|
Decided to get DC:W2P, gonna try to get through the rulebook so might be interested in joining a goon game in the coming weeks.
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Right, I want to get a goon game going of Scourge of War.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Thing is, I've been reading the Wargames thread in TG and there are so many games there (Totaler Krieg, Guns of Gettysburg, Twilight Struggle, Silent War, No Retreat!) that I'd love to play through a framework that's a little more solid than VASSAL, but then it seems like outside of newer outfits (and God bless those), PC wargaming is moving more towards "we have all this computing horsepower, so gently caress CRTs" rather than ease-of-use.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
I'd love to see a conversion of Totaler Krieg/Dai Senso into a videogame instead of World in Flames but that seems unlikely to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:A conversion in the sense that Battle of the Bulge iOS is a conversion or Unity of Command is a conversion or SSI's Clash of Steel is a conversion would be sweet, indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 10:12
|
|
|
What's wrong with the Degtyaryov? I thought it was considered a pretty effective and reliable LMG throughout much of the war? Does it stack up unfavourably in comparison to the Bren gun?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
At least you could literally drop the DP in mud and it would still function, which was probably a plus when fighting in Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Martin Wallace isn't really a war game designer. There's a pretty wide range of games depending on what your needs are. Volko Ruhnke makes the COIN series, which don't really conform to the war gaming paradigms but are a lot of fun. It really depends on what you want though if you are going for more traditional hex and counters. I would strongly suggest you check out my War Gaming thread in TG if you are interested, the OP includes examples for all levels of play, but a few good ones to start with are the No Retreat series (the first in the series is actually being LPed as we speak), or Red Winter (an unusual company-level hex and counter centered around the winter war), combat commander (if you like still quite a lot of randomness but still an in-depth experience) etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
Although I'm gonna talk about hex-n-counter wargames, I think this is relevant to the ongoing discussion. One of the games I was most looking forward to last year was Guns of Gettysburg. Guns of Gettysburg is a game that attempts not to recreate the historical battle of Gettysburg, but the situation that arose and how the generals in the battle (Meade and Lee), didn't know what they were going into, didn't know how many enemy they were facing and seemingly were pulled into the battle in a place where they didn't want to fight. It does this by double-blind reinforcement schedules (neither you nor the opponent know when your reinforcements are coming) and moveable objectives that change places according to how many union/confederate reinforcements there are. This game, of course, has been criticized for this (although a historical reinforcement schedule is possible), but it is a much more interesting game in my opinion because every game is different and it really immerses you into the role of the generals at the time. I honestly prefer that to a purely historical battle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
For anyone that wants to be in the loop, GMT has just sent an announcement that the PC version of Twilight Struggle has been cancelled, probably permanently. There are, however, announcements that a tablet version is being planned, however.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
Dirt Worshipper posted:Gupta should convince his new Firaxis buddies to help him make a decent pc version.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Not as far as I'm aware. They do constantly upgrade their own house-developed Vassal modules, which are usually on the higher scale of quality as Vassal modules go. As well as that, most of their CDG library is available at wargameroom.net, one of the better rules-enabled places to play their games (if you hate graphics, that is).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:According to the manual and experience, YES! When they're engaged they will ignore most orders. Other orders given other times are subject to the AI's personality and interpretation. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
I really wish that Totaler Krieg was out as a videogame, it is so much better than WiF (confirmed by a guy that used to play WiF and played TK with me for the past month or so).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Riso posted:I think TK is a vassal module.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:TK! was a great boardgame, although I haven't played it since a few years after it came out, and I only ever played solitaire. It was one of the games (along with Clash of Steel) that got me into wargaming.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
I might drop in as well if you guys are planning on playing SoW, I haven't played that in a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
For 6 quids it is surprisingly playable, but yeah, no preview on movements? Also, is there any way to rotate on the spot? Is it possible to move units backwards without having them face the wrong way (I know there is fallback, but what about if you don't face enemies at that moment?). Also clicking and dragging if you want a lot of units to move (f.ex during a retreat) is kind of annoying. Better than I expected though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Dirt Worshipper posted:Middle mouse button, don't forget to read the manual y'all
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Dirt Worshipper posted:I agree, it's pretty good. I do notice that some of my units will stop firing sometimes though. I think it may be a case of being ordered to target an individual unit that leaves its line of site, but it can be difficult to housekeep in a big battle, and one of your larger units not firing can obviously swing a fight against you. Also, please lord add group commands.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Is there any link to the original review? The only one I could find doesn't seem to exist anymore (maybe it's been archived though). Edit: Yep, internet archives have it, nevermind.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 12:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Yeah this is the review, in archives
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
I do find it funny that one of my favourite recent board wargames has the distinction of not having combat strength or movement allowance. I've actually seen board wargames go into the OTHER direction and try to become less granular and easier to play while still attempting to remain relatively historical accuracy. But for computer-based wargames, I do agree that the impetus should be in the other direction: more granularity, more flexibility and a statistical model not tied in with the limitations of manual computing that are required in board wargames. If you aren't going to take advantage of the strength of a platform, what is the point?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
The granularity isn't specifically there in order to improve the results from a more abstract representation of the conflict, although it does can create a much bigger range of outcomes than would be possible if you simply used a CRT (since the CRT has to define discrete resolution, something that a more granular simulation does not). The real advantage is flexibility in design and modularity of parts which just isn't present within a board wargame. If the 3rd Panzer in <board game A> is a 6-5-10, it's always going to be a 6-5-10, barring any reduced-strength flip system or dot system. It also frees designers of new scenarios from having to number crunch in order to find the relative strength of a semi-historical or even a-historical formation, because they can just add the sort of equipment they want. I think it does bring notable advantages.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
