Please recommend me a wargame that's a challenge
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk
about a year ago I bought Rome: Total War. Now this had some good
things about it, but it soon started to annoy me. There are huge
numbers of things wrong with how R:TW works, but the worst of it was
this:
(1) Once you're used to it, it's incredibly easy to win.
(2) The AIs that run your opponents at both the strategic and tactical
levels so utterly stupid things.
(2) is probably the explanation for (1), at least in part.
I realise that writing an AI to manage this kind of thing to run on a
PC must be difficult, but opponents in R:TW do incredibly stupid things
- missile units charge into hand-to-hand combat instead of shooting
(abandonning their equipment in the case of artillery crews), and pike
units chase cavalry. Surely it must be possible to program units not to
behave like that.
So, can anyone recommend me a PC wargame in which the opponents behave
even vaguely intelligently?
R:TW is the only wargame I've played in years, so I don't know the
field - you'd better treat me as a complete newcomer and state basic
information that you would expect most people to know.
Thanks very much,
Samuel
Frank E
>I realise that writing an AI to manage this kind of thing to run on a
>PC must be difficult, but opponents in R:TW do incredibly stupid things
>- missile units charge into hand-to-hand combat instead of shooting
>(abandonning their equipment in the case of artillery crews), and pike
>units chase cavalry. Surely it must be possible to program units not to
>behave like that.
>
>So, can anyone recommend me a PC wargame in which the opponents behave
>even vaguely intelligently?
>
Some recent titles that have good AI:
Conquest of the Aegean - a WW2 game where you command about a division
(depending on scenario size)
The Operational Art of War 3 - An updated version of a 10 year old
game, so the user interface is kinda dated.
Battles in Normandy, Battles in Italy - These have more of a boardgame
feel to it. I think they released one of their earlier titles in the
series called "The Ardennes Offensive" as freeware so you could see if
you like the game engine.
All of these can be found at: http://matrixgames.com/
Birth of America: Covers the American Revolution and French and Indian
War. This one has a demo. http://www.ageod.com/
Garth
<sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153405788.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. I hadn't played a computer game in about fifteen years, and then
> about a year ago I bought Rome: Total War. Now this had some good
> things about it, but it soon started to annoy me. There are huge
Meh thats not a wargame :) thats an RTS.
I would try what was listed in here already and maybe Tin Soldiers
Arjuna
If you are after a good AI, then check out our Conquest of the Aegean (
COTA ). Here's the website for more info, trailer and links to the
forums:
Regards,
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk
> <sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153405788.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi. I hadn't played a computer game in about fifteen years, and then
> > about a year ago I bought Rome: Total War. Now this had some good
> > things about it, but it soon started to annoy me. There are huge
>
> Meh thats not a wargame :) thats an RTS.
What does 'RTS' mean?
Samuel
Keyser Soze
As for challenging games I always say - There is no AI like human AI. Nobody
on this planet haven't invent challenging AI so far. So if you want
challenge, play wargames against human.
<sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153405788.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Giftzwerg
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> > Meh thats not a wargame :) thats an RTS.
>
> What does 'RTS' mean?
"Pathologically Fucked Up Insane-Speed Click & Twitch Bullshit."
Or "Real-Time System." The two terms are interchangeable.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is
actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because
there are parts of South Lebanon still standing."
- Ann Coulter
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk
> Rome Total war is a great game if you install realism mod.
What is this 'realism mod'? Does it have a name, and where can I get
it?
Samuel
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <1153474452.6...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> > > Meh thats not a wargame :) thats an RTS.
> > What does 'RTS' mean?
> "Pathologically Fucked Up Insane-Speed Click & Twitch Bullshit."
>
> Or "Real-Time System." The two terms are interchangeable.
This really isn't helpful. You're not telling me what type of game
you're talking about.
I'll take a wild guess that RTS is used to mean tactical wargames, ie.
those in which the playing area represents a tactical battlefield and
units move on that field and engage eachother in real time. Is that
what it means?
That's the type of game I want to play. If a game has a
strategic/campaign element too that's good, but I'm primarily
interested in tactical battles.
Are any of the games that people have mentioned tactical wargames as
I've described them here?
Samuel
Epi Watkins
> those in which the playing area represents a tactical battlefield and
> units move on that field and engage eachother in real time. Is that
> what it means?
That's the literal definition, but not every game that fits that would
be thought of as just a real time strategy game. Conquest of the Aegean
(even though it's not tactical) for example.
--
Epi
----
"You won't let me make love to you ropeless."
From "I Want You to Love Me, But You Hate Me" by Carla Bley
I don't mean anything of course. I just find the
line humorous.
----
Mr. MacDonald's place:
http://www.curlesneck.com/macdonaldsplace.jpg
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
Giftzwerg
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> > > What does 'RTS' mean?
> > "Pathologically Fucked Up Insane-Speed Click & Twitch Bullshit."
> >
> > Or "Real-Time System." The two terms are interchangeable.
>
> This really isn't helpful. You're not telling me what type of game
> you're talking about.
>
> I'll take a wild guess that RTS is used to mean tactical wargames, ie.
> those in which the playing area represents a tactical battlefield and
> units move on that field and engage eachother in real time. Is that
> what it means?
An RTS is technically described as a game where there are no "turns,"
and the game just plays out continually in "real time," IE, the clock is
continually running.
But practically speaking, an RTS game actually plays out in "hyper-
speeded unreal time," where the months pass in minutes and the player is
always under fabulous time pressure.
The canonical example of the genre is probably COMMAND & CONQUER.
The problems, from a wargamer's perspective, with RTS games boil down
to:
(1) The game speed forces players to make decisions that would take a
real-world leader *months* to make - for example, deciding to focus
national production on a particular type of *warship* - in a matter of
seconds. Almost literally, a mistaken click of the mouse could cost a
player a battle (or the game). For this reason, real wargamers sneer at
RTS games with the epithet, "Click & Twitch."
(2) RTS games use this hyper-speed system largely because their AI
programming is so painfully stupid that allowing a human player even ten
seconds of reflection before committing himself to an irrevocable course
of action would mean almost immediate disaster for the woodenheaded AI.
> That's the type of game I want to play. If a game has a
> strategic/campaign element too that's good, but I'm primarily
> interested in tactical battles.
Your best tactical bet these days is HIGHWAY TO THE REICH or its
successor CONQUEST OF THE AEGEAN.
> Are any of the games that people have mentioned tactical wargames as
> I've described them here?
All of 'em are.
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk
> An RTS is technically described as a game where there are no "turns,"
> and the game just plays out continually in "real time," IE, the clock is
> continually running.
>
> But practically speaking, an RTS game actually plays out in "hyper-
> speeded unreal time," where the months pass in minutes and the player is
> always under fabulous time pressure.
Rome: Total War has separate tactical and strategic levels. At the
stragtegic level, there is no time pressure (there are turns of 6
months).
At the tactical level, the game is played in real time (without turns)
but it's not at hyper-speed (it's supposed to be normal time). The
human player is effectively playing every unit commander at once, and
there are times when they need to micro-managed second by second, so it
would be unmanageable except that there's pause button which lets the
player sit back and calmly make leisurely, carefully though-out clicks.
At both the strategic level with its turn system, and the tactical
level with its pause button, there is no time pressure in R:TW forcing
the player to make over-hasty decisions. So why would anyone label it
as 'click-and-twitch'? The game has many faults, but putting the player
under time pressure is not among them.
What I'd really like to play is a tactical game with time pressure, but
not in hyper-speed. Here's my dream game: the player plays a general
sitting on a horse. The player can only see from the general's
perspective. Before play he can set up his units how he wants, but when
the battle is running he can only give orders to a unit or formation of
units by being near it or through a signalling system (horn calls,
message riders, etc.).
Does anything like that exist?
Samuel
PS. What is a 'poison dwarf' exactly?
Epi Watkins
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk says...
You should try Take Command 2. There's no setup though. It's a lot of
fun.
----
Giftzwerg
> > An RTS is technically described as a game where there are no "turns,"
> > and the game just plays out continually in "real time," IE, the clock is
> > continually running.
> >
> > But practically speaking, an RTS game actually plays out in "hyper-
> > speeded unreal time," where the months pass in minutes and the player is
> > always under fabulous time pressure.
>
> Rome: Total War has separate tactical and strategic levels. At the
> stragtegic level, there is no time pressure (there are turns of 6
> months).
>
> At the tactical level, the game is played in real time (without turns)
> but it's not at hyper-speed (it's supposed to be normal time). The
> human player is effectively playing every unit commander at once, and
> there are times when they need to micro-managed second by second, so it
> would be unmanageable except that there's pause button which lets the
> player sit back and calmly make leisurely, carefully though-out clicks.
>
> At both the strategic level with its turn system, and the tactical
> level with its pause button, there is no time pressure in R:TW forcing
> the player to make over-hasty decisions. So why would anyone label it
> as 'click-and-twitch'? The game has many faults, but putting the player
> under time pressure is not among them.
The reason ROME: TOTAL BULLSHIT got such a poor reputation with
wargamers was that originally units were allowed to race across the
battlefield as though each cohort were comprised of Carl Lewis clones
who could run 100-yard dashes over and over and over and over - in full
equipment - without tiring, without losing cohesion, and without any
diminishment of their combat power.
There's a "realism" patch that somewhat mitigates this - but it's a
generalized band-aid on a system that was fundamentally misdesigned in
the first place and makes little allowances for the myriad different
unit movement classes that *should have* been designed-into the game
from the outset. Essentially, the "realism" patch simply said, "Hey,
since everyone is going way, way, way too fast, we'll just slow everyone
way, way, way down." Facile. And wrong.
> What I'd really like to play is a tactical game with time pressure, but
> not in hyper-speed.
Exactly. A player should have a realistic amount of time commensurate
with the level of command he's simulating. (And some modification needs
to be incorporated if the player cannot rely on his "subordinates" and
must micromanage their functioning, as well.)
> Here's my dream game: the player plays a general
> sitting on a horse. The player can only see from the general's
> perspective. Before play he can set up his units how he wants, but when
> the battle is running he can only give orders to a unit or formation of
> units by being near it or through a signalling system (horn calls,
> message riders, etc.).
>
> Does anything like that exist?
Nope. HTTR and COTA do pretty well, but I have yet to see a game that
models this degree of fog-of-war. But think of the problems with this,
the biggest one being that all those units of yours which are "out of
command" have to be at least as smart in a realistic way as Pickett,
Sickles, Chamberlain, or Pettigrew.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"After promising us all year that he was going to 'wipe out' Israel, is
not this the moment for Mr. Ahmadinejad to strike?"
- Victor Davis Hanson
"Nah, he's a typical towelhead shitball; all hat and no cattle."
- Giftzwerg
Paul Harrington
although most games of this type (e.g. Command and Conquer, Age of Empires)
are in many ways more tactical than strategic.
'Real time systems' are more likely to be found on an F16.
Paul
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f2a7eb42...@news-east.giganews.com...
Rob Pollard
long time (using WRG rules) I was looking forward to it. When it came out it
turned out to be an arcade based RTS. I'm sure the previous total war titles
were more historically accurate...
Most boardgame type computer games are challenging. Armoured Task Force eats
me alive when I'm on the offensive. All of the squad battles games are hard
because of scenario time limits. The combat mission games have a pretty good
AI and give you a good fight. COTA is very good as is TOAW III which I'm
currently still slogging against the AI in Normandy.
Speaking of Normandy, the great battles in Normandy game is pretty difficult
to beat too...
At the end of the day though, if you get a turn based wargame, play it PBEM
against a real human opponent! There are some pretty devious players out
there! :-))
--
RobP
'There are only 10 types of people in this world - Those that understand
binary and those that don't'
<sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153405788.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Grouchy
news:1153482099.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Check the following sites and their forums, plenty of mods available for
RTW:
http://www.rometotalrealism.org/
http://www.twcenter.net/
http://www.totalwar.org/
Garrot
> Meh thats not a wargame :) thats an RTS.
No it's not. It's a turn based strategy game with battles taking place
in real time.
Garrot
> An RTS is technically described as a game where there are no "turns,"
> and the game just plays out continually in "real time," IE, the clock is
> continually running.
>
> But practically speaking, an RTS game actually plays out in "hyper-
> speeded unreal time," where the months pass in minutes and the player is
> always under fabulous time pressure.
This doesn't describe the Total War series at all. The game is turn
based, only the battles are real time.
Garrot
> The reason ROME: TOTAL BULLSHIT got such a poor reputation with
> wargamers was that originally units were allowed to race across the
> battlefield as though each cohort were comprised of Carl Lewis clones
> who could run 100-yard dashes over and over and over and over - in full
> equipment - without tiring, without losing cohesion, and without any
> diminishment of their combat power.
>
I haven't tried that mod yet but considering the Total Realism mod is
289.7 mb plus a 6.2 patch I don't possibly see how all they changed was
the speed of units. I'm downloading the mod now to see for myself.
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
>Samuel
>
>PS. What is a 'poison dwarf' exactly?
Ah! A fascinating subject. Here are some observations.
As you will already have surmised, the poison dwarf is Germanic in
origin. The closest relative is Alberich, famous in the Wagnerian Ring
Cycle. It is also believed to be related to the common troll as
evidenced by the sudden rages and outbursts of irrational violence.
It is known to be a underdeveloped form of primate and is as primitive
in its mental attributes as in the physical. The local specimen is,
however, regarded somewhat as a savant, due to its expertise with
military simulations qnd wargames. You will further notice the
comparative overdevelopment of the far right side of the creature and
the consequent atrophy of all compassion, reasoning ability or
balance, both physical and mental.
The diet appears to be largely, though not exclusively, the excrement
of the Fox (or FauxNews) and similar media pundits. Incompletely
absorbed gobbets are often found as leavings when the poison dwarf has
finished its messages.
Our local specimen appears to be an alpha male, since it has attracted
a small band. You will notice that when the alpha is agitated and
starts to respond aggressively, the beta and gamma specimens will join
in, with appropriately less relevance or direction.
When disturbed from its usual non-mentational state (as when being
required to contemplate situations which disagree with its entrenched
world-view) the poison dwarf reacts aggressively in the mistaken
belief that such violent outbursts and attacks on holders of differing
views will somehow alter reality.
At such moments it will start to hurl excrement, either Faux or its
own, in all directions indiscriminately. These occurrences, while
unpleasant, are essentially harmless and should not cause alarm, as
they are merely symptoms of frustration, brought about by the poison
dwarf's recognition of its own impotence to make any significant
changes to the real world.
To date, no female has been noted and the sexual behaviour within and
without the band has not (and will not be) investigated (shudder!).
Other observers may care to take that line of research further.
----------------------------------------------------------------
.
:-})>
.
I spent a lot of money on booze, fast cars and women - the rest I squandered.
- George Best
Giftzwerg
> > But practically speaking, an RTS game actually plays out in "hyper-
> > speeded unreal time," where the months pass in minutes and the player is
> > always under fabulous time pressure.
>
> This doesn't describe the Total War series at all. The game is turn
> based, only the battles are real time.
(1) Since the Click & Twitch battles are a significant fraction of the
game and any possible appeal it holds for wargamers, it's literally and
logically untrue that this doesn't describe it "at all." It actually
describes about half of it with perfect accuracy.
(2) This is like saying that only the bottom part of Jessica Simpson is
a woman.
Giftzwerg
n...@thistime.net says...
> At such moments it will start to hurl excrement, either Faux or its
> own, in all directions indiscriminately. These occurrences, while
> unpleasant, are essentially harmless and should not cause alarm, as
> they are merely symptoms of frustration, brought about by the poison
> dwarf's recognition of its own impotence to make any significant
> changes to the real world.
<laughter>
This from a self-described communist. So much for "impotence" and
helpless inability to affect anything, eh, Mingo?
Giftzwerg
Uh, who said "all they changed was the speed of the units."
What I believe I said was that from a wargamer's perspective, the chief
problem with R:TB was the arcade-like quality of the battles, with units
rushing about in a very exciting but wholly-divorced-from-any-reality
fashion.
Click. And. Twitch.
But this was by no means the *only* problem with that dopey game, and I
could positively wax poetic with the other gross offenses against
history, politics, and physics that teemed throughout the title. The
developers, for instance, appear to have decided that the Roman Republic
wasn't a unified nation but *three* nations. Three. Not two. Not
four. Not one. Uh-huh. Woulda surprised my Roman history professor.
Woulda surprised Hamilcar Barca, too.
And the mishmash of "mods" that address each of these realism-sinks are
a step in the right direct - maybe - but there are two glaring problems
with a publisher who cranks out a bullshit game and expects the user
community to rectify their mistakes:
(1) Is it too much to ask that something works right-outta-the-box? Is
that notion *passe*? I mean, would anyone put up with Toyota releasing
a car that that only drove backwards in the hope that aftermarket parts
could put it right? I don't think so.
(2) Mods of this magnitude play havoc with human-to-human gameplay.
"Wanna get up a game? Great! What mod are you running? Oh. 5.3.2.
I'm using 6.1.2.4. Can you upgrade? Oh. How come you can't install
6.1.2.4?" And so on. Game after game has been ruined for head to head
play because of incompatibilities between "mod" versions and the fact
that authors of aftermarket mods are somewhat less solicitous of save-
game and network/PBEM games.
And the fact that the "Total Realism Mod" has ballooned to some 9-11
surprises me not at all since a great many byte-intensive changes are
with things that have nothing to do with gameplay; graphics, skins,
music, and other irrelevant nonsense.
I wish you well with it. I hope it makes your new arcade game more fun.
Garrot
>
> But this was by no means the *only* problem with that dopey game, and I
> could positively wax poetic with the other gross offenses against
> history, politics, and physics that teemed throughout the title.
It's not a hardcore wargame. It's an abstracted strategy game - doh!
Garrot
> (1) Since the Click & Twitch battles are a significant fraction of the
> game and any possible appeal it holds for wargamers, it's literally and
> logically untrue that this doesn't describe it "at all." It actually
> describes about half of it with perfect accuracy.
>
> (2) This is like saying that only the bottom part of Jessica Simpson is
> a woman.
>
Well, it's no less realistic than a a wargame that determines an outcome
by the roll of the dice. Personally, I don't play the battles much as it
is the strategy game part that interests me. Still, the battles are more
interesting than watching two icons number crunch and roll the dice.
Ever play anay of the old KOEI games like Ghengis Khan? The Total War
series is sort of an updated version of these games and are good if you
look at them in the right aspect.
Giftzwerg
Exactly. But this group is "war-historical," not "abstracted-
strategic."
Thus either (a) R:TB isn't a historical wargame, whereas we shouldn't
bother discussing it here, or (b) it is a historical wargame, whereas
I'm entirely within my bounds to criticize it for transgressions against
realism or historical content.
In other words, you appear to want to exclude R:TB from criticism by
excluding it from the category, which is my original argument precisely.
Giftzwerg
> > (1) Since the Click & Twitch battles are a significant fraction of the
> > game and any possible appeal it holds for wargamers, it's literally and
> > logically untrue that this doesn't describe it "at all." It actually
> > describes about half of it with perfect accuracy.
> >
> > (2) This is like saying that only the bottom part of Jessica Simpson is
> > a woman.
> Well, it's no less realistic than a a wargame that determines an outcome
> by the roll of the dice.
R:TB *does* "determine an outcome by a roll of the dice," just as every
other war or strategy game (chesslike games excepted) resolves combat at
some level via recourse to chance modified by probability.
So I'm not sure what your point is here.
> Personally, I don't play the battles much as it
> is the strategy game part that interests me.
I wonder if your preference for avoiding the 3D combat engine completely
is (a) common amongst devotees of the game, or (b) seriously envisioned
by anyone considering the game, given the degree to which the 3D engine
is puffed as the Next Great Thing In Gaming?
I mean, except for a single small image accompanied by a 15-word blurb,
the turn-based strategic campaign *isn't even mentioned* on the game
box. But the 3D combat part sure is.
Speaking for myself, the only reason I bought the game was to fight
ancient battles - and presumably in some reasonably realistic fashion.
And the fact that the engine was being used - and loudly touted as such
- to illustrate historical documentaries on ancient battles appeared to
suggest its suitability for historical gaming.
And, of course, nowhere on the aforementioned box was there a warning or
disclaimer emblazoned, "Historical Gamers Be Warned! This Is An Arcade
Game!" Quite the opposite, in fact.
This is why the title was, and remains, so bitterly disappointing; the
only part I was really interested in turned out to be utter bullshit.
> Still, the battles are more
> interesting than watching two icons number crunch and roll the dice.
> Ever play anay of the old KOEI games like Ghengis Khan? The Total War
> series is sort of an updated version of these games and are good if you
> look at them in the right aspect.
I enjoyed both GHENGIS KHAN and ROMANCE OF THE THREE KINGDOMS. But if
that were all I was interested in, I could have pulled out my 8-bit NES
and the corresponding cartridge. I didn't need to spend $60 on a half-
dozen CDs of post-Etruscan nonsense.
tony...@hotmail.com
COTA is a very good game, it's realtime, the units are represented by
military icons.
For a more tactical battle in real-time I might recommend Take Command:
2nd Manassas by MadMinute Games.
They are a small two man team, but the game is great.
You command anything from a civil war Brigade to Corps.
The AI is very good, you can even be subordinate to the friendly AI
and it will give you orders.
It's worth a Demo download: http://www.madminutegames.com/downloads.htm
Garrot
> In other words, you appear to want to exclude R:TB from criticism by
> excluding it from the category, which is my original argument precisely.
>
OK, let's not discuss it then. :-)
grabah
my personal favourite is close combat 3 but 5 is all right too i guess.
it's not ancient tactical combat (it's ww2) but it is RTS technicaly
speaking,
and it's not in 'hyper speed' and it's pretty realistic
Giftzwerg
The one thing that's always irked me about CC is the tendency to start
the two sides in such amazingly close proximity. CC5 is the latest
version I've tried, and it just put me off the game immediately that
scenarios force you to set up your attacking units *under fire*.
This makes a mockery of standard tactics like scouting, reconnaissance
... unimportant stuff like that. You just place your Panthers /
Shermans on the map and they're taking fire from the moment the scenario
begins.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"I would love to kill George Bush."
- Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Betty Williams
"I think we're beyond ironic when it comes to you moonbats."
- Giftzwerg
Dan
Giftzwerg wrote:
> This makes a mockery of standard tactics like scouting, reconnaissance
> ... unimportant stuff like that. You just place your Panthers /
> Shermans on the map and they're taking fire from the moment the scenario
> begins.
I remember this well, but I also remember enough maps and scenarios
that provided the first few minutes of scouting and recon by fire to
make it fun.
My favorite H2H tactic would be to drop mortar rounds on the avenues to
good cover locations that were in the neutral zone.
Nats
"grabah" <grahb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea3elr$73c$1...@ss408.t-com.hr...
I preferred Close Combat Battle of the Bulge because it often had you as
Americans defending against panther tanks and the like with bazookas where
you had to creep around. Or it had you setting up machine gun nests and the
like.
But I hear the Bridge Too Far was also very good.
For me the best Wargames by far are the Total War series. I particularly
liked Medieval Total War and am really looking forward to Medieval 2 which
is due out in November. But Rome Total War is quite good as well especially
if you download a good mod and play as a barbarian.
Nats
Briarroot
> In article <ea3elr$73c$1...@ss408.t-com.hr>, grahb...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> did anyone sugested close combat?
>> my personal favourite is close combat 3 but 5 is all right too i guess.
>> it's not ancient tactical combat (it's ww2) but it is RTS technicaly
>> speaking,
>> and it's not in 'hyper speed' and it's pretty realistic
>
> The one thing that's always irked me about CC is the tendency to start
> the two sides in such amazingly close proximity. CC5 is the latest
> version I've tried, and it just put me off the game immediately that
> scenarios force you to set up your attacking units *under fire*.
>
> This makes a mockery of standard tactics like scouting, reconnaissance
> ... unimportant stuff like that. You just place your Panthers /
> Shermans on the map and they're taking fire from the moment the scenario
> begins.
Indeed, on several maps that was impossible to avoid. The whole
"curtain rises at dawn" concept was a terrible design decision for
such small (440m x 600m) battlefields. Apart from their other design
flaws, the Close Combat games from CC3 onward really needed much
larger maps. I really loved this type of table-top wargaming on the
PC idea, but unfortunately the franchise owners opted for easy bucks,
and rather than doing the work required to improve the game, churned
out a couple of nearly worthless sequels. We were left with only the
promise of what might have been. :-(
Giftzwerg
says...
> > This makes a mockery of standard tactics like scouting, reconnaissance
> > ... unimportant stuff like that. You just place your Panthers /
> > Shermans on the map and they're taking fire from the moment the scenario
> > begins.
>
> Indeed, on several maps that was impossible to avoid. The whole
> "curtain rises at dawn" concept was a terrible design decision for
> such small (440m x 600m) battlefields. Apart from their other design
> flaws, the Close Combat games from CC3 onward really needed much
> larger maps.
...not the least of which because the tiny maps negated the two big
advantages held by German armor, their own powerful weapons being able
to kill Allied tanks at ranges where their own thick armor offered great
protection against weaker Allied guns.
As this game represents combat, the untutored observer would have to
ask, "Why did the Germans bother with such big guns and such heavy
armor? At these ranges, they should have stuck with building larger
numbers of PzKw IIIJ tanks."
> I really loved this type of table-top wargaming on the
> PC idea, but unfortunately the franchise owners opted for easy bucks,
> and rather than doing the work required to improve the game, churned
> out a couple of nearly worthless sequels. We were left with only the
> promise of what might have been. :-(
The problem wouldn't be so profound if they'd stuck with the infantry-
heavy simulation present in CC1 and CC2. Once you start to represent a
tank-heavy model, you've got to offer at least an SP-sized battlefield.
JAB
/snip/
> What I'd really like to play is a tactical game with time pressure, but
> not in hyper-speed. Here's my dream game: the player plays a general
> sitting on a horse. The player can only see from the general's
> perspective. Before play he can set up his units how he wants, but when
> the battle is running he can only give orders to a unit or formation of
> units by being near it or through a signalling system (horn calls,
> message riders, etc.).
>
> Does anything like that exist?
>
> Samuel
>
This last game I can remember a game being like that was Borodino on the
Atari ST. I don't think the game system was ever taken further forward
that that.
Briarroot
> In article <12cd7on...@corp.supernews.com>, woo...@iwon.com
> says...
>
>>> This makes a mockery of standard tactics like scouting, reconnaissance
>>> ... unimportant stuff like that. You just place your Panthers /
>>> Shermans on the map and they're taking fire from the moment the scenario
>>> begins.
>>
>> Indeed, on several maps that was impossible to avoid. The whole
>> "curtain rises at dawn" concept was a terrible design decision for
>> such small (440m x 600m) battlefields. Apart from their other design
>> flaws, the Close Combat games from CC3 onward really needed much
>> larger maps.
>
> ...not the least of which because the tiny maps negated the two big
> advantages held by German armor, their own powerful weapons being able
> to kill Allied tanks at ranges where their own thick armor offered great
> protection against weaker Allied guns.
>
> As this game represents combat, the untutored observer would have to
> ask, "Why did the Germans bother with such big guns and such heavy
> armor? At these ranges, they should have stuck with building larger
> numbers of PzKw IIIJ tanks."
That thought is reinforced when one plays as the Germans in Close
Combat 4 and finds that American M5s, with their 37mm popguns, can
easily knock out Royal Tigers, even with frontal shots! But this only
occurs when the M5s are under computer control. To make up for a poor
AI, the computer player gets several major advantages. You won't find
your own M5s knocking out heavy German tanks when *you* play the
Americans. The same thing was evident to a lesser extent in CC3.
>> I really loved this type of table-top wargaming on the
>> PC idea, but unfortunately the franchise owners opted for easy bucks,
>> and rather than doing the work required to improve the game, churned
>> out a couple of nearly worthless sequels. We were left with only the
>> promise of what might have been. :-(
>
> The problem wouldn't be so profound if they'd stuck with the infantry-
> heavy simulation present in CC1 and CC2. Once you start to represent a
> tank-heavy model, you've got to offer at least an SP-sized battlefield.
Amen. Larger maps were a prime requisite for CC3, 4 & 5, perhaps with
their hand-built map section located in a grid of randomly generated
sections which could have been less detailed. There were so many good
directions they could have gone with those games, building on what
they already had. What happened was a damn shame.
--
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others who have
not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the
first principle of association: the guarantee to everyone the free
exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas
Jefferson.
Giftzwerg
says...
> > The problem wouldn't be so profound if they'd stuck with the infantry-
> > heavy simulation present in CC1 and CC2. Once you start to represent a
> > tank-heavy model, you've got to offer at least an SP-sized battlefield.
>
> Amen. Larger maps were a prime requisite for CC3, 4 & 5, perhaps with
> their hand-built map section located in a grid of randomly generated
> sections which could have been less detailed. There were so many good
> directions they could have gone with those games, building on what
> they already had. What happened was a damn shame.
I would have enjoyed a smaller, SQUAD LEADER type dimension, where
squads and sections and machineguns ruled the game, and tanks made a few
cameo appearances.
Except for some frustrating TacAI issues, CC1 wasn't a bad game. I also
enjoyed CC2 - except were lots of armor started to appear. The problem
really manifested itself with CC3, where armor-heavy formations started
to clog the battlefield.
And the "Bulge" game (CC4? Or CC5?) I only bought long after my
interest had flagged and NWS offered it for five bucks.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"How in Sam Hill does [the Democratic Party] which led the United States
into four major wars in the last century get itself tabbed again and
again by its opponents as the cut-and-run party, the party of woofters,
poofters and wankers?"
- Nicholas Von Hoffman
"Uh, Nicky? Because they *became* the cut-and-run party of woofters,
poofters, and wankers."
- Giftzwerg
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
You might look for Fields of Glory then, Napoleonic, released 1993 by
Microprose.
Changes to orders had to be transmitted through staff officers and
THEY stood a good chance of being killed before they delivered their
messages. Even when they did get through, the built-in delays in
executing the orders REALLY made a general anticipate all
possibilities. The game had a superb database of units and commanders,
too.
Copy protection was by quoting a word from page and line number of the
manual.
Briarroot
>> their hand-built map section located in a grid of randomly generated
>> sections which could have been less detailed. There were so many good
>> directions they could have gone with those games, building on what
>> they already had. What happened was a damn shame.
>
> I would have enjoyed a smaller, SQUAD LEADER type dimension, where
> squads and sections and machineguns ruled the game, and tanks made a few
> cameo appearances.
>
> Except for some frustrating TacAI issues, CC1 wasn't a bad game. I also
> enjoyed CC2 - except were lots of armor started to appear. The problem
> really manifested itself with CC3, where armor-heavy formations started
> to clog the battlefield.
If you're still interested, there's a very nice mod called "Real
Infantry" available for CC3, which eliminates all armor except light
tanks from the unit pool. Because light tanks are so vulnerable to
shoulder-fired AT weapons, the resulting game is much less dependent
on armor and much more focused on decent infantry tactics.
That, along with the "Real Red" and historically accurate graphics
mods, have kept CC3 on my hard drive for all these years.
> And the "Bulge" game (CC4? Or CC5?) I only bought long after my
> interest had flagged and NWS offered it for five bucks.
CC4 was the Bulge. CC5 was Normandy. They were both miserable
failures, failing to include the campaign system that at least made
CC3 somewhat interesting.
Giftzwerg
says...
> If you're still interested, there's a very nice mod called "Real
> Infantry" available for CC3, which eliminates all armor except light
> tanks from the unit pool. Because light tanks are so vulnerable to
> shoulder-fired AT weapons, the resulting game is much less dependent
> on armor and much more focused on decent infantry tactics.
>
> That, along with the "Real Red" and historically accurate graphics
> mods, have kept CC3 on my hard drive for all these years.
Huh.
You might have initiated an "attic adventure" here. I can probably get
a copy of CC3 at NWS ... but I'm pretty sure I've got a copy up in the
vast labyrinth above me.
I'll take a look, and see about this mod.
> > And the "Bulge" game (CC4? Or CC5?) I only bought long after my
> > interest had flagged and NWS offered it for five bucks.
>
> CC4 was the Bulge. CC5 was Normandy. They were both miserable
> failures, failing to include the campaign system that at least made
> CC3 somewhat interesting.
I had CC4 from NWS's $5.00 rack. Didn't like it much.
Mike Kreuzer
> In article <12cfqaa...@corp.supernews.com>, woo...@iwon.com
> says...
>
>> If you're still interested, there's a very nice mod called "Real
>> Infantry" available for CC3, which eliminates all armor except light
>> tanks from the unit pool. Because light tanks are so vulnerable to
>> shoulder-fired AT weapons, the resulting game is much less dependent
>> on armor and much more focused on decent infantry tactics.
>>
>> That, along with the "Real Red" and historically accurate graphics
>> mods, have kept CC3 on my hard drive for all these years.
>
> Huh.
>
> You might have initiated an "attic adventure" here. I can probably get
> a copy of CC3 at NWS ... but I'm pretty sure I've got a copy up in the
> vast labyrinth above me.
>
> I'll take a look, and see about this mod.
>
>>> And the "Bulge" game (CC4? Or CC5?) I only bought long after my
>>> interest had flagged and NWS offered it for five bucks.
>> CC4 was the Bulge. CC5 was Normandy. They were both miserable
>> failures, failing to include the campaign system that at least made
>> CC3 somewhat interesting.
>
> I had CC4 from NWS's $5.00 rack. Didn't like it much.
>
I vaguely remember tanks meandering sideways down streets, with their
turrets twirling drunkenly from side to side ... in fact, all of the
memories I can dredge up about the game are negative, but they all seem
to involve the armour ...
Why 3 & not 4 or 5? Was that just the one that was modded? I have all
of the CC disks somewhere ...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Dan
Mike Kreuzer wrote:
> I vaguely remember tanks meandering sideways down streets, with their
> turrets twirling drunkenly from side to side ... in fact, all of the
> memories I can dredge up about the game are negative, but they all seem
> to involve the armour ...
>
> Why 3 & not 4 or 5? Was that just the one that was modded? I have all
> of the CC disks somewhere ...
Matter of preference really. I thought the final game (5) was the
best. There were some very good Hedgerow scenarios between G and US
airborne units. And, some of the best mods were made for this one -
Gold Juno Sword being my favorite. The Marines train with a version
based on 5.
Like Briarroot a lot of people like 3.
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <1153491255.2...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> The reason ROME: TOTAL BULLSHIT got such a poor reputation...
There are thousands of things wrong with R:TW, and I could rant
thousands of words on the subject - but what would be the point?
> Exactly. A player should have a realistic amount of time commensurate
> with the level of command he's simulating. (And some modification needs
> to be incorporated if the player cannot rely on his "subordinates" and
> must micromanage their functioning, as well.)
>
> > Here's my dream game: the player plays a general
> > sitting on a horse. The player can only see from the general's
> > perspective. Before play he can set up his units how he wants, but when
> > the battle is running he can only give orders to a unit or formation of
> > units by being near it or through a signalling system (horn calls,
> > message riders, etc.).
> >
> > Does anything like that exist?
>
> Nope. HTTR and COTA do pretty well, but I have yet to see a game that
> models this degree of fog-of-war. But think of the problems with this,
> the biggest one being that all those units of yours which are "out of
> command" have to be at least as smart in a realistic way as Pickett,
> Sickles, Chamberlain, or Pettigrew.
Acha, but in a way this is an advantage. Units out of command are
managed by an AI as intelligent or stupid as those that run the
opponent army. It would create a sort of level playing field, in which
your own forces are as stupid as those of the opponent army. I'm
annoyed by R:TW in which the AI throws away battles by doing stupid
things, but if my own forces did the same it would be more of a
challenge to win.
Of course, that might be very annoying to play. Much of my enjoyment of
games is the feeling that I'm making the kind of decisions that a real
person would make, and I probably wouldn't get that if my units behaved
unrealistically.
Samuel
Briarroot
Oh god yeah! That's still one of the more frustrating aspects of the
game. There are numerous flaws in the design, but *that* one is pure
hell.
> Why 3 & not 4 or 5? Was that just the one that was modded? I have all
> of the CC disks somewhere ...
I liked CC3 best because of the campaign system. Unfortunately it was
eliminated in 4 & 5, probably because the Bulge and Normandy are
individual battles and just don't fit well with that format. CC3
attempted to encompass the whole of the Eastern Front experience, from
June '41 to April '45, and keeping the same units throughout the war,
or *trying* to, provided a much needed impetus to keep playing when I
grew impatient with pirouetting tanks and 'invisible' enemy AT guns. ;-)
--
"Man will always be Man. We tried so hard to create a society that
was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbor. But
there's always something to envy: a smile; a friendship; something you
don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one,
there will always be rich and poor; rich in gifts - poor in gifts,
rich in love - poor in love." - Comrade Commissar Danilov in "Enemy at
the Gates"
von Schmidt
Briarroot wrote:
(SNIP comparisons CC2 -CC5)
> I liked CC3 best because of the campaign system. Unfortunately it was
> eliminated in 4 & 5, probably because the Bulge and Normandy are
> individual battles and just don't fit well with that format. CC3
> attempted to encompass the whole of the Eastern Front experience, from
> June '41 to April '45, and keeping the same units throughout the war,
> or *trying* to, provided a much needed impetus to keep playing when I
> grew impatient with pirouetting tanks and 'invisible' enemy AT guns. ;-)
>
I played CC5 for a while and enjoyed the graphics, scenarios and
infantry tactics. The realtime nature was very fitting.
Did not enjoy starting each game in the middle of a firefight. Did I
oversleep on every single day an engagement happened and got *just*
waken up by an aide?
One time I stalked a lone buttoned-up Sherman, ordered a rifle team in
front of it to fire at it as distraction while a 2 man AT team crept
out of the bushes behind it. Before the panzerschreck had been set up,
the tank rotated the turret and promptly killed the AT team with a HE
shell.
Never played since.
Read some good things about the GJS mod. Might check that out if I
remember to.
-von Schmidt
Garrot
> For me the best Wargames by far are the Total War series. I particularly
> liked Medieval Total War and am really looking forward to Medieval 2 which
> is due out in November. But Rome Total War is quite good as well especially
> if you download a good mod and play as a barbarian.
>
> Nats
>
>
Uh-oh, now you are in for it. ;-)
Garrot
>
> You might look for Fields of Glory then, Napoleonic, released 1993 by
> Microprose.
This game was ruined by a game killing bug/feature where artillery would
charge the enemy.
Miowarra Tomokatu (aka Tomo)
I certainly don't remember this happening with any of my games!!??
Garrot
> I certainly don't remember this happening with any of my games!!??
It was quite common so don't know how you missed it. The developer was
quite aware of it too as I talked to him about it once via email.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>But I hear the Bridge Too Far was also very good.
I liked BTF but there was a problem with one particular map. No matter how
good the AI was, the map narrowed enough that I could always defend it against
any possible German attack so even if the AI was set high enough that I couldn't
win the campaign, I could never lose it either.
von Schmidt
I do not think that FOG had any command delay. It was a fairly
straightforward Waterloo realtime game. Yes, with charging artillery;
but that is allright since that weakness was offset by the fact that
the guns had unlimited ammo. So you could win by destroying the enemy's
art and then pling away at the inf from a distance until they broke.
Just manually restrain each charge.
The command delay Nap games (orders potentially being lost) could refer
to the titles by Peter Turcan (1st person wargames).
>From http://www.mobygames.com/game/waterloo:
"Waterloo the game was a revolutionary new concept in wargaming when it
was published in 1989. Waterloo dispensed with the normal overview
given to wargame commanders and instead gave a player the same point of
view as real commanders on the field of battle.
Your orders in an age of pre-radio communication must pass through an
elaborate chain of command with varying levels of success in the
execution of those orders. Your orders may even be ignored if there is
better local intelligence or your officers lack the skill or courage to
perform them. You as the commander (Napoleon or Wellington) must even
deal with a time delay in the occurrence in events and the time it
takes for those events to be relayed back to HQ and the time it takes
to issue orders and see those orders carried out."
Frank Hunter's more recent games tend to include C3 delays and
commander personalities (1805, ACW) as well.
-von Schmidt
patrick...@standardregister.com
sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > Here's my dream game: the player plays a general
> > > sitting on a horse. The player can only see from the general's
> > > perspective. Before play he can set up his units how he wants, but when
> > > the battle is running he can only give orders to a unit or formation of
> > > units by being near it or through a signalling system (horn calls,
> > > message riders, etc.).
> > >
> > > Does anything like that exist?
There's a game called Battalia. I haven't played it myself, but from
what I read about it on the Wargamer website it does exactly this. You
play from a first person perspective of the commanding general and can
only see what he sees. To issue orders you send them with a courier
who has to successfully ride them over to the subordinate commander.
>
> Acha, but in a way this is an advantage. Units out of command are
> managed by an AI as intelligent or stupid as those that run the
> opponent army. It would create a sort of level playing field, in which
> your own forces are as stupid as those of the opponent army. I'm
> annoyed by R:TW in which the AI throws away battles by doing stupid
> things, but if my own forces did the same it would be more of a
> challenge to win.
>
> Of course, that might be very annoying to play. Much of my enjoyment of
> games is the feeling that I'm making the kind of decisions that a real
> person would make, and I probably wouldn't get that if my units behaved
> unrealistically.
>
I found AI control of my troops in R:TW to be most frustrating. My
biggest problem with it was late game when your frontiers were far from
your core cities.
It would take many turns to assemble an army from your inner cities to
the front lines in frontier provinces, since the frontier cities
wouldn't include the developed facilities to produce high quality
troops. That in itself isn't so bad, but then the army could get
pulled into a battle as reinforcements under AI control. The AI would
handle the army terribly, and key units would get mauled, leaving the
army worthless for offensive operations. You'd have to pull them all
the way back home again to refit them and send them all the way back
out again.
Come to think of it, I much preferred the area movement of Medieval
Total War's strategic layer in general. Medieval: Total War may have
been more abstracted but R:TW isn't exactly a paragon of historical
accuracy to begin with, and at least the provincial system in Medieval
was a heck of a lot easier to deal with. And it allowed for a better
naval game at the strategic level as well. There is no sense of the
projection of naval power in R:TW's strategic game. A single bireme
can zip around and blockade a port or land an entire army anywhere in
the world in R:TW. I was disappointed that the new Medieval game is
going to use the same strategic game as R:TW.