Napoleon Total War - interview
eddys...@hotmail.com
http://www.nzgamer.com/pc/features/847/napoleon-total-war-interview.html
It's supposed to be a good interview - haven't got the time for it
right now but I saw the new trailer yesterday and if you're looking
for Napolenic tactical battles please look elsewhere. Units in column
of division having no problem firing through ranks in front of them
and ships-of-the-line milling about and shooting at each other from a
distance of 10 yards <rolls eyes>
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Usenet Commando
How's that any less realistic than rolling some virtual dice and
crunching a few numbers to get the results? At least in TW it is
visually appealing. You fail to realize that the battles in TW series
are actually abstracted with nice visuals and not a tactical battle
simulator with realistic ballistics etc. ie. 1 man in TW battles does
not = 1 real man. That should clue you in right off the bat. Doh!
Nats
"Usenet Commando" <Use...@Commando.invalid> wrote in message
news:01623a64$0$11369$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
The Total War games have had their day - move over and let someone else have
a shot at gaming. Theyre as dull as ditchwater these days.
Cronos
> The Total War games have had their day - move over and let someone else
> have a shot at gaming. Theyre as dull as ditchwater these days.
Still beats the same old same old hex wargames that hearken back to the
dark ages of board games.
Vincenzo Beretta
> have a shot at gaming. Theyre as dull as ditchwater these days.
...Loathsomeness waits and dreams in the deep, and decay spreads over the
tottering cities of men...
Bloodstar
> have a shot at gaming. Theyre as dull as ditchwater these days.
Wouldn't say that. And market is free for others to try. They don't have
monopool on such games.
Oleg Mastruko
<Use...@Commando.invalid> wrote:
>How's that any less realistic than rolling some virtual dice and
>crunching a few numbers to get the results? At least in TW it is
>visually appealing. You fail to realize that the battles in TW series
>are actually abstracted with nice visuals and not a tactical battle
>simulator with realistic ballistics etc. ie. 1 man in TW battles does
>not = 1 real man. That should clue you in right off the bat. Doh!
Exactly.
I love it when people who play hex based and (god forbid) dice
based games come and criticise TW for it's supposed lack of realism.
Empire Total War simulated various advances in rifle and bayonet
technologies and tactics quite decently.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:44:49 -0800, Usenet Commando
>
> <Use...@Commando.invalid> wrote:
> >How's that any less realistic than rolling some virtual dice and
> >crunching a few numbers to get the results? At least in TW it is
> >visually appealing. You fail to realize that the battles in TW series
> >are actually abstracted with nice visuals and not a tactical battle
> >simulator with realistic ballistics etc. ie. 1 man in TW battles does
> >not = 1 real man. That should clue you in right off the bat. Doh!
>
> Exactly.
>
> I love it when people who play hex based and (god forbid) dice
> based games come and criticise TW for it's supposed lack of realism.
The day I see Mohawks advancing in a nice column formation in a hex
based dice game is the day I agree with you.
You can say that TW games look pretty and are fun, but suggesting that
there's anything remotely realistic in those games regarding period
tactics is a total hoot.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Oleg Mastruko
>> I love it when people who play hex based and (god forbid) dice
>> based games come and criticise TW for it's supposed lack of realism.
>
>The day I see Mohawks advancing in a nice column formation in a hex
>based dice game is the day I agree with you.
You ain't gonna see them advancing in no collumn as you won't
*see* them do anything in a hex based game. They will be abstracted as
an unmovable icon, in a hex. Now, by your logic, how poor is that?
We may discuss whether including Indians was a good decision at
the first place - personaly I prefer playing with land based Euro
empires in ETW, and I prefer M2TW - no Mohawks there at all - among
the TW games but that's just me.
Basing a TW criticism on Mohawks is like basing criticism of
TOAW on some piss poor user made scenario that was included in TOAW 3.
I could do that, you know.... and I did that, but always making
distinction between the excellent basic engine and some abomination
someone pasted onto it.
>You can say that TW games look pretty and are fun, but suggesting that
>there's anything remotely realistic in those games regarding period
>tactics is a total hoot.
You're wrong mate.
TW games are very very complex with LOTS of number crunching
going behind the screen. Some of this number crunching is so complex
people on the boards are still discussing and experimenting with how
combat calculations really work (just like people at TOAW boards do).
So, your Mohawks, while they may appear to advance in line, will
be **visibly** less coherent than European line infantry, and would
pay even more penalties in number crunching part of the game.
Funny how no one ever mentions some very visible realism based
improvements like f.e. modelling fatigue? Most period games I know
don't model fatigue (now don't mention some that do, I know they
exist). In TW games fatigue is a factor, you can't race your cavalry
(let alone pachyderm cavalry) all over the field and expect them to
perform admirably, you can't run infantry up the hill without tiring
them considerably etc.
With great many tactical tools implemented in the engine, the
rest are nuances. Is this unit relistically modelled? Should
Byzantines be allowed to have so many Varangian guards? Is Pavise
shield more efficient than buckler? Should Italian crossbowmen have
higher rate of fire than French?
Those things, and many MANY others are modelled in the engine,
beyond that line, though, it's up to the modders to tweak the engine,
and boy tweaked it they did...
Rome TW was IMO the most cartoony, unrealistic of the series
right out of the box, and units like war dogs, head throwing
barbarians and such gave the whole series a bad name. Yes those units
and unrealistic speed of the initial release of RTW were an
abomination. However, this mistake was never repeated, even RTW was
built on complex and solid foundations, and once modders removed crap
units, slowed the game down, and introduced a realism based tweak or
two it was a marvelous and, yes, pretty realistic game overall. Not as
good as M2TW but pretty good.
I don't know of any PC based tactical game more realistic than
modded RTW and especially M2TW for their respective periods. Prove me
wrong if you can. (I am no expert at antique warfare gaming so I
readily admit there could be good games there, that I don't know of.)
Cronos
> The day I see Mohawks advancing in a nice column formation in a hex
> based dice game is the day I agree with you.
It's up to you to change the formation, dumbass, you are the commander.
I bet most of those old boardgames you play don't even have formations,
just stacks of chits with abstract numbers representing force strength.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> TW games are very very complex with LOTS of number crunching
> going behind the screen.
Garbage in, garbage out ?
> So, your Mohawks, while they may appear to advance in line,
... and thereby killing your entire "realism" argument.
> will
> be **visibly** less coherent than European line infantry,
Oh, great, they act like brittle European line infantry.
> Funny how no one ever mentions some very visible realism based
> improvements like f.e. modelling fatigue? Most period games I know
> don't model fatigue
What games have you been playing ? Even the HPS Napoleonic
Battleground games model fatigue.
> (now don't mention some that do, I know they
> exist).
I'll turn it around : name me one Napoleonic tactical/operational
wargame which *doesn't* model fatigue.
> beyond that line, though, it's up to the modders to tweak the engine,
> and boy tweaked it they did...
So basically you agree that a TW game right out of the box is a piece
of crap and that it's only saved by the grace of modders. Did modders
succeed in making Mohawks act like they did IRL ?
> I don't know of any PC based tactical game more realistic than
> modded RTW and especially M2TW for their respective periods. Prove me
> wrong if you can.
So basically your take on it is that they're the best currently
available on the computer.
Fair enough and certainly a hard point to argue given the lamentable
state of ancient/medieval warfare on the pc - in contrast to what's
available in the tabletop world.
My take on it is that so far *most* ancient/medieval games on the
computer sucked, that's why I'm so much looking forward to Rob
Pollard's Ancient Armies
http://www.ancientarmies.co.uk/blog/
He's got the basics correct. It 300% less pretty than RTW, but we
talked about Roman tactics in here with him the developers of the TW
have never even heard of.
>(I am no expert at antique warfare gaming so I
> readily admit there could be good games there, that I don't know of.)
Not really. The Tin Soldiers games were certainly not bad, with a good
AI, and the pc version of Cry Havoc was done extremely well, but the
recent adaptation of the hit tabletop ruleset Field of Glory to the pc
left me totally cold.
So, yeah, I can understand it when wargamers call the TW series fun,
with amazing graphics, but underneath it's just as far removed from
the historical reality of the time as hex based dice games.
If you really want to take a look at ancient warfare and wargaming my
recommendation is you pick up a copy of the rulesets of Warhammer
Ancient Battles or Field of Glory. The day they make a faithfull pc
conversion of those rules is the day you ditch TW games.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Bloodstar
where are popcorrn :o)))
Oleg Mastruko
>> TW games are very very complex with LOTS of number crunching
>> going behind the screen.
>
>Garbage in, garbage out ?
Your opinion, prolly based on Internet bullshit and the fact
that the game actually looks nice (an unforgivable no no for some
grognard circles), and sells good (an even bigger no no for grogs).
>Oh, great, they act like brittle European line infantry.
No they do not.
>What games have you been playing ? Even the HPS Napoleonic
>Battleground games model fatigue.
Then go play HPS crap and enjoy yourself!
>So basically you agree that a TW game right out of the box is a piece
>of crap and that it's only saved by the grace of modders.
No.
Besides, Eddy, you do really REALLY bad Giftz role playing
routine. I suggest you just let Giftz be Giftz and switch to some
other role.
Other than that, we may discuss the fact (or hypothesis) that
most modern games do rely on some sort of community effort to really
succeed, or merely survive. For TOAW, for example, it was community
scenario design, for RTW (Rome TW) it was modding.
So yes, for Rome TW I do agree the game was piece of crap outta
box (it's a long story though), but it was eventually modded to almost
perfection (we probably won't agree there).
Medieval 2 TW was pretty fine right outta box, and it was
furhter modded to best medieval wargame I know of.
Empire TW... is more complex... right outta box it had
completely broken diplomatic model - something we don't discuss here
anyway, as we are commenting only tactical battles. Tac battles were
fine outta box, and again are being modded to even higher level. After
some patches diplomacy works OK.
>My take on it is that so far *most* ancient/medieval games on the
>computer sucked, that's why I'm so much looking forward to Rob
>Pollard's Ancient Armies
>
>http://www.ancientarmies.co.uk/blog/
>
>He's got the basics correct. It 300% less pretty than RTW, but we
>talked about Roman tactics in here with him the developers of the TW
>have never even heard of.
I wish that dude all the luck, he's gonna need it.
I have no problems with that or any other game being "300% less
pretty than RTW". Hell I would not even say that, for me it looks
pretty enough. The problem is on the other side of the fence: some
people can't forgive TW series being pretty and actually successfull.
Being "pretty" does not make any game necesarilly bad, you know.
>Not really. The Tin Soldiers games were certainly not bad, with a good
>AI, and the pc version of Cry Havoc was done extremely well, but the
>recent adaptation of the hit tabletop ruleset Field of Glory to the pc
>left me totally cold.
Tin Soldiers were really really bad. That one I actually tried.
Developers seemed like a nice bunch of boardgame-obsessed dudes who
got the PC by some chance, so I refused to write bad review for my
local magazine, but hell it was bad.
>So, yeah, I can understand it when wargamers call the TW series fun,
>with amazing graphics, but underneath it's just as far removed from
>the historical reality of the time as hex based dice games.
I disagree.
>If you really want to take a look at ancient warfare and wargaming my
>recommendation is you pick up a copy of the rulesets of Warhammer
>Ancient Battles or Field of Glory. The day they make a faithfull pc
>conversion of those rules is the day you ditch TW games.
