Worst Comp. Wargame of all time
Daniel Drumm
This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to the
Grognards:
The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
It should fail miserably in everything it set out to do. Having an overall
good game with a few bugs that annoy you personally, should be
disqualified.
My vote is:
Gulf Strike by Avalon Hill for the C64.
Having heavily played the boardgame by Victory Games, you really had to
appreciate how miserable a port this was. It made Third Reich look
brilliant. The air forces were so bungled that using them often crashed
the program. The AI had set paths to move the first few turns, and then it
would just stop. You could retreat and the ground units wouldn't press on.
It was as if the programmer knew you weren't going to make it through the
game anyhow, so why bother?
Runners up:
The very first IBM PC version of Wooden Ships.
TANKTICS. the all time classic, no gfx, no nothing. But it did suck, even
on it's own merits. Apple II only, I think.
Harpoon v1.0. If it's this bad, call it alpha and let's all wait.
any others?
Julian Barker
In article <5u7gpn$7un$3...@tepe.tezcat.com>, Daniel Drumm
<dr...@xochi.tezcat.com> writes
>This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to the
>Grognards:
>
>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>
Yours are all pretty old and I thought this was a IBM PC group. The
worst I have come across is Software Sorcery's Jutland. Taking advantage
of the early days of CDROM this game has a little bit of terrible video,
some reasonable music and an uncontrollable game where the ship images
all look good until you realise they have no bearing on the type of ship
etc. No formation orders so your ships all go off and do their own
thing, a combat system that doesn't even notice when you are firing at
your own ships. The latter was too easy as all thew ships looked alike!
In all a terrible game which still surfaces on this newsgroup now and
again.
--
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
Scott Bechel
On 29 Aug 1997 22:00:23 GMT, dr...@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel Drumm)
wrote:
>This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to the
>Grognards:
>
>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>
>It should fail miserably in everything it set out to do. Having an overall
>good game with a few bugs that annoy you personally, should be
>disqualified.
>
One word OUTPOST need I say more?
sco...@millcomm.com
West St. Paul Mn.
Veteran
>This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to the
>Grognards:
>
>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
In this catagory, nothing even comes close to Patriot. That title is
still a poster-child for software abortion!
Veteran
Patrick C Miller
Daniel Drumm (dr...@xochi.tezcat.com) wrote:
: This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to the
: Grognards:
: The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
My vote would go to the Universal Military Simulator II. (It's more
recent offspring, The War College, is also terrible, but at least it's
playable.) UMS2 was so bad that when I tried to order it, the guy taking
my order actually tried to discourage me from buying it. Thinking that I
knew my taste in games better than he did, I ordered it anyway.
What a mistake! After a week of attempting to play the game and getting
nowhere, I sent it back with a long letter explaining my dissatisfaction.
I even mentioned that the salesman had warned me about UMS2 and said that
if they didn't want to give me a refund, I'd understand.
Much to my surprise, I not only received a refund for the game, but also
a nice letter from the company's owner thanking me for taking the time to
explain why I didn't like UMS2.
*****************************
Patrick C. Miller
pami...@plains.NoDak.edu
*****************************
Douglas A. Osborne
In article <340af147...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, vete...@NOSPAMix.netcom.com (Veteran) wrote:
>>This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to the
>>Grognards:
>>
>>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>
>still a poster-child for software abortion!
>
>Veteran
How about that classic game High Command. It was darn near unplayable. The
idea was good, but the implementation awful. And as usual the manuals sucked.
Doug
Dean ODonnell
In article <3408b7a8...@news.nac.net>,
>
>>This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to the
>>Grognards:
>>
>>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>>
>>good game with a few bugs that annoy you personally, should be
>>disqualified.
UMS (Universal Military Simulator) II. Nice, thick manual which told you
about the historical aspects of each scenario, but gave little actual
information on how to play the game (and there wasn't exactly a tutorial, I
think the invasion of Normandy was one of the scenarios, try playing that
right out of the box).
And the fun part-- when the computer took its turn it would take hours. I
left it running all night once and when I got up in the morning it was still
going.
On the box it promised that you could set up any battle that you could think
of, from Alexander to scifi mechs. Unfortunately they forgot to mention
that you had to buy a scenario editor, which wasn't available (and, correct
me if I'm wrong, but never became available). It was the first game I ever
bought where the developers promised to fix it in the patch.
But it had a really nice looking box. A kick ass box. Last game I ever
bought based on the box.
Dean
Dustin Du Cane
> UMS (Universal Military Simulator) II. Nice, thick manual which told you
> about the historical aspects of each scenario, but gave little actual
> information on how to play the game (and there wasn't exactly a tutorial,
I
> think the invasion of Normandy was one of the scenarios, try playing that
> right out of the box).
<snip>
> On the box it promised that you could set up any battle that you could
think
> of, from Alexander to scifi mechs. Unfortunately they forgot to mention
> that you had to buy a scenario editor, which wasn't available (and,
correct
> me if I'm wrong, but never became available). It was the first game I
ever
> bought where the developers promised to fix it in the patch.
>
Yep, you're wrong. The scenario editor was included in my box of UMS II
along with a massive game editing guide. There was even a magazine that
came out (Le Guerriere or something) which had guides on playing the game.
It was a great game though it was slower than a dead snail riding on a dead
tortoises back.
The manual could have been better though.
Dustin
Ray Schroder
Hey Calvin... you really are stinking OLD!!!!!!!!!!! Not like us
"youngins"... started out with Guadalcanal (using the hiden Jap troop
rules) solitaire ;-). That must have been about 1966.1 (because I want to
believe you're older than me).
