Yup, it's that time of the year again and this time there's even a
Grand Prize for you to win : Arjuna has graciously offered an
autographed boxed copy of Battles from the Bulge (when done) to one
lucky participant. No need to tell you this is a unique item, and to
make it absolutely clear : voting for Conquest of the Aegean will *not*
increase your chances of winning it (*).
The Rules :
1) 1 (wo)man, 1 post - all votes in the open, no emails.
2) The game must have been published in 2006
3) Post your 1st, 2nd and 3rd place choices - 1st place gets 5 points,
2nd gets 3 points, 3rd gets 1 point.
4) Votes must be in before January 15th, 2006
5) In case of a tie, the award is shared.
6) Developers are strongly encouraged to vote as well - there's no
shame in believing your baby is the best looking.
This is what's at stake for the developers - created by Daniel :
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4124492&a=32319414&f=
My vote :
1st place : Conquest of the Aegean
2nd place : Birth of America
3rd place : Cry Havoc
No contest in my mind as to which games should be in the first two
slots, just the order to put them in was a difficult decision. BoA is
undoubtedly the surprise nova star of the year, but COTA is Sirius,
outshining all other regular stars. In the end it was subject matter
that clinched it for COTA. Third place was hard too. Lot's of
contenders but Cry Havoc brought back a flood of good memories and wins
it on emotional grounds.
To refresh your memory on what games got published this year :
Birth of America
Panzer Campaigns 15 - Stalingrad 1942
Defend the Alamo 2 / The Alamo!
Cry Havoc : Test of Faith
Hearts of Iron 2 : Doomsday
Strategic Command 2
Take Command : 2nd Manassas
1483
Battle of the Atlantic
1848
WinSPWW2 Enhanced
Cath'Thir
TOAW III
Conquest of the Aegean
Harpoon 3 - Advanced Naval Warfare
Panzer Command : Operation Winter Storm
For Liberty! (formerly : For Independence)
Distant Guns : The Russo-Japanese War at Sea
Victoria - Revolutions
Blitzkrieg : War in Europe 1939-1945 (Pocket PC and Palm)
Air Campaigns of WWII - Defending the Reich
Napoleonic Wars Online
Down in Flames - Eastern Front
Civil War Battles - Campaign Vicksburg
Panzer Campaigns - Minsk '44
Napoleonic Battles - Jena-Auerstaedt
World at War : A World Divided
Air Assault Task Force
Forge of Freedom : The American Civil War 1861-1865
Future Force Company Commander (F2C2)
If you think I missed one (or several) feel free to add them - this is
not a list of nominees.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
(*) This is how the winner of the autographed boxed copy of Panther
Games' Battles from the Bulge will be decided :
1) Every entry/voter is given a random number by me
2) When the election is over I zip this list, password protect it and
send it to Mr. Beretta and everyone else asking for it - without the
password.
3) I'll ask Mr. Giftzwerg to pick and post a number between 1 and ...
4) I release the password so Mr. Beretta and everyone else can check
who won the game.
Err thats it!
Most of the games I bought in 2006 were oldies.
If I can vote for stuff I don't own, I'd also go:
3. Birth of America
My Anti-Vote goes to
Harpoon ANW edition - Don't ask! :-)
--
RobP
'There are only 10 types of people in this world - Those that understand
binary and those that don't'
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167382149.1...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If I can vote for stuff I don't own, I'd also go:
> 3. Birth of America
Sure, no problem.
> My Anti-Vote goes to
> Harpoon ANW edition - Don't ask! :-)
It was suggested (by private email) to also have a "Raspberry Award"
for worst wargame of 2006 but I like to keep it possitive - don't let
that stop someone from holding such a poll though :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
First spot was easy : the only historical PC wargame I bought in 2006.
2) Birth of America
I don't own it. But I liked the demo. I like the gameplay. I love
the art. I should buy it maybe. It's just that I'm not at ease with
the strategic scale and I don't have the time.
3) Take Command : 2nd Manassas.
A game I would own if I could manage to control my troops. I like the
scale. I like the continuous time aspect. Graphically it is well
done. I like the setup. But I find the tactical AI pathetic and
frustating. When you're accustommed to PG games, the target is very
high.
JeF.
1. CONQUEST OF THE AEGEAN
2. BIRTH OF AMERICA
3. TOAW3
(If Mr. Pollard's "Anti-vote" catches on, I'll cast mine against
DEFENDING THE REICH...)
--
Giftzwerg
***
"If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across
the expression 'the realist school' and mentally substitute the phrase
'the American friends of the Saudi royal family,' your understanding of
the situation will invariably be enhanced."
- Christopher Hitchens
2. Birth of America - Thanks to a post on this group only several weeks
ago, I picked up BoA and I can't stop playing! The odd thing is that
I'm still on the French & Indian War scenarios. I can't even imagine
how much fun the American Revolution is going to be...
3. Conquest of the Agean - I've kind of moved away from 20th Century
wargames due to time and money constraints, but if I had to pick a game
I haven't played, CotA has been by far the most positively discussed
game on these forums in that category.
Brett S.
Eddy covers his tracks...
> 1st place : Conquest of the Aegean
And then strikes :o)))
My votes:
*** 1. Birth of America ***
Best surprise, best new system, best "re-discovering" of a somewhat ignored
historical period, best new game - end of the story.
** 2. Conquest of the Aegean **
Close second: over the summer I played it more than BoA, actually, and it
would have ended at number 1, but (sorry Arjuna :o) ) the "upset/underdog"
factor won. After all, the "surprise effect" once worked for HTTR too...
* 3. Cry Havoc : Test of Faith *
Maybe I was the only one to play this (OK, make that two: my editor played
it a lot too), but I enjoyed the way the old "Cry Havoc" was ported on the
PC without frills.
Honorable mentions:
* Air Assault Task Force *
Looking at how much I enjoyed ATF it could have made the list, but I still
have to play this one :^(
* Dominions 3 *
Not a wargame, but a deep, longeve and all-around enjoyable (make that
"fantastic") strategy game.
> > 6) Developers are strongly encouraged to vote as well - there's no
> > shame in believing your baby is the best looking.
>
> Eddy covers his tracks...
It's really not my baby ... though it is the best looking :)
Anyway, I didn't put that line in for my own benefit, but because I
can't help noticing a lot of developers posting in here (and maybe more
lurking in the shadows) and a lot of polls have rules/objections
against people voting for their own work - which I think is ridiculous.