Could be. I await that day as much as you.
In the meantime, I suggest you take a look at, say, Medieval 2
TW with patches, and some fine mod applied (say Broken Crescent or any
mod that uses some advanced BAI, battle AI, Lands to Conquer would do,
XAI...), playing some realistic scenario vs human opponent over the
net.
I don't think there's any better period based wargame for PC on
the market.
Cronos
> Tin Soldiers were really really bad.
Uh-oh,you are in for it now because both Eddy and Gifty love that game.
I bought it based on opinion here and it was as much fun as watching
paint dry so agree with you.
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
LOL
It was like watching a web based Flash animation of two guys
play a miniature game - not very smart guys, and not very nice
miniatures at that - and suddenly realising one of the guys is
actually me.
I can understand all sorts of wargames, hexes, no hexes, real
time, boardgames, monster games, PC, no PC, you name it, but
miniatures.... those guys are kinda freaky. Miniatures on a PC? Double
freaky.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:40:14 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> TW games are very very complex with LOTS of number crunching
> >> going behind the screen.
>
> >Garbage in, garbage out ?
>
> Your opinion, prolly based on Internet bullshit
Nope, based on that game trailer where troops where firing *through*
ranks in front of them to enemy troops beyond.
> and the fact
> that the game actually looks nice (an unforgivable no no for some
> grognard circles),
Not for me - I like good graphics - I wish all wargames had good
graphics.
> and sells good (an even bigger no no for grogs).
Again not my reason to dislike the game
> >Oh, great, they act like brittle European line infantry.
>
> No they do not.
The real question is : do they act like the Mohawks historically did ?
And the answer is a resounding no, thereby pretty much destroying your
"oh, but the game is soooo historical" claim.
> >What games have you been playing ? Even the HPS Napoleonic
> >Battleground games model fatigue.
>
> Then go play HPS crap and enjoy yourself!
Weird. I thought it was you who claimed that "no other period wargame
on the market models fatigue" - while it was my argument that even
crappy HPS games modeled fatigue and it was up to you to provide a
single period wargame which *didn't* model fatigue. <looks around for
such an example> seems like you failed, so there goes your claim about
the TW game.
> >So basically you agree that a TW game right out of the box is a piece
> >of crap and that it's only saved by the grace of modders.
>
> No.
>
> Besides, Eddy, you do really REALLY bad Giftz role playing
> routine. I suggest you just let Giftz be Giftz and switch to some
> other role.
You made claims. I countered them and asked you to provide proof. It's
not my fault that you like the game so much that it blinds your
judgement.
> Other than that, we may discuss the fact (or hypothesis) that
> most modern games do rely on some sort of community effort to really
> succeed, or merely survive.
Most wargames try to get that sort of thing started - and most
wargames released today fail at it. There simply isn't the mass
anymore needed for a vibrant mod community except for very, very, very
good games.
> So yes, for Rome TW I do agree the game was piece of crap outta
> box (it's a long story though), but it was eventually modded to almost
> perfection (we probably won't agree there).
I wouldn't know - you have to be in love with the base game to even
bother following the mod scene - I don't in this case - given limited
time I prefer to put it into following the mod scene of games that
appeal to me straight away. That's why I post about mods for
Commander : Europe at War, but not about mods for the TW series.
If someone else is convinced that particular mods really elevate the
base game to "real wargame" standard he's free to post about it in
here and I might investigate it. But blank claims about the TW series
being sooo superior to anything we play ain't gonna fly.
> Medieval 2 TW was pretty fine right outta box, and it was
> furhter modded to best medieval wargame I know of.
In the land of the blind ...
> Empire TW... is more complex... right outta box it had
> completely broken diplomatic model - something we don't discuss here
> anyway, as we are commenting only tactical battles.
Usually pretty much every aspect of a game is discussed here in my
experience.
> The problem is on the other side of the fence: some
> people can't forgive TW series being pretty and actually successfull.
>
> Being "pretty" does not make any game necesarilly bad, you know.
I think you'll have a mighty hard time coming up with a post of mine
in which I diss good graphics or successful games just because of
those reasons.
> Tin Soldiers were really really bad. That one I actually tried.
> Developers seemed like a nice bunch of boardgame-obsessed dudes who
> got the PC by some chance, so I refused to write bad review for my
> local magazine, but hell it was bad.
Huh ? The Tin Soldiers series was a *tabletop* system transfered to
the pc, not a boardgame. And when you got stuck in you couldn't help
but notice the AI was pretty sharp and agressive.
I've always played boardgames and tabletop wargames which has made me
accutely aware of the limitations of pc wargames, especially when it
comes to accurately portraying period tactics. This experience, more
than anything else, makes me look at the E:TW trailer, shake my head,
and pick up my copy of Black Powder or Shako and mumble "amateurs" and
I think that you would too if you widened your horizon beyond pc based
wargames.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I can understand all sorts of wargames, hexes, no hexes, real
> time, boardgames, monster games, PC, no PC, you name it, but
> miniatures.... those guys are kinda freaky.
In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Cronos
> In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
> used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
> freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
> warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
A miniatures game is about as realistic to real warfare as a game of
chess, not very.
Cronos
> I've always played boardgames and tabletop wargames which has made me
> accutely aware of the limitations of pc wargames, especially when it
> comes to accurately portraying period tactics. This experience, more
> than anything else, makes me look at the E:TW trailer, shake my head,
> and pick up my copy of Black Powder or Shako and mumble "amateurs" and
> I think that you would too if you widened your horizon beyond pc based
> wargames.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
If we took up board wargames we would have to play against Eddy Sterckx
clones, uh, no thank you.
Holdit
oleg@_REMOVE_bug.hr says...
