Tell us you ideal PC game!

[H Gilmer]

I know it could never be done, but an open ended game of WW2. You are enlisted or drafted and you choose where you want to go and all the while the war is going on in every part of the world! It's like a real time war is going on (and it does not need to be anything other than single player, in my opinion) and you can pick anything you want to do! Enlist in the Navy right after Pearl Harbor, or enlist in the French Army right before the Blitzkrieg. And you play it out real time like a real person would have. You might be participating in the land battle in France or Poland or you might even be participating instead in the land battles in Asia! You get constant updates on the war and what is going on near you (and far away) and even updates on other soldiers you may have saved that went on to do heroic actions. I don't know. The idea seems so jumbled up... and everything you do has an outcome - a reaction to your action....

[Lion9]

I have been around awhile, around the rural and city-block and back, and down some damned mean streets too, and have... survived. And so, I am not very often *astonished* by every stray eidolon. But I can say this much WRT WW2 computer gaming:

I AM absolutely *astonished* that there has not been one single WW2 ETO GS hex-game made -- that is worth an incisor-bitten plug-nickel.

I suppose it pretty much says it all that "Clash of Steel," an older DOS game -- remains the very best of a sad and sorry lot. Before I even proceed one millimeter further, sure, it goes without saying -- JMO.

What astonishes me the most, is this -- game-makers these days are necessarily younger and more attuned to the wishes, needs and desires of the fresher generations, X, Y and Z I do believe they have been labeled. Well, that is surpassing strange in one way -- there HAS to be an "antecedent" to everything -- now extant, no? Going back to the "big-bang" or whatever meta-physic pleases you, anyhow. So, what? We had U, V and W gens preceding the X, Y and Z'ers?

Anyway, the game-makers of Now tend to discount one simple thing -- those "grogs" between the ages of oh, let's say -- 45 to 65, cut their tabletop gaming teeth on TWO very well known, and very often PURCHASED games. Third Reich/A3R and World in Flames. Two games that are WW2 ETO GRAND STRATEGY -- hex games. 50 miles-per-hex.

And so, my *astonishment" remains -- why haven't any game-makers understood that there are very vast numbers of these U, V and W -- game players? That this cohort, age 45-65, predictably has MUCH more money to spend. Has long-standing devotion to a simple paradigm. A paradigm that is popular for a reason -- it works.

OK, now we have the arrival of SWiE. In rudimentary, but aesthetically pleasing form. Top-down map with decent graphics. Hexed and at the desirable scale, IE, ~ 50-miles-per-hex. Desirable because you can actually -- get a complete game -- done! Desirable because the ancient dynamic is in play, and fairly apparent -- Good Guys VS Evil RE-incarnated. Who wouldn't like to be the very one to: a) become god-or-Michael Archangel-like and annihilate a demonic foe, the Nazis? or, b) play the Bad Guys (indolently, you know, not REALLY serious) and succeed where the Devil himself (Hitler) failed. THAT is much of the appeal. That you can indeed take either side and realize real or subconscious fanatasies. BE a lizard-brain or, instead the Cowboy in the White Hat who saves the Woeful World -- from itself, it's shadow-side, it's own worst dreams and imaginings.

Back to *astonished* -- why hasn't this game been made? In the case of SWiE (rife with potential) the developer has come right out (yesterday) and flat-out stated that he has no intention of doing much of anything much with his genre game, it is -- oh woebetide -- a "throw-away title," and for 15 bucks, who can complain?

Yep, I have gotten too far along here, word-wise, and mod-day attention spans are volatile and short-circuited, I appreciate, so I end with this simple declaration, and once again, yeh, it is JMO... IF some game-maker WERE to actually make a good (not superior) WW2 ETO GS game, why, I would suppose that he (very unlikely to be a "she") would make... millions. Not hyperbole, nope. Millions. BUT -- it would have to have a "good" (not sorrowful or lame) artificial intel.

LOL, why ask -- why, eh? Don't ask me!

[Joan d'Arc]

Lion you are so in my camp, we are so on the same page.

I have A3R and WiF here. Alas they are big as tables go especially WiF. Bt the designs, it's not rocket science, I can't fathom why someone hasn't just plain ripped off the designs and not fussed with copyright and just basically cloned the game and given it another name. The designs don't need to be virtually identical, but it wouldn't be so bad if they used all the parts that worked.