--
Support the anti-Spam Amendment
Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Ray Schroder
Email: rcschroder(at sign goes here)worldnet.att.net
Calvin <mt...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<01bcb633$25b2e680$9ba30c26@default>...
>
>
> Douglas A. Osborne <do...@cyberis.net> wrote in article
> <5ub2oj$dcn$1...@news.gstis.net>...
> I think we should only count "working" games here, with Patriot clearly
> taking the "bug" prize for wargames. I second High Command. It might
even
> have been an OK strategic level game if some time had been spent on AI
> instead of the awful diplomacy and production modules. I have a dark
horse
> second place but can't remember the exact name. It was a Napoleon at
> Waterloo game marketed by SSI in 1991 (not NAW or Waterloo). You had a
> flashy for the time first person view of the battlefield, but had to
order
> units by clicking on them and then writing out your order (like the
> original role playing games). Of course the system never recognized what
> you wrote properly (or at all) and the game ran extremely slow anyway. I
> doubt that anyone who ever played it actually played through a battle.
> _
> / \ _ Calvin, The Old Wargamer, First Game:
> Afrika Korps 1966,
> \ _ / \ College days: Panzerblitz and SPI,
> Now the Computer
> \_ / rolls the dice.
>
>
Mike Tipton
Hey you young punks had better watch out!
My brother and I received the first Tactics II and Gettysburg for
Christmas about 1960. I was 12 or 13 at the time.
Before that we played "age of fighting sail" and "dreadnought" era
navel wargames that were designed and umpired by our father on the
living room floor. I think that I played my first wargame when I was
in the 3rd grade. My father was a serious Hornblower fan who wanted
someone to play games with.
My brother and I played miniatures with the HO scale plastic tanks
that first came out in the early 60's. We had a regular arms race. The
only problem with the rules that we made up was that you needed an
large open field to play in. My brother still has the HO scale tanks
and soldiers. A few years ago we used modified "Test of Arms" board
game rules to play with them with my son.
I sort of lost interest in wargaming in high school. My interest
returned big time when I saw an ad for Panzer Blitz (1970) and then an
ad for SPI. I think that when I bought Panzer Blitz my brother and I
(he was room mate at time) must have played every evening for 6 weeks.
I thought that the rules were "really complicated"! Little did I know
about the future.
But I think that the era of SPI was really the "golden age" of board
wargaming! (that is not to say that there have not been a lot of great
board wargames published in the 80's and 90's)
Well so much for the musings of a "old fogy".
Mike T.
"Ray Schroder" <rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hey Calvin... you really are stinking OLD!!!!!!!!!!! Not like us
>"youngins"... started out with Guadalcanal (using the hiden Jap troop
>rules) solitaire ;-). That must have been about 1966.1 (because I want to
>believe you're older than me).
>--
> Support the anti-Spam Amendment
> Join at http://www.cauce.org/
> Ray Schroder
>Email: rcschroder(at sign goes here)worldnet.att.net
Ray Schroder
Mike Tipton <kti...@wavefront.com> wrote in article
<340c14fc...@news5.wavefront.com>...
> Hey you young punks had better watch out!
>
> My brother and I received the first Tactics II and Gettysburg for
> Christmas about 1960. I was 12 or 13 at the time.
Oh yeah!?!?! ... well I was at Gettysburg ... ;-) ... actually, I'm a late
bloomer. I started wargaming AH games (Dreadnoughts, Afrika Korps and that
all time Greatest Wargame Ever Made ... *1914* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did
anyone ever finish that one? (Did anyone ever play it?) It had a 1000 turn,
1000 hex map, with units stacked 1000
high. Game play always resorted to staring at your massive armies while the
units sat immobilized because an offensive move by either side meant
instant defeat... oh, well... maybe games have gotten better since the
*good ole days*.
MOPzo
The beginning of the end for Three-Sixty Pacific.
Patriot and High Command.
Robb McLeod
>taking the "bug" prize for wargames. I second High Command. It might even
>have been an OK strategic level game if some time had been spent on AI
>instead of the awful diplomacy and production modules. I have a dark horse
>second place but can't remember the exact name. It was a Napoleon at
>Waterloo game marketed by SSI in 1991 (not NAW or Waterloo). You had a
>flashy for the time first person view of the battlefield, but had to order
>units by clicking on them and then writing out your order (like the
>original role playing games). Of course the system never recognized what
>you wrote properly (or at all) and the game ran extremely slow anyway. I
>doubt that anyone who ever played it actually played through a battle.
> / \ _ Calvin, The Old Wargamer, First Game:
> Afrika Korps 1966,
> \ _ / \ College days: Panzerblitz and SPI,
> Now the Computer
> \_ / rolls the dice.
>
I think you're talking about "Battles of Napoleon". I didn't buy it, but I do
remember seeing it in one of SSI's catalogs that they packaged with their
games. It had a sort of aerial view of your formations, and looked pretty
silly.
For worst wargame I nominate pretty much anything from Impressions software.
"When Two Worlds War" was particularily pitiful. I found every game I bought
from them mindnumbingly boring and poorly done, with poor game method and
balance.
--
Robb McLeod
rmc...@uvic.ca
(Please replace the "antispam" with "rmcleod" if replying via email)
Dean ODonnell
In article <01bcb662$bb552160$14b974c3@du>,
[snip]
>
>> On the box it promised that you could set up any battle that you could
>think
>> of, from Alexander to scifi mechs. Unfortunately they forgot to mention
>> that you had to buy a scenario editor, which wasn't available (and,
>correct
>> me if I'm wrong, but never became available). It was the first game I
>ever
>> bought where the developers promised to fix it in the patch.
>>
>
>Yep, you're wrong. The scenario editor was included in my box of UMS II
>along with a massive game editing guide. There was even a magazine that
>came out (Le Guerriere or something) which had guides on playing the game.