>
> Medieval 2 TW was pretty fine right outta box, and it was
> furhter modded to best medieval wargame I know of.
>
I enjoyed M2TW, but to my ear there's something odd about crediting the
game with what modders have done to fix what's wrong with it.
Holdit
--
"Madame, they told me you were ugly; they did not exaggerate."
- Napoleon
Holdit
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <hgsj32$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> cro...@sphere.invalid says...
>
> > eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
> > > used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
> > > freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
> > > warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
>
> > A miniatures game is about as realistic to real warfare as a game of
> > chess, not very.
>
> Explain why.
Because George compares the big explosions in war movies on his tv to
the big explosions provided by his kiddie pc wargame and concludes
that these better model the reality of war than tabletop wargames he's
once seen a picture of on some website.
The reality is that tabletop wargames do have serious limitations and
handicaps, but correct period tactics and historicity are just the
main strengths of tabletop wargaming.
They are designed for effect so that correct tactics for the period
result in correct battlefield results and visuals. It's got to look
and feel right and be historically correct before a tabletop wargamer
concludes a ruleset is any good.
PC wargamers ain't that picky, mostly because of the scarcity of good
pc wargame designs to start with.
That said, I've got no trouble saying that when a really good pc
wargame design comes along it *trounces* comparable tabletop and board
wargames. There's nothing in those worlds which can stand up against
games like Highway to the Reich for instance.
And the pc has got other strengths too - for instance a ready opponent
and a vast amount of available scenarios for a given system like TOAW
or the Campaign Series.
So what I would like pc wargames to focus on is to play to those
strengths and try to remedy the problem areas. Translated this means :
provide a really good AI, provide lots of scenarios, avoid design
abominations like hexes for linear warfare periods etc.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Cronos
> Explain why.
Because it is pure abstraction and nothing more. Stop kidding yourself
if you think it is a simulation of real war.
Cronos
> Because George compares the big explosions in war movies on his tv to
> the big explosions provided by his kiddie pc wargame and concludes
> that these better model the reality of war than tabletop wargames he's
> once seen a picture of on some website.
Isn't tabletop miniatures where you have hand painted lead soldiers and
knock the opponents soldiers over with your hand and shout "boom! Your
dead." I stopped playing with plastic soldiers when I was about ten
years old. Haven't you outgrown it yet?
Giftzwerg
@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I can understand all sorts of wargames, hexes, no hexes, real
> > time, boardgames, monster games, PC, no PC, you name it, but
> > miniatures.... those guys are kinda freaky.
>
> In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
> used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
> freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
> warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
When I want to know some detail of Cold War Soviet armor, I don't
consult Janes - I ask my father-in-law; he's an armor modeler and detail
freak. Janes shows you a picture of a T-62 with East German markings,
my father-in-law can tell you chapter and verse about the modifications
the East Germans made to the thing.
It's always easy to abstract detail *that you're aware of*, and harder
to get things right when you're abstracting from ignorance.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"A day after Sen. Joe Lieberman said he won't vote for the Democratic
health reform bill as currently written, a progressive public policy
blog is trying to oust his wife Hadassah as global ambassador for the
Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer group."
- Ira Teinowitz
"What's the difference between the Mafia and a Hollywood Leftist? the
Mafia doesn't go after your family."
- Big Hollywood
Giftzwerg
faf408...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > >Oh, great, they act like brittle European line infantry.
> >
> > No they do not.
>
> The real question is : do they act like the Mohawks historically did ?
> And the answer is a resounding no, thereby pretty much destroying your
> "oh, but the game is soooo historical" claim.
If a graphic for Mohawks even appears on the battlefield as anything but
puffs of black powder smoke from dense woods, then they're not "acting
like Mohawks historically did."
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <7b49451a-8e91-491e-ac81-308a1ca7d895
>
> > > I can understand all sorts of wargames, hexes, no hexes, real
> > > time, boardgames, monster games, PC, no PC, you name it, but
> > > miniatures.... those guys are kinda freaky.
>
> > In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
> > used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
> > freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
> > warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
>
> When I want to know some detail of Cold War Soviet armor, I don't
> consult Janes - I ask my father-in-law; he's an armor modeler and detail
> freak. Janes shows you a picture of a T-62 with East German markings,
> my father-in-law can tell you chapter and verse about the modifications
> the East Germans made to the thing.
>
> It's always easy to abstract detail *that you're aware of*, and harder
> to get things right when you're abstracting from ignorance.
We've played a couple of (tabletop) games of Cold War Commander and
I'm 99% sure the army lists in there make a difference between a plain
Russian T-62 and a GDR one.
It's pretty simple for tabletop guys : if it made a difference on the
battlefield it should make a difference in the ruleset. It works the
other way around too : in Napoleonic times the difference between
light infantry and regular line infantry mostly vanished - so most
rulesets don't differentiate between the two anymore. Design for
historical effect to the n-th degree.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Holdit
cro...@sphere.invalid says...
Are you seriously suggesting that computer wargames aren't also
abstractions?
The realism of any game is in the decision processes it prompts and in
the plausibility of the unit behaviours and combat outcomes.
If these aren't right - it doesn't matter what's going on under the
bonnet - or how sexy the graphics.
Holdit
--
"I watched the footage of Saddam being executed, and it really made me
think...it made me think, is there nothing on the Internet that I won't
masturbate to?"
- Frankie Boyle
Holdit
83d880...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> On 23 dec, 10:19, Holdit <holdi...@SPAMindigoPLEASE.ie> wrote:
> > In article <hgsj32$1b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > cro...@sphere.invalid says...
> >
> > > eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
> > > > used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
> > > > freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
> > > > warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
> >
> > > A miniatures game is about as realistic to real warfare as a game of
> > > chess, not very.
> >
> > Explain why.
>
> Because George compares the big explosions in war movies on his tv to
> the big explosions provided by his kiddie pc wargame and concludes
> that these better model the reality of war than tabletop wargames he's
> once seen a picture of on some website.
Would these be the explosions that *always* produce a big fireball? ;-)
>
> The reality is that tabletop wargames do have serious limitations and
> handicaps, but correct period tactics and historicity are just the
> main strengths of tabletop wargaming.
Exactly - see my reply to George. I will take the clunkiness of a good
set of miniatures rules over a poor set of computer rules any time. In
fact, it's only a marriage of the two approaches that gets me an
acceptable Napoleonic wargame right now.
>
> They are designed for effect so that correct tactics for the period
> result in correct battlefield results and visuals. It's got to look
> and feel right and be historically correct before a tabletop wargamer
> concludes a ruleset is any good.
That's how I look at it too - and I'm not a tabletop gamer.
>
> PC wargamers ain't that picky, mostly because of the scarcity of good
> pc wargame designs to start with.
>
> That said, I've got no trouble saying that when a really good pc
> wargame design comes along it *trounces* comparable tabletop and board
> wargames. There's nothing in those worlds which can stand up against
> games like Highway to the Reich for instance.
Agreed.
>
> And the pc has got other strengths too - for instance a ready opponent
> and a vast amount of available scenarios for a given system like TOAW
> or the Campaign Series.
Also, convenience, no figure painting or scenery required, you can save
a game and come back to it later, it handles the book-keeping for you
rolls the dice and you never need to look up the rules. The trouble is,
if aspects of the game are causing you to frequently react along the
lines "Whaaaa'? - That's stupid!", then the aforementioned advantages
don't matter a damn.
>
> So what I would like pc wargames to focus on is to play to those
> strengths and try to remedy the problem areas. Translated this means :
> provide a really good AI, provide lots of scenarios, avoid design
> abominations like hexes for linear warfare periods etc.
>
I can even live with hexes, as long as the rest of it is right -
although I'd prefer to do without them.
Giftzwerg
@t42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > It's always easy to abstract detail *that you're aware of*, and harder
> > to get things right when you're abstracting from ignorance.
>
> We've played a couple of (tabletop) games of Cold War Commander and
> I'm 99% sure the army lists in there make a difference between a plain
> Russian T-62 and a GDR one.
>
> It's pretty simple for tabletop guys : if it made a difference on the
> battlefield it should make a difference in the ruleset. It works the
> other way around too : in Napoleonic times the difference between
> light infantry and regular line infantry mostly vanished - so most
> rulesets don't differentiate between the two anymore. Design for
> historical effect to the n-th degree.
I think this kind of attention to detail shows up in two significant
ways in wargame designs:
The first is plain chrome. Sure, it's not really important to the
conduct of an armored battle that someone took the time to build
different graphics for all the different marks of Sherman tanks that
might appear, or to a Civil War scenario that a brigade of Pennsylvania
Zouaves had the appropriate leggings ... but it's cool nonetheless, and
gamers (who tend to know such things) really appreciate seeing a
difference between the 1944 and 1945 paint jobs on NEW JERSEY.
The second is plain getting it right. Whenever I see attention to
detail focused on things that might make only a marginal difference in
terms of actual gameplay, I first wonder what benefits to gameplay might
be resulting from attention to detail that isn't obvious. There might
not be a significant difference between a Red Army T-62 and a GDR T-62,
but seeing that the designers considered this in the game's development
speaks volumes about their skills even if they ultimately decided to
make the units the same in game-factor terms.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Also, convenience, no figure painting or scenery required,
Ain't got either - my tabletop group has plenty of people who are into
that - I just provide them with an opponent they can easily beat :)
> you can save
> a game and come back to it later,
Solution : dedicated wargame room - got the attic reserved for that
for when I retire :)
> it handles the book-keeping for you
Agreed.
> rolls the dice
That's a negative point - I don't know a single tabletop player who
likes having his dice thrown by a computer - if you'd put a computer
next to a table to make dice-rolls it would get thrown out of the
window within 5 minutes. I know, because we played exactly 1 game like
that where the computer calculated the outcome of a firefight and we
hated it. It's like Vegas, every wargamer needs to believe he can beat
the odds when he throws himself.
> and you never need to look up the rules.
Would you believe that most pc wargames today come with manuals which
are 5 times longer than what is normal for tabletop and boardgames ?
> The trouble is,
> if aspects of the game are causing you to frequently react along the
> lines "Whaaaa'? - That's stupid!", then the aforementioned advantages
> don't matter a damn.
Yeah, I get that a lot with pc wargames - and it's pretty hard to talk
the computer into agreeing on some house rules.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Holdit
@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Yeah, I get that a lot with pc wargames - and it's pretty hard to talk
> the computer into agreeing on some house rules.
>
...and that's another advantage of miniatures rules - you can "patch"
the game yourself.
Cronos
> Are you seriously suggesting that computer wargames aren't also
> abstractions?
No, and the reason I defended E:TW Indians firing through the ranks is
because it is an abstraction.
Cronos
> When I want to know some detail of Cold War Soviet armor, I don't
> consult Janes - I ask my father-in-law; he's an armor modeler and detail
> freak. Janes shows you a picture of a T-62 with East German markings,
> my father-in-law can tell you chapter and verse about the modifications
> the East Germans made to the thing.
The fact he would even want to know all that must make him a real
exciting guy to the women - NOT!
Holdit
cro...@sphere.invalid says...
So...computer games are an abstraction but that's OK. Miniatures rules
are an abstraction but that's not OK?
Holdit
Oleg Mastruko
Could be. In my opinion miniatures are good intro into world of
wargaming for kids, that's all there is to it.
Seeing 40-something adults play with miniatures is kinda creepy
IMO. Seeing miniature games translated to PC to be played by adults is
double creepy. Well that's just me :o)
Holdit
oleg@_REMOVE_bug.hr says...
>
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:55:21 -0800 (PST), "eddys...@hotmail.com"
> <eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 23 dec, 01:37, Oleg Mastruko <oleg@_REMOVE_bug.hr> wrote:
> >
> >> time, boardgames, monster games, PC, no PC, you name it, but
> >> miniatures.... those guys are kinda freaky.
> >
> >In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
> >used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
> >freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
> >warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
>
> Could be. In my opinion miniatures are good intro into world of
> wargaming for kids, that's all there is to it.
>
> Seeing 40-something adults play with miniatures is kinda creepy
> IMO. Seeing miniature games translated to PC to be played by adults is
> double creepy. Well that's just me :o)
It sure is.
Holdit
Bloodstar
>
> Holdit
The guy is reading Gurgieff so he must be crazy :o))))
Just kiddin Oleg Gurgieff is very good and I have bought some of his books
in Zagreb and Belgrade. Very good find of your eccentric mind. :o)
Merry Christmas to you as well Old hater of people from Zadar :)
LOL
Mario
Oleg Mastruko
>> Your opinion, prolly based on Internet bullshit
>
>Nope, based on that game trailer where troops where firing *through*
>ranks in front of them to enemy troops beyond.
Here's a tip: don't base your opinion on game trailers.
>> No they do not.
>
>The real question is : do they act like the Mohawks historically did ?
They mostly do. For all I care they can be modelled as laser
shooting aliens, I never met them anyway.They are pretty marginal, in
fact if you want serious discussion we should drop the Mohawks and
discuss the core of the game. I spent many tens of hours in ETW and I
never even met Mohawks, in fact I am not even sure they are in the
game at all (I know some other tribes are though, and I didn't have
problems with the way they are modelled).
They are so marginal I don't know why I even respond to your
Mohawk issues at all. I cannot get excited about Mohawk issues because
I never felt them thru tens of hours I spent playing the freaking
game. If you do care, and are not satisfied by the way they are
modelled, and care about freaking Mohawks A LOT, then don't play the
game, it's that simple mate!
You remind me of those guys who insisted that TOAW is crap
because their ridicoulos test scenarios "100 jeeps vs 100 Tiger tanks"
didn't give them the results they expected or wanted, while thousands
of other players happily played TOAW never even remotely caring about
such a ridicoulus "issue".
If you're not satifsied with Mohawks in ETW or Jeeps vs Tigers
in TOAW, then don't play the game, I find such "arguments" laughable
really....
>> Then go play HPS crap and enjoy yourself!
>
>Weird. I thought it was you who claimed that "no other period wargame
>on the market models fatigue"
I didn't claim that, you bad, straw man wielding Giftz-clone. In
fact, I said, and I quote: "Most period games I know don't model
fatigue (now don't mention some that do, I know they exist)."
Go back and learn to read.
So I said I know the games that model fatigue DO exist, I did my
best to stop you from even using this pointless childish time-wasting
quasi-argument. It didn't work. I guess you can't stop child from
acting childish.
>single period wargame which *didn't* model fatigue. <looks around for
>such an example> seems like you failed, so there goes your claim about
>the TW game.
Whatever, dude.... *yawnz*
>Most wargames try to get that sort of thing started - and most
>wargames released today fail at it. There simply isn't the mass
>anymore needed for a vibrant mod community except for very, very, very
>good games.
TW games have vibrant mod community, well if that implies they
are "very very very good" by your own logic then they are :o)
>If someone else is convinced that particular mods really elevate the
>base game to "real wargame" standard he's free to post about it in
>here and I might investigate it. But blank claims about the TW series
>being sooo superior to anything we play ain't gonna fly.
M2TW was superior to "anything you play" about medieval warfare
pretty much from the get go. RTW wasn't (and I am first to criticise
that game, worst in the series IMO).
>I think you'll have a mighty hard time coming up with a post of mine
>in which I diss good graphics or successful games just because of
>those reasons.
TW haters seem to be obsessed with the fact the games "look
nice" - something that's not really important to me, but most haters
have hard time forgiving. It was you who mentioned that game from that
guy looks "300% less nice than RTW" - something that never even
occured to me, something I don't agree with, and even if I would agree
with, would not think is important at all.
>Huh ? The Tin Soldiers series was a *tabletop* system transfered to
>the pc, not a boardgame. And when you got stuck in you couldn't help
>but notice the AI was pretty sharp and agressive.
TS was crap. Aggressive AI was easy to slaughter. But never mind
that, I do know it's hard to make good AI, so I don't base my
criticism of TS on bad AI, I base my criticism on the fact the games
were crap :o))
>I've always played boardgames and tabletop wargames which has made me
>accutely aware of the limitations of pc wargames, especially when it
>comes to accurately portraying period tactics. This experience, more
>than anything else, makes me look at the E:TW trailer, shake my head,
Again, here's a tip: don't base your opinion on game trailers.
Oleg Mastruko
<hold...@SPAMindigoPLEASE.ie> wrote:
>In article <6mk2j59vgcifutk68...@4ax.com>,
>oleg@_REMOVE_bug.hr says...
>>
>> Medieval 2 TW was pretty fine right outta box, and it was
>> furhter modded to best medieval wargame I know of.
>
>I enjoyed M2TW, but to my ear there's something odd about crediting the
>game with what modders have done to fix what's wrong with it.
Well M2TW is kinda like TOAW. Do you remember first TOAW release
back in IIRC 1998? That game was pretty good in it's first release (I
was one of the first to order it, still have the box somewhere).
