Yeah PFE is actually pretty good as well.
Yes he was.
Expensive but tempting, I loved Up Front in grad school. Luckily my lack of a wargaming friend will save me money.
Up Front was a great game to play. LIke Madmarcus,I lack any one to play this sort of thing with, but back in the day I loved the rather elegant card system.
I did. I have it in the garage. Still haven’t played it. Cards look good but beyond that I cant say. I bought it just in case it disappeared again. Happily that does not look likely.
Gettysburg: The Tide Turns:
Um, it feels like I’m just moving chits around. And it feels like a lot of animation busyness each turn. Not really grabbing me. I wouldn’t have purchased this if I hadn’t kickstarted it on Shenandoah’s reputation. Oh well, no big deal.
At least it never crashed in the first 11 turns.
Since this is the grognard thread I thought I would post a link to this here. Last video of the four-part series.
Brother Against Brother is on sale at Matrix until the 23rd. Half off so it’s $24.99.
Pasting a link would’ve killed ya? ;)
A true Grognard has the Matrix site bookmarked! :)
Yes, because a true Grognard is all about extra, unnecessary clicks and outdated interfaces. ;)
How many rivets are there in that link?
Oh, dude, you have no idea…
Here’s a You Tube video by James Allen:
Yes, that’s very true, but you’re still missing the point I think. A player may completely ignore this detail and still be good at the game. What does it matter to you if the detail is there when it’s largely irrelevant to know about, but it greatly satisfies those gamers who thrive on, as Brooski says, the “verisimilitude” of the available data. Someone on a general’s staff kept track of numbers of things, so why is it so silly to you that a gamer gets a lot more immersed when he can find that data too? There are basic “combat numbers” that summarize the numbers of things that a more casual player can rely on, and you really don’t need to know the combat calculations insofar as after a while you develop a feel for what you can expect with units in a certain state of readiness and size. Isn’t that how it is “in real life” warfare?
It’s really quite a remarkable product once you gain your legs on the basic components of the game model.
Yeah, I hear you, but here’s where I’m coming from. First, I’m not talking about numbers or data per se. It’s all in how it’s used, and what data it is. I love a bunch of data, but it’s all too easy to substitute quantity of numbers for actual systems design. Command Ops does a good job of having lots of numbers but also a sophisticated game system, where the player can pick and choose how much they get into. Pretty much every game by Koger or Grigsby, IMO, is the opposite–data overload to hide the fact that the essential game systems are weak or underdeveloped, at best.
I feel that a simulation that is built on this sort of framework, where you focus on quantifying the value of individual weapons and where the specific quanta of data the player works with is some form of “X thousand rifles, X dozen tanks of Y model,” is fundamentally a bad simulation. It might make a good game-like interactive product (and I sometimes do like to revel in the rivets), it can’t be good simulation or really a good “game,” because that sort of modeling I feel is essentially wrong-headed and inevitably will return ahistorical, unrealistic, and generally bizarre results in the long run.
In other words, sure, you can ignore it if you want, but it’s not about ignoring it because it isn’t my preferred way of playing. It’s about my strong belief that the basic design philosophy is flawed. It’s not that data isn’t immersive, it’s that all too often designers use masses of data to hide the flaws in the game. And adding more data, without the systems that actually use that data, and in such a way that the player can do something with that information that has a reasonable cause/effect relationship, to me is not fun.
Well that’s a little different from what I felt you were saying above. And I, personally, cannot rebut what you’re saying here because I’m not totally certain myself what goes into Grigsby’s War in the East combat resolution (nor do I know that much about the Command Ops combat model for that matter). Grigsby’s model seems to be different from Koger’s TOAW scheme – which I acknowledge was a little bizarre to me – but that could be illusory to me too. How familiar are you with Grigsby’s WitE combat model? And what, specifically, does the Command Ops system do differently? Certainly some equipment matters, like Pzkw Vs vs Pzkw IIIs, while some really does not, like jeeps (Koger). What I’m saying I guess is that quantifying some equipment is likely a good thing. Battle reports from WWII always talked about the number of tanks available for operations. That actually seems like a key stat for armored divisions.