> * 3. Cry Havoc : Test of Faith *
>
> Maybe I was the only one to play this (OK, make that two: my editor played
> it a lot too), but I enjoyed the way the old "Cry Havoc" was ported on the
> PC without frills.
You didn't read my post all that carefully :) - I voted for Cry Havoc
too, so make that three :)
> Honorable mentions:
>
> * Air Assault Task Force *
>
> Looking at how much I enjoyed ATF it could have made the list, but I still
> have to play this one :^(
It's on the Valentine shortlist :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
2. World at War AWD - what a sequel should look and feel like.
3. Birth of America - could have been number #1 but not as intuitive to
play without reading the rules and then asking questions on its forum.
That done, there's fun to be had.
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167382149.1...@h40g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> 1st: Dominions 3
> 2nd: Dominions 3
> 3rd: Dominoins 3
Nice try :) - 5 points for Dominions 3 it is.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> 1st: Dominions 3
> 2nd: Dominions 3
> 3rd: Dominoins 3
Hmmmm. Anyone else have issues with these choices?
(1) DOMINIONS3 isn't a historical wargame. Perhaps Eddy should clarify
that.
(2) If we're going to allow "bullet voting," then change all three of
mine to COTA.
> > 1st: Dominions 3
> > 2nd: Dominions 3
> > 3rd: Dominoins 3
>
> Nice try :) - 5 points for Dominions 3 it is.
Good save! I like it when cheaters don't prosper.
> In article <W4KdncnVk_YChQjY...@comcast.com>,
> rso...@comcast.net says...
>
> > 1st: Dominions 3
> > 2nd: Dominions 3
> > 3rd: Dominoins 3
>
> Hmmmm. Anyone else have issues with these choices?
Nope :)
> (1) DOMINIONS3 isn't a historical wargame. Perhaps Eddy should clarify
> that.
For me it's not a historical wargame as well, but I don't care for the
purpose of this vote - if people in here want to vote for the famous
Muppet Treasure Island game I'm ok with that too. Doesn't make any
difference whatsoever for the final outcome anyway as 95% of the votes
cast last year were for what we would both call historical wargames
anyway.
> (2) If we're going to allow "bullet voting," then change all three of
> mine to COTA.
It's not allowed because it would unbalance the vote in the current
point system - I've just noted it down for 1st place only.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> In article <1167399586....@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > 1st: Dominions 3
> > > 2nd: Dominions 3
> > > 3rd: Dominoins 3
> >
> > Nice try :) - 5 points for Dominions 3 it is.
>
> Good save! I like it when cheaters don't prosper.
It's an uncontrolable anarchy out there, but I've got the results
spreadsheet chained to my harddisk so I'm in total control there :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg a écrit :
> (1) DOMINIONS3 isn't a historical wargame. Perhaps Eddy should clarify
> that.
I choosed to avoid that choice for that very reason : it is not
historical; Eddy's list contains only historical strategy games.
Cath'Thir has an historical mod, I checked that as well.
I would have added Dom III as my 3rd choice instead of Take Command
then.
> (2) If we're going to allow "bullet voting," then change all three of
> mine to COTA.
Same here ! :-)
JeF.
> As much as it costs me, I agree with Gifty.
>
> Giftzwerg a écrit :
> > (1) DOMINIONS3 isn't a historical wargame. Perhaps Eddy should clarify
> > that.
>
> I choosed to avoid that choice for that very reason : it is not
> historical; Eddy's list contains only historical strategy games.
> Cath'Thir has an historical mod, I checked that as well.
> I would have added Dom III as my 3rd choice instead of Take Command
> then.
Ok - I just changed your 3rd place vote to Dom 3 - is that ok ?
Incidently : I did mention in my OP that my list (the list of what I
consider wargames) was not a list of nominees, and that everyone was
free to add what they considered a wargame to it.
So if *you* think Dom3 is a wargame, or Band of Heroes, or Medieval
Total War 2 or even Muppet Treasure Island : feel free to add it.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Well, I can understand why this is not considered a good thing from a
strictly "formal" point of view. But I can tell you that my latest comic
book is much better than some of the horrid things I saw published in the
last year *and* that the review I wrote today is not as in-depth as I would
have wished. If I'm not aware of this, who is? :o)
>> Looking at how much I enjoyed ATF it could have made the list, but I
>> still
>> have to play this one :^(
>
> It's on the Valentine shortlist :)
We could consider, next year, to close the "list" around November, so to
allow to the games published in the very last days of the year the time to
be played/judged.
> We could consider, next year, to close the "list" around November, so to
> allow to the games published in the very last days of the year the time to
> be played/judged.
Good point. Next year we'll make it "published in the last 14 months" -
that way AATF and others wouldn't be "punished" for being published so
late in the year.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
The real klinker this year was Muppets Treasure Island. What a
clickfest! And they got the stripes on Ernie's sweater all wrong -
it's *not* red-blue red-blue... it's blue-red blue-red. And Big Bird
is clearly not to scale. Horrible!!
I guess this is the unanticipated downside of timing releases to the
Christmas season :)
Seriously, I am just honoured that our little game gets a mention with
these other great titles. Thanks for thinking of us!
PAT PROCTOR
President, ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com
> 1.) COTA
> 2.) BOA
> 3.) 2nd Manassas
>
> The real klinker this year was Muppets Treasure Island. What a
> clickfest! And they got the stripes on Ernie's sweater all wrong -
> it's *not* red-blue red-blue... it's blue-red blue-red.
Total nonsense ! It's blue-red-tiny white stripe blue-red-tiny white
stripe - sheesh - how can a guy who calls himself a graphics guru not
know that !!! :)
http://www.dptv.org/images/ssl06/burtearniekelleythumb.jpg
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> > Good point. Next year we'll make it "published in the last 14
> months" -
> > that way AATF and others wouldn't be "punished" for being published so
> > late in the year.
> >
>
> I guess this is the unanticipated downside of timing releases to the
> Christmas season :)
>
> Seriously, I am just honoured that our little game gets a mention with
> these other great titles. Thanks for thinking of us!
You forgot to vote - or do I make that : AATF : 5 points :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
2. COTA. Still very refreshing (after the initial HTTR "shock" ;-)
andvery much 'fun'. Only the subject with the restricted terrain is a
minus. Love to see the desert war AA game, with maneuvre warfare in
realtime.
