TO EACH HIS OWN

[mkctanker]

After watching the forum for the last few weeks I had to say something. Those of you that wish for more detail try talonsoft's operational art of war, a century of warfare. It has 70 senerios about 10 of which are HUGE, I'm currently playing Barbarrosa. It has over 500 german and 900 russian units I think from company to division size. I've played it the last 3 nights and don't know if I will continue. I've played board games table top games pc games all with different degrees of detail and I'm going to stick with simple and fast. As was pointed out to me in the other forum I posted, there will always be bugs and flaws no matter how good the game, it's just the way it is. So call me lazy but I want to play a wargame, not a political game not an economical game, just a wargame and let the computer worry about everything else. :confused:

[Compassion]

Originally posted by mkctanker:

[QB]After watching the forum for the last few weeks I had to say something. Those of you that wish for more detail try talonsoft's operational art of war, a century of warfare.

Becasue I want to play a game of grand strat in europe... not a grand tactical game. You are mistaking scale for complexity maybe?

So call me lazy but I want to play a wargame, not a political game not an economical game, just a wargame and let the computer worry about everything else. :confused:

I don't understand your point. You don't want to play with strategic considerations you just want to push armies around? Great. As simple as SC is, though, it doesn't seem to fit your bill in that regard...

[JerseyJohn]

It's mixing apples and pears. Many of us like both. Two different concepts -- both are fine.

[mkctanker]

Your right, I wasn't very clear. What I meant by my example was the more they put into the less I get out of it. The senerio turn is very long, if you miss anything, too bad. To me this is not what I play for, I want to relax not go nuts tring to remember every detail. As for SC it is exactly what I have been waiting for. Maybe not in the same way as others but to play a historically accurate game (to my satisfaction) without the time consuming things that don't interest me. I did not mean to upset anyone just wanted to voice my oppion that didn't seem to be heard.

[JerseyJohn]

Makes a lot more sense now.

Also posted as main part of entry in HQ forum.

I'd like to see a grand-tactical game that has a really good system of relegating command to lower echelon HQs. I've seen it in many earlier games but most of the time it didn't work out very well.

For example, if the game involvels Barbarossa, as the German I'd like to give each Army Group three objectives as first, second and third priorities and not have to worry about how the air support, supply, etc., is allocated -- get the human out of micromanagement. Or, if the player is really into every detail, then fine, he can insert himself into as many HQ positions as he chooses.

In the Barbarossa example, Army Group North, with Liszt as commander, might have Riga as his number one objective, etc., while Army Group South, under von Runstedt would have Kiev #1, Odessa #2, and, say Donitz Basin #3. Army Group Center would be going for Minsk, then Smolensk, etc..

I'm sure it's been done already. I remember exactly such a game twenty years ago for the C-64! Except in those early days the programs had many gliches, such as not being able to find the Crimea! Today's programmers should be able to serve these things up for breakfast and have them work to perfection.

I recall some DOS games such as Tanks II that went in that direction, but I don't think those systems were evolved into more recent windows programming technology.

[ December 03, 2002, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]