moment, because when the designer of an Eastern Front wargame that claims to be sorta realistic then says "Who cares if it was the greatest war the planet's ever seen?", I gotta worry.

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

most cataclysmic military campaign in human history

And that would interest me, why? I'm not teaching history, but rather designing a game.

[erichswafford]

He asked to be enlightened. I did.

If I wanted to be condescending, I'd ridicule your misspelling of it. But I'm not a jerk and it's probably just a typo.

The guy made some really silly comments - that same tired old "Red Hordes" nonsense that the debriefed German generals fed us, so we'd think their opinions were useful or important.

Fact is, the Germans got outsmarted more than anything else. Stalingrad, Kursk, and Destruction of Army Group Center were all masterpieces of the Operational Art - not just dumb hordes surging forward until finally the valiant-but-hopelessly-outnumbered Germans just ran outta ammo.

Like I said, it might make the conflict more interesting if a person cares to understand it beyond what we believed 40 years ago, which was - by all accounts - a load of crap.

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

ORIGINAL: kondor999

WW2 in Europe was won (or lost, depending on your perspective) on the Eastern Front.

Asking "Why would anyone be interested?" is simply beyond asinine.

It was the largest, most cataclysmic military campaign in human history. That good enough for you?

And the characterization of this affair as "Hordes vs High-tech" is not just reductionist, but tells me that the writer has basically zero knowledge about the campaign.
The T-34 was *much* better "tech" than anything the Germans had until late '43.

Try reading some David Glantz sometime. Your knowledge of the Eastern front sounds like state-of-the-art circa 1962, before we had access to Soviet records.

Might want to brush up on your history - it could re-awaken your interest in what many consider to be the most eventful campaign in human history.

ORIGINAL: Werewolf1326




Maybe this deserves its own thread in the General discussion area but:

I've been wargaming since 1961 or '62 (I forget) and in all that time I have never really understood the fascination so many wargamers have with the east front. To me its just outnumbered tech guys meet savage hordes.

Could someone enlighten me please...

How about making your case without being condicending to other peoples opinions?

We all have our favourites, nobody's is more right/important than anyone else's.

[wodin]

I always find reading lots of books on a subject helps me understand the topic. Hence why I prefer East front over any other WW2 front. Saying that WW1 is really my No1 obsession..with WW2 east front coming in second, the funny thing is I'm more interested in the West front when it comes to WW1.

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

most cataclysmic military campaign in human history

And that would interest me, why? I'm not teaching history, but rather designing a game.

I'm wit you on dat. I get so sick of book worms who throw in what should be in a game or what a game should be about based on what they've read. None of them were there so they don't really know what is truth and what is bunk. I'm interested in a game of challenge, that is all basically. I could care less myself if they are historical as long as they are plausible. You know like no flying saucers or lazer guns in a WWII atmosphere. I think your game is great and brings to the front what computer version of board games should be. Not all this chart reading and pew pew pewing first person crud. So, keep making them like you have been. I'll be on your bandwagon for a long long time. This is the way I've wanted wargames to be for a very long time. No monster games, no 100-1000 pieces to move, no zillion rules and charts, just plain basic strategy and tactics games.

[wodin]

How to make friends and influence people....


So you have no interest in military history..good for you...you fit right in with the general population. The question is why even bother with wargames set within a historical context?

Well we may aswell not bother giving lectures to our soldiers, teach history, or study the past. Funny how Clausewitz is a book that all soldiers at one time where told to study if reading doesn't actually enlighten you to some degree.

Something you are good at is insulting people though.

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore

ORIGINAL: markhwalker

most cataclysmic military campaign in human history

And that would interest me, why? I'm not teaching history, but rather designing a game.

I'm wit you on dat. I get so sick of book worms who throw in what should be in a game or what a game should be about based on what they've read. None of them were there so they don't really know what is truth and what is bunk. I'm interested in a game of challenge, that is all basically. I could care less myself if they are historical as long as they are plausible. You know like no flying saucers or lazer guns in a WWII atmosphere. I think your game is great and brings to the front what computer version of board games should be. Not all this chart reading and pew pew pewing first person crud. So, keep making them like you have been. I'll be on your bandwagon for a long long time. This is the way I've wanted wargames to be for a very long time. No monster games, no 100-1000 pieces to move, no zillion rules and charts, just plain basic strategy and tactics games.

[erichswafford]

Call me a stickler or a pain in the a$$ bookworm, but if I'm going to simulate human misery, valor, and maybe some combat tactics - I'd like to kinda do it right.

Funny thing is, LnL does get it right. It "feels" right, and I hope the designer was just annoyed and didn't really mean that he doesn't care about teaching a little history.

Because if it's all just entertainment, if it's all just the 'joy' of watching good men die - even virtually - you can count me out.

[Rodwonder]

Thank you for serving...