3. DTR. Very nice game, easy to get into, fast to play, strategic in
scope (not too many out there) and (hopefully) after the patch aslo fun
to play as the Germans.
Bas
Sure! I'll cast a vote for AATF. We would still be working on it if
we did think it was a contender. But there are a couple other games ~
would like to give kudos to.
COTA; Sure. Us pausable real-time wargame developers have got to
stick together. But this was a great game!
DEFCON: It's a beer and pretzels game for sure, but it is absolutely
addictive and it IS, in the strictest sense (the Perfect General and
CHQ sense) a wargame. It is also a great example of how a spartan
graphical presentation can still be asthetically attractive.
Sure! I'll cast a vote for AATF. We would still be working on it if
we did think it was a contender. But there are a couple other games ~
would like to give kudos to.
COTA; Sure. Us pausable real-time wargame developers have got to
stick together. But this was a great game!
DEFCON: It's a beer and pretzels game for sure, but it is absolutely
addictive and it IS, in the strictest sense (the Perfect General and
CHQ sense) a wargame. It is also a great example of how a spartan
graphical presentation can still be asthetically attractive.
Voila:
1) Birth of America
Because it's the best looking game, baby ;o)
2) Distant guns
Uncovered period, excellent naval battles simultation, nice campaign
3) Conquest of the Agean
Great wargame, terrific AI, third vote only because the engine is not
new as such
Bonne année à tous!
Ludovic
2. Take Command 2nd Manassas: Great period feel, plus it included the
little-known Battle of Chantilly, which took place a couple of miles from my
house.
3. COTA: Only played around with the demo so far, but I like what I see.
>The Rules :
1. RED ORCHESTRA, Red Orchestra yes I said RED ORCHESTRA the game
that's constantly being ignored by "WAR HISTORIC" yes I said WAR
HISTORIC - war! historic! - community!
Did I make my point clear enough? Guess not, since RO wasn't included
in Eddy's original post while many games no one plays were (uhm, 1483
anyone??).
Of course if you think war historic equals hexes, turns and boredom
feel free to ignore my vote :o)
2. Distant Guns - new, ambitious and excellent naval engine, marred by
bad PR and some mistakes made by publisher on release, but hey, we
need to recognise good work + lotsa space for improvement.
3. COTA - released very late, not much new brought to already
excellent, but already well praised engine. Actually I wanted to put
something else on #3 but upon closer inspection many other titles are
re-releases, minor updates and such, so, in Minor Updates category,
COTA may well be a winner and get overall #3.
Oleg
PS. Two words: Red Orchestra ;o)
>On 29 Dec 2006 00:49:09 -0800, "eddys...@hotmail.com"
><eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The Rules :
"Anti vote" is cool idea, too bad I can't really make up my
mind.....
- Anything by HPS
- Harpoon 3 Advanced something something
My vote:
1. Dominions 3
2. BOA
3. COTA
Thanks
Mark
> On 29 Dec 2006 00:49:09 -0800, "eddys...@hotmail.com"
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Rules :
>
> 1. RED ORCHESTRA, Red Orchestra yes I said RED ORCHESTRA the game
> that's constantly being ignored by "WAR HISTORIC" yes I said WAR
> HISTORIC - war! historic! - community!
>
> Did I make my point clear enough? Guess not, since RO wasn't included
> in Eddy's original post while many games no one plays were (uhm, 1483
> anyone??).
OP : "If you think I missed one (or several) feel free to add them -
this is
not a list of nominees" - did I make my point clear enough ? :)
You know what - I'm a bit of a bastard as I had seriously thought of
including it in the list, but didn't because I just knew you'd vote for
it :)
If I ever decide to make fishing my hobby, my main target species will
be Croats - they're soooo easy to catch :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Then "Armed Assault" should be considered next year too - in some countries
(Germany, Czech Republic and Poland) was ever released late this year. And
Op Flashpoint should have been a contender since way back.
I got Muppet Treasure Island noted down for 1 point - I really, really,
really don't care what you weirdos think should be called a "wargame"
for the purpose of this vote - this is an anarchy remember ? :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
RO is the best online shooter for now. ArmA is more a tactical
simulation with huge maps.
Michael
ArmA can be considered for this year as well for all I care -
it's a complete and utter disappointment anyway.
>> 1. RED ORCHESTRA, Red Orchestra yes I said RED ORCHESTRA the game
>> that's constantly being ignored by "WAR HISTORIC" yes I said WAR
>> HISTORIC - war! historic! - community!
>>
>> Did I make my point clear enough? Guess not, since RO wasn't included
>> in Eddy's original post while many games no one plays were (uhm, 1483
>> anyone??).
>
>OP : "If you think I missed one (or several) feel free to add them -
>this is
>not a list of nominees" - did I make my point clear enough ? :)
Fair enough, still let me know if "1483" ever gets one single
vote :o) What's this game about anyway? Perhaps I should go to
Wikipedia and click on some sort of list "all events from 1483" so I
would know :o)
Of course voters can add their own candidates in a contest like
this, but avoiding to mention RO, when you DID make a pretty extensive
list of candidates in the original post is kinda unfair (you simply
forgot admit it).
I'm playing it, and, while it is not something that makes you scream outside
to announce the Second Coming to the world, it is still an interesting piece
of software. Technically it is horrible, and this really weights it down,
and it is more like "Operation Flashpoint 1.5" than the 2.0 we were all
expecting, but as a *military* first person sim I can live with it. The fact
that many Mods for O:F can be adapted for ArmA with a minimal effort doesn't
hurt.
However, I agree that it should be patched/developed more. I hope that, by
the time the English edition is out, some basic troubles with the engine
will be ironed out. Ironically, as of now his biggest rival is O:F itself.
Well, you *do* know that Ernie's *gay*, don'tcha? This allows a certain
flamboyance for apparel.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Saddam Hussein won't be down for breakfast."
- Howie Carr
1. COTA - in a class of it's own.
2. Panzer Command Op Winter Storn (more innovative than it got credit
for)
3. AATF (I only wish it still had the old ATF UI :o( )
Bil
> Fair enough, still let me know if "1483" ever gets one single
> vote :o) What's this game about anyway?
Online free turn-based strategy game
http://www.1483online.com/index.php
> Of course voters can add their own candidates in a contest like
> this, but avoiding to mention RO, when you DID make a pretty extensive
> list of candidates in the original post is kinda unfair (you simply
> forgot admit it).