>It was a great game though it was slower than a dead snail riding on a dead
>tortoises back.
>The manual could have been better though.
Didn't feel like it when I wrote the original post, but just dug out the
box. (heehee, I never throw this sort of thing away). According to the back
of the box:
Three scenarios are included with UMS II:
-Alexander the Great: spanning the entire world as it was then
known, from Spain to India
-Assault on Fortress Europe: June 1 - July 31, 1944
-a special fantasy scenario, demonstrating the flexibility and
artificial intelligence of UMS II
Also available:
- the UMS II Planet Editor, which allows you to create new planets,
armies and scenarios
*end quote*
I also apparently stuck my one and only copy of Le Guerrier in the box. A
quote from the back (my comments in parenthesis):
"The _UMS II: Planet Editor_ is a stand alone program needed to create and
edit UMS II scenario files. Because of deadlines and consumer demand (huh?
what "consumer demand?"), UMS II was originally shipped without the Planet
Editor. As we go to press, the Macintosh Planet Editor is completed. We
hope that the manuals will be typeset and printed, and the other versions
finished within two months. We will be using our registered user database
to inform you when the version you need is ready for shipping. If your name
is on this issue of Le Guerrier, you are already in the database."
I never heard from them again. So, I ask you, did you run UMS II for the
Mac?
Dean
ihorizon
On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 06:19:21 GMT, do...@cyberis.net (Douglas A.
Osborne) wrote:
>>>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>How about that classic game High Command. It was darn near unplayable. The
>idea was good, but the implementation awful. And as usual the manuals sucked.
>
>Doug
When HC came out I was still kicking around Prodigy. I do remember
that everyone there LOVED the game and praised the designers (Colorado
something or other) to the high heavens. I could swear that the
designers of the V4V series bought out the company that created HC.
ihorizon
Oh boy ... I hope I know what I'm doing ...
On 29 Aug 1997 22:00:23 GMT, dr...@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel Drumm)
wrote:
>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>Gulf Strike by Avalon Hill for the C64.
I played Gulf Strike for the Atari and it actually wasn't all that
bad. Never crashed and you the computer put up an OK fight. However
Gulf Strike for the IBM was truly horrid.
>Runners up:
>
>The very first IBM PC version of Wooden Ships.
>TANKTICS. the all time classic, no gfx, no nothing. But it did suck, even
>on it's own merits. Apple II only, I think.
Played the heck out of Tanktics on the Atari 800. One of my favs next
to Eastern Front and Eagles.
Thanks for the memories,
Peter Szymonik
Both of you guys should hang out at rec.games.board
On 1 Sep 1997 02:34:14 GMT, "Ray Schroder"
<rcschr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Peter T. Szymonik
xorg-at-msn.com
...change is a constant...
Calvin
Redwing009 <redwi...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970901125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> Batles of Napoleon is a classic along the same lines as Gettysburg:
> The Turning Point and other SSI games. The game was released
> in 1989 and still has scenarios written and made available for it from
> Novastar.
That is Napoleon at War (Wargame Construction Set I)
It was for its time a superb game! You may be thinking of
> Fields Of Glory which is a pretty bad Napoleonic war game.
>
No, Fields of Glory came out two or three years after this mysterious game.
But like Fields, I think it was originally a British product.
Mark Henderson
In article <01bcb633$25b2e680$9ba30c26@default>, Calvin
<mt...@earthlink.net> writes
>I have a dark horse
>second place but can't remember the exact name. It was a Napoleon at
>Waterloo game marketed by SSI in 1991 (not NAW or Waterloo). You had a
>flashy for the time first person view of the battlefield, but had to order
>units by clicking on them and then writing out your order (like the
>original role playing games). Of course the system never recognized what
>you wrote properly (or at all) and the game ran extremely slow anyway. I
>doubt that anyone who ever played it actually played through a battle.
If not the worst wargame ever made, that game must surely qualify for
the slowest wargame ever made. Each time I tried to play nothing much
would happen for hours until I got frustrated and sent out the order
(playing the French) "All units attack Hougoumont". After my army
resolutely disobeyed my orders yet again, it was time to put it back in
the box for another 6 months or so.
--
Mark Henderson
Wheathampstead, England.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
Redwing009
Batles of Napoleon is a classic along the same lines as Gettysburg:
The Turning Point and other SSI games. The game was released
in 1989 and still has scenarios written and made available for it from
Darrell999
Another contender was Universal Military Simulator II. When it came out,
it took at least 1/2 hour to process a turn on a 386 (the "screamer" at
that time). Maybe running it on a Pentium would do the trick now, but why
would anyone bother?
Cloudman
In article <340a3e11...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ihorizon@*ix*.netcom.com
(ihorizon) wrote:
<snip>
>When HC came out I was still kicking around Prodigy. I do remember
>that everyone there LOVED the game and praised the designers (Colorado
>something or other) to the high heavens. I could swear that the
>designers of the V4V series bought out the company that created HC.
Colorado Computer Creations are still going - not sure of their parentage,
don't think they have anything to do with Atomic. They're currently working
on the Panzerblitz port for AH and are rumoured to be doing a High Command 98
or whatever. I think you can still D/L the original from
http://www.dhc.net/~ryanb/hicom.html - not been there for a while. It also
has instructions on how to kludge PBEM.
>Robb
>ihor...@ix.netcom.com
>
Cloudman
----------------------------------------
Real email : ain...@cloud9.u-net.com
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic FAQ : http://www.cloud9.u-net.com/apsa/games/csipgs.htm
My favourite Usenet words : <snip>, [source:...], (was...)
