What is your favorite operational game!!??

[Squallion]

I'm really enjoying The Art of Operational Warfare 3.

I'm trying operational to see if I'd prefer it over good ole hearts of iron. I'm not sure yet. If you have an opinion on operational versus global, or on the games themselves, please, let me hear it!

[Michael Emrys]

The only operational level game I can remember playing (I'm on a Mac, so my options have been limited) is Operation Crusader back maybe 18 years ago. It could have been good but wasn't, needing at least another year of work to get it really right. Too bad. I actually prefer playing at the operational level as I think that is the best way to represent WW II combat without overloading the player and making play too much like work.

Michael

[Squallion]

The only operational level game I can remember playing (I'm on a Mac, so my options have been limited) is Operation Crusader back maybe 18 years ago. It could have been good but wasn't, needing at least another year of work to get it really right. Too bad. I actually prefer playing at the operational level as I think that is the best way to represent WW II combat without overloading the player and making play too much like work.

Michael

Tried a command ops demo last night. I think it might be the best operational game of all time. Not sure. Digging deeper >.

[Stalins Organ]

I currently have 3 games of TOAW on the go.......all of them essentially strategic rather than operational!!

Third Reich - WW2 in Europe 1942 on div level

Europe Aflame: WW2 in Europe from June 1939 (so you can change a few things on either side ) - Corps level

Fire in the East - Eastern Front Reg level for Axis, div for Soviets

[JonS]

Operation Crusader back maybe 18 years ago. It could have been good but wasn't, needing at least another year of work to get it really right. Too bad.

I really liked the W@W series - of which Op Crusader was part - and the V4V series which preceded it, with their WEGO turn implementation. They didn't really strike me as undercooked in any significant way, except for the absence of a scenario editor ... and I think that at the time scen editors were probably the exception rather than the rule.

But they all suffered from the great flaw of operational games, and Op Crusader suffered from it most of all: no strategic or operational surprise. Knowing that the British are about to launch a full army-level attack makes a huge difference to the German's opening moves in Op Crusader, which in turn affects the way the rest of the battle plays out. I don't want - nor do I especially expect - a game to run along railroad tracks, faithfully reproducing the exact course and outcome of the historical battle it portrays, but with Op Crusader the actual course of the battle is about the one thing you know won't happen because both players know enough about the battle to ensure they don't make the fundamental mistakes that commanders on both sides fell prey to.

I actually prefer playing at the operational level as I think that is the best way to represent WW II combat without overloading the player and making play too much like work.

Isn't that mostly a function of unit count though? I can think of plenty of monster operational games that would give CMBBs 'To the Volga' a good run for its money in terms of tedium.

Also, while an operational level game can give a good representation of WWII operational combat, it's not going to be much chop at either strategic nor tactical combat. CMx2 does a much better job than any operational game at highlighting the ebb and flow of tactical level combat. And something like Strategic Command, as simplistic as it is, does a much better job than, say, Panther Games' Highway to the Reich of illuminating the decisions and trade-offs necessary to manage a global war.