The list I posted is simply the list of my "whatsupdoc" document
listing all wargames in development or released this year - i.e. the
games I call wargames.
I had thought about adding the "obvious others" but decided against it
as I thought you would go on *another* quest to promote RO, Mr. Beretta
would fume at me "forgetting" Defcon, Mr. Gandalf Parker would insist
on me adding Dom3 etc. So I purposely didn't as it's all entertainment
to me. To quote Bugs Bunny : Ain't I a stinker :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eh, any votes ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
I kept a strict view on the concept of "wargame" for this vote. I wondered
if include Dom 3 in my shortlist, but at the end I decided to stay within
the strict "historical wargame" boundaries.
This is why Dom 3 is out, while Defcon would have made the fourth place :o)
1: Birth of America
2: Take command: 2nd Manassas
3: TOAW III
You know, Bil. Since AATF is backwards compatible with all of the ATF
Engine games, you could always install The Star and the Crescent BACK
OVER AATF, and play all of its scenarios in the older interface.
Either way, thanks for the vote!
2. COTA
3. 1848
pkpowers
> You know, Bil. Since AATF is backwards compatible with all of the ATF
> Engine games, you could always install The Star and the Crescent BACK
> OVER AATF, and play all of its scenarios in the older interface.
Thanks Pat, I didn't know that! :o)
Bil
>I had thought about adding the "obvious others" but decided against it
>as I thought you would go on *another* quest to promote RO, Mr. Beretta
>would fume at me "forgetting" Defcon,
I try to keep the "war historic" mantra in my mind when
discussing stuff on this group. Thus RO *definitely* belongs here,
while Defcon, despite being an excellent game, certainly better than
90% of games on your list, honestly cannot be considered "war
historic" and is thus left out by me.
Perhaps unfairly, when one thinks about it. I mean, seeing how
many people put re-hashed, re-released, barely updated engines on
their lists, Defcon's "failure" to be historically accurate seems like
a relatively insignificant shortcoming, considering how brilliantly
designed this game is.
We, as a group, should award originality, not put TOAW in some
quasi-new iteration and rehash on our collective list(s) for like
trillionth time in the last decade. It's a sad thing for wargaming
world if the only thing a company has to do to get some award is to
re-release TOAW. It's almost HPS-ishly boring and sad.
There ARE original and new games out there but it appears we
choose not to award them or ignore them completely because they are
FPS (Red Orchestra), not really 100% hisrotic (Defcon), too RTS-ish,
too this or too that. Hey lets pick good ole TOAW instead! Can't fail
with that. Not very encouraging for new ideas.
Just my opinion of course, and I am sure I can match any person
here in number of hours I spent playing TOAW.
Ralph Trickey
ROAW 3 Developer<g>
Hmmmm. Guess this might explain why the apartment he shared with Bert
was always so very clean.
I'll skip the rest of it except for the final line by a fireman that
really stuck
in my mind...
Sir, if you can't get excited about your work, how can you expect
anyone
else to?
Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer
> We, as a group, should award originality, not put TOAW in some
> quasi-new iteration and rehash on our collective list(s) for like
> trillionth time in the last decade. It's a sad thing for wargaming
> world if the only thing a company has to do to get some award is to
> re-release TOAW. It's almost HPS-ishly boring and sad.
Well, you may be barking up the wrong tree here. The two games which up
to now have *both* received more points in this vote than all other
games combined are an entirely new and fresh design tackling an obscure
era and an RTS^H^H^H I mean pausable continuous time game. So we, as a
group *are* rewarding originality.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
>Well, you may be barking up the wrong tree here. The two games which up
>to now have *both* received more points in this vote than all other
>games combined are an entirely new and fresh design tackling an obscure
>era and an RTS^H^H^H I mean pausable continuous time game. So we, as a
>group *are* rewarding originality.
Not really mate.
I saw TOAW mentioned in almost every post in this thread I
(randomly) opened, usually placed on third place, but still...... the
idea that so many W-H regulars think this poor re-release of 8 years
old turn-hex based monster belongs among top 3 games of 2006. is quite
sad (just my opinion of course).
I do love TOAW, hour for hour played it perhaps more then any
other game ever, but fer christs sake isn't it time to lay this legend
to rest? What message do we send to independent developers by voting
this as one of the games of the year for billionth time?
Also, COTA is what I'd call minor upgrade, even though it is
excellent, not turn based etc etc yadda yadda. But it's not new by any
honest measure.
In my opinion as reviewer and journalist, when voting for
products (any product not just games) of the year different etalons
should be used. Example: when judging DG and COTA as independent
products, I'd give higher marks to COTA (more polished engine etc),
but when voting for the game of the year award I'd praise DG more than
COTA, because DG is something new, something to remember this year
for, while COTA, for all it's greatness, is just a minor upgrade to
HTTR, a game we all collectivelly praised to heavens when it was
released.
Perhaps a whole new category (or categories) should be used for
"Truely New games" (like DG), "Minor Upgrades and New Theatres" (like
COTA), and "Boring re-releases" (HPS games + Harpoon X + TOAW 3).
Putting all those vastly different products in the same basket usually
results with huge bias against originality as people tend to stick
with what they know well and play for quite a some time.
The general idea is that at the "What's your wargame of the year?" question
one answers by giving a list of *his* "wargames of the year".
> On 31 Dec 2006 04:25:32 -0800, "eddys...@hotmail.com"
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, you may be barking up the wrong tree here. The two games which up
> >to now have *both* received more points in this vote than all other
> >games combined are an entirely new and fresh design tackling an obscure
> >era and an RTS^H^H^H I mean pausable continuous time game. So we, as a
> >group *are* rewarding originality.
>
> Not really mate.
>
> I saw TOAW mentioned in almost every post in this thread I
> (randomly) opened, usually placed on third place, but still...... the
> idea that so many W-H regulars think this poor re-release of 8 years
> old turn-hex based monster belongs among top 3 games of 2006. is quite
> sad (just my opinion of course).
Well, I can't speak for others, but for me TOAW 3 was a rejuvanation of
a timeless classic - I nearly gave it my 3rd place vote as well - and
you know how big I am on new ideas and designs.
