Dr Zaius
Chief Defender of the Faith
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 8,902
- Reaction score
- 408
- Location
- The Forbidden Zone
- First name
- Don
- Country
Put your flame suits on gentlemen. It's time to compare wargames!!!
Okay guys, it's been a while since we had one of these threads and it's about time someone threw some JP8 on the fire! First, let me say that these threads have a way of heating up and taking on a life of their own. Having said that, let's don't hold back. Tell it like it is and maybe the game designers will take it as constructive input. Enough of that crap, let's roll!
First, let's talk about the new Korsun Pocket game from MatrixGames. This game seems to have caused quite a stir and is getting some very high praise from critics. From what I can tell it's a true operational-level game, and the emphasis is on strategy, not micromanaging every little detail like the Panzer Campaigns series. I should say that I have not played this game yet, but a lot of folks are saying the AI is the best on the market. Is that important to many of you with the PBEM environment being what it is today? Personally, I play against the AI a lot. I'm not sure it's appropriate to directly compare KP to Korsun '44 as they are very different systems and use different scales.Thoughts?
As many of you know I spent a lot of time with Talonsoft's Campaign Series before moving on to newer systems. I created many of the graphic and sound mods out there and I thoroughly enjoyed East Front II. Having said that, I took it hard when Talonsoft dissolved and basicially ended the series courtesy of Take2. John Tiller did much of the work on this title and I thought the series had great potential to expand into the modern era and/or add additional features and scenario packs. I remember when the original East Front was released there was a lot of bad press about it. It had some bugs, but mainly the critics were upset about the choice of scale. They said platoon scale for a wargame just wouldn't work. I beg to differ. Platoon scale in many ways is at the top of my favorite list. It's large enough to recreate some fairly significant engagements, but small enough so that tactics actually mean something. You really have to pay attention to the terrain, unlike many other wargames where terrain simply means you move through that hex more slowly.
This brings me to the Panzer/Modern Campaigns series from HPS. I personally wish that John Tiller had kept this system at the platoon scale like his earlier Campaign Series, however, the larger scale does allow for the recreation of entire battles and campaigns. The level of detail and user options in this series are nearly unrivaled, but the micromanagement and time consuming turns seem to be too much for many wargamers. I have heard a lot of people say the system is just a "cookie-cutter" approach and there are just too many units, thus the game engine is no good. I disagree. It is fair to say that some of the full campaigns are really only fit for truly hardcore wargamers. Playing a single turn of the full Kursk scenario is similar to playing Daniel McBride's Drang Nach Osten for ACOW. On the other hand, this is really a scenario designer issue, not a game engine issue. Tiller and co have refocused themselves on somewhat smaller scenarios with their more recent releases, and there is no reason why smaller more reasonable scenarios can't be created by talented players.
While we're on the subject of the Panzer Campaigns series, I know this subject is going to come up so we may as well get it out in the open now. Tiller's approach of creating a whole separate game for each new battle instead of creating a single game and then releasing add-on packs does not sit well with a lot of gamers, myself included. I have interviewed John on numerous occasions and he has stated his reasons for doing so. As I understand it, this is mostly a financial/marketing decision, not really a game design issue. My own opinion is that this approach is a mistake, and I further believe it has kept the PC system from being an even bigger success than it is. Still, the games are good in ther own right and I will buy them. What do you think?
The Squad Battles system, also from John Tiller, is not getting the attention it deserves. Warfare HQ may do something about that soon. This is a solid system that suffers from horrible graphics. Fotunately some talented wargamers have taken it on themselves to release various mods that have this game looking and playing very fine. Look for a full review of Squad Battles: Advance on the Reich very soon at Warfare HQ.
What can you say about Combat Mission? This system has unlimited potential and some of the most innovative features around. It's not that old, but it's already a classic. Having said that, there are some things that could be better. Some of the graphic mods for vehicles and terrain turn this system in a real treat. Why doesn't Battlefront have graphic artists doing this from the start? We're doing half the work for them! Don't get me wrong, I love mods and I have done one or two myself. On the other hand the Combat Mission series has been a smashing success and I can see little excuse for the placeholder default graphics that come with the CD. Battlefront needs to shape up and raise their standards a bit with their subsequent releases. They are well aware of how popular the various textures and mods are for the series. If they would fix that the series would then be nearly perfect.
The Operational Art of War. No other wargame attempts to scale the heights that Norm Koger's classic does. It can represent nearly any conflict, at any scale, in the last 100 years. It's famed event engine is unrivaled and makes it one of the most powerful systems ever created. This system does suffer from some shortcomings though. It's interface is atiquated and not very user-friendly. It can be hard to tell what's going on and the information is not presented in an easy to assimilate fashion. This system could gain significantly from an interface overhaul. Let's compare wargames for a moment, ACOW vs Panzer Campaigns. These systems are somewhat different scales, but they cover much of the same wargame terrain. ACOW has a clear advantage with it's event engine capabilities, but these are only of any real use in the hands of a talented scenario author who dedicates some serious time to the task at hand. Panzer Campaigns, on the other hand, offers somewhat finer detail and control over individual units. Which one is a more realistic recreation of a given battle? That's a hard question to answer. What do you think?
Combat Leader: Cross of Iron. Tastes great, less filling. This looks to be a solid wargame with great potential. Watch out for this one.
