Afghanistan '11 Is Great Enough For Its Own Thread


#1

It’s early, but this may very well end up my GOTY.

I rarely like what RPS has to say, but I do this time.


#2

While I agree with what you are saying above, I am disappointed this thread hasn’t be named Gafganistan or something.


#3

It’s Tim Stone, a.k.a. the only reason I ever pop in to RPS.

Granted I stopped reading ‘games press’ years ago, so if it doesn’t appear on Qt3, it’s invisible to me!


#4

The description of the end game makes it sound absolutely fascinating.


#5

If only I could change the thread headline. Tom?

Wait. I can? Since when? Anyway, I’d change it, but then y’all would bitch about searches.


#6

Ending apostrophe abuse is a good enough reason to change the title.


#7

You lost me,


#8

It’s own thread.


#9

It should be an apostrophe in the title, not an open quote.


#10

It seems @tgb123 has Norabunga-ed apostrophes now, huh?


#11

Corrected. I don’t know how that got by me.


#12

Also this should be a period, not a comma.

Please edit ASAP!!!


#13

He’s not going to fix the rest of the title? That’s hilarious but not exactly surprising.


#14

What’s wrong with rps? they have generally pretty good articles.

thanks for posting about this game! It looks fascinating, and I just skipped right past it on RPS the other day lol


#15

To me? Nothing really. I’ve just stopped reading all preview games media in the last few years. Tim Stone is about the sole writer aside from Tom that I read regularly.

Others, however, have bones to pick with RPS for reasons I won’t expand (because I don’t personally share, but get).


#16

This game lacks basic functionality from Vietnam 65: The ability to see a unit’s orders. Kind of unplayable this way, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.


#17

This game lacks basic functionality from Vietnam 65: The ability to see a unit’s orders. Kind of unplayable this way, and I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.

You hit on the one thing that really has been bothering me. The other thing was the keyboard shortcuts were changed around and I had to actually read the manual to figure out the new arrangement. I know right, what’s that all about?

Tom Mc


#18

I haven’t played it yet, but just from watching the stream I’m very interested.

It’s nice to see a wargame that finally takes logistics seriously and doesn’t just treat it as an afterthought. I expect a lot more interesting gameplay to come out of making decisions about logistics than rolling to see if armor got penetrated. And it actually lets you build roads! I haven’t seen a wargame that let me do that since Zulu War. More games should let you interact with the map like this and not just treat it as a surface to play on.

The “hearts & minds” stuff does seem naive to me. There’s an assumption that the entire population will potentially support you if you just visit them enough and build some infrastructure. The game would be more relevant to Afghanistan if it admitted that some part of the population will never be won over to your side.


#19

This game has me fascinated. Is it pretty serious in strategy and tactical depth? It is certainly well liked - is this a “grognard wargame”?


#20

I don’t remember that in Vietnam '65 at all, unless it was patched in way after release.[quote=“richardlgaines, post:19, topic:129039”]
Is it pretty serious in strategy and tactical depth? It is certainly well liked - is this a “grognard wargame”?
[/quote]

No real tactical depth. Lots of strategic depth, though.