However if you look back after all the patches, new versions
(TOAW 2, COW, 3....), expansion packs and some masterfully designed
user made scenarios, then v1.00 from 1998. seems pretty poor and
basic. Still playable but not very enjoyable compared to the latest
offerings.
Same with M2TW. v1.00 was absolutely fine, playable and
enjoyable, but we would be blind not to notice all the improvements
made thru patches, mods, expansions, scenarios.... Crediting M2TW with
what modders did is as much "wrong" as crediting TOAW with everything
scenario designers did (and they did a LOT).
Cronos
> So...computer games are an abstraction but that's OK. Miniatures rules
> are an abstraction but that's not OK?
>
> Holdit
Stop twisting the topic around. Eddy-the-Eurofag said E:TW is
unrealistic and I pointed out it is abstracted rules just like his
beloved wargames so is no less realistic. The odds and the outcome are
pretty much the same in either type of game.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:55:21 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 23 dec, 01:37, Oleg Mastruko <oleg@_REMOVE_bug.hr> wrote:
>
> >> I can understand all sorts of wargames, hexes, no hexes, real
> >> time, boardgames, monster games, PC, no PC, you name it, but
> >> miniatures.... those guys are kinda freaky.
>
> >In my experience they know more about the real tactics and strategies
> >used in a particular period than anyone else. I figure that makes them
> >freaks in the eyes of those who think that the blob vs blob melee
> >warfare of the TW series is the pinnacle of wargaming.
>
> Could be. In my opinion miniatures are good intro into world of
> wargaming for kids, that's all there is to it.
Here I can agree - the number of kids you see playing Warhammer at
conventions like Essen is enormous - at the Games Workshop booth they
need like 30-40 people to keep them all in line.
Those kids, when they grow up, are the biggest source of new blood for
the hobby you can imagine - half my tabletop group started out that
way.
> Seeing 40-something adults play with miniatures is kinda creepy
> IMO.
Weird. What I find creepy is 40+ adults *still* playing Warhammer. And
there are some. Those are the *real* geeks in my eyes.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 23:52:23 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Your opinion, prolly based on Internet bullshit
>
> >Nope, based on that game trailer where troops where firing *through*
> >ranks in front of them to enemy troops beyond.
>
> Here's a tip: don't base your opinion on game trailers.
Here's an observation : if it wasn't in the game, they couldn't show
it in a trailer.
> >> No they do not.
>
> >The real question is : do they act like the Mohawks historically did ?
>
> They mostly do. For all I care they can be modelled as laser
> shooting aliens, I never met them anyway.They are pretty marginal, in
> fact if you want serious discussion we should drop the Mohawks and
> discuss the core of the game. I spent many tens of hours in ETW and I
> never even met Mohawks, in fact I am not even sure they are in the
> game at all (I know some other tribes are though, and I didn't have
> problems with the way they are modelled).
Ok, just to make sure : how are those other tribes modeled ? I mean :
how do they fight ?
> If you're not satifsied with Mohawks in ETW or Jeeps vs Tigers
> in TOAW, then don't play the game, I find such "arguments" laughable
> really....
Well, you conveniently snipped my other argument that in another
trailer you can see troops firing *through* ranks in front of them.
Want me to Google some screenshots from the game and point out major
historical inaccuracies that have nothing to do with Mohawks ?
Ok, here are just 2 official screenshots of why I call it blob
warfare.
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-total-war-20081027025744814.html
http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-total-war-20081027025425674.html
Nice historically accurate screenshots - right ?
> I didn't claim that, you bad, straw man wielding Giftz-clone. In
> fact, I said, and I quote: "Most period games I know don't model
> fatigue (now don't mention some that do, I know they exist)."
Well, all I asked was for you then to provide a *single* example of a
period game that *didn't* model fatigue.
If anything this episode proves to me you know much less about
wargames than I thought you did.
> So I said I know the games that model fatigue DO exist, I did my
> best to stop you from even using this pointless childish time-wasting
> quasi-argument. It didn't work. I guess you can't stop child from
> acting childish.
Boo-hoo. You made a claim you can't backup. Calling me childish for
pointing that out is a tactic that might work on a 3-year old.
But I get it : I can't base my opinion of the TW series on the
trailers or the screenshots.
Question then is on what I can base my opinion then ? On the remarks
of fanboys who fail to see the problems I'm seeing ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Well, you conveniently snipped my other argument that in another
> trailer you can see troops firing *through* ranks in front of them.
>
> Want me to Google some screenshots from the game and point out major
> historical inaccuracies that have nothing to do with Mohawks ?
>
> Ok, here are just 2 official screenshots of why I call it blob
> warfare.
>
> http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-total-war-20081027025744814.html
>
> http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-total-war-20081027025425674.html
>
> Nice historically accurate screenshots - right ?
To be fair, if those are hills of warring ants, then they totally got
things right.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Before we let suspect computer models developed by a handful of people
drive the entire world economy into a ditch, don't you think we should
take the covers off and invest a little more time and effort to
thoroughly examine how these models work? Hopefully this will include
analytical critiques from a wider cast of characters than the self
serving cabal whose mendacity and ham-handed attempts to marginalize
dissent were recently exposed."
- Bill Frezza
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <423a6b1b-0cb3-41e2-8641-418484752630
>
> > Well, you conveniently snipped my other argument that in another
> > trailer you can see troops firing *through* ranks in front of them.
>
> > Want me to Google some screenshots from the game and point out major
> > historical inaccuracies that have nothing to do with Mohawks ?
>
> > Ok, here are just 2 official screenshots of why I call it blob
> > warfare.
>
>
> >http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-t...
>
> > Nice historically accurate screenshots - right ?
>
> To be fair, if those are hills of warring ants, then they totally got
> things right.