> In my opinion as reviewer and journalist, when voting for
> products (any product not just games) of the year different etalons
> should be used. Example: when judging DG and COTA as independent
> products, I'd give higher marks to COTA (more polished engine etc),
> but when voting for the game of the year award I'd praise DG more than
> COTA, because DG is something new, something to remember this year
> for, while COTA, for all it's greatness, is just a minor upgrade to
> HTTR, a game we all collectivelly praised to heavens when it was
> released.
DG might be something completely new, but odds are no-one will be able
to play it 10 years from now given the server activation + the fact
patches cannot be downloaded separately + the fact you cannot fail to
visit the forum and see gamers bump a thread after 3 days because they
don't receive a reply on their "help, my ID key doesn't work upon
reinstall" post or mail.
I for one do not want to reward such a development by giving it my my
vote, let alone my money.
> Perhaps a whole new category (or categories) should be used for
> "Truely New games" (like DG), "Minor Upgrades and New Theatres" (like
> COTA), and "Boring re-releases" (HPS games + Harpoon X + TOAW 3).
I'm not stopping you from running such a poll :)
> Putting all those vastly different products in the same basket usually
> results with huge bias against originality as people tend to stick
> with what they know well and play for quite a some time.
That's probably why the two games which currently are getting the most
votes are hex-based 10-year-old dinausaur designs. Oh wait ...
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Out of interest, how much 'newness' does a game need before it can be
considered a new game for GOTY purposes? Are we going to reward novelty for
novelty's sake? If we carried this reasoning into other arenas, Hamlet'
shouldn't have been play-of-the-year in 1600(?) because it was written in
the same boring old English language and obviously based on so many other
sources.
snip
> Also, COTA is what I'd call minor upgrade, even though it is
> excellent, not turn based etc etc yadda yadda. But it's not new by any
> honest measure.
How much development time would qualify as a "non-minor upgrade" in
your opinion? What counts as "minor" in your opinion may be quite
major in other opinions. Same thing with TOAW III - the AI
improvements gave dozens of old favorite scenarios new life. IMHO TOAW
III was at least as significant as any previous TOAW sequel in terms of
its impact on the quality of gameplay, but that's my opinion.
Ultimately, let's let the votes decide - I'm sure folks are taking all
these things into account when the decide on their personal rankings
and I feel more comfortable with that than to pre-sort wargame releases
before voting, as you suggest, based on one or a few people's opinions
of what is considered a "major" or "new" release.
Regards,
- Erik
Exactly. The "Wargame of the Year" award to me is just that: everybody
chooses the games that gave to him the most satisfaction between those
published during 2007, and *after that* the debate because a game was onored
and another failed can be started. If the 582.898th iteration of an old
engine is an excellent game, I do not see why I should vote for a game which
"did things nobody ever did before!!!" when its sole merit is to make you
understand *why*.
> Ultimately, let's let the votes decide - I'm sure folks are taking all
> these things into account when the decide on their personal rankings
Well put - that's exactly what I expect people to do.
> and I feel more comfortable with that than to pre-sort wargame releases
> before voting, as you suggest, based on one or a few people's opinions
> of what is considered a "major" or "new" release.
That's also why I didn't want to go with a fixed list of nominees /
wargames released this year - because I want to give everyone the
option of using their own definition of what's a wargame for them.
In the end - and given enough voters to even things out - quality will
always prevail - which is how it should.
One other thing : how about a vote from you ? I know it might not be
the smartest thing to do from a commercial pov and the touchy-feelie
stuff with regard to developer's ego's but it's the only way to win an
autographed boxed copy of Battles from the Bulge - a unique item - an
you're a wargamer at heart :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
<snip>
> 2) Distant guns
> Uncovered period
If you don't count the Ironclads expansion pack for Peter Turcan's
Dreadnoughts (1992ish).
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Does that mean I could install AATF over TSATC and play TSATC with the
new interface?
> I saw TOAW mentioned in almost every post in this thread I
> (randomly) opened, usually placed on third place, but still...... the
> idea that so many W-H regulars think this poor re-release of 8 years
> old turn-hex based monster belongs among top 3 games of 2006. is quite
> sad (just my opinion of course).
<shrug>
Your pal Rose's DISTANT GUNS might have made my list ... oh, no, wait;
it's activation-based shitware than I won't buy. And RED ORCHESTRA is
click & twitch nonsense. And DOMINIONS3 is some wizards & warlocks
bullshit.
Funny how much this narrows things down.
> I do love TOAW, hour for hour played it perhaps more then any
> other game ever, but fer christs sake isn't it time to lay this legend
> to rest? What message do we send to independent developers by voting
> this as one of the games of the year for billionth time?
Hmmm. One message *I* want to send is, "Keep trying to jam
'activation' up my ass, and I'll ignore your shitware and play an
excellent revision of an eight-year-old classic that doesn't make this
asshole mistake."
> Also, COTA is what I'd call minor upgrade, even though it is
> excellent, not turn based etc etc yadda yadda. But it's not new by any
> honest measure.
So what? If some subjective measure of "newness" disqualified games,
HPS would have been outta the running in 1997.
> Perhaps a whole new category (or categories) should be used for
> "Truely New games" (like DG),
Or maybe "Games Nobody Bought Because The Developers Are Wretched,
Bleeding Assholes."
I did reason that BOA deserved a couple of crucial, additional, could-
have-put-them-over-the-top extra points precisely because BOA was a
brand new game and COTA was a sequel. In the final estimate, though,
the additional gameplay I got out of COTA allowed it to win by a nose.
But, being totally honest, there is a point where any game system will
succumb to "The BATTLEGROUND Syndrome" in my estimation, where no amount
of solid gameplay will overcome the sense that it's just another
sausage.
>Your pal Rose's DISTANT GUNS might have made my list ... oh, no, wait;
>it's activation-based shitware than I won't buy. And RED ORCHESTRA is
>click & twitch nonsense. And DOMINIONS3 is some wizards & warlocks
>bullshit.
Jim Rose ain't my "pal", and RO is by no means "click & twitch
nonsense"... absolutely positively not - I can forgive you Jim Rose
remark, but not the RO insult you threw obvisouly without trying the
game and/or without thinking too much.
In fact the number of "clicks" in RO is on average much lower
than in, say, WITP or TOAW for that matter. I click only when I
absolutely positively have to.
>So what? If some subjective measure of "newness" disqualified games,
>HPS would have been outta the running in 1997.
Well, for the purposes of any annual awards it should be (and it
pretty much is).
Yeah, I _would_ love to, but it's not really a good idea given that
there will almost certainly be hard feelings no matter how I vote.
Also, honestly it really is a very, very tough choice for me which are
my top three as I probably have a very different perspective on some of
these titles than most.
Regards,
- Erik
>Exactly. The "Wargame of the Year" award to me is just that: everybody
>chooses the games that gave to him the most satisfaction between those
>published during 2007, and *after that* the debate because a game was onored
>and another failed can be started. If the 582.898th iteration of an old
>engine is an excellent game, I do not see why I should vote for a game which
>"did things nobody ever did before!!!" when its sole merit is to make you
>understand *why*.
I have no problems with that of course, I just comment on the
results of the vote (so far).
It is very discouraging for any would-be new developer and/or
old developer with new ideas. The global message of the vote (so far)
appears to be: "developers, once you get any reasonably polished
engine going keep milking it for all it's worth for like bloody
DECADES".
If that is the snapshot of wargaming reality then so be it. I
can live with that. No wonder new dev teams are rare in this business
though - seems much smarter to go on programming..... well, pretty
much anything else (though some other game genres are also frozen in
time as well but it's their problem not ours LOL)
> >Your pal Rose's DISTANT GUNS might have made my list ... oh, no, wait;
> >it's activation-based shitware than I won't buy. And RED ORCHESTRA is
> >click & twitch nonsense. And DOMINIONS3 is some wizards & warlocks
> >bullshit.
>
> Jim Rose ain't my "pal", and RO is by no means "click & twitch
> nonsense"... absolutely positively not - I can forgive you Jim Rose
> remark, but not the RO insult you threw obvisouly without trying the
> game and/or without thinking too much.
The point is that folks are picking an excellent, spot-on revision of a
wargaming classic not because of some perverse instinct for nostalgia -
but because they genuinely believe it to warrant the honor ... in a year
that featured really a lot of good games.
You're making other choices. That's fine - but you'll have to excuse
some of us for plonking the whole idiotic "server-based" apocalypse or
not thinking some fluffy multiplayer FPS is properly a "historical
wargame."
Sorry.
> It is very discouraging for any would-be new developer and/or
> old developer with new ideas. The global message of the vote (so far)
> appears to be: "developers, once you get any reasonably polished
> engine going keep milking it for all it's worth for like bloody
> DECADES".
Hmmmm. Speaking for myself, I picked as #1 a much-awaited second
installment of a game I unabashedly consider the best computer wargame
of all time (COTA). As #2, I picked a brand-new and excellent game in a
genre I generally avoid (BOA). As #3, I picked a positively brilliant
revision that breathed fabulous new life into the wargame I've played
more of than any other (TOAW3).
If I had to choose a "message" I think my picks delivered, it would be,
"There's room out there for brilliant updates, fabulous new sequels, and
stunning new arrivals; they'll all get my $50 and my consideration for
WOTY."
What *won't* get my consideration - or my $$ - are (a) games that are
not historical wargames (RED ORCHESTRA, DOMINIONS3, MUPPET TREASURE
ISLAND), (b) software I can only briefly rent (DISTANT GUNS, Battlefront
eLicense shit), and (c) lackluster, tired sausages from HPS
(everything).
Dirk
Yes, but there is an inherent safety feature in our little contest: if
someone feels that "HTTR XXVII, Dropping on the Po River Valley" is becoming
a tired formula, he/she will not vote for it in for WotY 2036; if, OTOH,
someone feels that HTTR XXVII is still fresh he/she will vote it.
I was very happy with TOAW 3. But there are balance problems in a lot of the
scenarios designed when the ruleset was very different, and never updated
since then (for example, the same version of Two Weeks in Normandy ranges
from a trench warfare simulator to an Allied blitzkrieg out of the beaches
on D+2 according to the TOAW version/patch you are using). Also, I would
have liked to see the OOBs tweaked a little more ("breaking" more scenarios,
I know, but it is frustrating to play in the modern era and to see the A-10s
so undervalued). This was my call: At the end, in 2006 I played more BoA and
CotA, so I voted for them. It is as simple as that :o)
> I have no problems with that of course, I just comment on the
> results of the vote (so far).
>
> It is very discouraging for any would-be new developer and/or
> old developer with new ideas. The global message of the vote (so far)
> appears to be: "developers, once you get any reasonably polished
> engine going keep milking it for all it's worth for like bloody
> DECADES".
We might just as well have a look at the real numbers of the results of
the vote (so far)
COTA : 63 points
BoA : 48 points
TOAW 3 : 16 points
TC 2nd Manassas : 14 points
Is that sending the message across wargamers are living too much in the
past ?
> If that is the snapshot of wargaming reality then so be it. I
> can live with that. No wonder new dev teams are rare in this business
> though
They are ? Ok, let's look at the numbers again.
This is a partial list of developers who are on their first or second
game - of the top of my head.
- AGEOD (Birth of America)
- Western someting something (Crown of Glory, Forge of Freedom)
- Hussar games (1848, For Liberty)
- Justin Prince (WPO)
- Hubert Cater (SC1 - SC2)
- Ron Dockal (RGW - AGW)
- Mad Minute Games (TC Bull Run, TC 2nd M)
And that's not even mentioning the guys who are close to completing
their first game like Mike Kreuzer (Afrika) or who might be in the
business for a long time but are working on something completely new
like JMM (HistWar), or that new operational level engine Pat Proctor is
working on, or anything by Frank Hunter who always seems to bring
something new to the table, or the Slitherine guys and their first real
wargame (Commander : Europe at War) or WiE or ...
Seems there are plenty new developers and developments out there so
somehow I think the message wargamers are sending across is more like :
come up with something new that's any good and we'll buy it
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> Does that mean I could install AATF over TSATC and play TSATC with the
> new interface?
99.9% sure - I saw it mentioned in an official blurb somewhere.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
> > One other thing : how about a vote from you ? I know it might not be
> > the smartest thing to do from a commercial pov and the touchy-feelie
> > stuff with regard to developer's ego's but it's the only way to win an
> > autographed boxed copy of Battles from the Bulge - a unique item - an
> > you're a wargamer at heart :)
>
> Yeah, I _would_ love to, but it's not really a good idea given that
> there will almost certainly be hard feelings no matter how I vote.
Yeah, thought so too - a shame really - never mind, this marginally
increases the chances for the rest of us to win that box :)
> Also, honestly it really is a very, very tough choice for me which are
> my top three as I probably have a very different perspective on some of
> these titles than most.