My favourite Usenet thought : "That doesn't need to go to the newsgroup, I'll email it instead"
Tim Maushardt
good concept terrible, no pathetic AI. Whats even funnier was that I
bought
it on a CGW glowing review.
yeah 360 re-released it. From what I could tell 360 only updated the
graphics
and didn't address the AI.
ihorizon wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 06:19:21 GMT, do...@cyberis.net (Douglas A.
> Osborne) wrote:
> >>>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>
> >How about that classic game High Command. It was darn near
> unplayable. The
> >idea was good, but the implementation awful. And as usual the
> manuals sucked.
> >
> >Doug
> When HC came out I was still kicking around Prodigy. I do remember
> that everyone there LOVED the game and praised the designers (Colorado
>
> something or other) to the high heavens. I could swear that the
> designers of the V4V series bought out the company that created HC.
>
> Robb
> ihor...@ix.netcom.com
--
Tim Maushardt
t...@palmnet.net
http://www.thegamers.net
Larry Rose
Colorado Computer Creations will not be doing PanzerBlitz for Avalon Hill.
Cloudman wrote in article <5ufk68$a8h$6...@despair.u-net.com>...
>In article <340a3e11...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, ihorizon@*ix*.netcom.com
>(ihorizon) wrote:
><snip>
>>When HC came out I was still kicking around Prodigy. I do remember
>>that everyone there LOVED the game and praised the designers (Colorado
>>something or other) to the high heavens. I could swear that the
>>designers of the V4V series bought out the company that created HC.
>
Lone_War
> "When Two Worlds War" was particularily pitiful. I found every game I bought
> from them mindnumbingly boring and poorly done, with poor game method and
> balance.
If Impressions were the people that did the original Lords of the Realm,
then not everything that they do can be bad. Sure there wasn't a lot to
the game, but the Castle Construction was absolutely AWESOME. I have yet
to see anything that was as good as that from anywhere.
--
Billie F. Krieger III
Dragon Clan Spy/Trader
Death, death, death to all who oppose us!
Robb McLeod
In article <01bcb6f3$f08cd1c0$59730c26@default>,
"Calvin" <mt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Redwing009 <redwi...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19970901125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> The Turning Point and other SSI games. The game was released
>> in 1989 and still has scenarios written and made available for it from
>> Novastar.
>
>> Fields Of Glory which is a pretty bad Napoleonic war game.
>>
> But like Fields, I think it was originally a British product.
I went looking through my old catalogues (I keep them in the boxes for some
reason) and found that I goofed. 'Battles of Napoleon' was a big award winner
written in 1989 and part of the wargame construction set. 'Waterloo' was the
first-person perspective game. Here's the blurb from the catalogue:
"Fight the most famous battle in history from a whole new perspective!
"WATERLOO uses simple English language commands to give you realistic
control over regiments of infantry, cavalry and artillery. This historical
chains of command, battle reports and commander's 3-D perspective keep you in
the thick of the action.
"Can you repeat Wellington's triumph and defeat the most famous
general of them? Can you command the victory that eluded Napoleon's grasp?
The fate of nations is in your hands!"
If that doesn't convince everyone, I could always scan a .jpg from the
catalogue and post it on the WWW.
Cloudman
In article <340c14fc...@news5.wavefront.com>, kti...@wavefront.com (Mike
Tipton) wrote:
<snip>
>I sort of lost interest in wargaming in high school. My interest
>returned big time when I saw an ad for Panzer Blitz (1970) and then an
>ad for SPI. I think that when I bought Panzer Blitz my brother and I
>(he was room mate at time) must have played every evening for 6 weeks.
>I thought that the rules were "really complicated"! Little did I know
>about the future.
You know Colorado Computer Creations are porting Panzerblitz for AH? It was
meant to be coming out in Q3 1997, not sure what the latest word is.
Allan Goodall
On Mon, 01 Sep 1997 20:38:04 -0700, in message
<340B8A...@fastinet.net>, Lone_War <Lone...@fastinet.net> wrote:
>If Impressions were the people that did the original Lords of the Realm,
>then not everything that they do can be bad.
Okay, there's my worst game vote. It was a game by Merit Software and
distributed by Impressions, called _Fighting for Rome_ (which apparently
was released as a game called _Cohort_ because that was the name on the
disk labels). Horrible game that didn't even come close to simulating
ancient combat. Because of this abomination I skipped the samurai, ACW and
WW2 games that came out using similar systems (a cartoonish, real time
miniatures game). I heard the WW2 game wasn't bad but that I didn't miss
anything with the others.
Allan Goodall agoo...@sympatico.ca
We come into the world and take our chances
Fate is just the weight of circumstances
That's the way that Lady Luck dances
Roll the bones - N. Peart
Allan Goodall
On 1 Sep 1997 16:29:42 GMT, in message
<01bcb6f3$f08cd1c0$59730c26@default>, "Calvin" <mt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Redwing009 <redwi...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19970901125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>> Batles of Napoleon is a classic along the same lines as Gettysburg:
>> The Turning Point and other SSI games. The game was released
>> in 1989 and still has scenarios written and made available for it from
>> Novastar.
>That is Napoleon at War (Wargame Construction Set I)
Nope. It's _Battles of Napoleon_ and it was NOT Wargame Construction Set 1.
The first in the wargame construction set series was (drum roll please)
_The Wargame Construction Set_. It contained a number of scenarios,
including Bull Run, an SF game, and a tutorial Fantasy game that you set up
yourself.
It had a number of flaws (not the least of which was the turn sequence
which only really worked for WW2 and modern tactical games). Kept within
it's abilities, though, the WCS was quite interesting and could be a lot of
fun. I wasted a lot of time on my old Atari with that game.
>No, Fields of Glory came out two or three years after this mysterious game.
> But like Fields, I think it was originally a British product.