Battlefields from MatrixGames. A new forray in the field of operational-level wargames. Watch the MatrixGames website for more info and a webpage update on this one soon. http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/main.asp
It's a bit unfair to compare wargames to each other, but it's fun isn't it? :devil:
Okay guys, it's been a while since we had one of these threads and it's about time someone threw some JP8 on the fire! First, let me say that these threads have a way of heating up and taking on a life of their own. Having said that, let's don't hold back. Tell it like it is and maybe the game designers will take it as constructive input. Enough of that crap, let's roll!
First, let's talk about the new Korsun Pocket game from MatrixGames. This game seems to have caused quite a stir and is getting some very high praise from critics. From what I can tell it's a true operational-level game, and the emphasis is on strategy, not micromanaging every little detail like the Panzer Campaigns series. I should say that I have not played this game yet, but a lot of folks are saying the AI is the best on the market. Is that important to many of you with the PBEM environment being what it is today? Personally, I play against the AI a lot. I'm not sure it's appropriate to directly compare KP to Korsun '44 as they are very different systems and use different scales.Thoughts?
As many of you know I spent a lot of time with Talonsoft's Campaign Series before moving on to newer systems. I created many of the graphic and sound mods out there and I thoroughly enjoyed East Front II. Having said that, I took it hard when Talonsoft dissolved and basicially ended the series courtesy of Take2. John Tiller did much of the work on this title and I thought the series had great potential to expand into the modern era and/or add additional features and scenario packs. I remember when the original East Front was released there was a lot of bad press about it. It had some bugs, but mainly the critics were upset about the choice of scale. They said platoon scale for a wargame just wouldn't work. I beg to differ. Platoon scale in many ways is at the top of my favorite list. It's large enough to recreate some fairly significant engagements, but small enough so that tactics actually mean something. You really have to pay attention to the terrain, unlike many other wargames where terrain simply means you move through that hex more slowly.
This brings me to the Panzer/Modern Campaigns series from HPS. I personally wish that John Tiller had kept this system at the platoon scale like his earlier Campaign Series, however, the larger scale does allow for the recreation of entire battles and campaigns. The level of detail and user options in this series are nearly unrivaled, but the micromanagement and time consuming turns seem to be too much for many wargamers. I have heard a lot of people say the system is just a "cookie-cutter" approach and there are just too many units, thus the game engine is no good. I disagree. It is fair to say that some of the full campaigns are really only fit for truly hardcore wargamers. Playing a single turn of the full Kursk scenario is similar to playing Daniel McBride's Drang Nach Osten for ACOW. On the other hand, this is really a scenario designer issue, not a game engine issue. Tiller and co have refocused themselves on somewhat smaller scenarios with their more recent releases, and there is no reason why smaller more reasonable scenarios can't be created by talented players.
While we're on the subject of the Panzer Campaigns series, I know this subject is going to come up so we may as well get it out in the open now. Tiller's approach of creating a whole separate game for each new battle instead of creating a single game and then releasing add-on packs does not sit well with a lot of gamers, myself included. I have interviewed John on numerous occasions and he has stated his reasons for doing so. As I understand it, this is mostly a financial/marketing decision, not really a game design issue. My own opinion is that this approach is a mistake, and I further believe it has kept the PC system from being an even bigger success than it is. Still, the games are good in ther own right and I will buy them. What do you think?
The Squad Battles system, also from John Tiller, is not getting the attention it deserves. Warfare HQ may do something about that soon. This is a solid system that suffers from horrible graphics. Fotunately some talented wargamers have taken it on themselves to release various mods that have this game looking and playing very fine. Look for a full review of Squad Battles: Advance on the Reich very soon at Warfare HQ.
What can you say about Combat Mission? This system has unlimited potential and some of the most innovative features around. It's not that old, but it's already a classic. Having said that, there are some things that could be better. Some of the graphic mods for vehicles and terrain turn this system in a real treat. Why doesn't Battlefront have graphic artists doing this from the start? We're doing half the work for them! Don't get me wrong, I love mods and I have done one or two myself. On the other hand the Combat Mission series has been a smashing success and I can see little excuse for the placeholder default graphics that come with the CD. Battlefront needs to shape up and raise their standards a bit with their subsequent releases. They are well aware of how popular the various textures and mods are for the series. If they would fix that the series would then be nearly perfect.
The Operational Art of War. No other wargame attempts to scale the heights that Norm Koger's classic does. It can represent nearly any conflict, at any scale, in the last 100 years. It's famed event engine is unrivaled and makes it one of the most powerful systems ever created. This system does suffer from some shortcomings though. It's interface is atiquated and not very user-friendly. It can be hard to tell what's going on and the information is not presented in an easy to assimilate fashion. This system could gain significantly from an interface overhaul. Let's compare wargames for a moment, ACOW vs Panzer Campaigns. These systems are somewhat different scales, but they cover much of the same wargame terrain. ACOW has a clear advantage with it's event engine capabilities, but these are only of any real use in the hands of a talented scenario author who dedicates some serious time to the task at hand. Panzer Campaigns, on the other hand, offers somewhat finer detail and control over individual units. Which one is a more realistic recreation of a given battle? That's a hard question to answer. What do you think?
Combat Leader: Cross of Iron. Tastes great, less filling. This looks to be a solid wargame with great potential. Watch out for this one.
Battlefields from MatrixGames. A new forray in the field of operational-level wargames. Watch the MatrixGames website for more info and a webpage update on this one soon. http://www.battlefieldsww2.com/main.asp
It's a bit unfair to compare wargames to each other, but it's fun isn't it? :devil: