Game recommendations?
Patrick
suits me anymore. So, I'll post my background and preferences, and see
if anyone has any recommendations.
First off, I'm an old wargamer from pre-computer days. But I haven't
played a board wargame or miniatures game in years, and I doubt I'd
ever want to go back to that. Too much setup and prep time, and never
an opponent when I want one.
Secondly, I've grown tired of big, elaborate wargames. I don't like
moving a hundred units each turn, or even fifty, and I don't want to
scroll around a huge map or have my game drag on forever. The smaller
and shorter the game, the better I like it.
Third, I never play PBEM or online. Any game I play is going to be
played solo against the AI, so the AI has to be decent.
Fourth, the computer system I usually play on is fairly old now. Which
suits me just fine usually, because I *hate* all the "eye candy"
they're putting into games these days. I can easily do without
cinematic graphic animation; in fact, I usually prefer games without
it. I can use my imagination, thank you very much. I am *not*
impressed with the demos I've seen of Combat Mission or Rome: Total
War.
OTOH, I don't like abstract games much either. I've sometimes tried to
get into chess, but it doesn't work for me. I like games that make
some effort to realistically simulate war. I just don't want a *lot*
of graphic realism or detailed rules.
Several years ago, I was enjoying Age of Rifles, but I found myself
playing the smallest scenarios (e.g., Podol) over and over again and
completely ignoring anything medium or big. But AoR never did run all
that well on my system, and now my system has outgrown it. I think
I've outgrown it too; I'm not inclined to play it anymore.
As a desperate measure, I've bought a game called Battleship Chess (by
Apezone). I've never been into naval games, and this one is sorely
lacking in historical accuracy or simulation value--but as far as size,
fluidity, and game length, it's perfect for me.
Laser Squad Nemesis, though not historical, looked promising--but it
turned out to be bigger and more complicated than I like.
DBA Online would be great, if it had a good AI so it could be enjoyed
solo.
So, any ideas?
--Patrick
Frank E
wrote:
Highway to the Reich and it's soon-to-be sequel Conquest of the Aegean
would probably fit the bill; very good AI, some small scenerios and a
good, realistic wargame to boot.
Possibly some of the SSG titles, they also have some smaller
scenarios. I think there's a full blown free version of The Ardennes
Offensive floating around that you could try to see if you like the
series. You'd just have to stay away from the big campaign scenarios.
You might also want to take a look at Europa Universalis 2. Playing
the major powers like Spain or England tends to involve a lot of
scolling and micro management but you can also play any of a number of
smaller nations where you don't have to worry about more than 2 or 3
armies and a couple of territories.
Getting away from wargames, have you looked at Heroes of Might & Magic
3 or Disciples 2? Both are older games that I still boot up
occasionally if I want a quick strategy fix.
Rgds, Frank
Eddy Sterckx
news:Il=zQ1wSaEM+IB7...@4ax.com:
> On 15 Feb 2006 08:57:50 -0800, "Patrick" <patrick5...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Highway to the Reich and it's soon-to-be sequel Conquest of the Aegean
> would probably fit the bill; very good AI, some small scenerios and a
> good, realistic wargame to boot.
heh, I just posted the same thing in another thread :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
--
"Ceterum censeo Belgicam delendam esse."
(Cato, 'Pro Gerolphe')
Frank E
wrote:
>Frank E <fakea...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:Il=zQ1wSaEM+IB7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 15 Feb 2006 08:57:50 -0800, "Patrick" <patrick5...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Highway to the Reich and it's soon-to-be sequel Conquest of the Aegean
>> would probably fit the bill; very good AI, some small scenerios and a
>> good, realistic wargame to boot.
>
>heh, I just posted the same thing in another thread :)
>
>Greetz,
>
>Eddy Sterckx
Woah, you like Panther games? Who knew! :p
Giftzwerg
patrick5...@yahoo.com says...
Try Sean O'Connor's FIREFIGHT. Fight a little company-sized infantry
battle in 30 minutes, all-in. Cost ya $20 if you want the full game.
Try the free demo at:
http://www.windowsgames.co.uk/ff.html
--
Giftzwerg
***
"[I]f the press is *this* scared of Islamic extremists, claims that Bush
is manufacturing an *artificial* climate of fear regarding Islamic
extremism ring rather hollow."
- Glenn Reynolds, on the "Cartoon Jihad"
Eddy Sterckx
I would have recommended Major H's TacOps as well, but he doesn't
believe in fan-powered pr :)
<Make invisible for Major H>
Try the free TacOps demo at :
ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/demos/tacops4/tacops4demo_i.exe
</Make invisible for Major H>
bimbo...@yahoo.com
to. As much as I thought I'd like the real time aspect, even with
pausing, I just don't like it. I don't like giving orders to any but
the lowest level ..I want to move each counter individually and place
them exactly where I want them, not let the computer do some of
this...I know I can do that in the game but that takes away from one of
the designs of the game. I don't like the map at all...well, I love
the map but I don't like that when I zoom down to the lowest or second
lowest level, I have to scroll forever to see the map and find my units
and while I'm working on one area, something might be happening
elsewhere...I guess I just love turn based hex games more. I do
appreciate HTTR and almost "got" it one time but just never did.
If I were Patrick, I'd give SPWAW or SPMBT a try.
Dirk Gross
found new for cheap. Also, the old Close Combat series was fun but you may
only find it used on Ebay.
Dirk
"Patrick" <patrick5...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140022670....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Art Weingardner
>First off, I'm an old wargamer from pre-computer days. But I haven't
>
>
>
>
operational art of war (made by same guy who did AoR) - should have
some small scenarios. could be considered too elaborate but you can
play it without knowing all the minutae.
close combat series - easy to pick up and has short scenarios
strategic command - easy too begin play but is probably a little long.
covers the whole war in europe but there really aren't that many
units to move
great battles series (alexander, caesar, hannibal) - has the look of a
miniatures game and a scenario can be played in an evening
Patrick
Hmm--I hadn't heard of SPMBT. But I have SPWAW and was into it for a
while. It's a pretty decent game, but . . .
Well, I guess maybe I'm looking for a game that ONLY has small
scenarios. Because once I get into a game, I'm intent on experiencing
*everything* about it--including all the scenarios, if there are
scenarios. In SPWAW, I'll play a small scenario and think, "Hey, this
is a pretty good game." Then I'll play a medium-sized scenario and
think, "Damn; this is tedious." But I still have to play the other
medium and large scenarios anyway, until finally I get sick of the
whole game and go looking for something else.
What I especially like about Battleship Chess and DBA Online is that
there's a fixed size to them. Playing these games feels kinda like
playing a classic board game (e.g., chess, checkers, backgammon): the
size, pace, and game length are always just right. Yet, unlike classic
board games, these games are "realistic" (i.e., they have the look and
feel of wargames).
--Patrick
Patrick
Frank E wrote:
> Possibly some of the SSG titles, they also have some smaller
> scenarios. I think there's a full blown free version of The Ardennes
> Offensive floating around that you could try to see if you like the
> series. You'd just have to stay away from the big campaign scenarios.
Actually, I have to stay away from all but the tutorial scenario. I
used to have TAO, and I enjoyed the tutorial scenario, where just a
relative handful of units are assaulting Clervaux. That was just about
the right sized game for my taste.
Then I played at the other scenarios and very quickly got tired of it.
Way too many
units to move each turn.
It is a good game, though. I guess I've just gotten fed up with the
traditional big, hex-grid wargame with so many unit-counters.
--Patrick
ERutins
>Secondly, I've grown tired of big, elaborate wargames.
>Third, I never play PBEM or online.
>Fourth, the computer system I usually play on is fairly old now.
>I've bought a game called Battleship Chess
If not for your old computer, I would _really_ recommend Tin Soldiers:
Julius Caesar or Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great. Both of these are
elegant designs without a lot of complexity, excellent AI and nice
scale. They would be perfect for you, however, they may be too much
for your system, depending on what "fairly old" means to you in terms
of computer specs.
If you're more interested in something with strategy than something
specifically historical, try Starships Unlimited v3 or Massive Assault.
Another option is Star Chamber, but if you don't play online then
you'd be missing a big portion of that game even thought the single
player campaigns are quite challenging.
Firefight is a great recommendation for you as well in terms of simple,
fairly small scale gameplay.
I'm not mentioning the usual wargames here because you are clearly
looking for something simpler and less unit heavy, though we all
consider those to be excellent games.
Regards,
- Erik
Patrick
> If not for your old computer, I would _really_ recommend Tin Soldiers:
> Julius Caesar or Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great. Both of these are
> elegant designs without a lot of complexity, excellent AI and nice
> scale. They would be perfect for you, however, they may be too much
> for your system, depending on what "fairly old" means to you in terms
> of computer specs.
Thanks. I'll look into those. After all, computers are fairly
inexpensive to upgrade these days--and I could always find time to play
on our main household computer now & then.
My "fairly old" computer is a Pentium III, I guess (I forget the
speed). The most modern game I've run on it, I guess, is Age of
Wonders: Shadow Magic.
> If you're more interested in something with strategy than something
> specifically historical, try Starships Unlimited v3 or Massive Assault.
Funny you should mention these. I've tried the demos, and just last
night I downloaded the demo for SU for the second time (I was upgrading
Battleship Chess, and I figured I might as well take another look at
SU).
What's the deal with SU, anyhow? I'm having the same bad experience
with the demo this time as I did last time: Apparently things are
happening, but I can't tell what's happening, and the Help menu doesn't
seem to give me the answers I need. I've yet to figure out how to
train scientists, etc. on my home planet. After fiddling around
awhile, I managed to sent a scout ship to another system, where it
*automatically* shot up the local defenses and started probing. But so
far, it seems like the game plays itself, and all I can do is sit there
and wait until things happen. Does it get any better? Does it help to
have the user manual?
As to Massive Assault, I liked the demo a lot and have considered
buying the game. So far I've hesitated because I read that the AI
sucks on the strategic level (though it's competent tactically).
> Another option is Star Chamber, but if you don't play online then
> you'd be missing a big portion of that game even though the single
> player campaigns are quite challenging.
I didn't know there was a single-player option. Maybe this is worth
looking into.
> Firefight is a great recommendation for you as well in terms of simple,
> fairly small scale gameplay.
Hmm. I'll have to look for it.
> I'm not mentioning the usual wargames here because you are clearly
> looking for something simpler and less unit heavy, though we all
> consider those to be excellent games.
I definitely want something small, with just a handful of units. If it
happens to be a complex game, I can handle that, as long as it's good.
I'm willing to study a thick rulebook to learn the game; I just don't
want to have to move a hundred units every turn and scroll all over a
big map.
Thanks again.
--Patrick
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I definitely want something small, with just a handful of units. If it
> happens to be a complex game, I can handle that, as long as it's good.
> I'm willing to study a thick rulebook to learn the game; I just don't
> want to have to move a hundred units every turn and scroll all over a
> big map.
Ok, now that I know your computer can handle it and it's not complexity
that scares you off, but tedium : you really ought to have a look at
Highway to the Reich. It's operational level, but doesn't require you
to move each unit every turn because
1) there are no turns, it's pausable continuous time
2) you give orders at the level you feel comfortable with (brigade,
regiment, battalion or micromanage companies) and let the AI take care
of the subordinates. I usually play at the battalion level and it's a
rare game where I have to order around more than 20 units with hundreds
on screen moving and fighting for the "good cause".
3) it's without a doubt the most realistic WW2 operational level
wargame out there, with one of the best AI's in the business.
4) It's that lovely mix of easy to get into, but hard to master - I've
literally IRL explained the game in 5 minutes to dozens of people and
most of them managed to play straight away after that - common military
sense is all you need on the entry level
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Jerry Steiger
news:1140022670....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> moving a hundred units each turn, or even fifty, and I don't want to
> scroll around a huge map or have my game drag on forever. The smaller
> and shorter the game, the better I like it.
>
> Third, I never play PBEM or online. Any game I play is going to be
> played solo against the AI, so the AI has to be decent.
>
> Fourth, the computer system I usually play on is fairly old now. Which
> suits me just fine usually, because I *hate* all the "eye candy"
> they're putting into games these days.
Take a look at Frank Hunter's "Campaigns on the Danube" on the Matrix site.
An even better fit, because it has fewer units, would be his earlier game of
the 1806 campaign, but I don't think it is available any more. They are
operational games and the combat resolution is a little bit abstract, but I
find them quite delightful.
Jerry Steiger
Epi Watkins
gwst...@comcast.net says...
Campaigns on the Danube is a great game, but you'll be disappointed by
the number of scenarios. It's cheap though.
--
Epi
----
When a composer (of any genre) rights (I spelled it
wrong on purpose. Deal) something different in his
effort to produce good music, there can be wonderful
results. When a composer rights something different
in order to be different, it sucks.
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
Patrick
Epi Watkins wrote:
> Campaigns on the Danube is a great game, but you'll be disappointed by
> the number of scenarios. It's cheap though.
I presume you mean I'd be disappointed because there are so few
scenarios.
But actually, I have such a weird attitude about wargames that I'd
prefer there be no scenarios at all. Either that or infinite randomly
generated scenarios.
So far, I've liked the looks of the two Tin Soldiers games a lot. They
remind me of DBA, which would be nearly perfect for me if the rules had
a bit more detail to them and the game could be played solo on a
computer against a competent AI. Apparently that's almost exactly what
Tin Soldiers is. So, I may try one of those games.
I always seem to have a complaint about something, though. With Tin
Soldiers, my beef is that each game is limited to one narrow time
period. If there were such a thing as Tin Soldiers: The Universal
Wargame--one that covers *all* periods of history--I'd be all over it.
But it seems almost like a waste of my time to buy a game that *only*
covers Alexander's or Caesar's famous battles. I'd always be painfully
aware of all that's missing, and having to hope the company produces
more games in that line.
Highway to the Reich looks like a good, old-fashioned wargame, though
it's no doubt modernized to take advantage of computer technology.
Since my dad was there, participating in that campaign, the subject is
especially appealing. Still, I'm reluctant to get into it, mainly
because it's focused on just Operation Market Garden. I have a strong
interest in military history in general, but I don't have any special
interest in that particular campaign--or even that particular war or
century.
So, I guess I'm caught in the middle: games like chess and go are much
too abstract for my liking, but wargames are much too concrete. Yet,
pseudo-wargames like Risk and Diplomacy don't appeal to me either.
What I'd like to find is a game that simulates military strategy &
tactics in a genuinely educational way while also being lots of fun to
play--but which does not focus too concretely on any particular period,
war, campaign, or battle.
That's my pipe dream, FWIW. In reality, I guess I'll look further into
the games that have been recommended here, and see if any of them grab
my interest.
Thanks for the recommendations!
--Patrick
Werewolf
They're kinda fun - in a STRATEGO kind of way.
Patrick
> Tin Soldiers - either Julius Caesar or Alexander fits your bill easily...
>
> They're kinda fun - in a STRATEGO kind of way.
I decided to try TS:Alexander last night. Back in my board wargaming
days, I used to always read the rulebook first--and I started to do
that with TS:A, but I guess I've been spoiled by computers. I just
loaded up a game and starting pushing pieces around. Much to my
surprise, that worked well enough. I won the first scenario.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to port the game to the computer I wanted
to play it on. It didn't install correctly, and it won't play (though
I can read the manual). I'm afraid that old computer might be
virus-ridden. At any rate, it certainly has some registry problems.
This isn't the first game I've had trouble with on that system. I
should probably save up for a new computer.
Meanwhile, the game played great on our main household computer.
Is it fun? Is it just what I wanted? Well . . .
It's a good game. I like it. It's just about right in terms of size,
pace, and game length. I'm not a big ancients fan, but that's OK; the
period is a nice change of pace. One of the best things about it is
that I *almost* feel like I know how & why things are happening in the
game (that's often not the case with computer games, as many of them
have complex undocumented algorithms); that takes me back to the "good
old days."
On the downside, I guess it could be more engaging. When I sit down to
play a computer game these days, it's mainly for the sake of escape. I
like loading up a game that I can get completely immersed in, losing
myself for a while in the imaginary adventure. When I played TS:A last
night, it was captivating (I couldn't stop once I got started), but it
didn't really draw me into the vicarious experience.
I'm not sure what would do that anymore, though. When I was a kid
playing board wargames, I guess I was still close enough to childhood
to get imaginatively involved. I was also naive enough to believe that
every game I played was realistic--that as I played I was really
learning about warfare and how it works. Now, after all these years,
I've grown cynical about the realism of wargames--which makes it harder
to make the imaginative leap and enjoy them the way I used to.
When home computers were a novelty, some of the new games that came
along were so impressive that I couldn't tear myself away from them.
I'd sit for fifteen solid hours playing the original Sid Meier's
Civilization or one of its spinoffs; and I couldn't get my fill of Red
Baron. Panzer General and its spinoffs were still impressive when they
first came out. But nowadays, every new game is just another computer
game. They just don't wow me like they used to.
I guess that's why game developers are always beefing up the eye and
ear candy these days--in hopes of dazzling the user with something
seemingly more engaging. But the dazzle always wears off, and then
users go looking for something more. And by the time a person gets to
my age (50), sometimes the dazzle doesn't "take" anymore.
Still, I do like games a lot; they're always a welcome pastime at the
end of a long workday. But competitive games like chess have never
really been my thing, and I don't care for puzzle-like games (e.g.,
solitaire). For my taste, a game has to engage my imagination--give me
an artificial reality to escape into for a while. IOW, the game has to
be *about* something; it has to have a theme. Yet, I don't like
getting dragged into a storyline either--which is the case with RPGs;
I'd rather hover over the map and move units around.
Tin Soldiers works for that. It's a pretty good game; it just doesn't
make me jump for joy and shout, "Wow, this is the best game ever!"
(Which is what used to happen, years ago, with every new wargame I
bought.)
--Patrick
hankB
trying to show off but I used to go to Europe or Asia on vacation twice a
year and eventually it got boring. Same thing with camping,sailing and old
car ownership/restoration.
There are some folks who can have the same hobby for years; apparently
that is not our personality.
BTW, I have enjoyed chess in which I read classic games ands tried to
guess why the masters do what they did...lotsa good books along that line
--
Thanks,
Hank
Magnus
Age of Rifles. Has good AI and good PBEM capabilites. It is focused on
the Seven Years War so is their former game Dragoon Prussian War
Machine.
Patrick
> I think you are undergoing boredom from repetitive experience...I'm not
> trying to show off but I used to go to Europe or Asia on vacation twice a
> year and eventually it got boring. Same thing with camping,sailing and old
> car ownership/restoration.
> There are some folks who can have the same hobby for years; apparently
> that is not our personality.
You're probably right. Seems odd to me, though, because at the same
time there's so much in the wargaming hobby that I've barely scratched
the surface of. Always meant to get into miniatures but never did.
Always figured I'd work on mastering a game once I found one I really
liked--but that never happened (well, I found lots of 'em I really
liked, but my initial enthusiasm wore off and I ended up buying more
games). . . .
> BTW, I have enjoyed chess in which I read classic games ands tried to
> guess why the masters do what they did...lotsa good books along that line
Yep, I've done that too. Still have a stack of chess books in my
closet, along with a shelf full of games. My interest in chess dropped
of when (1) I learned that a lot of what the masters do is
psychological and (2) I realized that I suck at chess and don't want to
change in the ways I'd need to in order to become a decent player.