As someone else posted, the game in question was called simply _Waterloo_.
Allan Goodall
On Mon, 01 Sep 97 04:02:50 GMT, in message
<5udfm6$c22$1...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, anti...@uvic.ca (Robb McLeod) wrote:
>Calvin <mt...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
>> I have a dark horse
>>second place but can't remember the exact name. It was a Napoleon at
>>Waterloo game marketed by SSI in 1991 (not NAW or Waterloo).
<<snippage>>
>I think you're talking about "Battles of Napoleon". I didn't buy it, but I do
>remember seeing it in one of SSI's catalogs that they packaged with their
>games. It had a sort of aerial view of your formations, and looked pretty
>silly.
It wasn't _Battles of Napoleon_ which was a pretty good game. It was
strictly a Waterloo game. I thought it was simply called _Waterloo_ but I
must be mistaken. It was a first person perspective of the battle, with
units taking the form of coloured blocks. The idea was interesting (for its
time) but I never got to the point of even coming close to finishing a
game.
athol-brose
In article <01bcb662$bb552160$14b974c3@du>,
Dustin Du Cane <dus...@medianet.com.pl> wrote:
>Yep, you're wrong. The scenario editor was included in my box of UMS II
>along with a massive game editing guide. There was even a magazine that
>came out (Le Guerriere or something) which had guides on playing the game.
>It was a great game though it was slower than a dead snail riding on a dead
>tortoises back.
I remember setting up a scenario that was vaguely based on the Thomas
Covenant books - specifically, you needed to save the Giants at Seareach.
It was much more fun to edit the scenarios than it was to actually PLAY
them.
--r.
--
r. n. dominick -- cinn...@one.net -- http://w3.one.net/~cinnamon
why so full of sorrow, no tomorrow?
M. Evan Brooks
In terms of the worst computer game of all time (wargame category), I
would have to nominate Avalon Hill's CIVIL WAR. Not only did armies
both appear and disappear at random, but they changed sides without
warning (e.g., Longstreet becoming a Union General). Of course, most
strategic civil war games have been major disasters, but this one
stands out -- not only was it ahistorical, but it sometimes attempted
(and succeeded) in rewriting one's hard drive. So ahistorical
results, clumsy interface, pooor gameplay and internal damage to the
player's computer -- there are viruses that have been more
entertaining and less destructive.
-- M. Evan Brooks
Wendy Hood & Bryan Corkill
Daniel Drumm wrote:
> This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to
> the
> Grognards:
>
> The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>
>
>
> .
>
> My vote is:
>
> Gulf Strike by Avalon Hill for the C64.
>
>
>
> Runners up:
>
> The very first IBM PC version of Wooden Ships.
> TANKTICS. the all time classic, no gfx, no nothing. But it did suck,
> even
> on it's own merits. Apple II only, I think.
>
> Harpoon v1.0. If it's this bad, call it alpha and let's all wait.
>
> any others?
I'll vote for the SPx engine, The 2 weeks I was stuck w/ only SP1 &
SP2 about drove me nuts. Towards the end I actually went for two days
w/o turning a computer on!
Bryan Corkill
Pasi Ahopelto
Mike Tipton <kti...@wavefront.com> wrote:
<snip>
>My brother and I played miniatures with the HO scale plastic tanks
>that first came out in the early 60's.
I used to play sort of tactical wargame with 1:32 scale plastic
soldiers. 50/50 split between players, hide them well in your playground
and "kill" opposing forces by throwing stones at them. Simple turn based
tactical action game;-)
>We had a regular arms race.
<snip>
No arms race here because of even forces, but some of the fortifications
were guite elaborate, until we discovered that concealment is more
important than thickness of walls or depth of bunker;-)
Back to worst wargames, and the nominees are
3. No greater glory (SSI) - plain ugly and I definitely don't want the
hear loud PC-beeper version of US national anthem at 1AM. It seemed
great after reading the manual, but I couldn't get hang of it. The
included novel "Red Badge of Courage" was ok. (Graphics disclaimer: I
bought it after Falcon 3 and Ultima Underworld, so NGG's appearance
looked even worse.)
2. <Forgot the name, but it was Something 2>. Used David Braben's
code for graphics routines, tactical real time movement on map with
very jumpy updates and third person real time combat action. Seemed
excellent on first clance, but I really don't believe Shilka AA-tank
can routinely beat single handedly four Abrams tanks.
1. Universal Military Simulator II. UMS I was great, and I bought UMS
II without reading any reviews. Manual looked promising, gameplay was
bit difficult first. I got slightly worried after winning Normandy
invasion as Germans on first game I tried and lost interest totally
after trying one of these bigger historic scenarios.
These games are OK, when compared to Federation of Free Traders,
but discussion about that game doesn't belong in this newsgroup.
BTW: My first wargame favorites were UMS I, SSI's Red Lightning and
Harpoon. Non-wargame alltime favorite must be M.U.L.E. I tried it month
ago on C64 emulator, and still liked it (played it lot in mid 80's on
C64). "Colony has food and energy shortage" and guess who has the farms
and solar plants - see you at auction;-)
Pasi.
Mike Hussey
In article <5ufccv$rd2$1...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, Robb McLeod
<anti...@uvic.ca> writes
>In article <01bcb6f3$f08cd1c0$59730c26@default>,
> "Calvin" <mt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Redwing009 <redwi...@aol.com> wrote in article
>><19970901125...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>>> Batles of Napoleon is a classic along the same lines as Gettysburg:
>>> The Turning Point and other SSI games. The game was released
>>> in 1989 and still has scenarios written and made available for it from
>>> Novastar.
>>That is Napoleon at War (Wargame Construction Set I)
>>
>>>
>>No, Fields of Glory came out two or three years after this mysterious game.
>> But like Fields, I think it was originally a British product.
>
>reason) and found that I goofed. 'Battles of Napoleon' was a big award winner
>written in 1989 and part of the wargame construction set. 'Waterloo' was the
>first-person perspective game. Here's the blurb from the catalogue:
>
> "Fight the most famous battle in history from a whole new perspective!
> "WATERLOO uses simple English language commands to give you realistic
>control over regiments of infantry, cavalry and artillery. This historical
>chains of command, battle reports and commander's 3-D perspective keep you in
>the thick of the action.
> "Can you repeat Wellington's triumph and defeat the most famous
>general of them? Can you command the victory that eluded Napoleon's grasp?
>The fate of nations is in your hands!"
'Waterloo' was part of series called 'Napoleonics' along with
'Borodino' and 'Austerlitz' by Dr. Peter Turcan. I had them for the
Amiga and they were virtually unplayable. The units looked like long
blocks of wood and to issue orders to them you had to send a courier
to the division commander who then had to send a courier to the unit
which could take up to 2 hours. While this is probably realistic and
illustrates Tolstoy's point that once a battle starts the commanders
have very little control of what happens, it does not make for a
good gaming experience. Dr. Turcan later modified the system for
a naval strategy game called 'Dreadnoughts' and probably because
of the instantaneous nature of communications on board ship (by
flag or radio) produced a better and more playable game. He also incuded
a sort of lexicon, which meant rather than typing in orders you could
build them up from phrases which the game would accept.
I have seen the 'Napoleonics' series over here in England for the PC
at a real cheapo price. If you see it, under no circumstances buy it,
unless you're a collector of bad wargames.
>
>If that doesn't convince everyone, I could always scan a .jpg from the
>catalogue and post it on the WWW.
>
>--
>Robb McLeod
>rmc...@uvic.ca
>(Please replace the "antispam" with "rmcleod" if replying via email)
Please remove asterisks if replying by e-mail.
Mike Hussey
Pierre Vandevenne
>written in 1989 and part of the wargame construction set. 'Waterloo' was the
>first-person perspective game. Here's the blurb from the catalogue:
>
> "Fight the most famous battle in history from a whole new perspective!
> "WATERLOO uses simple English language commands to give you realistic
>control over regiments of infantry, cavalry and artillery. This historical
>chains of command, battle reports and commander's 3-D perspective keep you in
>If that doesn't convince everyone, I could always scan a .jpg from the
>catalogue and post it on the WWW.
Hey, I am convinced ! There was also a "Gettysburg" and an "Armada" in
the same collection. I got those two on Atari and on PC. The guy who
made them was some Dr and the company was Turcan Software.
These games were quite well done for the time, and a good simulation of
the uncertainties of the chain of command. Probably more realistic in that
respect than influence zones, command range, etc... The only problem was
that they weren't that much fun to play. I played SSI's Gettysburg countless
times and tried, as Rebel, tens of different methods to get rid of Meredith-A
and Meredith-B faster. That was fun ! OTOH, Turcan's software Gettysburg
was a very confusing as news from Peach Orchard would come back only
after 3-4 hours of simulated time.
Armada was one of the nicest "concept" wargame I played, but I believe that
the historical reality doesn't lend itself to simulation well. It was, for example,
possible to totally avoid the English Navy and seize the objectives without a
real fight.
---
Pierre Vandevenne, MD - http://www.datarescue.com
IDA Pro 3.7 adds multi pass analysis, stack variables, symbolic constants,
unicode, ELF support, color highlighting, C++ name demangling to compiler
library recognition - IDA Pro 3.7 : a stunning disassembler !
Redwing009
never heard of this series of games, apparently didn't miss much!
A. Fraser
In article <340CE059...@prodigy.net>, Wendy Hood & Bryan Corkill <who...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Daniel Drumm wrote:
>
>> This is a funny thread on the flight-sim group. Let's open it up to
>> the
>> Grognards:
>>
>> The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>> My vote is:
>> Gulf Strike by Avalon Hill for the C64.
>> Runners up:
>>
>> The very first IBM PC version of Wooden Ships.
>> TANKTICS. the all time classic, no gfx, no nothing. But it did suck,
>> even on it's own merits. Apple II only, I think.
>>
>> Harpoon v1.0. If it's this bad, call it alpha and let's all wait.
>> any others?
> I'll vote for the SPx engine, The 2 weeks I was stuck w/ only SP1 &
>SP2 about drove me nuts. Towards the end I actually went for two days
>w/o turning a computer on!
>Bryan Corkill
In my book the worst game was PATRIOT. I really enjoyed HARPOON and thought,
"geez if they can do the same with land combat, we're in business!" Boy I
never thought I could be taken to the school AND to the cleaners at the same
time.
deadbeat
Mike Hussey wrote:
> 'Waterloo' was part of series called 'Napoleonics' along with
> 'Borodino' and 'Austerlitz' by Dr. Peter Turcan. I had them for the
> Amiga and they were virtually unplayable. The units looked like long
> blocks of wood and to issue orders to them you had to send a courier
> to the division commander who then had to send a courier to the unit
> which could take up to 2 hours. While this is probably realistic and
> illustrates Tolstoy's point that once a battle starts the commanders
> have very little control of what happens, it does not make for a
> good gaming experience. Dr. Turcan later modified the system for
> a naval strategy game called 'Dreadnoughts' and probably because
> of the instantaneous nature of communications on board ship (by
> flag or radio) produced a better and more playable game. He also incuded
> a sort of lexicon, which meant rather than typing in orders you could
> build them up from phrases which the game would accept.
>
>
<<snip>>
funny, but i was going to recommend DREADNAUGHTS for Worst Game -- a
wretched game indeed.
csk
Lozier
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 07:52:02 -0400, ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H.
Arsenault) wrote:
>In my view, the worst computer game of all time could have been the best:
>Victgory at Sea, which was put out in a completely unplayable state. I
>believe that it was a Mac-only game. It had great graphics and a wonderful
>interface, but it was only about half-comp[leted when it was put out.
>Nothing worked correctly, and it crashed all the time.
>
>Weel, OK, maybe Universal Military simulator was as bad (I bought both UMS
>1 and UMS II, I am a real sucker for wargames...).
>
I agree. This was another lame 360 product. It was a PACWAR type
game design by Jim Dunnigan. 360 took his high-level design specs and
dumped them on an overworked programmer. I'm surprised the programmer
got as far as he did with the game. The user interface blew away the
PACWAR interface. If only the game worked. BTW Jim Dunnigam wrote a
book about the game the full of interesting WWII pacific theater
statistics.
--
George Lozier
aglo...@ix.netcom.com
Elkhorn, NE
RedJohnny
In article <5u7gpn$7un$3...@tepe.tezcat.com>, dr...@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel
Drumm) writes:
>Subject: Worst Comp. Wargame of all time
>From: dr...@xochi.tezcat.com (Daniel Drumm)
>Date: 29 Aug 1997 22:00:23 GMT
>
>The WORST Computer Wargame of ALL TIME.
>
Without a doubt: "Carrier Command". On the box it proclaimed itself
to be a resource-management game. Once booted, you had two modes of
play to choose from.
The "Arcade" mode was where you were required to fight from a ground
vehicle, an airplane or control the carrier defenses from a first
person perspective. Any of which required the reflexes of a hyper-
kinetic teenager overdosed on caffeine. I tried this mode exactly one
time. It was painful.
Ah, but the "Strategic" mode. Now that was great fun. You were given
a map to sail about on, buildings to construct, etc. There were many
different options for equipping fighting units. All of it was very
cool, until you encountered the enemy, whereupon you were dropped back
into "arcade mode". See above.
My copy came with a cassette tape with the "Carrier Command Theme"
that I never got around to listening to. Please e-mail me if you have
a copy you are willing to part with. Uhmm, the tape, not the game. :-)
Regards,
J D Schuster
Veteran
>In my view, the worst computer game of all time could have been the best:
>Victgory at Sea, which was put out in a completely unplayable state. I
>believe that it was a Mac-only game. It had great graphics and a wonderful
>interface, but it was only about half-comp[leted when it was put out.
>Nothing worked correctly, and it crashed all the time.
Man, I waited and waited for this one. I almost bought a Mac just so I
could play it. But when I heard it was in a bad state I held off
(thank heavens!). I figured I'd just wait for the PC conversion. Still
waiting...........
Veteran
Paul Maynard
from reading these posts it looks as though 360 is the worst wargame company of
all time. they were involved with:
patriot - didn't work
victory at sea - didn't work
high command - lame ai, poor implementation
v for victory series - anyone have any complaints on this one?
harpoon 1 - buggy, but has been fixed by Alliance Interactive (ex-360 people)
and still has a following
harpoon 2 - very buggy and POWER hungry, i think this game needed to run on a
pentium but when it was released i think 486/66 wss high end. lots of people
still like it though.
Don C. Aldrich
I gotta think it's a toss up between Victory at Sea and Patriot.
Neither worked at all. And both by the same company! That's gotta be
some kind of record.
==Dondo
"He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous."
Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 2.
Tom Harrigan
Patriot had to be the worst. Isn't that game what finally killed 360?
Tom
Paul Maynard wrote in article <3411aed5...@news.abs.net>...
Trey Marshall
>v for victory series - anyone have any complaints on this one?
I have all the V4V's and World at War's and they are very good
traditional board computer games. The AI isn't the greatest (hat game
is) but I enjoyed them very much.
Trey
Trey Marshall,2Lt,FA 4-1 FA Bn, 3 Bde, 1st Arm Div
Fire Direction Officer, 1st Platoon, Charlie Battery
"Charlie 1 Foxtrot"
www.kansas.net/~snakes - Wargame Scenario Site
Best Close Combat Download Site on the web
John L. Longshore
Hmm.. Across the Rhine: $64.99 Microprose #3 ... Nice Box Art..
Pretty CD's.. poopie game
The Civil War: $44.99 Empire Games #2 ... Blah, I tried
to like it..... real real hard..
oh and that evil poopie thing that came out before War
College, by the same guy... I can't remember the name of it, but the disks
didn't even make good coasters. I'm sure it was like $39.99 too #1 The
Art of War.. some such thing... it still runs bad on a high end Pentium and
it was made for a 386
Opinions by a Chihuahua in a tartan...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan K.
I'll throw in a vote for Avalon Hill's Kingmaker. Incorporated all of the
flaws required to fit boardgame into box, hideous user interface, manual
big on game rules and small on how to use said hideous user interface,
pigging slow, added no value. Only bright spot was the historical guide,
which I think was almost worth the price of the game.
--
Jonathan K.
brucemo
Douglas A. Osborne wrote:
> How about that classic game High Command. It was darn near unplayable. The
> idea was good, but the implementation awful. And as usual the manuals sucked.
I had fun with this game until I figured out how to beat Germany with France in
1940, which is simply to put all of your counters in one square.
bruce
Mark Henderson
In article <5v0vt9$spa$1...@sparky.wolfe.net>, "Jonathan K."
<fl...@WOLFENET.COM> writes
I thought Kingmaker was great. It was the last game I bought for the
Atari ST before I sold it and bought a PC. While you're right that it's
a bit on the slow side, it had a depth almost unmatched then or now.
If I could find a PC copy I would buy it with no regrets (assuming it
wasn't CGA only).
--
Mark Henderson
Wheathampstead, England.
Input error. Replace user and press any key to continue.
M. Evan Brooks
Actually, FIELDS OF GLORY had a superb order of battle and historical
background section. As for gameplay, it tried to do too much but
succeeded more often than not. I still enjoy it.
As for WATERLOO, this was part of the Dr. Peter Turcan system -- games
included ARMADA, BORODINO and DREADNOUGHT -- all from the first person
perspective.
Yes, there were problems with the system -- e.g., to attack Hugomount,
one often had to say "move troops 1/2 mile north of landmark" rather
than "2 miles south of another landmark". Overall, it was like an
interesting parser system which was not fully developed. But it had
potential to be a true commander's challenge and not the staff study
that most wargames are.
Also, when an objective was achieved, one never knew what the
capabilities of the unit were. Are you capable of exploitation? Do
you need reinforcements? Can you hold without support?
Despite these problems and the time lag, I still cannot regard this in
any way, shape or form as one of the worst designs of all time. I
still think the system has merit and could be developed into a
challenging and realistic military training model.
Henri H. Arsenault
In article <341271f1...@news.supernews.com>, sna...@kansas.net (Trey
Marshall) wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 01:32:24 GMT, pmay...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us (Paul
> Maynard) wrote:
>
>
> >v for victory series - anyone have any complaints on this one?
>
> I have all the V4V's and World at War's and they are very good
> traditional board computer games. The AI isn't the greatest (hat game
> is) but I enjoyed them very much.
>
I enjoyed them too, especially Market Garden - despite the lame AI. There
are not many games that I have played more than once, and I played through
Market Garden three times. If only they would put out a new version with
the Stalingrad interface and improved AI, I would buy it again.
Henri
Alan
>second place but can't remember the exact name. It was a Napoleon at
>flashy for the time first person view of the battlefield, but had to order
>units by clicking on them and then writing out your order (like the
>original role playing games). Of course the system never recognized what
>you wrote properly (or at all) and the game ran extremely slow anyway. I
>doubt that anyone who ever played it actually played through a battle.
That program was called "Waterloo" and I played it. Not a lot I must admit,
but it was quite an interesting idea... the battle from the commanders
viewpoint controlled in the way he would have (by writing out orders). Now
this does not make a playable game of course, but full marks for something
different. There was also "Borodino" in the same series, and perhaps one or
two others. In many ways the idea of 'ground level' viewpoint and written
orders is much more realistic than most other games. Lets face it, regardless
of how accurate the algorithms of combat and intelligence of the AI, they're
mostly from a satelite's perspective, something quite wrong for the time period
of most games, and something only just creeping into warfare today.
Alan.
Cloudman
Just a few corrections -
In article <3411aed5...@news.abs.net>, pmay...@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us
wrote:
>
>from reading these posts it looks as though 360 is the worst wargame company of
>all time. they were involved with:
>
>patriot - didn't work
>
>victory at sea - didn't work
>
>high command - lame ai, poor implementation
In fact developed by Colorado Computer Creations, who have been rumoured to
be making a Win95 (98?) version. I thought it was playable, but I have a bias
toward the high level stuff anyway. But it was a triumph of style over
substance. The AI was crap, but it's the sort of game AI have problems with in
any case - just look at the time it took to get Third Reich's AI sorted. And
you can PBEM it (see http://www.dhc.net/~ryanb/hicom.html for instructions and
to D/L it)
>v for victory series - anyone have any complaints on this one?
In fact developed by Atomic (World at War, Close Combat). Not without faults,
but pretty good operational level games. I seem to remember Keith Z of Atomic
saying that the series sold over 100,000 copies, not bad, especially for 5
years ago. Needed a lot of conventional memory.
>harpoon 1 - buggy, but has been fixed by Alliance Interactive (ex-360 people)
>and still has a following
Only had one major, killer crash bug, which only happened on big scenarios. A
little bit of regular saving was a small price to pay for a great, great game.
Again needed every bit of low memory. If I was honest, this would be my
contribution to the what old game do you still play thread - I have older
games (including the PET tapes <g> ) that I might play from time to time, but
this is the only one that stays on the HD. I spent a summer just going
through every scenario from both sides. Yup, it was nice getting the Alliance
version so that you didn't need to keep on saving, but it didn't really need
converting to Windows. And the latest iteration, 97 is nice in that
refuelling works, but it's still almost identical to the original.
And it was one of the first, genuine "realtime strats" (as opposed to
continuous time). Loads of things that other wargames have not yet fully
taken on board - flexible objectives, waypoints etc, even if things like
logistics were barely modelled. Perhaps Weapons Free from Arsenal will be a
successor.
>harpoon 2 - very buggy and POWER hungry, i think this game needed to run on a
>pentium but when it was released i think 486/66 wss high end. lots of people
>still like it though.
I was one of those who just couldn't get into it. Still, a very good
simulation, just not much fun as a game. And the various ganer-produced
addons help.Classic example of how adding things that the public want isn't
necessarily a good thing, simplicity is a great virtue. But I can't imagine it
was anything like the success the first one was.
Still, it's a shame that they went under - a diversity of wargame makes has to
be a good thing, and they did make some classics. How they ever got to
release the likes of Patriot, though, is a mystery - total plot loss.
Cloudman
----------------------------------------
Real email : ain...@cloud9.u-net.com
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic FAQ : http://www.cloud9.u-net.com/apsa/games/csipgs.htm
My favourite Usenet words : <snip>, [source:...], (was...)
My favourite Usenet thought : "That doesn't need to go to the newsgroup, I'll email it instead"