WWII is the best choice for an Operational Level Wargame

#1wjhaeringPosted 1/11/2008 8:25:46 PM
I've been thinking about all this moaning from the "professional" reviewers about how tired WWII is as a wargaming topic. I think this is because they mainly look at wargames from a FPS perspective. What they seem to fail to realize is that there are not a whole lot of options for a historical based operational level wargame. In tactical and PFS games, given the sale, you can easily do more modern games. It's quite hard in Operational level games. Norm Koger did in TOAW, but this was as an add on to the original WWII based game. To come up with the same number of scenarios as you get with PT you'd have to cover a lot of wars that many people my not have much of an interest in.

The other choice is to go back in time. While an option, I doubt that this would be well received. Selling Napoleonic or American Civil games would probably be even harder. WWI in many cases would not be very appealing either.

There are many reasons why most Operational Level historically based wargames focus on WWII. I'm guessing that most of these have never occurred to the "professional" game reviewers that are criticizing PT for being one of them.
---
Bill Haering
#2Omegaman007Posted 1/11/2008 10:50:36 PM

I think I agree with you. What we are seeing is "professional" reviewers not approaching their review of this game professionally. People are tired of the WW2 genre. I understand that. There was a huge explosion of various FPS World War 2 games and at this point every time a new one comes out it feels like they are beating a dead horse.

So when they sit down to review a turn-based WW2 strategy game they have these expectations of what they know about WW2. It is my guess that they only know WW2 as a setting for the other games they've played, and not as history that actually happened. So the attention to detail that this game has is completely overlooked. The depth of the strategy is comepletely ignored because the "average reviewer" wants to see a streamlined game that is easy to play.

So when a real game with some immense depth to it comes along people don't know what to do with it because they've been spoon-fed so many "easy games" they don't understand what a real challenge is. They don't want to take the time to properly assess situations and think about how they should approach things. You show these people the rulebook to the old boardgame "Third Reich" and they would have a heart attack on the spot.

So maybe in a sense the reviewers aren't far off. People who understand WW2 and what happened will and do have a great appreciation for the authenticity of this game (even if we do see history buffs citing little complaints here and there). Whereas people who want their streamlined Halo experience clearly won't like this.

Still, it is too bad that there is not a reviewer with the knowledge and experience with the former. That's where the strength of player reviews will truly shine through.

As I've said before, this game exceeded my greatest expectations and in my mind is the ultimate must have strategy game. I got my dad the game for Christmas (he doesn't even own a DS, has to borrow my sisters) and he can't put it down at times. This game is a WW2 buff's dream come true.

#3JP_SartrePosted 1/13/2008 10:24:25 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing something like Talonsoft's Battleground series ACW and Napoleonic games for DS, especially w/PBM. I still play Antietam and The Borodino games that they made. Also, a port of Fantasy General or HOMM would be nice. An Over the Reich
style TBS air war game would be good. Sadly, not enough market for them. I play War in the Desert, Blitzkreig in Europe on my Ipaq, they're pretty good.
---
"You're pathetic and You're weak-You're a fake and You lie.
I'd like to crush You like an insect, but I don't wanna do the time." -Henry Rollins
#4Wisker73Posted 1/13/2008 10:21:02 PM
Reviewers complaining about the WWII setting being over used are idiots. When the setting is used in fps it hardly shows us the same kinds of units or captures any of the scope of the war.

I don't think anyone would have fun playing a WWI game. Trench warfare doesn't make for a very dynamic or exciting game I don't think.
The Spanish civil war was somewhat like a dress rehearsal for WWII. In future WWII games it'd be kinda nice to see that or maybe more of the pacific theater.
Most table top wargamers do WWII stuff. So I doubt it'll ever get really lame.

Anyone played people's general? That had a great story IMHO.
I actually prefer the modern setting. The story seems more dramatic if it could be tomorrow's news. They just take more research to come up with a realistic scenario for. Not like the campaign's in dai senryaku VII (which is a great game anyway).

I think the reviewers would be won over by more appealing graphical styles(advance wars)and sound. Both factors developers of these games never spend much time on.
#5JP_SartrePosted 1/14/2008 4:39:23 AM
"Anyone played people's general? That had a great story IMHO."

Indeed, People's General was very good. As were the East Front, West Front and especially
Rising Sun by Talonsoft. Steel Panthers DS, anyone?
---
"You're pathetic and You're weak-You're a fake and You lie.
I'd like to crush You like an insect, but I don't wanna do the time." -Henry Rollins
#6wjhaering(Topic Creator)Posted 1/14/2008 10:29:05 AM
Steel Panthers DS yes that sounds like a good idea. I'd buy it. However, the small screen may make the development hard. SP had units with firing ranges of 20+ hexes. I think the PT screen is something like 6x8 hexes or 8x8 and covers most of the action for must units (airplane movement exceeds this though) I'd hate to see hexes smaller as PT is about the limit for me.

Anyway Steel Panthers DS still sounds like a great game.
---
Bill Haering
#7cpl_trimPosted 1/14/2008 1:46:22 PM
Yes, it's very hard to top WW2 for fast-moving action in a historical wargame. Any wargame covering the post-WW2 period which stays within the realm of the factual is of necessity going to focus on a historical conflict with a more narrow appeal than the titanic struggle which was WW2.

Or else, take a People's General approach with a Larry Bond/Tom Clancy styled hypothetical conflict, or the HPS games which feature the Warsaw Pact vs. NATO. Personally, I like Dai Senryaku VII Exceed's approach of making things very abstract. Just supply the player with the realistic modern units, play as good guy Blue vs, OPFOR Red and for the most part the nature of the conflict and operational scale is left to the player's imagination. TacOps 4 is another good one in this respect, although at the squad and vehicle level scale, there's no way it can be construed as depicting the action on a operational or theater level scale.

---
Steve
#8JP_SartrePosted 1/14/2008 6:41:16 PM
Sudden Strike would be a good wwII port. Best RTS game ever!
---
"You're pathetic and You're weak-You're a fake and You lie.
I'd like to crush You like an insect, but I don't wanna do the time." -Henry Rollins
#9windncrPosted 1/15/2008 4:09:27 PM
I wouldnt say dream come true, but its a pretty solid game.. and portable.

WW2 represents the ideal elements of a game, not just war game.

An "evil" conquering army that has technological superiority. (Germany and Japan overwhelming wins to start)
A period of dark times for the good guys as they hold out against the onslaught. (Continued rolling of the armies)
Small victories used to rally the troops. (Doolittle's Raid and Battle of Britian)
Fundamental turning point. (Battle of Midway, Battle of Moscow)
The good guys strike back. (Leyte Gulf, D-Day, Leningrad)
The crushing blow to end it (Berlin and Heroshima)

It just happens to be based in reality with all the techinical details very well documented.