Chess was more fun when I thought it was all just a matter of learning
strategy and applying abstract principles to play. It hurts my poor
little brain too much to really have to think things through in detail,
meticulously applying solid tactics.
I'm more of an impressionistic (read sloppy) game player.
--Patrick
hankB
shifts down and to the R,a window "bombardment" appears and the PC
locks.Reinstallation X 2 changed nothing...same with Dragoon..any ideas?
--
Thanks,
Hank
"Magnus" <petter...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140700187.4...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
eddys...@hotmail.com
hankB wrote:
> I have tried this d/load and after installation I start the game the map
> shifts down and to the R,a window "bombardment" appears and the PC
> locks.Reinstallation X 2 changed nothing...same with Dragoon..any ideas?
A couple - might help or - more likely - make you waste more time :)
Screen resolution / colors ? - check the supported resolutions / color
and try on one of the supported settings
DirectX version ?
Post the question over at the Shrapnel technical forum ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Knot
> I have tried this d/load and after installation I start the game the map
> shifts down and to the R,a window "bombardment" appears and the PC
> locks.Reinstallation X 2 changed nothing...same with Dragoon..any ideas?
>
>
Is this the demo? I don't know if this is your problem but when you
start the demo it starts in the 'bombardment phase' but there is no
action in the phase and you can't do anything until you 'end turn' which
is a button somewhere to the bottom right. Then you can continue.
Patrick
Y'know, I had second thoughts about this last night. I haven't played
SPWAW in a long time, and I couldn't remember why I stopped--so just
for the heck of it, I copied it onto a CD and ported it to my upstairs
computer.
I toyed around with it a bit last night before bed--and wow! It's
amazing how much is packed into this *free* game. Not only is there a
lot of mileage left in it, but the truth is I've barely scratched the
surface.
Now I feel like I've got a brand-new game on my home computer to look
forward to playing at the end of long workdays.
Thanks for the recommendation.
--Patrick
PS I brought Battle of Wesnoth up to my computer too and ended up
playing two scenarios--and enjoying the heck out of em. Once again, I
find that when I'm not busy playing games, my mind gets overactive and
I start worrying over finding just the *right* game; but as soon as I
sit down and start *playing* a game (most any decent game), I stop
worrying and philosophizing and get back to just enjoying.
bimbo...@yahoo.com
especially for free....I go back to them occasionally and look at the
hundreds of battles and get all excited to try out different ones.
Patrick
> If not for your old computer, I would _really_ recommend Tin Soldiers:
> Julius Caesar or Tin Soldiers: Alexander the Great. Both of these are
> elegant designs without a lot of complexity, excellent AI and nice
I ended up buying TS:Alexander. Wasn't able to port it to my old
computer & get it to run there, but it runs fine on our main home
computer.
So far I've played only the first two scenarios of the campaign. I
kinda like the game.
Last night I played the Granicus River scenario, and I was very pleased
to see an old idea of mine incorportated into an actual game. Several
years ago, I wrote an article for a wargaming magazine, advocating
breaking battles down into phases to keep them historically accurate
overall. Well, in the Granicus scenario, the player *has* to first
outflank the enemy, then make the river crossing. The two-phase
scenario locks the player into learning something about history instead
of wandering off into a wholly fictional scenario. Overall, the
campaign does the same thing: you *have* to follow along with what
Alexander actually did. I like this educational aspect of the game.
Of course, the tactical aspects of the game are suspect. There aren't
any formations or anything, and the player can do more micromanaging
than a real-life commander could. That sort of thing. But hey--it's
just a game.
I'm starting to realize that I don't like strategy-level games as much
as I used to. Between scenarios in TS:A you have to do some
"housekeeping"--reinforcements, training, and so forth; and I find that
annoying. I'm inclined to hit the "buy all" button and be done with
it. Production and logistics in wargames are usually just annoyances
to me.
Anyhow, thanks for the tip.
--Patrick