I don't think that simplicity or difficulty of prediction are tied with granularity at all, in the remotest sense. Someone could be playing a game where he can examine the OOB and still not be able to predict the outcome of a combat, entirely based on the random factors that the combat calculation uses: it is still possible for a designer to make attack/defence artificially stronger in a simulation-based wargame than it is one based on a CRT. Also, I think simplicity actually AIDS players to be able to assess the strength of his unit to an unrealistic degree, so granularity in of itself does not help or hinder the amount of information that a player has. This goes back to the idea of having a game run as a simulation of events or just making it playable for players through abstraction, and I'm actually all for both types of games to see the light (and for board wargames, I'd rather see a tendency towards simplification because otherwise manual calculations can get out of hand (see, for example, OCS in comparison to something like Campaign for North Africa). But for video games, I do feel that there is space for both types of wargames, and especially for simulations that can't be recreated using a board wargame.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
That's because there are some fundamental parts of warfare that are impossible to model, no matter the scope, granularity or complexity of the game. Also, complaining that 100 jeeps can beat 50 Tigers feels to me like kind of a stupid argument to make, because that situation wouldn't happen in real life. It's like trying to say that Total War is crappy because you can do all-infantry against all-elephant armies and the results aren't historical(Total War is crappy but for different reasons). As well as that, as the rebuttal says, there are factors beyond the jeeps 'just being jeeps' that have to be taken into account (what are the infantry have in terms of close range explosives, are they able to ambush the tank, will they disembark before contact etc etc). The unfortunate thing about any simulation of war is that it's going to be inaccurate, no matter how much you work on it, no matter how much you do to make it as accurate as possible. Making a entire division into a single counter is inaccurate. Attempting to model as at the squad level is inaccurate. Some of the factors that you describe are just hard or almost impossible to model without very heavy scripting, which detracts from the game. I also dislike the 'striving for accuracy is bad because you can't be 100% accurate' argument, especially the example given about armour thickness. So what should you do in those situations? Do nothing? Make the thickness random? The problem with wargames is that since it is impossible or nearly impossible to accurately model the soft factors of war, all you are left is the hard factors, like tanks, number of guns and fuel reserves and then you fill in the void of the soft factors through random results. The human element of wars is lost because the human elements are hard to model beyond just a general 'group level of experience'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
So 'at least some' turns into '2v1 jeep versus tank battle royal'? It's not going to be some people rolling up and charging tanks in jeeps, that's not what the model is trying to portray. Unless the jeeps are modeled as literally only a single driver per jeep, then maybe you have a point. Also I've yet to see any game at the operational level that does intangible that aren't just 'approximations of morale levels/experience'. And like, where does accuracy start? War is both about intangibles AND hardware, no matter how much you attempt to reduce it. Logistics and supply are important, the type of hardware is also important and is going to have an impact on a battle. It's not an off-on switch either: it is possible to attempt to accurately model hard factors as well as soft factors, except that soft factors are much harder to model except for going 'eh, randomness'. You mentioned yourself that the modelling in games for morale/experience etc is 'lazy', but somehow also being lazy with hardware and giving a nebulous 'well, they can just make a better algorithm' is going to make a better game, somehow? You said yourself that there are intangibles that can't be accurately modeled: how complex of an algorithm do you need to have fidelity? Your algorithm is going to be always wrong because real life is not an algorithm that we can plug in and get results for. EDIT: Mind you, I do agree that complexity can be off-putting to the extreme. I'd like to see granularity but with the complexity 'under the hood', so to speak. Although that leads into the question of how to handle the predictive ability of the players in terms of results of battle. Is there any game in which there is a recon system that doesn't show the true capabilities of enemy units unless you have recon elements sent to enemy locations? Beyond modelling recon abilities organically within the units, I mean. Tekopo fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jul 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The answer to the jeeps vs Tigers thing isn't yes or no, it's that the question shouldn't be asked in the first place because the counters should be composed of more than one unit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
That could work, although that doesn't feel like a problem with granularity but really an issue with how the engine of the game really functions. Which I guess in the end it is the principal issue of granularity, because there hasn't been an effective engine that marries that and gameplay together in an effective way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
You aren't giving a lot of details about what the position of troops were. Did you manage to force the union army off Cemetery Ridge? Strategical position and morale were more important in the ACW that sheer number of troops/casualties.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Also there's a thread for those kind of games
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:Is there a thread or someplace to talk about Vassal modules and get people to play with? I've been looking all over SA but have found nothing
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:If I wanted to get into tabletop grogging, what would be the best gateway drug?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
A fully automated Unconditional Surrender would own 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
I'm up for that!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
It's historical if the japanese had crappy signal secrecy at the time
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
For Rule the Waves I take it the order number is not the registration number, correct?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Still don't have my code 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
One of my 27.5k BCs managed to win a war in RTW single-handed. It was just around the transition to B and Japan had busted up my fleet of CLs that I had stationed in Tsingtao thanks to the surprise attack. I sent one of my recently constructed BCs (the Molkte) to East as I and it just ran amok. It destroyed the under gunned BB that Japan had and then it was like a fox in a chicken coop. It was faster and more heavily armed than anything else afloat that Japan had. Who said that Battlecruisers are useless
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
I'm liking RTW but I need something to make it slightly fresher. Once you hit a formula that works, it seems to work in most games, especially at the start. For example, it's relatively easy to have CAs with 10 inch guns at the start and if you set them to raider status they will absolutely wreck anything the AI brings out (most legacy CAs will only have 6-7 inch guns). You can also have CLs that hover around the 5k boundary with loads of 6 inch guns: I had situations where my CLs were facing enemy CLs that only had 4-5 inch guns and I was regularly winning 1 vs 2 engagements.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2015 10:20
|
|