Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Command Ops: Legend of the Blitzkrieg...

  1. #21
    Abecedarian Mage
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    He said no
    Posts
    187
    What does everyone think of Team Assault? It's not real time as it uses turns, but it certainly is squad tactical. And appears to be capable of doing urban.
    Please don't go on about how cool it is I like wargames. It gets old.
    Some of my comments are just me parroting his bitching.

  2. #22
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by GordianKnot View Post
    Awesome. I always felt RTS was better for tactical level battles than operational.
    It isn't. Real Time Strategy is practical only for strategic level games.

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonRimmer View Post
    CO at coy level works a treat at as it isn't realtime as such just continuous time but at it's slowest is about 10 times slower than any other RTS game. It's alot more manageable with the HQ sub system than any other non turn based game I've played.
    It's because it isn't a RTS game. RTS games = Dune II, Command & Conquer, Starcraft, Total Annihilation, etc.
    Games where you build bases, capture resources and create armies. The classical RTS is basically an abstracted war between states in miniature. The bases are your production capability - you can set up numerous bases just as a country can have multiple industrial centres. Groups of units are armies.

    Real time wargames are called "simulations" or "real time simulations" or "real time simulation games" - that's what I have found on developer websites and old game catalogues. In Polish fandom, they are called RTW - real time wargames.
    Last edited by Perturabo; 06-18-2012 at 10:30 PM.
    "And as the light embraces the wanderer,
    as knees bend as thought is obliterated,
    with the very moment that resistance has ceased,
    now, I am become death, the enemy of man."

  3. #23
    Abecedarian Mage
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    He said no
    Posts
    187
    If I had a dollar for every argument I had witnessed over terminology

    I don't much like the need to distinguish between turns and not turns. And really, once you say it has turns it is clearly not one that does not. And if it has no turns, well the game has no turns and who cares what letters you chose and what they spell. They are pretty much the same, you don't much get to regulate anything and the realism usually runs from absurd to merely pointless. If not for Panther Games making a fuss over credible command control, I suppose they would be no better than the rest.

    Needing to constantly hit a pause button just so you can make intelligent choices is sort of like why people wear safety boots. It's because you need them. Once you have made a pause button mandatory to make a game any fun, shouldn't you just go back to using turns? A computers processing power is a poor justification for not using turns.

    For the record, I don't think real time is better at tactical operational or strategic. And I have seen games I would not play in all 3 scales. Listing a top 5 games using no turns would be kinda hard considering I can't think of 3 that are even worth mention. There's Close Combat and Panther Games, and well I don't really care much for most of the rest of the industry. There's always something about the game that screams out you should have designed this with turns.
    Please don't go on about how cool it is I like wargames. It gets old.
    Some of my comments are just me parroting his bitching.

  4. #24
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Joan d'Arc View Post
    And if it has no turns, well the game has no turns and who cares what letters you chose and what they spell. They are pretty much the same, you don't much get to regulate anything and the realism usually runs from absurd to merely pointless.
    No. There's a great difference in scale, realism/unrealism, level of abstraction, etc. between these types of games. For example how can a game where a tank has 1000 hit points and requires 10 hits from an always-hit weapon to be destroyed, while in another tank has armour with different thickness on various facings and can be destroyed (or not) with a single hit from a weapon with sufficient penetration be "the same"?
    How can a game with tanks having a gun range of 100m be the same as a game where tanks have a gun range of 3000m?
    How can a game where you manufacture new units be the same as a game where you have a limited amount of units?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joan d'Arc View Post
    Needing to constantly hit a pause button just so you can make intelligent choices is sort of like why people wear safety boots. It's because you need them. Once you have made a pause button mandatory to make a game any fun, shouldn't you just go back to using turns? A computers processing power is a poor justification for not using turns.
    Strawman argument. Most of real time simulation games don't require using pause to make intelligent choices.
    Also, strawman argument, computers processing power isn't the main argument for not using turns.
    Last edited by Perturabo; 06-19-2012 at 12:04 AM.
    "And as the light embraces the wanderer,
    as knees bend as thought is obliterated,
    with the very moment that resistance has ceased,
    now, I am become death, the enemy of man."

  5. #25
    Abecedarian Mage
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    He said no
    Posts
    187
    Never understand the use of strawman in debates. Well in the context that it gets used. I mean I do know the accepted definition, just not the insistence on the usage by so many. Sort of like troll I suppose, they use the word even if it doesn't really apply. Might almost say uttering strawman is a strawman. Sort of ironic I suppose.

    You insistence on calling a game a simulation for instance, you dodged my remark on the need for getting fussy on terminology and tried to substitute in a comment concerning intelligence. Go back and read it as I said it. A computers processing power is not a good reason for NOT using turns, I did not say it was required for using turns or not using turns. I said it was just wasted on avoiding turns in favour of applications that clearly require the muscle for all that is fancied up in non turn using simulations pretending to be more realistic.