That's why your vote would be so interesting - it being from a slightly
different perspective
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Oleg,
You'll be happy to know that we're testing the next upgrade for TOAW
III
for release fairly soon. It's got some neat features in it that didn't
make
the initial release. It's taken a lot longer than it should have, but
it's
almost finished. We're planning on what will be in the next upgrade,
and
I think that we're back on the track that I wanted to be on several
months
ago.
One of these upgrades will convince you to spend your hard-earned
money<g>
scenarios were all of reasonable quality. It wasn't until we were
almost ready
to release that I found out that they were of varying quality. There
are a lot of
new scenarios out there that should be well balanced, and hopefully,
there
will be more on the way after the next upgrade.
I won't promise it, but I'm really hoping to be able to provide the
capability to
modify equipment, which means that it will open up a whole bunch of new
scenarios as they get converted from their current BioEd'd versions.
>We might just as well have a look at the real numbers of the results of
>the vote (so far)
>
>COTA : 63 points
>BoA : 48 points
>TOAW 3 : 16 points
>TC 2nd Manassas : 14 points
>
>Is that sending the message across wargamers are living too much in the
>past ?
In my opinion - yes, absolutely. Especially considering that
good, new fresh games - or, dare I say, whole design philosophies -
appear to be totally ignored by this community for one reason or
another.
Also, I beg to differ, I didn't exactly say "living in the
past". This IS a historic group so we are kinda supposed to be living
in the past :o) LOL
I said, and I will quote: The global message of the vote (so
far) appears to be: "developers, once you get any reasonably polished
engine going keep milking it for all it's worth for like bloody
DECADES".
I must also apologize to BoA fans and developers - I never
played this game, so if it appears I am criticising it, or the people
who voted for it, this is not my intention.
>If I had to choose a "message" I think my picks delivered, it would be,
>"There's room out there for brilliant updates, fabulous new sequels, and
>stunning new arrivals; they'll all get my $50 and my consideration for
>WOTY."
>
>What *won't* get my consideration - or my $$ - are (a) games that are
>not historical wargames (RED ORCHESTRA, DOMINIONS3, MUPPET TREASURE
>ISLAND), (b) software I can only briefly rent (DISTANT GUNS, Battlefront
>eLicense shit), and (c) lackluster, tired sausages from HPS
>(everything).
Well as great Frenchman once said: Ce qui est terrible sur cette
terre, c’est que tout le monde a ses raisons. (loosely translated by
me as: what is terrible with this world is that everyone has his
reasons (for doing what they do).
(The Frenchman is Jean Renoir and the quote is from his great
and sometimes overlooked film from 1939 - The Rules of the Game, Le
Regle de Jeu. In fact I am just trying to irritate Giftz - using
French quotes should be pretty sure way of achieving this LOL.)
It's not about your individual vote Giftz as you may well have
your Renoir-esque reasons, it's about observing the trend.
I will quote myself again, right next to J. Renoir: The global
message of the vote (so far) appears to be: "developers, once you get
any reasonably polished engine going keep milking it for all it's
worth for like bloody DECADES".
I won't argue about Dominions or even Distant Guns - as
licensing sheme is good enough reason to vote the game out, I am just
sorry to see it happen.
I will, predictably, argue about RO "historicity" though, as
your "line of thought" represents the average wargamer and his
unwillingness to adopt new designs.
I think everyone here will accept HOI or GG WaW as historical
wargames (I think both got some votes in this thread as well). As we
know both games are very loosely based on history, HOI allows Rumania
or Venezuela to rule the world, or Germany and UK to form alliances,
while WaW has very loose-ended research and production systems + very
imprecise and inaccurate (some would even say gamey) OOB.
Yet both games work pretty well and both are considered
"historic enough" for this group and this vote. Why? Is it because we
are ready to accept loose historic ends on strategic side more easily
than on the tactical side (RO)?
Now, RO is not 100% historic (no game is, not even WITP or
COTA), but the *intent* to make first realistic, "as-much-as-possible"
historic, tactical FPS, even approaching simulation in some aspects,
is clearly there, and that's what counts (for some of us at least).
Now we can ignore that intent for some reason or another, or award
it.....
> >Is that sending the message across wargamers are living too much in the
> >past ?
>
> In my opinion - yes, absolutely. Especially considering that
> good, new fresh games - or, dare I say, whole design philosophies -
> appear to be totally ignored by this community for one reason or
> another.
Hmmmmm. What "good, fresh whole design philosophy" is represented by,
say, DISTANT GUNS? It's nothing more than a prettier FIGHTING STEEL
with better graphics, better damage modeling, and a painfully limited
setting[1]. Indeed, FIGHTING STEEL would probably have had all this
gimcrackery a decade ago ... if they didn't need to run it on a 486.
[1] You know, the better to sell you another game next year.
> I saw TOAW mentioned in almost every post in this thread I (randomly)
> opened, usually placed on third place, but still...... the idea that
> so many W-H regulars think this poor re-release of 8 years old
> turn-hex based monster belongs among top 3 games of 2006. is quite
> sad (just my opinion of course).
I disagree - it is NOT sad when people feel that a new AI or a new
theater etc. for a previously appraised engine is a great game, it just
shows that a good game has become even better and that people appreciate
this improvement (true not only for TOAW3, but also for COTA etc.).
> I do love TOAW, hour for hour played it perhaps more then any other
> game ever, but fer christs sake isn't it time to lay this legend to
> rest? What message do we send to independent developers by voting
> this as one of the games of the year for billionth time?
Hmm. Is this the "Wargame of the Year 2006" poll, or the "encourage
independent developers to create new game engines" poll? :-)
> Also, COTA is what I'd call minor upgrade, even though it is
> excellent, not turn based etc etc yadda yadda. But it's not new by
> any honest measure.
You seem to think that any "nice" game published in 2006 based on a new
game engine must somehow be better than a "great" game from 2005;
actually you even seem to think that it must be better than a further
improved great game. I strongly disagree. Depending on what gets
published in 2007, COTA may actually still be the best war game at the
end of 2007, despite tons of new engines which may be buggy, boring or
just not as good as existing engines.
