Mattias Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 Head over to www.cdmag.com and take a look at the April 17, 2000 CGO Editorial, "The perils of living in a niche". Nothing brand new and he´s partly barking up the wrong tree methinks, but still a thing or two to ponder for some people... Then again, those who should, being who they are, probably doesn’t realise it M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 04-17-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 (from the article) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...are typically...interested in minutia, and argumentative.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AM NOT! And, by the way, he made several very minor grammar errors. Just wanted to point them out and make sure that everybody sees them. (from the article) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What's more, wargamers tend towards arrogance<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How DARE he accuse me of arrogance! ME! I could whup him in any wargame ever, with one hemisphere of my brain tied behind my back. Simpleton. (from the article) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The game is too pretty; it must be a lightweight. The units aren't the right color. Where are the Snufflehauser 36 Mk 14 widget launchers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hhmmm...I think I've heard those complaints before (altho, to be fair, the Snuffelhauser 36 Mk 14 was taken out of service in Feb. 1944, so it should not be in CM) DjB [This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 04-17-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted April 17, 2000 Share Posted April 17, 2000 Pretty funny. Didn't we have a BF/BTS "editorial" like this...oh, back about a year ago? Something like a FBI personality profile..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 "Wargamers, in their zeal to demonstrate their own knowledge and to engage in pissing contests with each other by berating every title that is released in order to display their expertise, have damn near killed this niche of gaming. " Now that's funny ... MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 Kraut, Sadly it is also more than a little true. I've seen a couple of irrational grognard-created producer-hunts in my time and it ain't pretty. Of course I DO think wargames need to be held to certain standards of realism BUT I also believe that wargames should be held to a sliding scale of realism based on what the advertising etc states that wargame is aiming at. Panzer General isn't marketted as a super-statistically sound grognard-fest and so gets a lot of slack since it succeeds in being what it aims to be ( a "fun, paper, rock, scissors game" ( credit to Steve for that particular turn of phrase which sums up PG quite well IMO ) ). A game like CC3 or 4 on the other hand which comes out claiming to be "as realistic as being there" had better deliver or at least come close to delivering. Rocket tanks, stupid engagement ranges and an AI which couldn't possibly attack more ineptly or die more quickly than it does all hurt that game's claim to be realistic. Is it a fun game if it is viewed as an RTS and no consideration is given to its realism? Yes it is BUT it isn't marketted as such and so it rightfully gets attacked. CM is marketting itself as revolutionary. People are expecting great graphics, a good AI, a good editor and a LOT of attention to detail and a willingness to correct such errors as may show up. If CM fails on any of these levels it will be torn apart publicly and rightfully so. I for one wouldn't defend CM if it came out with a braindead AI or major historical errors which weren't instantly acknowledged and immediately fixed. Fortunately there's no danger of that happening (Steve recently emailed me asking my opinion on the type of camouflage which was appropriate for Panzerschreck launchers. It seems that "grey" wasn't realistic enough for Charles and him and they were thinking of making the launchers dunkelgelb. Even the damn colour of rocket tubes has been gone into and debated . ) Anyways, my point is that games should ONLY EVER be criticised on the basis of what they claim to be and not what we wish they would have been ( an error many rookie reviewers fall into). I also think that a game which makes certain claims for itself should damned well be able to back them up. I'll forgive a flawed OOB in a beginner's or intermediate level wargame but if I spot a major, evident, unbalancing OOB flaw in a game which crows from the highest branch about its "exhaustive research" and said flaw isn't immediately admitted and patched then, rightfully IMO, there is a bloodletting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 Typical (*snort*). Snuffelhauser 36 Mk 14s were painted dunkelgelb, reissued to 2te Irish SS PG Kompanie, and were the key factor in stalling the British at Tiefpunkt-in-Geschichte, September 11, 1944. You call that research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 OK, leaving aside the Snifflenose Werfer for a moment... What I found interesting was the review of the upcoming HPS game "PzC II:Normandy". Does anyone here have Smolensk, and if so, could you give us a brief run down on the pros and cons? Cheers Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 JonS: Myself and four other fellows all have Smolensk, and we play it almost every Sunday, TCP/IP. We all like the game tremendously. It was easy to learn, the graphics are more than satisfactory (except in 3D mode- they look awful- but no one ever uses 3D mode anyway, except to verify the lay of the land once in awhile). The scenario mix included with the game has both historical and what-if battles in a useful combination. Due to the fact that the scale is 1 km/hex and basically battalion sized units, there are abstractions to detail that are necessary to keep the game manageable- in our minds, they do not detract from the game in any way we can see. It has a complete editor for creating both units and OOB's. I have already experimented with creating units that did not exist in 1941, such as the Tiger I, Pz IVF2, T34/85. I created plausible OOB's for a later time frame and played games with the new equipment on the original maps. You can have units from platoon size upwards. Since all unit characteristics can be changed, including attack range, the game is scalable: if I could figure out how to make my own maps, I could create any battle I wanted, and not necessarily just WWII either. I am champing at the bit for Normandy '44 to release. It will have even more features, and those also applicable to Smolensk will be retrofitted via a patch. Smolensk has been improved two or three times since it came out- HPS is really on the bit when it comes to customer service. Between Normandy '44 and CM, I will be a happy camper for the rest of this year, as far as gaming goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted April 18, 2000 Share Posted April 18, 2000 Thanks for the response Kevin - looks like time to take the ol' visa out for another good whippin' Could you explain the turn sequence? It doesn't seem to be the traditional IGO-UGO, but it didn't seem to be detailed anywhere. Sadly, there is absolutely NO mention of Normandy '44 at the HPS site JonS ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted April 19, 2000 Share Posted April 19, 2000 JonS: The turn sequence for the Panzer Campaign games is as follows: Axis Movement Phase Allied Defensive Fire Phase Axis Offensive Fire Phase Axis Assault Phase Allied Movement Phase Axis Defensive Fire Phase Allied Offensive Fire Phase Allied Assault Phase A lot of PBEM players will groan at all the phases- there is an optional auto defensive fire setting that reduces a couple of the phases in PBEM by allowing the AI to defend for you. The game was designed by John Tiller, who did the Battleground series for Talonsoft, and the phasing is similar to the BG games. The game is excellent in multiplayer- unit command selection is done exactly the same way as in West Front/East Front/Rising Sun. In our games, each player gets to handle one or two divisions per- around 30-35 units, not an overwhelming amount. The large maps and the rolling Russian landscape gives plenty of scope for maneuver combat. A friend of mine sent me a post today from some game site that claims that Normandy '44 has been released- I checked the HPS site just now and there is nothing new on it- if it has been released, you should be able to order it in the next few days(get in line behind me!), once the site is updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted April 19, 2000 Share Posted April 19, 2000 Thanks for teh info Kevin. I'll keepo my beedys peeled Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Is there a demo? Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted April 20, 2000 Share Posted April 20, 2000 Lewis, There's a review and forum at www.cdmag.com . The HPS site is www.hpssims.com , but as of this morning there was nothing there Later: oop - checked again this arvo and there's stuff there about it Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique [This message has been edited by JonS (edited 04-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts