Wargame of the Year 2007 election
eddys...@hotmail.com
Hi,
Yup, it's that time of the year again and this time there's again a
Grand Prize for you to win : Pat Proctor & Shrapnel have graciously
offered a copy of the Air Assault Task Force wargame to one lucky
participant. If you already have the game, Shrapnel will let you pick
any game of your choice from their current catalogue. And to make it
absolutely clear : voting for AATF 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 2007 or late 2006 - in other
words : if you think a game published late in 2006 didn't get a fair
chance last year, feel free to add it. AATF got added per default as
it caused this rule change to begin with.
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, 2008
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 - again created by Daniel :
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4124492&a=32625734&f=
My vote - entirely based on how much fun I had with them :
1st place : Commander : Europe at War
2nd place : AGEod's Napoleon's Campaigns
3rd place : Punic Wars
To refresh your memory on what games got published this year :
Air Assault Task Force
Thermopylae
Down in Flames WWII - Bombers
Ancient Warfare : Punic Wars
Battlefront
Close Combat : Cross of Iron
Making History - The Calm & The Storm 2.0
Silent Hunter 4
Panzer Campaigns - Budapest '45
Civil War Campaigns - Atlanta
AGEOD'S American Civil War - The Blue and the Gray
Theatre of War
Civil War Battles: Campaign Chickamauga
Squad Battles - Soviet-Afghan War
John Tiller's Campaign Series : Matrix edition
Carriers at War
Commander : Europe at War
Ta.La.Co.Si (Tactical Land Combat Simulator)
Guns of August 1914-1918
Combat Mission : Shock Force
Hornet Leader
Advanced Tactics (People's Tactics 2)
Napoleon in Italy
Strategic Command 2 : Blitzkrieg - Weapons and Warfare
John Tiller's Battleground Civil War
John Tiller's Battleground Napoleonic Wars + Age of Sail
AGEod's Napoleon's Campaigns
Cose Combat : Modern Tactics
Panzer Tactics (DS)
Great Battles of Rome
Larry Bond's Harpoon Commander's Edition
Modern Campaigns - Danube Front '85
Empires in Arms - The Napoleonic Wars of 1805-1815
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 Air Assault Task Force 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.
Giftzwerg
@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> My vote - entirely based on how much fun I had with them :
I'm going with:
(1) CARRIERS AT WAR
(2) ADVANCED TACTICS
(3) AGEOD ACW
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Are you impressed with a drop in home values of 6.6% over a year? It
doesn't seem like such a big correction, given the dramatic run-up in
prices over the last decade or so. ... And don't declining prices make
housing more ... what's the word? ... affordable?"
- Mickey Kaus
Epi Watkins
@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
My choices be:
1. AGEOD's American Civil War
2. Carrier's at War
3. Napoleon's Campaigns
--
Song of the moment: "Flightless Bird, American Mouth."
By Iron & Wine, from the album The Shepherd's Dog.
----
Slick:
http://www.aktuellekamera.de/archive.php/393/OEZ/2007_12_21_21:58:25
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi
RobP
My choices are:
1. TALACOSI - Lacks an AI, but in big multiplayer platoon level battles it
can't be touched.
2. CAW - Would of come higher, but I find this game too 'lightweight'. I
seem to get much more fun from UV or WitP.
3. CM:SF - Yes beat me with a big stick, but for me, it now actually seems
to be working quite well and is starting to deliver on some of its promises!
If I was to compile a list of 'new' games I had bought this year (though not
necessarily released this year), my list would be different and would look
like:
1. HPS Normandy '44 Panzer Campaigns
2. Uncommon Valour/WitP
3. Birth of America
Regards
RobP
pkpo...@grandecom.net
2. Advanced Tactics
3. Carriers at War
von Schmidt
covered period.
2nd place : Commander : Europe at War - Flawed and shallow, but
immense fun.
3rd place : Battlefront - Sophisticated and varied, altough it feels
soulless compared to BII/BIN.
Regards,
- von Schmidt
kev9000
3. Advanced Tactics
JeF
had to opportunity to test three of them and if I may, I'll vote for
one I didn't even touched.
1) AGEOD's Napoleon's Campaigns
2) SSG's Battlefront
3) Air Assault Task Force
Happy New Year every one !
JeF.
ERutins
Please consider my suggestion from last year that in the future, you
do this voting in February at the earliest to give December releases a
chance to be properly played and evaluated (and patched, which is
something releases earlier in the year get as an advantage). Either
that, or put releases from December on next year's list as well.
Starting the voting on December 31st is IMHO too early for wargames
that often take weeks or months to really enjoy and explore.
Regards,
- Erik
eddys...@hotmail.com
Well, I did consider going for April - like The Wargamer - but then
games released in January of the year before can claim they seem "old"
by then and that the newer games which are fresher in the minds of
gamers have an advantage etc. Can of worms.
In the end I decided that the "tradition" of doing this at the close
of the year has an inherent value too and doing this later in the year
makes it old news.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
6c107c...@v32g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com
says...
It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Sure, one gamer might give
short-shrift to a December release because it's too new to be properly
appreciated ... but the very next gamer might confer additional favor on
a December title precisely because it's so new and fresh in his mind.
Oleg Mastruko
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Sure, one gamer might give
>short-shrift to a December release because it's too new to be properly
>appreciated ... but the very next gamer might confer additional favor on
>a December title precisely because it's so new and fresh in his mind.
In Europe we have this funny-trashy-kitschy thing called
Eurovision Song Contest (usually some time in May). All countries with
TV houses that are members of the Eurovision (which means all Euro
countries, even the smallest ones like Malta) nominate one song, they
meet somewhere, have an evening of trashy songs, then juries in all
countries send in their votes and the winner is nominated at the end
of the evening. It's funny because it's stupid and senseless and
people from strange places dress glamorously and get on the stage and
sing in funny languages. Kinda like Oscars only with less crying
bitches, no irritating fat ugly dudes like Michael Moore or that Lord
of the Rings guy.
This is not a scientific analysis, but I did notice that the
last, 16th song to be performed, wins very very oftenly. It also
happens on our local Croat preliminary (an evening of *really* trashy
songs to decide which one will be sent to Eurovision contest as Croat
nominee). The last song to be performed has a HUGE advantage.
(Why is the 16th song the last to be performed and there are
50-some countries in Europe? Well because there are preliminarly
regional qualification contests, so only 16 songs-countries filter to
the finals.)
Oleg Mastruko
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
1. Ageod American Civil War
Took the review copy to do the review for my magazine didn't
expect much.... but WOW, this is one marvellous wargame. Wargame of
the year IMO, and so far above the last year's competition it's
ridicolous. However I hear that Napoleon game by the same developer
built on the same engine is FAR less enjoiyable because it's "too
pre-set" and has no campaign where players would be able to "do their
thing" (as opposed to playing the pre-set battles with forces that
cannot be changed much).
2. Silent Hunter 4
A wasted vote, I know, as most people here don't consider SH4 to
be a "wargame" so my vote here will be quite alone I guess. However, a
man's gotta do what man's gotta do.
3. Close Combat Modern Tactics
The best thing I can say about this game is that it's "decent"
and far better than atrocious release that was CC CoI. In some better
years it would not get into top 10, but having it in the top 3 kinda
shows that 2007 simply was not a good year for "classical" wargaming.
Big Salad
>
> 1) 1 (wo)man, 1 post - all votes in the open, no emails.
1. AGEOD American Civil War
2. Silent Hunter IV
3. Carriers at War
rus4...@hotmail.com
entries:
CC:COI
CC:MT
CaW
Empires in Arms
CMSF
SH4
I own yet another game that I believe probably ought to be on the
list, M2TW:Kingdoms. While many of our readers likely believe that
this is a "kiddy-game," I've found the strategy component to be
anything but. In particular, the new campaigns that come with
"Kingdoms," like that for "Britannia" are really excellent. In my last
game, I found myself using diplomacy a lot more, playing Ireland and
undermining England (by propping up first Wales with troops and then
Norway with money) until I was strong enough to go after what had
become the real menace in the scenario, Scotland. Anyway, it was a lot
of fun, and the best experience that I'd ever had with the TW series.
But, I digress...
My vote for game of the year?
1) Close Combat: Modern Tactics - The game has a lot of problems, the
most glaring of which, the one that'll really disappoint old CC-hands,
is its lack of a campaign. It's also graphically challenged in that
the maps are HUGE compared to the older games in the series, but the
developer didn't bother to do anything with the ZOOM function.
Basically, players have the jump-map and a single zoom level, one
that's too far-in to give them any decent perspective of the larger
battlefield, and too far-out to provide an effective view of the
fighting.
While CCMT is underdeveloped in terms of my criticisms above, it does
stray into territory that's previously uncharted in tactical land-
combat games. It allows for five players per side, effectively
eliminating my biggest gripe with tactical gaming, the borg-like
ability of desktop commanders to control the movement and fire of
dozens (or hundreds) of individual vehicles and squads and,
conversely, to call the enterprise "realistic." By virtue of its
command and control opportunities and limitations, CC:MT is in a
league of its own. Now, if someone will just mod it for WW2, I'll
(almost) be a happy man.
2) Empires in Arms - In what appears to be a straight, port-over of a
board-game to PC, EIA has finally emerged. If you liked the original,
you'll like this one as well. While the brand-spanking-new game needs
a bug patch or two, nothing has evidenced itself that appears to
undermine the strengths of the original concept. What else can I say?
3) Combat Mission: Shock Force - This is almost an "honorable-mention"
vote. I hate the setting and have little or no desire to blow-up
Middle-Eastern neighborhoods. In terms of shear audacity, however, I
think that BF deserves a lot of credit for attempting to take CM to
real time, something which is no mean feat, and one that it would
appear they have yet to achieve. In particular, having watched CMSF
evolve through its patches, it may be that our PCs are as yet
incapable of crunching all the data that Steve wants processed with
his games, at least in RT. Still, if he can take me back to WW2, or at
least the Arab-Israeli Wars, I'll keep buying.
r4e
Vincenzo Beretta
1 - AGEOD'S American Civil War - The Blue and the Gray
(I knew almost nothing about the American Civil War: this game made me to
buy books on the matter - 'nuff said)
2 - Air Assault Task Force
(The system is good, but it was the retrocompatibility who made it)
3 - Larry Bond's Harpoon Commander's Edition
(I just like Harpoon *as a system*, and the Commander Edition shows how the
games can still be good when done right)
ozark
2) Ageod Napoleon's Campaigns
3) Strategic Command 2 : Blitzkrieg - Weapons and Warfare
bimbo...@yahoo.com
2) Guns of August
3) Harpoon Commanders Edition
Paulo Vicente
>
> In Europe we have this funny-trashy-kitschy thing called
> Eurovision Song Contest (usually some time in May).
For all our non-European friends out there...
If you're feeling curious about what Oleg is talking about, you can
have a glimpse off the wackiness and the "singing" on youtube.
It's something quite unique, the Yankees have a "American Idol"
contest, but that's a lot more "tame" and sane, I believe.
Here's the winner for 2007 (Serbia) and the runner-up (Ukraine):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy-Ms4ytzkY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_rNEPIgc8
And the UK's entry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dlv2USQ9qw
dann...@gmail.com
2.) Carriers at War
3.) Ageod: American Civil War
Bartow W. Riggs
2) Making History 2.0
3) Carriers at War
--
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public
order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what
have the Romans ever done for us?"
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> 2. Silent Hunter 4
> A wasted vote, I know, as most people here don't consider SH4 to
> be a "wargame" so my vote here will be quite alone I guess. However, a
> man's gotta do what man's gotta do.
I meant to buy that this year, but a combination of my PC acting up
for most of the year (so I wouldn't have been able to run it anyway)
and reports of a large number of bugs meant I decided against getting
it. How stable is it now?
Current PC is 3.4GHz Pentium D with 2GB RAM and an X1650 Pro (512MB,
AGP) graphics card. Seems to cope very well with SH3 but I understand
SH4 has bigger requirements than the earlier game.
--
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!
Graham Thurlwell
bought this year - in fact, I'm pretty sure it was the only /game/ I
bought in the entire second half of this year!
I'm very pleased with it, even though the AI regularly kicks my arse.
The main thing I like about it is that its interface makes learning
the game very quick and is very nicely put together. The documentation
is also excellent and I'm glad I went for the physical shipment option
as the printed manaul is nicely produced and you get a proper box.
My only real complaint is that the final price from the Matrix Games /
Digital River site of £40.22 ($80) was maybe a little on the pricy
side but this is almost completely outweighed by the overall quality
of what I bought.
Gil R.
wrote:
> On 31 Dez, 15:07, Oleg Mastruko <o...@bug.hr> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In Europe we have this funny-trashy-kitschy thing called
> > Eurovision Song Contest (usually some time in May).
>
> For all our non-European friends out there...
> If you're feeling curious about what Oleg is talking about, you can
> have a glimpse off the wackiness and the "singing" on youtube.
> It's something quite unique, the Yankees have a "American Idol"
> contest, but that's a lot more "tame" and sane, I believe.
>
> Here's the winner for 2007 (Serbia) and the runner-up (Ukraine):
>
I was in Greece two summers ago and watched the entire Eurovision
contest with my friends who live there. It was that night that I
decided I would never again give a damn when Europeans criticize
American culture. :-)
And Erik Rutins is absolutely right, you need to begin this voting a
month after the year ends, not on New Year's Eve. In the case of
several games released in December people have only just now finished
reading the manual, or haven't even received their copies yet; and
many more people are holding off on buying until that first patch or
that first review comes out. Voting now also means that release
versions of some games are being compared with games that have been
patched multiple times. I find the current practice unfair to any
games released so late in the year, and would hope that if the start-
date for voting will continue to be this early, at least voting will
last for the full month.
Happy New Year, everyone!
HR
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2865ed6e-e5c4-4b8a...@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
1. Strategic Command 2 : Blitzkrieg - Weapons and Warfare (and yes its new
for all practical purposes..or drastically improcved including AI)
2.CEAW (tho I burnt out on it quick)
3. TOW. (cus Mario likes it) no not really:)
4.TLCS but its a wave mentality game so not really.
the rest all drop off the list for me.
PC3R (oh wait...thats old) :)
disqualifier: Not into ancients.
Giftzwerg
nos...@jades.org says...
> My only real complaint is that the final price from the Matrix Games /
> Digital River site of £40.22 ($80) was maybe a little on the pricy
> side but this is almost completely outweighed by the overall quality
> of what I bought.
Yikes! How can this be?!? I'd have thunk that the weak dollar would
have made an American-published product cheaper to buy for you guys
getting paid in mighty Pounds and Euros.
Giftzwerg
nos...@jades.org says...
> > A wasted vote, I know, as most people here don't consider SH4 to
> > be a "wargame" so my vote here will be quite alone I guess. However, a
> > man's gotta do what man's gotta do.
>
> I meant to buy that this year, but a combination of my PC acting up
> for most of the year (so I wouldn't have been able to run it anyway)
> and reports of a large number of bugs meant I decided against getting
> it. How stable is it now?
As someone who disliked the game because of the manual, the lack of
meaningful tutorials, and an interface that I thoroughly loathed, let me
just say, to be fair, that the patched version of the game is solid as
bedrock. Aside from a single weird graphical anomaly where one - albeit
important - information panel was not showing up, I didn't have a single
crash or lockup or even burble. And even that one issue was fixed by an
update to either Vista or my graphics driver.
> Current PC is 3.4GHz Pentium D with 2GB RAM and an X1650 Pro (512MB,
> AGP) graphics card. Seems to cope very well with SH3 but I understand
> SH4 has bigger requirements than the earlier game.
I tried it on my wife's PC (IE, my PC from last year), running Vista on
a 3.2 Ghz Pentium with 4GB RAM and the ATI X700 256 MB graphics, and it
seems to run perfectly well.
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> many more people are holding off on buying until that first patch or
> that first review comes out.
Good point there. It isn't a wargame, but waiting for the patch
situation to stabilise is the main reason why I still haven't bought
Football Manager 2008 and may give it a miss altogether. If that
happens, it will be the first time I've passed on two consecutive
releases of one of the very few series I used to buy every year on the
day of release.
> Voting now also means that release versions of some games are being
> compared with games that have been patched multiple times.
Maybe a little harsh, but shouldn't games be released when they're
done and without needing loads of patches? ;-)
The final reason I skipped Football Manager 2007 was that the
publishers released a 100-odd meg patch for Football Manager 2006 on
the same day the game came out - not encouraging when you've just paid
full-whack UK Retail and only have dialup at home...
Graham Thurlwell
wrote:
> In article <18e1065a...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com>,
> nos...@jades.org says...
>> My only real complaint is that the final price from the Matrix Games /
>> Digital River site of £40.22 ($80) was maybe a little on the pricy
>> side but this is almost completely outweighed by the overall quality
>> of what I bought.
> Yikes! How can this be?!? I'd have thunk that the weak dollar would
> have made an American-published product cheaper to buy for you guys
> getting paid in mighty Pounds and Euros.
I bought it off the European site. First off, remember The Games
Industry Law of UK Pricing - "take the USA price, and substitute a
pound sign for the dollar one." Secondly, the price I mentioned
included UK VAT at 17.5%. Thirdly, I opted for physical shipment so
the price of that and the attendant postage and packing also need to
be taken into account.
By way of comparison, I believe the standard new-release RRP of PC
games in the UK is about £35 or $70 (I buy so few games these days I'm
not actually sure, other UK posters will be able to confirm) and it's
highly unlikely that the printed manual, if you get one, will be
anywhere near as good as the CAW one.
In hindsight it would've been cheaper to get it from somewhere like
NWS but then I'd be running the risk of getting whacked with Import
Duty and the assorted collection fees related to it like I did when I
imported the Special Edition of Civ III.
Giftzwerg
nos...@jades.org says...
> >> My only real complaint is that the final price from the Matrix Games /
> >> Digital River site of £40.22 ($80) was maybe a little on the pricy
> >> side but this is almost completely outweighed by the overall quality
> >> of what I bought.
>
> > Yikes! How can this be?!? I'd have thunk that the weak dollar would
> > have made an American-published product cheaper to buy for you guys
> > getting paid in mighty Pounds and Euros.
>
> I bought it off the European site. First off, remember The Games
> Industry Law of UK Pricing - "take the USA price, and substitute a
> pound sign for the dollar one." Secondly, the price I mentioned
> included UK VAT at 17.5%. Thirdly, I opted for physical shipment so
> the price of that and the attendant postage and packing also need to
> be taken into account.
>
> By way of comparison, I believe the standard new-release RRP of PC
> games in the UK is about £35 or $70 (I buy so few games these days I'm
> not actually sure, other UK posters will be able to confirm) and it's
> highly unlikely that the printed manual, if you get one, will be
> anywhere near as good as the CAW one.
>
> In hindsight it would've been cheaper to get it from somewhere like
> NWS but then I'd be running the risk of getting whacked with Import
> Duty and the assorted collection fees related to it like I did when I
> imported the Special Edition of Civ III.
Ouch. Gotta be a "third way" solution to this sort of nonsense.
Maybe we need to informally set up a war-historical global clearinghouse
where one of the American members of the group can purchase the serial
number and downloaded file at US prices, then you can pay us back with
your strong-currency European clout, using the real rates of exchange.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"It is impossible that the Republican Party could be saddled with a
clown like Huckabee if there were a serious primary in Iowa, let alone
if the process were kicked off in Chicago or Los Angeles or Atlanta."
- Christopher Hitchens
ERutins
> > Industry Law of UK Pricing - "take the USA price, and substitute a
> > pound sign for the dollar one." Secondly, the price I mentioned
I'm very glad you enjoyed CAW, but we don't do this practice at all so
I have to jump in and contest this comment. We convert the price
roughly on a quarterly basis so that you're paying the equivalent to
the dollar price, not the dollar price with a pound sign tacked on.
> > included UK VAT at 17.5%. Thirdly, I opted for physical shipment so
> > the price of that and the attendant postage and packing also need to
> > be taken into account.
Your VAT + Physical + Shipping can certainly add up though, but as you
noted our UK warehose allows the import duties and such to be avoided
at least.
A quick look at the current prices shows the following for CAW 29.99
Pounds for the Physical version in the UK store vs. US $59.99 for the
Physical version in the US store, so you can see that we don't just
change the currency symbol.
Regards,
- Erik
ERutins
> Well, I did consider going for April - like The Wargamer - but then
> games released in January of the year before can claim they seem "old"
> by then and that the newer games which are fresher in the minds of
> gamers have an advantage etc. Can of worms.
>
> In the end I decided that the "tradition" of doing this at the close
> of the year has an inherent value too and doing this later in the year
> makes it old news.
Understood and I think your point about recent titles sticking in
people's minds may be true in general - but I think that December 31st
is still too early and I think judging wargames is not the same as
judging mainstream games, where the "latest" is often considered the
greatest. I think you could make a case for the end of January, at
least then games that were purchased for Christmas have had a chance
to be played and understood. I don't think wargames can be accurately
reviewed 2 weeks after release, at least based on my experience and
pretty much every release these days gets not only updates for fixes
but also for improvements. Just my $.02...
Gustav Bjerke
2: AGEOD' Napoleon
3: Civil War Battles: Campaign Chickamauga
Bloodstar
What Mario?
:))))))))))))
Vincenzo Beretta
> is still too early and I think judging wargames is not the same as
> judging mainstream games, where the "latest" is often considered the
> greatest. I think you could make a case for the end of January, at
> least then games that were purchased for Christmas have had a chance
> to be played and understood.
Uhm, Erik, maybe you missed our new rule where a game published at the end
of the year is counted into the next year - a rule born from the fact that
Air Assault Task Force (published at the end of 2006) couldn't be really
appreciated in 2006. This is why it is included in the 2007's list (and it
is among my picks BTW). The same, from this edition of the WotY, will be
true for all the games that get published late in a certain year.
ERutins
> Uhm, Erik, maybe you missed our new rule where a game published at the end
> of the year is counted into the next year - a rule born from the fact that
> Air Assault Task Force (published at the end of 2006) couldn't be really
> appreciated in 2006. This is why it is included in the 2007's list (and it
> is among my picks BTW). The same, from this edition of the WotY, will be
> true for all the games that get published late in a certain year.
Totally missed it, sorry, but I didn't see the one game from our
catalog that would qualify on the list (Forge of Freedom, Nov. 29,
2006 release date)
Regards,
- Erik
eddys...@hotmail.com
The list is not a closed list of nominees and everyone can add games
at will (it says so too in the OP).
I'll put you down for Forge of Freedom : 5 points then ? I know it's
a bit of a no-no as you're a publisher of other games too but let's
just say this is Erik Rutins - the wargamer - voting and not Erik
Rutins - the publisher. I'm sure people will see the difference
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> I find the current practice unfair to any
> games released so late in the year, and would hope that if the start-
> date for voting will continue to be this early, at least voting will
> last for the full month.
Casting votes drops off after the initial week - I usually post a
"current score" then and then there's a second wave which dies out
within the week. Given past experience it makes little sense to
prolong it beyond the 2 weeks which has the added advantage of keeping
it fresh in everyone's mind.
I know it's not perfect - but this is UseNet :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Grouchy
1. AGEOD'S American Civil War. Good gamedepth, a campaign and nice graphics.
2. Making History
3. Commander : Europe at War.
Other 2007 gems for me: the modded versions of Medieval 2, Totalwar:
Kingdoms. Europa Universalis III and Galciv II: Dark Avatar, however they
are all considered strategy games.
Dud of the year: Theatre of War. Seems Battlefront went from a quality
producer to one that pffft.....
pproc...@yahoo.com
> absolutely clear : voting for AATF will *not* increase your chances of
> winning it (*).
But it won't HURT your chances, either :)
PAT PROCTOR
President, ProSIM Company
http://www.prosimco.com/writing
eddys...@hotmail.com
> > And to make it
> > absolutely clear : voting for AATF will *not* increase your chances of
> > winning it (*).
>
> But it won't HURT your chances, either :)
LOL - 5 points for AATF then ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Henius
1st place : AGEOD'S American Civil War - The Blue and the Gray
2nd place : Commander : Europe at War
3rd place : Air Assault Task Force
2007 - A year of more discussion of games than actual gaming.
-Henius
i own a yacht
> On the 31 Dec 2007, Oleg Mastruko <ol...@bug.hr> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 2. Silent Hunter 4
>
> for most of the year (so I wouldn't have been able to run it anyway)
> and reports of a large number of bugs meant I decided against getting
> it. How stable is it now?
in my experience, it's very stable. i play it with several mods and i've
never had it crash or act up on me. i think all of the major bugs have
been squashed by now.
a new patch came out just a few weeks ago, and that, coupled with a few
key mods, have turned it into quite a good game.
> Current PC is 3.4GHz Pentium D with 2GB RAM and an X1650 Pro (512MB,
> AGP) graphics card. Seems to cope very well with SH3 but I understand
> SH4 has bigger requirements than the earlier game.
it should run fine on that machine, albeit with some of the graphical
settings turned down. not as fast as sh3 obviously, but definitely
playable. the latest patch also includes some optimizations that have
basically halved the loading times.
--
"(HL2) Ep2 is non linear .... multiple ways to achieve the same goals"
-Walter Mitty
ERutins
> I'll put you down for Forge of Freedom : 5 points then ? I know it's
> a bit of a no-no as you're a publisher of other games too but let's
> just say this is Erik Rutins - the wargamer - voting and not Erik
> Rutins - the publisher. I'm sure people will see the difference
Eddy,
No, I'm not voting - I'm just being opinionated. ;-)
The thing is, FOF had a longer than usual release. It was the first
game we released with printed manuals (and there were a lot of
glitches in the process), so while the download release went live on
November 29th, it took until late January for the physical copies to
be available. Combine that with its ongoing development through 2007
and I just consider it a 2007 game much more than a 2006 one.
Outside of FOF though, we have a tendency to release a bunch of games
in November - December and I'm just adding my $.02 suggestion on when
the year should be judged. If you wait until the end of January, you
probably won't have to consider carrying games over at all. Anyway,
I'm beating a dead horse here so I'll just go back to being a lurker
now.
Regards,
- Erik
Graham Thurlwell
>> Graham Thurlwell wrote:
>>> I bought it off the European site. First off, remember The Games
>>> Industry Law of UK Pricing - "take the USA price, and substitute a
>>> pound sign for the dollar one." Secondly, the price I mentioned
> I'm very glad you enjoyed CAW, but we don't do this practice at all so
> I have to jump in and contest this comment.
That bit was slightly tongue-in-cheek and wasn't necessarily aimed at
you. It's generally stuff like certain consoles and their games where
it looks like that's exactly what's being done, ably helped by region
encoding...
> We convert the price roughly on a quarterly basis so that you're
> paying the equivalent to the dollar price, not the dollar price with a
> pound sign tacked on.
So it's basically a straight currency conversion? I was wondering how
you arrived at the UK price.
>>> included UK VAT at 17.5%. Thirdly, I opted for physical shipment so
>>> the price of that and the attendant postage and packing also need to
>>> be taken into account.
> Your VAT + Physical + Shipping can certainly add up though, but as you
> noted our UK warehose allows the import duties and such to be avoided
> at least.
Once bitten, twice shy. ;-) The threshold is £18 ($36) so wargames are
more likely to come in above that than other products.
Revenue & Customs guidelines are on:-
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageTravel_ShowContent&propertyType=document&resetCT=true&id=HMCE_CL_001454
(TinyURL http://preview.tinyurl.com/aqwft)
On computer software, as well as the 17.5% VAT, there's also 3.5%
actual customs duty /if/ the amount of duty is over £7 but it's highly
unlikely that any game I'm likely to buy would breach that one!
> A quick look at the current prices shows the following for CAW 29.99
> Pounds for the Physical version in the UK store vs. US $59.99 for the
> Physical version in the US store, so you can see that we don't just
> change the currency symbol.
The price of £40 I quoted in my other post is the final total price I
paid but that was several months ago. Is that £29.99 inclusive or
exclusive of VAT?
Kanspal
enough to give it a whirl or purchase it. I'm mainly into tactical/grand
tactical level WW2 and even Napoleonic, medieval and ancient, so here it is:
1. Nothing
2. Zip
3. Nada
Honourable mention (s):
Battlefront - almost but not quite
Kharkov - better late than never - I hope!
Regards
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2865ed6e-e5c4-4b8a...@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hi,
>
> Yup, it's that time of the year again and this time there's again a
> Grand Prize for you to win : Pat Proctor & Shrapnel have graciously
> offered a copy of the Air Assault Task Force wargame to one lucky
> participant. If you already have the game, Shrapnel will let you pick
> any game of your choice from their current catalogue. And to make it
> absolutely clear : voting for AATF 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 2007 or late 2006 - in other
> words : if you think a game published late in 2006 didn't get a fair
> chance last year, feel free to add it. AATF got added per default as
> it caused this rule change to begin with.
> 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, 2008
> 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 - again created by Daniel :
>
> http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4124492&a=32625734&f=
>
> My vote - entirely based on how much fun I had with them :
>
> 1st place : Commander : Europe at War
> 2nd place : AGEod's Napoleon's Campaigns
> 3rd place : Punic Wars
>
> To refresh your memory on what games got published this year :
>
> Air Assault Task Force
> Thermopylae
> Down in Flames WWII - Bombers
> Ancient Warfare : Punic Wars
> Battlefront
> Close Combat : Cross of Iron
> Making History - The Calm & The Storm 2.0
> Silent Hunter 4
> Panzer Campaigns - Budapest '45
> Civil War Campaigns - Atlanta
> AGEOD'S American Civil War - The Blue and the Gray
> Theatre of War
> Civil War Battles: Campaign Chickamauga
> Squad Battles - Soviet-Afghan War
> John Tiller's Campaign Series : Matrix edition
> Carriers at War
> Commander : Europe at War
> Ta.La.Co.Si (Tactical Land Combat Simulator)
> Guns of August 1914-1918
> Combat Mission : Shock Force
> Hornet Leader
> Advanced Tactics (People's Tactics 2)
> Napoleon in Italy
> Strategic Command 2 : Blitzkrieg - Weapons and Warfare
> John Tiller's Battleground Civil War
> John Tiller's Battleground Napoleonic Wars + Age of Sail
> AGEod's Napoleon's Campaigns
> Cose Combat : Modern Tactics
> Panzer Tactics (DS)
> Great Battles of Rome
> Larry Bond's Harpoon Commander's Edition
> Modern Campaigns - Danube Front '85
> Empires in Arms - The Napoleonic Wars of 1805-1815
>
>
> 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 Air Assault Task Force 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.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
kev9000
>>>the end of January, at least then
>>>games that were purchased for Christmas
>>>have had a chance to be played and
>>>understood. I don't think wargames
>>>can be accurately reviewed 2 weeks
>>>after release, at least based on my
>>>experience and pretty much every
>>>release these days gets not only updates for fixes
>>>but also for improvements. Just my $.02...
This attitude is poisoning computer wargaming.
Should not a criterion for a "Wargame of the Year"
be that it is published in a good state, without
the need for fixes or improvements so significant
as to change a judgement of the game? That it is
so well-designed that you don't have to spend weeks
"understanding" it?
Every year we seem to drop the bar a bit, to the
extent that patches are now being called "re-releases,"
and with a few exceptions I don't purchase games but
wait until they see how the product lifecycle pans out,
with all its fixes and re-fixes and fixes of patch-
injected bugs and new functionality and the new bugs
that come with that etc, etc.
If ACW came out *last week*, I would still vote for
it. Has it improved since then? Yes. Has there
been fixes? Yes. Did they make a loser into a winner?
No. It was a potential winner out of the box. It
was a sure-fire winner for me after a few nights'
gaming.
ERutins
<sigh>
> Should not a criterion for a "Wargame of the Year"
> be that it is published in a good state, without
> the need for fixes or improvements so significant
> as to change a judgement of the game? That it is
> so well-designed that you don't have to spend weeks
> "understanding" it?
I knew someone would post a response like this. I agree, games should
work right from the first release and should be great fun. However,
the reality is (and the wargaming community is fortunate in this
regard) that many wargames get improved _after release_ by their
developers for free. We're not talking bug fixes, we're talking
significant improvements based on community feedback.
> If ACW came out *last week*, I would still vote for
> it. Has it improved since then? Yes. Has there
> been fixes? Yes. Did they make a loser into a winner?
> No. It was a potential winner out of the box. It
> was a sure-fire winner for me after a few nights'
> gaming.
I agree, ACW was great at initial release and is even better now. The
same can be said of FOF and of virtually all of our releases.
However, I can also say that those of our releases that came out in
November or December have often not had the type of post-release
improvements that releases from earlier in the year have had . It's a
pleasant fact of wargame development that this happens, not a problem
or a poison. I'm just saying it should be taken into account - but
most importantly I just don't think most wargames can be really fully
explored and enjoyed in less than a month. If you told me that within
a month of starting to play ACW you had mastered it and fully grasped
its entire design and so forth, I'd say there's no way. That's my
point - yes, it's a bit of a nit pick but we're all free to be pundits
here.
Regards,
- Erik
ERutins
> The price of £40 I quoted in my other post is the final total price I
> paid but that was several months ago. Is that £29.99 inclusive or
> exclusive of VAT?
Exclusive - the VAT varies by country and since we don't have a single
store per country, we have to adjust the price based on VAT once the
customer tells us which country they are in. Before final checkout,
the total including VAT is displayed. Unfortunately, all we can do is
set our prices for the UK the same in equivalent value to our US
prices, we can't lower your taxes. ;-)
Regards,
- Erik
Mark Garnett
1. Napoleons Campaigns (AGEOD)
2. Forge of Freedom (Matrix)
3. Napoleon in Italy (Matrix)
Cheers
Mark
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b7b4be8-fd20-4341...@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
eddys...@hotmail.com
> No, I'm not voting - I'm just being opinionated. ;-)
LOL - the true spirit of UseNet shines through :)
> Outside of FOF though, we have a tendency to release a bunch of games
> in November - December and I'm just adding my $.02 suggestion on when
> the year should be judged. If you wait until the end of January, you
> probably won't have to consider carrying games over at all.
Ok, good point - then the strict criteria could again be "published in
<year>" and doing away with this carry-over of games - what do others
think of holding next year's election in the first two weeks of
February ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
@e50g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, er...@matrixgames.com says...
> > Should not a criterion for a "Wargame of the Year"
> > be that it is published in a good state, without
> > the need for fixes or improvements so significant
> > as to change a judgement of the game? That it is
> > so well-designed that you don't have to spend weeks
> > "understanding" it?
>
> I knew someone would post a response like this. I agree, games should
> work right from the first release and should be great fun. However,
> the reality is (and the wargaming community is fortunate in this
> regard) that many wargames get improved _after release_ by their
> developers for free. We're not talking bug fixes, we're talking
> significant improvements based on community feedback.
Well, I don't know who "we" refers to here, but certainly kev9000 isn't
ranting wildly about nuthin' when he brings up the dismaying tendency
for games in every genre to be released in badly working - even *non*-
working states.
Great example. The other day I bought GEARS OF WAR. Published by
*Microsoft*, no less, and explicitly stamped with the Games For Windows
seal of approval and explicitly built for Windows Vista. Let's all
reflect on this for a moment; the game was published by the same company
that built the operating system it's made for; if ever a fucking game
should work perfectly right-outta-the-box, it's this one.
So, after a retardedly long loading period for this mongo-DVD, I sit
down to play. But I can't play, because the game wants to download and
update for *Vista compatibility*!?!?!? OK, so I need a patch right
outta the box (and the game automatically patches itself...). I also
have to patch my graphics drivers.
OK, now I'm ready to play. Click on the game. Kaboom. *It crashes*.
Repeatable, relentless, serial CTDs every time I try to start it. OK,
so off to the internet ... where I find that there's still a bug in the
game, but it can be worked around by starting up the game from inside
Vista's stupid little "game explorer" applet.
So I do that. Now I'm happily playing.
But what a fucking stupid asshat process. I had to fiddle-fuck with
this shitware for ... well, I don't know how long it was before I
actually managed to be playing, but suffice to say I was long past the
point where I was going to bestow any awards to GEARS OF WAR except
something like, "Shittiest Installation Experience" or "Game I Wanted To
Return To Best Buy After Only 15 Minutes" or "Game That Rivaled
Experience At Endodontist."
> > If ACW came out *last week*, I would still vote for
> > it. Has it improved since then? Yes. Has there
> > been fixes? Yes. Did they make a loser into a winner?
> > No. It was a potential winner out of the box. It
> > was a sure-fire winner for me after a few nights'
> > gaming.
>
> I agree, ACW was great at initial release and is even better now. The
> same can be said of FOF and of virtually all of our releases.
Agreed. I would put Matrix and your developers in the first rank of
"worked right-outta-the-box" experiences. And you're also right when
you point out that a great many Matrix "patches" are really updating
things that the customer would never even notice as a "bug" in some
publisher's products.
> However, I can also say that those of our releases that came out in
> November or December have often not had the type of post-release
> improvements that releases from earlier in the year have had . It's a
> pleasant fact of wargame development that this happens, not a problem
> or a poison. I'm just saying it should be taken into account - but
> most importantly I just don't think most wargames can be really fully
> explored and enjoyed in less than a month. If you told me that within
> a month of starting to play ACW you had mastered it and fully grasped
> its entire design and so forth, I'd say there's no way. That's my
> point - yes, it's a bit of a nit pick but we're all free to be pundits
> here.
I dunno about this, though. Maybe everyone else is different, but it
took me roughly 15 minutes to conclude that CARRIERS AT WAR was 2007
Game O' The Year. ADVANCED TACTICS? About 20 minutes to conclude it
was excellent. GUNS OF AUGUST? When three hours had passed, and this
30-year veteran grognard still didn't know how the fuck to get the BEF
to France ... well, I was pretty sure it wasn't going to get a thumbs-up
anytime soon.
See, I don't think you have to "master and fully grasp a game's entire
design" to determine whether you *like it* or not. I've been playing
HTTR / COTA for years now, and I'm not sure I've "mastered and fully
grasped its entire design." But about 15 minutes after I got HTTR
installed, Mrs. G. started hearing me sputter stuff like, "this is so
cool," "this is just wild," "I don't fucking believe this really
works," and "there's never been anything remotely like this."
I'm not sure I even *want* to "grasp the entire design." But I sure
think it's Game Of The Century.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based
coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should
be formed immediately... It is in the interests of the U.S. that there
be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists."
- Governor Bill Richardson
"Wow. Who knew it was that easy?"
- Mark Steyn
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> I dunno about this, though. Maybe everyone else is different, but it
> took me roughly 15 minutes to conclude that CARRIERS AT WAR was 2007
> Game O' The Year. ADVANCED TACTICS? About 20 minutes to conclude it
> was excellent. GUNS OF AUGUST? When three hours had passed, and this
> 30-year veteran grognard still didn't know how the fuck to get the BEF
> to France ... well, I was pretty sure it wasn't going to get a thumbs-up
> anytime soon.
Same here. The time it takes me to recognize a classic or true
shitware that is.
It's the games in between that are the hardest to judge - and that's
most games.
There are games you want to like and you give it a couple of hours to
see if the initial impression lasts, only to give up and then there
are games you didn't think you'd like, but that grow on you.
There are games where you marvel at how well-designed they are but
which for some reason or other don't get played much and there are
games with really clunky mechanics which get played until the
electrons on your harddisk turn gray.
It's the above which makes picking a Game of the Year a bit difficult
for me as I somehow feel an excellent design should be rewarded but on
the other hand also feel that "fun" should be the overriding factor.
That's why I stated in my vote that it was purely based on the amount
of fun I had with it, nothing else.
> I've been playing
> HTTR / COTA for years now, and I'm not sure I've "mastered and fully
> grasped its entire design."
Tell me about it - I've been beta-testing it for years and last week I
still had to post a "is this by design or a bug" question on the beta
forum.
> I'm not sure I even *want* to "grasp the entire design." But I sure
> think it's Game Of The Century.
Well, we'll have that election on 1/1/3000 - unless Mr. Rutins manages
to convince me to re-schedule it :)
Seriously : if this ng is still alive in a couple of years time I
think a "Game of the Decade" election in 2010 should be fun.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
2) Carriers at War
3)Air Assault Task Force
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Well, we'll have that election on 1/1/3000 -
Make that "Game of the Millenium" - "Game of the Century" will be on
1/1/2100
No, I didn't drink too much on New Year's Eve - not on the eve that
is, it was the drinking past midnight which caused most damage :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Big Salad
> Ok, good point - then the strict criteria could again be "published
> in <year>" and doing away with this carry-over of games - what do
> others think of holding next year's election in the first two weeks
> of February ?
I was swayed by the original arguments for the earlier vote. One point
I will add is that there is something to be said for giving the award in
January. That is when I am in the mood for those best-of-last-year
lists. By February or March, when I see the "best of 2007," I'll be
thinking "So what?! It's 2008!."
One alternate suggestion I will make is to put out your list of
suggestions a few days before allowing the actual voting to start. Let
people lobby a little bit for next year's Forge of Freedom or M2: Kingdoms.
I have games installed, but not yet played. Purchased, but not yet
installed. And a long list of to-be-purchases. Waiting until February
is not going to change that situation too much.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> I was swayed by the original arguments for the earlier vote. One point
> I will add is that there is something to be said for giving the award in
> January. That is when I am in the mood for those best-of-last-year
> lists. By February or March, when I see the "best of 2007," I'll be
> thinking "So what?! It's 2008!."
Well, I was quite intrigued by Mr. Mastruko's observation that in the
Eurovision contest performers who appear towards the end of the show
seem to gather more points.
That and me wanting to show Mr. Rutins "late-in-the-year games don't
get a fair chance" wrong, 3 years of election data in Excel and time
on my hands led me to crunch some numbers.
Data-points divided into quarters show these results
2005 : strongest quarters : 1 and 3
2006 : strongest quarters : 1 and 2
2007 (so far) : strongest quarters : 2 and 3
Conclusions :
1) Unlike voters for that song contest, wargamers seem to have an
attention span longer than that of a gnat, so seem to have no problem
giving points to a game released 12 months ago correctly.
2) Quarter 4 is conspicuously absent - this could be due to Mr. Rutins
contention that gamers haven't come around to fully appreciating these
games yet - or - that being a game in these end-of-year rush of games
isn't a good way to get noticed - or - that these end-of-year games
have been rushed somewhat to make the "deadline" only to contain more
bugs / less features than games released in other periods of the year,
hence get points deducted by gamers.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
kev9000
developers in terms of guidance. Give pointers to
resources in software engineering and quality management.
How to design - for AI, Playability, usability, adaptability
for new features, quality and basic doability with the
resources available. Then by all means break the
rules if you are doing something paradigm-changing like
Arjuna & co but at least know why.
At least suggest some thought experiments along the lines
of:
1) What kind of decisions do I want the player to make?
2) What kind of information is the player going to need
to make those decisions? How am I going to package it
and give it at the right time in chunks that won't burn
his working memory?
3) Do I have a clear idea of the game concepts I am asking
the player to work with?
4) How can I show the player the effects of his decisions?
5) What kind of info does he need during a turn/decision
beat, what does need to *understand*?
6) Am I happy with my understanding of winning/losing?
7) What do I do that's new - what little bit do I add to
the genre?
8) Do I have a design that allows me to answer these
questions easily and satisfactorily - at least at some
level?
Anyway I am going OT. But the crapware is driving me
away and I am sure it is doing the same to others.
Mike Cox
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Hi,
>
> Yup, it's that time of the year again and this time there's again a
>
1st - Squad Battles - Soviet-Afghan War
2nd - Ancient Warfare : Punic Wars
3rd -Guns of August 1914-1918
Yes I went Homer/Fanboi
Mike
* still waiting for the autographed copy of the Battles from the Bulge ;^)
>
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> * still waiting for the autographed copy of the Battles from the Bulge ;^)
I haven't forgotten, but you'll have to wait for it just a bit more :)
[the beta looks and plays smashing already - you will all be pleased
with it]
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
The problem is that new wargame developers are usually doing the
development thing in their spare time and far away from any people who
could help them with their design - or as the developer would call
it : "mess with his baby".
For instance : I've been pestering Mr. Kreuzer in here to present his
Afrika Korps game to a publisher - any publisher - to get some
assistance and guiding but so far he feels reluctant to do so for
(probably) a good number of reasons, but most likely also because he
wants to see if he can go it alone.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
von Schmidt
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2865ed6e-e5c4-4b8a...@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > Yup, it's that time of the year again and this time there's again a
> > Grand Prize for you to win : (*).
>
> 1st - Squad Battles - Soviet-Afghan War
> 2nd - Ancient Warfare : Punic Wars
> 3rd -Guns of August 1914-1918
>
> Yes I went Homer/Fanboi
>
> Mike
Mike,
What makes SB-SAW your contender of the year?
-von Schmidt
Mike Cox
"von Schmidt" <von_s...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:5cb8c9a3-d5c5-45ac...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 2, 11:34 pm, "Mike Cox" <n0_spamTHX_sch-mich...@vom.com> wrote:
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Mike,
What makes SB-SAW your contender of the year?
-von Schmidt
A range of scenarios (size, length), competitive PBEM play, decent AI
scripts, several enhancements to the Squad Battles system (new objective
types - caches, escape hexes, Body Armor, Rest/Rearm), a couple of new
editors (one for weapon/vehicle data, one for the other game parameters)
making every last thing - except maps - easily editable. (In regards to
maps, there are many large master maps (+/-100x100 hexes that can be used
with the existing submap editor to create any number of useful scenario maps
(I like them more in the 30x30 for scenarios). That and I was co designer
for the scenarios and did the leg work on the vehicle and weapons database.
(The other official designer was Ozgur Budak.)
Told you I opted for the homer route. ;^)
Mike
Mike Cox
"Mike Cox" <n0_spamTHX_...@vom.com> wrote in message
news:Qs8fj.2702$pr6....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "von Schmidt" <von_s...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:5cb8c9a3-d5c5-45ac...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 11:34 pm, "Mike Cox" <n0_spamTHX_sch-mich...@vom.com> wrote:
>> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Mike,
>
> What makes SB-SAW your contender of the year?
>
von Schmidt
> "von Schmidt" <von_schm...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5cb8c9a3-d5c5-45ac...@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 2, 11:34 pm, "Mike Cox" <n0_spamTHX_sch-mich...@vom.com> wrote:
> A range of scenarios (size, length), competitive PBEM play, decent AI
and I was co designer
> for the scenarios and did the leg work on the vehicle and weapons database.
> (The other official designer was Ozgur Budak.)
>
> Told you I opted for the homer route. ;^)
>
> Mike
Fair enough. Nothing wrong with some selfpromotion ;-)
-von Schmidt
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Fair enough. Nothing wrong with some selfpromotion ;-)
It's not self promotion, it's wargame promotion to an audience which
comes here to get info about wargames - a perfect match.
... and it would be a Good Thing (tm) if more people did that - what's
the point in pouring your heart and soul into a wargame design and
then *not* letting those interested in wargames know about it ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> That and I was co designer
> for the scenarios and did the leg work on the vehicle and weapons database.
> Told you I opted for the homer route. ;^)
That's not the Homer route - that's the long, steep and winding route
with lots of roadblocks and an avalanche or two to boot. I'm just a
beta bunny who plays around with what's there, I don't design stuff,
and when I see how much hard work it takes these scenario/map creation
guys to make these things I sometimes feel sorry for them if I have to
give my straight and harsh opinion about some of their design choices.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
BasKa
1. Advanced Tactics;
2. Making History: the Calm and the Storm;
3. Carriers at War;
Bas Kreuger
Graham Thurlwell
>> The price of £40 I quoted in my other post is the final total price I
>> paid but that was several months ago. Is that £29.99 inclusive or
>> exclusive of VAT?
> Exclusive - the VAT varies by country and since we don't have a single
> store per country, we have to adjust the price based on VAT once the
> customer tells us which country they are in. Before final checkout,
> the total including VAT is displayed.
I know it does mention it in the store FAQ, but it would probably be
helpful if "exclusive of VAT" appeared next to the prices quoted on
the site.
> Unfortunately, all we can do is set our prices for the UK the same in
> equivalent value to our US prices, we can't lower your taxes. ;-)
I demand a patch to fix this!!! ;-)
kev9000
> development thing in their spare time and far away from any people who
> could help them with their design - or as the developer would call
> it : "mess with his baby".
>
> For instance : I've been pestering Mr. Kreuzer in here to present his
> Afrika Korps game to a publisher - any publisher - to get some
> assistance and guiding but so far he feels reluctant to do so for
> (probably) a good number of reasons, but most likely also because he
> wants to see if he can go it alone.
Maybe publishers should make some resources/advice available to
devs on a no-commitment basis. I know some do in some cases,
but others won't talk to anybody without a solid alpha.
Bloodstar
1st place Theatre of War
2nd place Advanced Tactics
3rd place Europa Universalis 3: Napoleon's Ambition (Silent Hunter 4 is a
wargame and Paradox titles aren't?)
Stinker of the year: Commander: Stinker at War (-50 points)
:)))
Mario
eddys...@hotmail.com
> And the jury voted like this:
>
> 1st place Theatre of War
> 2nd place Advanced Tactics
> 3rd place Europa Universalis 3: Napoleon's Ambition (Silent Hunter 4 is a
> wargame and Paradox titles aren't?)
My bad - I didn't realize it was out already.
> Stinker of the year: Commander: Stinker at War (-50 points)
Yeah, that'll work :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Oleg Mastruko
<george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Stinker of the year: Commander: Stinker at War (-50 points)
>:)))
I love your Stinker of the Year idea, my problem would be I have
too many nominees in that category......
Bad year for wargaming I say. Good thing though, other genres
had a VERY good year.....
Bloodstar
No problem :))
>> Stinker of the year: Commander: Stinker at War (-50 points)
>
> Yeah, that'll work :)
Hehe :))
Mario
Bloodstar
> too many nominees in that category......
>
> Bad year for wargaming I say. Good thing though, other genres
> had a VERY good year.....
I agree of course...
I was always pro revolutionary design but if there is revolutionary design
then implementation is screwed because of lack of funds of talent. In
another case when there is plenty of money then developers (not all of
course) take evolutionary route and many times implementation is quite good
(MTW 2 comes to my mind).
Of course, at least wargaming business is not so affected by large budgets
syndrome and I still hope that bed room coders are not quite dissapeared
from the face of the Earth :)
Happy New Year to all, belated!
Mario
MJB
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2865ed6e-e5c4-4b8a...@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> To refresh your memory on what games got published this year :
>
> Air Assault Task Force
> Thermopylae
> Down in Flames WWII - Bombers
> Ancient Warfare : Punic Wars
> Battlefront
> Close Combat : Cross of Iron
> Making History - The Calm & The Storm 2.0
> Silent Hunter 4
> Panzer Campaigns - Budapest '45
> Civil War Campaigns - Atlanta
> AGEOD'S American Civil War - The Blue and the Gray
> Civil War Battles: Campaign Chickamauga
> Squad Battles - Soviet-Afghan War
> Carriers at War
> Commander : Europe at War
> Ta.La.Co.Si (Tactical Land Combat Simulator)
> Guns of August 1914-1918
> Combat Mission : Shock Force
> Hornet Leader
> Advanced Tactics (People's Tactics 2)
> Napoleon in Italy
> Strategic Command 2 : Blitzkrieg - Weapons and Warfare
> John Tiller's Battleground Civil War
> John Tiller's Battleground Napoleonic Wars + Age of Sail
> AGEod's Napoleon's Campaigns
> Cose Combat : Modern Tactics
> Panzer Tactics (DS)
> Great Battles of Rome
> Larry Bond's Harpoon Commander's Edition
> Modern Campaigns - Danube Front '85
> Empires in Arms - The Napoleonic Wars of 1805-1815
>
>
> If you think I missed one (or several) feel free to add them - this is
> not a list of nominees.
>
Wow - that's quite a list. What's amazing to me is that I haven't bought a
single title on it.
I don't know if that's an indication of my general suspicion of the quality
of the newly released beta-test versions we've seen lately or the glut of
good old games I've got and haven't played fully. Or at all yet.