Subs don't need to be counters nor do bombers. You spend X amount of national output, you get X amount of military hardware, and if the opponent doesn't produce the counter the opponent gets trashed more and more as it adds up. I've yet to see a single WW2 grand strategy game escape the notion the subs have to be counters. Often wrecks the game when it fails to recreate the battle of the Atlantic. The air war over Europe is simply not going to happen in any grand strategy game I have ever seen.

And I can't even begin to wonder why computer AIs can't understand how to do Overlord, but they can do Barbarossa. What's with AIs being unable to cope with water barriers?

I don't recall Clash of Steel. Everyone thinks Strategic Command was a good successor (well they did when it was released). But it wasn't perfect. Every time you play it, the Allies promptly sink all the subs and presto the battle of the Atlantic is won in 39. After that, well Germany can win all of Europe if it likes, but it dies or begins to when the US enters. Only a very incompetent Allied Player loses England, even against another human.

The best I have ever seen a potential grand strategy concept wargame is Victory the Blocks of War, meant to be red vs blue in a quasi WW2 setting. It uses blocks, so you get mystery (what is the unit how big is it). You are not hemmed in by history as it is only like WW2. It has random map orientation and it is as good with land and sea and air. It can even do more than 2 player mode. This game as a computer game would like sweep all other WW2 grand strategy designs out of the running. It would only need a research and diplomacy layer added on.

[GordianKnot]

Subs don't need to be counters nor do bombers. You spend X amount of national output, you get X amount of military hardware, and if the opponent doesn't produce the counter the opponent gets trashed more and more as it adds up. I've yet to see a single WW2 grand strategy game escape the notion the subs have to be counters. Often wrecks the game when it fails to recreate the battle of the Atlantic. The air war over Europe is simply not going to happen in any grand strategy game I have ever seen.

I've always been bothered by the way naval units (and air units for that matter) are modelled in strategic level games. Like floating divisions. In fact, it was the primary motivating factor for me creating my own game.

My plan is to have naval units represented by task forces and wolf packs. They will always operate out of a port and the unit markers will actually be represented on map in their port of operation. They will be assigned missions and zones where the missions are executed. Zones are collections of sea hexes.

So for example, a German Wolfpack unit may be assigned to a port in Western France after the fall. It could then be given an anti-convoy patrol order and assigned a collection of hexes to operate in. The more hexes you assign, the larger area it covers but the less % chance it has of intercepting a convoy. The farther the zones are from its port, the less time it will be able to perform its mission as it will have to go back more often for fuel.

All naval movement other than transport, port transfer and amphibious escort will happen in the interphase between turns and you will get a report of the results along with markers to show where the action happened. Clicking on a marker will pop up a report of the action.

Hopefully such a system will allow for more realistic and intuitive gameplay.

[Joan d'Arc]

That is sheer inspired brilliance Gord, I hope a lot of designers see that concept.

[GordianKnot]

That is sheer inspired brilliance Gord, I hope a lot of designers see that concept.

Wow. Thanks. I sure hope others feel that way.

[Perturabo]

A skirmish wargame about an ex-company owner killing corrupt government clerks that destroyed his business. The game would be extremely brutal with ability to skin enemies alive and stuff like that.

[H Gilmer]

How about this one:

A MMO, first person for Gettysburg. Your players log in every night and they get to choose each sides. The officers that are represented on the field would be the real life people with the most experienced earned. You earn experience. You lose experience for doing stupid things like charging by yourself against defensive positions.

You can upgrade weapons from a long list of weapons used in the civil war.

I think someone may be doing something similar to this right now, but not sure how it is going.

[Joan d'Arc]

Been my notice that 90% or more of the people playing MMOs have the intellectual qualities of a sponge when it comes to team work and coherent military planning. The remaining 10% never have the pleasure of actually gaming in anything remotely resembling credible military action as a result. Too much gaming is done by too many people who expect to be able to game as if the world revolves around them. Yes boys I know about guilds etc, I'm quoting long time hard core gamers both young and old.

If you want a credible experience, I think you will need re enactments.

[insa80]

Need for Speed: ProStreet