Well he doesn’t cite Glantz in that particular video. It might have something to do with Glantz publishing terrible maps.
Quote for truth. I even ordered one of these years ago. It really wasnt much better
I am, right at this moment, playing Redvers’ Reverse from Legion Wargames, which I think I found out about from The Players’ Aid quite some time ago and finally broke down and bought when I found a good price. I will be honest: the game system seems very cool and unique, and I’m sure once I come to grips with everything I will find it very enjoyable, but I am finding that process excruciating. The rules are spread out across not only the book but also the map and a few charts, which I cannot for the life of me imagine why anybody ever thinks is a good idea, but I’ve definitely run across it more than once. It makes learning a nightmare.
Did you get the Barbarossa Derailed extra book with the maps? It has a cool tank driver picture on it! He’s going brrrmbbhrrrmmbbb I’m driving around but can’t find where I’m going because of these terrible maps!
Nothing. Should ever. Be on a player aid card. That isn’t in the rules. Period.
QFT. Should be engraved on a plaque or chiseled in stone, somewhere, for all game designers to see.
I’ve often dreamed of playing a game that looks a bit like this video. One where divisions/corps can kind of smoothly get pushed back and retreat or be over-run as the front line evolves in continuous time.
I vaguely regret that Road to Moscow never got beyond vapourware, but there was a post on it I saw once that suggests the beta reality was not…fun.
I had a copy of that beta. It was the ultimate example of concept >>> reality
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=891383&mpage=1&key=󙳧 Does this sound about fair?
That’s very interesting! I think the game I had in mind was a bit less ambitious and more arcade-like than the concept of Road To Moscow. Basically try to make the simulation a little higher level so that once you give a unit a stance and movement orders, there wouldn’t be as much need for a smart unit AI to implement the orders. Also not allowing intervention other than designing the plan seems rather odd from a player engagement standpoint.
Heh, I’m “bluemonday” in that exchange.
Yeah, I vaguely remember talking about that with Eddy. His review, if anything, was generous. A lot of the interface stuff was clumsy or didn’t work. And it was hard to tell what the combat model was doing.
The Command Ops system pretty much did what Road to Moscow tried to do, but Command Ops did it at a smaller scale, and at a time when the graphical representation issues were mostly solved. I think Road to Moscow started in the late 90’s when just getting the graphical engine to look good and smooth was a major technical hurdle.
I actually don’t think it would be a huge leap from Command Ops to a larger-scale Eastern Front wargame. Certainly at the level of what @MikeJ is suggesting. But I’m not a developer, so what do I know.
I’m shocked, shocked! I’ll phone Peter Hook…
I did it a little bit in Stakva/OKH kinda half ass, its pretty easy just throw some beziers between calculated key points based on units.
If I wasnt so behind on hobby projects its something I would love to do right. I agree that smooth “playing on a high level map” kind of vibe could be very cool if done well.
“Former EA exec as head of The Sims label and former CEO of Linden Labs Rod Humble announces ambitious Eastern Front wargame that will feature ‘smooth playing on a high-level map.’ It will be ‘very cool’ and ‘done well,” Humble promises.”
Hooky don’t talk to them chaps no more.
Oh and yeah the Glanz Smolensk Atlas isnt very good either if memory serves. I will dig it up and check but I think its pretty poor as well, alas.
He does such fantastic research and yet when it comes to maps, sigh.
Rod could go incognito and use a pseudonym, like Rodrigo Humilde or Roderic Modest.