"Gamey" vs "Realistic"

[Dolphin]

There are two groups who offer different opinions on how to improve the game.

- For one group, they prefer to see the things more realistic (modelling the air attack, etc.."), thus suggesting to make the rule more complicated and challenging.

- The other group would like to make it simple and symbolic, the game may not develop logically compared with the real WW II, but it doesnt matter as long as it provides an enjoyable experience.

I am a strategy players and a casual wargamer. Honestly, I belong to the second group.

I don't mean the the first group is bad, but I prefer to see SC keeps the things simple and easy to play.

One of the reason why I like SC much more than TOAW.

[Brian Rock]

I want both.

I'm not suggesting that the air rules be made more complex, rather that they are treated differently so the game better simulates WWII.

[Bruce70]

I honestly don't care how complex the game rules are (thats what computers are good at) but I would like the game to stay simple and easy to play. But I favour the more realistic options - so I don't know which of your two categories I fit in.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

What's the point of playing a wargame, if it doesn't actually simulate war correctly?

What's the point of making it historical, if it has no history in it?

All things considered, it takes I think, more skill to make an SC like game simple than it does to make it complicated.

I think the designer did an incredible job making SC simple and fun to play. Any dolt can make a ruthlessly accurate simulation in my opinion, it takes skill to make it playable and fun.

I want the game as realistic as possible, but if it can also be made simple and fun, and effectively, I say go with simple and fun equally.

Games don't always have to get anal on the details. Sometimes you don't want or need to agonise over whether the suimulation completely models something 100% accurate.

Pacific Axis & Allies does the best job at making a game fun, that I expect to see for the next several years (including anything made for the computer). I expect that I will be playing that game quite a lot in the next while.

Now if fun is not as important factor, then I want accuracy made the be all and end all of the game, regardless of impact on the fun factor (well to some, taking all day planning a turn IS fun). I have found, that if you intend to make a good simulation, you either make it fun, or you foget worrying about fun altogether.

Advanced Third Reich with all the bells and whistles ie random options from Diplomacy, as well as the Research rules taken from Rising Sun, gives you the best Grand Strategy game in existence.

In my opinion there is currently NO computer game out there, that models an historcal simulation of the European war half as good as this board game.

To me SC2 isn't just a "cleaned up" SC1, but rather, SC2 would be a massively accurate, forget worrying about fun, and just give me a massively accurate model of historical geo/political/military simulation.

But I won't be holding my breath waiting for that SC2. I can live with being in a group that has numbers to small to effectively market to.

[Dolphin]

As I said, I understand the position of Sarge and other persons who belong to the first group .

But yeah, I and many strategy players have our preference too . We are attracted to SC, because the rule is simple and we can devote our time to think about strategy not to understand the game mechanism/modelling.

Take for example, TOAW (excuse me, Talonsoft), the interface is simple, you can learn how to attack very quickly, however there is a complex set of rules to understand. I got puzzled when I suffered a big loss when my MBT unit (Attack:32) failed to attack enemy's MBT (Defence:18), before I realized that the Attack factor is an accumulated index. That's just an example.

[Archibald]

Although the real point of the increasingly baroque Great Air Power Thread has often been lost, the main concern of Brian Rock, myself and very many others is that the game's playability is compromised by air power as it stands. The worry that this is ahistorical is a secondary concern.

I'd like a more historically realistic game too, but not at the expense of playability.

[Scorpion_sk]

Les:

Well, you said that A3R is the best Grand Strategic Wargame....

(By the way, shouldn´t "A World at War" be out sometime in the near future, making A3R/ERS obsolete?)

We´d need to get something like that for the computer too, as it stands we have just SC for our grand strategic needs.

It´s great fun to play, but the fun stops as soon as the airfleets start zipping around en masse.

How anyone can could call something which totally wrecks the balance of the game and brings campaigns to a premature conclusion "fun" is beyond me (I´m not saying that anyone has said it yet...but.... )

As for the topic at hand,

I too want great gameplay, great fun and great realism.

However, I don´t think that fixing the gameplay and improving realism are detrimental to fun.

Complexity starts degrading from the fun at a point that is way above SC for me. (I thought Grigsby´s WiR was well above that point).

And there are a lot of ways to improve the realism and gameplay without adding any complexity at all.

[VictorH]

Frankly, I don't see any reason to make drastic changes to SC. The only problems I have seen are:

Low Supply from Alexandria Port.

No Ports in Turkey, what happened to Istanbul?

The Finns are usually mowed down by the Russians.

Partisans in Yugoslavia try to invade Germany, yea right.....

That's about it as far I as I see it.

Oh by the way, there are many games on WWII better than A3rd Reich. ADG's World in Flames comes to mind. I also liked GDW's Europa Series.

[ September 20, 2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: VictorH ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Comparing A3R with World in Flames is not that easy an option, as one is only Europe, while the other is entire globe. So in defense of A3R, its not a level playing field.

Although to some, the WiF flans are nuts (I am not automatically supporting that view myself though, just addressing that their are some that will).

That air power has gotten out of control is something I have not yet experienced (only got the demo, and have not played the game to death yet).

That airpower in the real thing was devestating in reality (Taranto led to the Japanese trying Pearl Harbour), is history. That the allied bombing campaign has to some, proven that airpower alone can't win a war, is established fact (there is lots of boring documentation if you want to read it).

So if the game has been shanghaied by air power, I would have to say, it is perhaps needed to be addressed. I have seen other fine games plumet into the round file for failing to address one rogue detail.

To return to the A3R vs WiF commentary, I understand they are hacking away a Global War 2k (or it is possible the notion has morphed into a new monicker that I am unaware of).

I stopped following the emails for A3R when it became clear the posts were mainly from people unwilling to master grade 8 english,or if foreign, just not capable of grade 8 english.

I will say this for computer games, it doesn't normally matter if your english sucks, you either like the game or not, because how well you interpretted a rule usually means nothing to the program.

Empire of the Rising Sun or ERS or commonly just Rising Sun or RS to some, had to accomodate the differing realities of the war in the Pacific. As such it had design features that didn't quite sit well inside the A3R design. This is one of the reasons that GW2K has not appeared on the shelves to the best of my knowledge. There are a lot of people, that just won't stop quibbling over rules designs intended to mate A3R with RS.

This same problem will be waiting for anyone that tries to make SC into a game in the Pacific. And the forum devoted to such a game, will have the same arguments too.

I have not played WiF a fraction of the number of times I have played A3R, but I have heard comments about its naval model. This by the way is the same headache present in A3R vs RS.

And interestingly enough, it's about airpower too.

The best way to make a game "playable" is to make it so that people play it. If something ruins the fun of enough people, then it won't be played long. And that in the end is the only detail worth considering,

Sales figures of SC will tell Hubert whether he made the game the correct way. Not any one specific opinion of its design.

[Kuniworth]

I like to point out that if you play and control the grand strategy the game should be simple. No need to know how many P-IV in a division, just wanna now the total strenght in that front-area. And SC simulates that.

What I was hoping for though is better diplomacy, retreat rules, map-editor and realistic production model. That would be beautiful.

[jmbunnelle]

Originally posted by Scorpion_sk:

Les:

(By the way, shouldn´t "A World at War" be out sometime in the near future, making A3R/ERS obsolete?)

What's "A World At War"?

[demoss]

"A World At War" is what became of the Global War 2000 project referred to by Sarge. Take a look at this site for more info: A World At War

[VonBraun]

WOW ... Wolrd In Flames, I completely forgot about that game. It did bring back an extremely funny event.

My friend bought WIF, read the rule book, slapped down the HUGE map on an extended dinning room table, then it started..... it took us atleast 4 hours just to place the appropriate chits on the board. Each chit had to be placed on a specific numbered hex. needless to say, it didn't leave us enough time to even play the game...

Moral of the Story --> keep SC simple, tweak the formulas or rules behind the scenese, and develop SC2 to encompass the entire globe.

Hubert, GREAT game, I am enjoying every second of it.