<shrug>
Maybe I'll buy something in 2008 and get to vote next year. I did like the
Napoleon's Campaign demo - but it hasn't been released on disc yet. And it
is on the list...
So maybe not.
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
M. Ziegler
I only bought CoI from this list. I tried the demos of Napoleons
Campaigns and ToW but didnt bought them.
Michael
jim...@gmail.com
Its one of the better simulation of helo Ops Ive seen in fact there
are no others, its a nice change of pace from regular cookie cutter
strategy games.
Jim
Graham Thurlwell
> Graham Thurlwell <nos...@jades.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> Current PC is 3.4GHz Pentium D with 2GB RAM and an X1650 Pro (512MB,
>> AGP) graphics card. Seems to cope very well with SH3 but I understand
>> SH4 has bigger requirements than the earlier game.
> it should run fine on that machine, albeit with some of the graphical
> settings turned down. not as fast as sh3 obviously, but definitely
> playable.
Presumably SubSim has some sort of guide for what's best to tweak in
the settings.
> the latest patch also includes some optimizations that have
> basically halved the loading times.
I usually have a book with me for the long waits on patrols (I usually
play SH3 on 256x) so those don't tend to bother me that much. ;-)
Thanks for the info!
Graham Thurlwell
wrote:
> In article <57e9045a...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com>,
> nos...@jades.org says...
<snip>
>> Current PC is 3.4GHz Pentium D with 2GB RAM and an X1650 Pro (512MB,
>> AGP) graphics card. Seems to cope very well with SH3 but I understand
>> SH4 has bigger requirements than the earlier game.
> I tried it on my wife's PC (IE, my PC from last year), running Vista on
> a 3.2 Ghz Pentium with 4GB RAM and the ATI X700 256 MB graphics, and it
> seems to run perfectly well.
Hmm. I've half as much system memory and twice the graphics memory.
Presumably my graphics card is faster (would it kill them to come up
with a less confusing naming scheme?) so it probably evens out
overall. I'm still on XP Home.
I'll keep an eye out for it in the sales, thanks for the info!
Giftzwerg
nos...@jades.org says...
> >> Current PC is 3.4GHz Pentium D with 2GB RAM and an X1650 Pro (512MB,
> >> AGP) graphics card. Seems to cope very well with SH3 but I understand
> >> SH4 has bigger requirements than the earlier game.
>
> > I tried it on my wife's PC (IE, my PC from last year), running Vista on
> > a 3.2 Ghz Pentium with 4GB RAM and the ATI X700 256 MB graphics, and it
> > seems to run perfectly well.
>
> Hmm. I've half as much system memory and twice the graphics memory.
> Presumably my graphics card is faster (would it kill them to come up
> with a less confusing naming scheme?) so it probably evens out
> overall. I'm still on XP Home.
It's probably a wash - although the X700 is a pretty heavy-duty card. I
originally built Mrs. G.'s PC with an X1350, but the X700 just blew it
away ... something to do with pixelpipelines or some other 3D-geekery.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"While acknowledging the difficult road they face, Clinton campaign
officials say they are not panicking."
- The Politico
"TRANSLATION: They are *sooooooo* panicking."
- Giftzwerg
Schutzenpanzerwagen
My vote is another vote for Air Assault Task Force.
It's the only game I know where reading Army field manuals helps you
do better. I originally started working with its predecessors BCT
(Brigade Combat Team), and then ATF (Armored Task Force) as they were
the most realistic tactical simulations I could find; they in turn are
based on MAJ Proctor's experience with the JANUS simulation when he
was a lieutenant at Fort Hood. I've worked with ProSIM on research
projects where we have used adapted versions of ATF and now AATF.
I haven't tried Combat Mission: Shock Force, although I also play
Combat Mission: Afrika Korp as I hear this new version has no PBEM
capabilities and uses fictional scenarios. I play CMAK more for fun
and AATF more to learn about modern combat and tactics, such as how
actual air assault operations are carried out.
AATF recreates actual historical scenarios from Operation Anaconda in
the Shah-i-kot Valley in Afghanistan, to the events described in the
books "Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War" and "We Were Soldiers
Once...and Young: Ia Drang - the Battle That Changed the War in
Vietnam."
Anyway, that's my vote, thanks for letting me contribute.
Bill
nim8
Tactics. There is nothing mind-blowing our industry-altering about
it, however it is a fine-crafted and balanced game with a tremendous
lifetime ahead of it due to the wonderful scenario editor, mod
capabilities, and ease of use. Armageddon Empires is practically a
tie in my book, a better game on its own accord but without the mod
and editor to go along with it so it loses a pinch of it's luster.
Between the two games, I've had a wonderful time and it is hard to
imagine the day they leave my hard drive.
nim8
To summarize my above post (now that I've read the directions - I
started in the middle...lol)
1. Advanced Tactics
2. Armageddon Empires
3. Forge of Freedom (Matrix) (I own the original Carriers at War and
didn't buy the new Matrix version or it might be in here somewhere too)
Mike Kreuzer
then a respectable distance behind
2. AGEOD's American Civil War
3. AGEOD's Napoleon's Campaigns
And for what it's worth, I don't think anyone here shouldn't be allowed to
vote, or that anyone should be allowed to vote in secret. But it's the
Karpmeister-general's show and I'll leave it in his capable hands.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Paulo Vicente
1. Napoleon's Campaigns
2. Advanced Tactics
3. AGEOD'S American Civil War
pif...@gmail.com
The most realistic military ops simulation ever...
Ken Beard
1. Carriers at War
2. AGEOD's ACW
3. Commander : Europe at War
--
Ken
CaligulasHorse
1. Advanced Tactics
2. Guns of August
3. Carriers at War
korri...@hotmail.com
2) Combat Mission: Shock Force
3) Advanced Tactics
NB: 2nd bis: Fantasy Wars
Korrigan
Graham Thurlwell
> In article <b9e49e5d...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com>,
> nos...@jades.org says...
<snip>
[Whether SH4 will run on Graham's PC]
>> Hmm. I've half as much system memory and twice the graphics memory.
>> Presumably my graphics card is faster (would it kill them to come up
>> with a less confusing naming scheme?) so it probably evens out
>> overall. I'm still on XP Home.
> It's probably a wash
<Makes note to buy new American to British dictionary> Erm, does that
mean "It's about even?" ;-)
> although the X700 is a pretty heavy-duty card. I originally built
> Mrs. G.'s PC with an X1350, but the X700 just blew it away ...
> something to do with pixelpipelines or some other 3D-geekery.
You know, I really do miss the days when I actually understood pretty
much everything that related to gaming hardware. Anyone got any
suggestions for an in-depth but accessible site relating to the techy
stuff?
Cheers.
Epi Watkins
nos...@jades.org says...
> On the 9 Jan 2008, Giftzwerg <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <b9e49e5d...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com>,
> > nos...@jades.org says...
>
> <snip>
>
> [Whether SH4 will run on Graham's PC]
>
> >> Hmm. I've half as much system memory and twice the graphics memory.
> >> Presumably my graphics card is faster (would it kill them to come up
> >> with a less confusing naming scheme?) so it probably evens out
> >> overall. I'm still on XP Home.
>
> > It's probably a wash
>
> <Makes note to buy new American to British dictionary> Erm, does that
> mean "It's about even?" ;-)
Like saying, six one way, a half dozen the other.
--
Song of the moment: "Flightless Bird, American Mouth."
By Iron & Wine, from the album The Shepherd's Dog.
----
Slick:
http://www.aktuellekamera.de/archive.php/393/OEZ/2007_12_21_21:58:25
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi