Computer Ambush/ Squad Leader
Denis R. Papp
anyone know anything about a game called Computer Ambush? I've
never heard of it and never seen it.
Can anyone describe it, let me know who makes it, any other info?
--
Brian F. Bishop
: Ok I found out there is a Squad Leader coming out next year,
I had it a looong time ago for the Apple II. It was pretty fun. I don't
know is there exists a 'modern' version.
--
Brian Bishop ... gau...@fnma.com <=- OR -=> br...@netcom.com
There's a thought that keeps me thinking / Like a stone inside my shoe
It is a vision reocurring / A dirty window I can see you through - DEVO
rc3...@mcvax2.d48.lilly.com
level combat simulation. You gave each soldier time based orders. Example,
you could tell a soldier to wait 5 seconds, run 2 spaces, drop to the ground
and fire at anything he has a 40% or better chance of hitting. There is
nothing about this game better than, say, xcom. Except that it was old,
with lousy graphics, and extreemly slow on an apple II computer. I think I
still have it if anyone wants to buy it. I'd much rather play xcom.
Regards,
Harry
Denis R. Papp
Well they had this kind of interface inRobosport. I thought it
was a *great* idea. You program all your guys, the most important
move being 'Scan & Shoot if you spot anything'. However Robosport
was mostly lame for 3 rfeasons:
sounds and graphics - cheap robots
winblows only! (well I could live with this)
all robots took several loads of lead to take out, I would have preferred
an option where it only took one shot (or few, realistically)
Anyone know anything about something like Computer Ambush for
the PC?
--
Denis Papp dp...@amisk.cs.ualberta.ca
"You've got to grab reality by the balls and squeeze"
Denis R. Papp
> : Ok I found out there is a Squad Leader coming out next year,
> : anyone know anything about a game called Computer Ambush? I've
> : never heard of it and never seen it.
>
> : Can anyone describe it, let me know who makes it, any other info?
> : --
>
> I had it a looong time ago for the Apple II. It was pretty fun. I don't
> know is there exists a 'modern' version.
>
> --
>
> Brian Bishop ... gau...@fnma.com <=- OR -=> br...@netcom.com
>
> There's a thought that keeps me thinking / Like a stone inside my shoe
> It is a vision reocurring / A dirty window I can see you through - DEVO
level combat simulation. You gave each soldier time based orders. Example,
you could tell a soldier to wait 5 seconds, run 2 spaces, drop to the ground
and fire at anything he has a 40% or better chance of hitting. There is
nothing about this game better than, say, xcom. Except that it was old,
with lousy graphics, and extreemly slow on an apple II computer. I think I
still have it if anyone wants to buy it. I'd much rather play xcom.
Regards,
Harry
Paul Miller
I would like to take exception to Harry's assessment of Computer Ambush. I
believe that Computer Ambush appeals to a different sort of game player than UFO,
and that they are both very good. CA was meant for the wargamer crowd, and it
fulfills that role admirably. It doesn't have pretty pictures or ear-splitting
screams. It doesn't have the stragegic overview or the complex storyline.
Playability was low and it took forever for a turn to be simulated. It
does allow the concept of two-player hidden movement, which at the
time it was introduced (~1980) was the Holy Grail of board wargamers. People
had been playing SPI's Sniper, writing commands on sheets of paper and then
moving their soldiers on a board simultaneously. Figuring out sighting with a
rubberband. Simultaneous movement is a necessity for a game with man to man
tactical combat. If you can just walk up to an opponent and fire because they
wasted all their time in their half of a phased turn, you will never have a
realistic simulation of urban tactics. When people start playing a two-player
version of UFO, they will realize that this is a major flaw. The aliens don't
take advantage of this, so it doesn't rear it's ugly head currently. UFO doesn't
model dodging movement. It doesn't model the deterious effects of morale. It
has only limited modeling of command. These were the sorts of things that made
Computer Ambush a superior game. I am sure that a rewrite of CA with today's
model technology and the improved grapics and computer performance would result
in an improved game. UFO isn't it. They aren't in the same game category.
pj
--
Paul J. Miller "Repetition does not establish validity."
- Souder's Law
NOMOS Corporation Phone: (412) 934-5477
2591 Wexford Bayne Road, Suite 400 Fax : (412) 934-5488
Sewickley, PA 15143 EMail: p...@nomos.com
"NOMOS has spokespeople but I'm not one of them."
rc3...@mcvax2.d48.lilly.com
different. You mentioned that CA was ment for wargame aficionados and not
the casual game player. Well...I fall into the wargamer category. I've
been playing board wargames since the early 1970s. And...I wish in UFO
I could tell my xcommie to run/walk/crawl etc. like I could in CA. And
I agree that a remake of CA with todays capability would be a game that I
would buy. My point was that both CA and UFO simulate (to some degree)
small unit tactical situations hence they are similar in that regard.
And...that I, a fairly seasoned wargamer, enjoyed the graphic, sound
user interface and speed provided by UFO much more than I longed for the
green and white, speaker chirping, tedious interface and snail speed of
good old computer ambush. What is there to take exception to?
hec
>