    Games in real time are really not more realistic for being without turns. They are merely unregulated by predefined increments of time and as a result ordered and structured maps and terrain features. Not that turns and maps are magically better either of course. Because a bad design is a bad design regardless of how it was made. All designs should be measured on how the design functions in recreating the event.

    I have never been fond of health bars in games, but a health bar can be representative of a lot of things I suppose. Some games can also lose sight of a key objective in a game, that being something fun to do. Not sure about most wargamers, but I happen to know a lot of wargames simply can not recreate the real world at all. I watch documentaries of WW2 and I always marvel at how some of the leaders did such incredibly stupid things.
    Patton slapping the soldier was incredibly dumb of Patton. Patton nearly being sacked by the establishment was nearly incredibly stupid of the establishment. That Patton held so much credibility with the Germans, that they had the 15th army sit on its ass through out Overlord just gos to show how dumb sending him home would have been. If he had been sacked, the Germans would have been shocked of course, and they also wouldn't have left the 15th to wait for him. Funny thing though from a wargamer point of view, attacking the Pas de Calais would have been a dreadful mistake. And how does any of that real history ever get recreated in a wargame? It doesn't though.

    Hitler mismanaged the war so often, that it plays hell on designing grand strategy. How do you simulate mismanagement? Because to recreate WW2, you need to recreate all of it or why get in a fuss over some of it, like for instance the statistical details of a specific tank? Some times an abstraction is the only way to actually simulate something that can't be statisticallty recreated.

    My main reason for liking turns, is at my age, I simply can't play real time games. Just too old, it's a kids thing. That and carporal tunnel is not worth it to play some games.

    In the race to reflect a Tiger tank statistically, we often forget the humans in the tank. Ever been in something wearing several inches of armour plate that just got hit by something travelling at great speed even if it never had a chance of penetrating (which would not be apparent to the human in the tank is a lot of cases). That's a heck of a nerve wracking experience I am sure, wondering if it not penetrating was luck and not a lack of capacity to do so. Tanks would often break contact just because the infantry had to retreat. After all, it just takes one brave infantryman with something suitable to wreck a track to make a Tiger tank worthless to the crew inside it.
    Please don't go on about how cool it is I like wargames. It gets old.
    Some of my comments are just me parroting his bitching.

  6. #26
    Administrator Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    310
    Think I was told off over at Matrix. Twas only enthusiasm getting the better of me.

    Anyway I'm still looking forward to it, and the fact that new ones are planned nd the series will have some sor of evolution sounds very promising.

    Good luck Bil and Warren oh and sorry Arjuna..

  7. #27
    Administrator Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by Joan d'Arc View Post
    What does everyone think of Team Assault? It's not real time as it uses turns, but it certainly is squad tactical. And appears to be capable of doing urban.
    Terrible game, was on the beta and just couldn't face it. They are now with Paradox working on a Dwarf game which looks streets ahead in the graphic department, they obviously had the skills and just needed the tools and maybe alot more support to produce a polished product which TA isn't. Worse game for a long time released by Slitherine\Matrix.

  8. #28
    Administrator Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by Perturabo View Post
    It isn't. Real Time Strategy is practical only for strategic level games.


    It's because it isn't a RTS game. RTS games = Dune II, Command & Conquer, Starcraft, Total Annihilation, etc.
    Games where you build bases, capture resources and create armies. The classical RTS is basically an abstracted war between states in miniature. The bases are your production capability - you can set up numerous bases just as a country can have multiple industrial centres. Groups of units are armies.

    Real time wargames are called "simulations" or "real time simulations" or "real time simulation games" - that's what I have found on developer websites and old game catalogues. In Polish fandom, they are called RTW - real time wargames.
    If you read the thread I call it continuous time not real time. I just compared it to RTS as Gordian mentioned them. I'd never call CO an RTS or realttime simulation or strategy or whatever, it's continuous time as it doesn't move along at a realtime rate.

  9. #29
    Abecedarian Mage
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    He said no
    Posts
    187
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonRimmer View Post
    Terrible game, was on the beta and just couldn't face it. They are now with Paradox working on a Dwarf game which looks streets ahead in the graphic department, they obviously had the skills and just needed the tools and maybe alot more support to produce a polished product which TA isn't. Worse game for a long time released by Slitherine\Matrix.
    Jason, I think I will call you mikey Mikey hates everything (you can google that or just type it into Youtube I guess ).
    Are you suggesting Zeal has abandoned Slitherine, or merely working with Paradox for a game that is clearly not a wargame (Dwarfs) which I wouldn't expect Slitherine would be ideally interested in for logical reasons.
    I haven't really detected anything graphically lacking in the game (TA) and it being turn based, I doubt it has pathing issues like the non turn using designs. Could you elaborate on what you think was it's short comings?
    Please don't go on about how cool it is I like wargames. It gets old.
    Some of my comments are just me parroting his bitching.

  10. #30
    Mage’s Assistant
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brentwood, TN and Cheyenne Wyoming
    Posts
    101
    Odd that I never bought Command Ops, maybe it is time I do so. Anyone wanna convince me to do it??

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
footer