> In my opinion as reviewer and journalist, when voting for products
> (any product not just games) of the year different etalons should be
> used. Example: when judging DG and COTA as independent products, I'd
> give higher marks to COTA (more polished engine etc), but when voting
> for the game of the year award I'd praise DG more than COTA, because
> DG is something new, something to remember this year for, while COTA,
> for all it's greatness, is just a minor upgrade to HTTR, a game we
> all collectivelly praised to heavens when it was released.
This seems to be the key - you think that the better COTA doesn't
deserve the title Wargame of the Year 2006 because it had a predecessor
that was already very good. This is like saying a sport club shouldn't
become champion in 2006 because it already won championship in 2005...
Of the few other war games I tried in 2007, none appealed to me.
In the anti-vote category, I vote for^H^H^Hagainst Distant Guns. The
demo was enough for me to dislike the game (and I really don't care
whether such a boring game has a great new game engine or not).
Unless Oleg manages to define the rules his way. :-P
> Did Fighting Steel have a campaign game?
Yup. Although, IIRC, it was a straight randomized one, instead of the
more elaborate strategic map-based campaign in GREAT BATTLES OF THE
NORTH ATLANTIC. And I'm not saying the campaign game in DG isn't
better, just that it's by no means the sort of unprecedented,
earthshaking innovation that makes Koger a High Priest Of The New
Religion.
But what's wrong with that? "Developers - the technology and market are
now mature enough to offer prospects of multi-year royalty streams from
core IP at the price of doing periodic updates." In other words - you
can do it as a long-term business, not just a hobby.
Yay!
And yay for everybody - because if there actually is a really viable
business niche, it will attract more & more professional developers and
marketers producing the kind of stuff we want - instead of
semi-hobbyist, often rather mediocre programmers and product developers.
Before Oleg jumps down my throat<g>. That's a free upgrade
to existing owners, You could call it a patch, since it does fix
a couple of problem areas, but it also adds in some major
chunks of functionality.
Of course, you could always write it next year... I am sure
that I will<g>
Ralph Trickey
TOAW III Programmer.
I know that I like to play games like Civ, HOMM, etc. Some people scoff
at them, and call them old school, but they still are getting made for
the mainstream, and still selling there.
--
My tactical voting:
1. Birth of America
2. -
3. Conquest of the Aegean
Honourable mentions: Air Assault Task Force; Cry Havoc; DefCon; Muppet
Treasure Island (of course it's a wargame); Take Command: 2nd Bull Run.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
> Oleg Mastruko wrote:
> >
> > I will quote myself again, right next to J. Renoir: The global
> > message of the vote (so far) appears to be: "developers, once you get
> > any reasonably polished engine going keep milking it for all it's
> > worth for like bloody DECADES".
> >
>
> But what's wrong with that? "Developers - the technology and market are
> now mature enough to offer prospects of multi-year royalty streams from
> core IP at the price of doing periodic updates." In other words - you
> can do it as a long-term business, not just a hobby.
>
> Yay!
Also : the investment you are now making in man/years of development
costs can be distributed over more than one game.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Disclaimer: I still have to get stuck into COTA and TOAW3 properly.
COTA's manual and GUI scare me...
Disappointment of 2006: Strategic Command 2.
Instead of a nifty, slick midprice beer n pretzel treatment of WW2, we
get a fullprice Civ2 mod. With product activation.
-von Schmidt
> COTA's manual and GUI scare me...
The manual is only scary because it's so damned complete :)
In fact the whole COTA manual is one big exercise in <this> is an IRL
feature of WWII operational combat and <this> is how it's implemented
in the game - the great thing about COTA is that the GUI takes care of
most of this for you, there's no wrestling the GUI here, you only
(ahum) have to come-up with a genuine, excellent operational plan to
beat the enemy. Should be easy :)
For a quick tour of the GUI check out the 5 minute video by your's
truly over here : http://cota.matrixgames.com/
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Yep! You can install AATF over any or all of the older, ATF Engine
games, and instantly upgrade them to the new interface.
PAT PROCTOR
President, ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com
The problem with TOAW is that, with its various "iterations", designers used
to create scenarios which potrayed a certain battle so that the feeling was
"right" under one particular iteration. For example (I'm talking
ipotetically here, but it is part of my TOAW experience) the tanks were a
little undervalued in the first verions of the game, so some scenarios used
unreastically tank-heavy units to better potray the power of armored
formations on the battlefield. As a result, when Norm tweaked the routines
with a new patch the tank units in these scenarios suddenly became
juggernaugts.
Ironically, other designers went for the "painstakingly researched OOB"
(almost bordering OCS) without considering that a close examination of the
data sheets for the game's units showed dubious values for many units. It is
futile to research the exact number of Panthers in the 1SS in the Bulge, or
of the A-10s that served in Central Europe in 1985, if their practical
effect in the game is half what it should be. And of course if you double
their number you smack a into lowered overall attrition due to losses *and*
the possibility that a new patch will correctly beef up the Panthers/A-10s -
again turning these units in the scenario into the Bringers of Death.
I really like TOAW (who doesn't :o) ) but being mauled as NATO and then
discovering that the WP was made overpowered by a patch (that, ironically,
maybe fixed a problem) published after the date the scenario was designed
means that you have just wasted some hours of your gaming time :^/
>Did Fighting Steel have a campaign game?
It did, it was awful :o)
Now having said that I gotta honestly admit campaign is by far
the weakest point in DG as well (albeit for entirely different
reasons).
>> Unless Oleg manages to define the rules his way. :-P
>
>Before Oleg jumps down my throat<g>. That's a free upgrade
>to existing owners, You could call it a patch, since it does fix
>a couple of problem areas, but it also adds in some major
>chunks of functionality.
Most important thing for TOAW, and my biggest disappointment
with TOAW 3 - is the lack of new/updated scenarios.
Obviously seeking to impress potential customers by sheer
numbers, someone decided to include every damn scenario available,
most without any playtesting whatsoever.
>Maybe the message is that some people actually like to play Hex based
>Turn based IGO/UGO games? You don't need to use a fully 3D engine, and
>a huge budget for graphics to make a good game?
All fine by me. I am sure I will play WITP well into 2008. if
not well into next decade.
But I will most certainly not vote for WITP patched to 1.90,
with couple new featurettes and scenarios NOT updated to use them, as
game of the Year 2007..........
As for TOAW, things would look much better with a solid
selection of well designed, thoroughly playtested scenarios by premier
designers (you know who they are ;o), using latest features of the
TOAW engine. I would still not vote for it as GOTY, but hey :o)