I find it funny that people who like the TW series simply can’t or
won’t admit that it’s because of the beautiful graphics or the fun
gameplay. No, somehow they have to convince themselves and others that
these are real wargames you know, they’re still very serious guys
playing a very serious, historically correct simulation game. Give me
a break.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
30ad7f...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > To be fair, if those are hills of warring ants, then they totally got
> > things right.
>
> I find it funny that people who like the TW series simply can t or
> won t admit that it s because of the beautiful graphics or the fun
> gameplay. No, somehow they have to convince themselves and others that
> these are real wargames you know, they re still very serious guys
> playing a very serious, historically correct simulation game. Give me
> a break.
Which is not to say that the thing can't be fun, of course, or a good
game. I recently reloaded the three STRIKE FIGHTERS games on the XP
side of my desktop, and they're all good fun. My sim-jock friends scoff
derisively, of course, and they're right ... but I like a more arcade-
esque game sometimes.
I thought several of the TOTAL WAR games were plenty fun. Even ROME: TW
was pretty decent in the gameplay department ... but no way was it even
remotely a proper representation of (a) Roman politics or (b) battles in
Roman times.
Oleg Mastruko
>> Here's a tip: don't base your opinion on game trailers.
>
>Here's an observation : if it wasn't in the game, they couldn't show
>it in a trailer.
Here's a question: how come I've never seen that trailer, have
never even met bloody Mohawks in the game and am still enjoying this
game a fair good deal?
>Ok, just to make sure : how are those other tribes modeled ? I mean :
>how do they fight ?
How? Fiercely! LOL Ask Custer.
>Well, you conveniently snipped my other argument that in another
>trailer you can see troops firing *through* ranks in front of them.
What troops? When? ETW has pretty elaborate and IMO very
historical development line for 18th century rifle and bayonet tactics
in the strategic part of the game. Eventually, after lots of
development and research you can teach your troops most advanced
tactics of the period, like "stop and fire", advance thru ranks,
reload by line, firing with two first ranks etc.
You have to research that stuff in the strategic part of the
game - pretty much as in any other "big strategy" game, then you can
use it in the tactical part.
>Want me to Google some screenshots from the game and point out major
>historical inaccuracies that have nothing to do with Mohawks ?
No, please, don't do that. This discussion is already quite
pointless, and your newly introduced method of discussion "lemme
Google some screenshots so I can dump crap on the game based on them"
would make it completely absurd. I am disappointed that a grown up
dude with your kind of wargaming knowledge and experience can even
suggest something this stupid.
If you really want to discuss the game I am afraid you'll have
to play it, no way around it really....
>If anything this episode proves to me you know much less about
>wargames than I thought you did.
I am perfectly OK with that, if that's your conclusion :o)
Mostly I just try to avoid wasting even MORE time on pointless
side-arguments.
This is you => "I'll Google some screenshots so I can continue
my Jihad against your game without ever playing it!!!11! Now you
Google some games to continue the childish flaming too!11!!"
This is me => K, mate, whatever....
>But I get it : I can't base my opinion of the TW series on the
>trailers or the screenshots.
Yup, you got that right.
>Question then is on what I can base my opinion then ? On the remarks
>of fanboys who fail to see the problems I'm seeing ?
Well, how about on playing the damn game?
However, I am not sure even that would help. You're too far gone
in your Jihad, and are too conditioned to hate TW whatever you
happened to see if you'd eventually play the game. You'd just take
other points to nitpick, and I, along with many others, would continue
to enjoy it and consider it historical, at least where it matters to
me/us.
You're kinda like those anti-TOAW Jihadists who continued to
spam the boards with their Jeeps vs Tigers "issue" while we "normal
wargamers" just continued to enjoy the game.
Oleg Mastruko
>> > Ok, here are just 2 official screenshots of why I call it blob
>> > warfare.
>>
>> >http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-t...
>>
>> >http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/958390/empire-total-war/images/empire-t...
>>
>> > Nice historically accurate screenshots - right ?
>>
>> To be fair, if those are hills of warring ants, then they totally got
>> things right.
>
>I find it funny that people who like the TW series simply can’t or
>won’t admit that it’s because of the beautiful graphics or the fun
>gameplay. No, somehow they have to convince themselves and others that
>these are real wargames you know, they’re still very serious guys
>playing a very serious, historically correct simulation game. Give me
>a break.
I am on some sort of mini vacation behind a very slow modem link
so I just skipped over those screenshots of yours, could you describe
them to me if they are so funny? :o) Hills of warring ants does indeed
sound funny if that's what screenshots really describe.......
The other reason why I skipped them, and would skip them even on
a broadband link, is that I think "Usenet game war by screenshots" is
really REALLY really the most pointless, childish thing two wargamers
could do.
So, how about we turn the argument on the other side: lets say
you name your two favorite games at the moment, and I will spend some
time Gogling for screenshots, and picking the selected ones apart,
proving Your Game (YG) is crap?
The only condition for this Usenet meta-game is that YG actually
has at least 100 screenshots available on the net. I am sure I could
then find at least 4-5 screens to criticise in any given game in the
history of gaming.
Cronos
> I find it funny that people who like the TW series simply can�t or
> won�t admit that it�s because of the beautiful graphics or the fun
> gameplay. No, somehow they have to convince themselves and others that
> these are real wargames you know, they�re still very serious guys
> playing a very serious, historically correct simulation game. Give me
> a break.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
It's easy to claim your favourite wargames are more realistic when the
units are represented by square chits with a few abstracted numbers on
them. If TW series used a hex map and chits you would find it just as
realistic as your wargames. You are making the mistake of thinking that
what you see is what the number crunching is doing. You can move your
Indians to forest edges and not expect the computer to hold your hand
and do it for you. When the battles first start pause the game and have
all your units move to where you want and the formation you want. They
only charge if you tell them to. Problem solved.