Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

Post Reply
User avatar
Bigfish
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Bigfish »

Hello,

first i'm from Germany and my english ist not as good it should be. [8D]

Last week i bought 4 games from Matrixgames:
- The Operational Art of War 3
- Carriers at War
- Flashpoint Germany and
- Commander: Europe at War.

Last year i bought: Harpoon 3.

Now i'm a little frustrated [>:]

In the 80s (C 64) and the early 90s (PC) i've played many strategic games and simulations. Most of this games were pretty fine. If i see the current games i think it can't be.


In Detail:
I've played classic Harpoon hours of hours - a very good game, good gui, good game control. I've played Harpoon II only a short time because of limintaions of my Hardware. When i bought Harpoon 3 i hopped the problmes of Harpoon II were solved. No they are not solved - the GUI ist still from the 90s -> tm.asp?m=1196933&mpage=1&key=��


Now i played "Commander: Europe at War". I think this is a good game with a good gui and a good game control. There are a huge Map - i like it. But in comparison with "Strategic Command 2" there are much fewer units and partial a less detailed engine. I think the game control, map and gui from C:EaW and the units and engine from SC2 would be a great turn based war game.


I bougth "Carriers at War" in hope this would be an adequat Successor of "Carrier Strike 1942". But again i have to say: bad gui, bad game control - to much colors which draw off the attention from the game. The old CS is similar to CAW but have a much better game control.


Same with "Flashpoint Germany" - a very intressting game because it is located in the modern warfare of the 80s. Most turn based strategic games are located in WW II or WW I. But also the game control is not very good. The gui is still ok - not fantastic but ok.


And then "The operational Art of War 3": I got a shock when i first seen the gui on my screen. Also i think the game control is a desaster...



What i want: Demo Versions from all games for free download - i had never bought TOAW3 when i had a chance to evaluate it. Same with Flashpoint and CAW.


And then i'm searching an answer: Why have current turn based strategic games so badly GUIs und game controls? Most of the games in the 80s and 90s are very good. Why it is not possible to build such a game with intuitively to use GUIs and game controls for Windows?


In a few weeks "Harpoon - Commanders Edition" will be released - i hope this will to be a good new version of classic harpoon. Waiting for the things to come...

regards
Bigfish
User avatar
Neilster
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:52 pm
Location: Devonport, Tasmania, Australia

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Neilster »

Welcome Bigfish. Trust me, your English is better than many of the supposed native English speakers here. [:D]

I'd stick with TOAW 3. Perhaps you could try downloading one of the play-guides available. I initially didn't take to the original but got into it when one of my friends persisted with it. I was looking for more of a strategic game but once I understood that it's often played at lower scales and learned the interesting aspects of grand operational, operational and grand tactical combat, I really enjoyed it. Once you get used to them, the controls become second nature. I mostly use the mouse-based menus. If you're interested in strategic gaming, check out the World in Flames thread, even though it's about a year away. A year seems like nothing in comparison to how long this has been coming. [:D]

Cheers, Neilster
Cheers, Neilster
User avatar
JudgeDredd
Posts: 8356
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Scotland

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by JudgeDredd »

Willkommen BigFish. Du Deutchser bist besser als mein Englisch.

Some of your points are valid, but I don't think you can say Carriers at War has a bad gui. What I mean is, you can say that and believe it if you want but I personally think Carriers at War has a very intuitive and easy to use interface.

The game itself is lacking though. Too few scenarios (seems to be the signature feature of SSG games!), limited map and on the border of being "too simple" - even for me.
Alba gu' brath
User avatar
Bigfish
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Bigfish »

Hi there,

thanks for answers...

@Neilster: Please understand me! When i read the description of TOAW3 i think this is an intresting game - otherwise i hadn't bought it. But the "optic" of the game is bad - there are dozens of buttons on the right side and many "long text" menu selections - this goes better. Look at "Commander: Europe at War" - this is a turn based strategic game with a hex-map too. But you can understand the game controls within a minute without reading the manual. My only negative critic to CEaW is the missing complexity like Strategic Command 2 and the limited number of scenarios but it is only a step away from that.

If you get messages in CEaW they will be short and clear. In TOAW3 you get a huge screen with minitext and infos you do not need. Why are there infos about nukes in an WW II Europe Scenario? Ok this a possible Option for a WW II Game but first i think TOAW3 is to generally developed. You do not need a perfect 3D graphic in this cartegory of games but the TOAW graphic looks like DOS or C64. Many elements are wondering. I click an airgoup and get an hair cross to click on an enemy icon. I click the next airgroup i get nothing. I think if i select one of my units there have to be a set of icons for move, attack, upgrade and so on. Everyone who knows about strategic games feels directly familar with this and began to play. In this case reading the manual is only necessary for the special details of a game like the fight-equations.

Especially if you are not an native english speaker and the game itself as well as the game manual are only in english a good game control and gui is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately there are only a minimum of translated turn based strategy games and most of them are bad. I like this category of games very much, but a "german market" is not existent, so i have to by in the USA - Because of this an available evaluation copy is like a gold nugget.

I will give every of the games i bought a second chance, but the first impression is bad.

e.g. my screen resolution is 1600x1200 pix i think this also a problem for TOAW3.


@JudgeDredd:
Have you ever played Carrier Strike 1942-1944? Both - cstrike and CAW - have the same game principle but cstrike can be much easier controlled by the player. The game functions a quit identically - there are only a few other options. The problem of cstrike is that it is a DOS game having trouble with Windows XP. The game controls of CAW are scattered over the hole gui and not grouped by functions - some controls have normal buttons, others are text to click and also others are icons in the game itself. You have controls and info stats at the task bar at top, at left , at bottom and ingame - this is to much - especially if you are able to give same ordes by two or three different ways.

If CAW is to simple i do not know at this time - i will spend more time on it at the weekend. The only thing i've noticed that there is no campaign??? Only single scenarios are really not very much. In cstrike you can fight through the south pacific war theatre - you need about three to four real days if you fight the monthly (only if both sides have a minimum of two fleet carriers available - otherwise a month passes) campaign battles from the first battle at the coral see map to the last battle located on the phillipines map - Warning don't forget to eat and breathe in this days [8|].

Also i hope in the future the game developers think about the users and not only on developing [8D]. In germany we saying "weniger ist mehr" -> directly translated "less is more". In this case it is meaning a good gui and game control does not need dozens of buttons...

regards
Bigfish
Phatguy
Posts: 1348
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: Buffalo,ny

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Phatguy »

I can feel your pain when it comes to demos...At roughly 70 bucks a pop i'd like to know if the game's my type of thing...I will pay that much for one I want but there a quite a few out there that I'm on the edge for. If I had a demo I'd be more inclined to crack the wallet and remove the CC.
My life is complete. 1000 Matrix posts.....
Kuokkanen
Posts: 3692
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:16 pm

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Kuokkanen »

What i want: Demo Versions from all games for free download - i had never bought TOAW3 when i had a chance to evaluate it. Same with Flashpoint and CAW.
...
You do not need a perfect 3D graphic in this cartegory of games but the TOAW graphic looks like DOS or C64.
When there aren't demos available, check out screenshots, read reviews, read AARs (After Action Report = player's report of played scenario), ask recommendations, check out if there are demos available of earlier versions... In case of TOAOW3, where you complained about graphics and user interface, screenshots alone would have told more of game than thousand words. In addition there is availalbe demo for TOAOW1, which at least looks very much like TOAOW3.

That's the way with turn based games. These guys don't have million $ (or £, €, whatever) budgets to work with and sales aren't counted in millions either. We turn based wargamers are marginal group and it shows. But graphics shouldn't be that great of an issue: just couple years ago I played Empire (PC version with graphics) and it seemed just fine to me. Right now I'm playing around with SPWAW, WinSPMBT and Combat Mission 2, all have outdated graphics which could be from last millennia but they fill their purpose.

What is different to games of previous millennia is depth and accuracy of data which don't necessarily show in GUI. Let's make simple comparison: Steel Panthers from year 1995 (some say it's from 1994) takes 30 megabytes (MB) of hard disk space without music tracks (played from CD). Steel Panthers World at War (SPWAW, modified Steel Panthers 3 that plays like the original from '95) with Enhanced DV (modification, or mod) eats OVER GIGABYTE! Now that includes music, scenarios (LOTS of them), campaigns (not Mega ones), manuals, all kind of editors... * load of data compared to the original. In addition gameplay is bit more realistic and historically more accurate. I see some differences outright (more weapons and stuff, differences in gameplay, small differences with GUI etc.), some that I don't understand at all.

But what is best part with SPWAW, is that it is available FOR FREE! Just try it, and if you ever happen to run out of scenarios and campaigns, you have all the tools to create more. There is also payable version of game that includes something called Mega-Campaigns. More info about those in SPWAW related sites.

Especially if you are not an native english speaker and the game itself as well as the game manual are only in english a good game control and gui is absolutely necessary.
I'm not native english speaker myself, and if I would need speak it, I guess I wouldn't make much sense. But I know how to read it and my typing is about as good as yours. I read lots of english literature and Internet and games have influenced my english skills greatly. Use and practice are keywords here.

So what does this have to do with wargames? I have found through hard way it is important to read manuals and understand them. In addition there are strategy guides and forums (like this one here) which teach and improve skills of players. Those can be very important, particularly when you start playing against other humans instead artificial insanity.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars
User avatar
Bigfish
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Bigfish »

Hi,
When there aren't demos available, check out screenshots, read reviews, read AARs (After Action Report = player's report of played scenario), ask recommendations, check out if there are demos available of earlier

Sorry but Screenshots are unsuitable for the evaluation of game controls. Before i bought TAOW3 i've looked on the screenshots multiple times - but when i saw the real game - uh... - And when the english language is a problem AARs are not an good idea - there are too many unkown vocabularies to make an adquate translation. A computer game is still a game. If it is necessary to have the mice in one hand and an dictionary in the other hand to play a game - then there is not much fun.
That's the way with turn based games. These guys don't have million $ (or £, €, whatever) budgets to work with and sales aren't counted in millions either. We turn based wargamers are marginal group and it shows.

I know about that! But enough games show that it is possible to develop good GUIs and game controls. Also badly developed GUIs and game controls are one point at the reason-list because there are so few turn based wargamers - I think this is one of the big points at that list.

I read lots of english literature and Internet and games have influenced my english skills greatly. Use and practice are keywords here.

Fine but therefore you need time - if you have enough time to spend on it you are a lucky guy. There humans out there (like me) who have enough trouble with there native language - so a foreign language could be a really problem - especially if you need it for spare time activities.

About that i think for a developer it is only a little problem for releasing a demo version. Because there are only a few turn based wargamers i think the problem of pirat copies is negligibly in this community. Otherwise there is a chance to increase the community if those games are "easier" to play because of better game controls and GUIs.

Please understand my critic on the games not as bashing. My intention is to show the developers that there is a problem which should be adressed. Because of the costs of usabillity tests one possible solution for the devloper is to give the release candidate to ingenuous people like wives or the own childrens. If you are the developer of what ever you are normally to close at the project to see the really problems. Look: Sometimes i am writing articles wich will be published in a technical magazine, i show this articles a friend to do corrections of grammar and language before i send them to the editorial staff  - why should something like this to be impossible for gamedesigners?

Regards
Bigfish
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Charles2222 »

Maybe a good temporary solution to this sort of problem of language, is to have a number of cards, perhaps 3 or 4, explaining in some major languages the gui (a card for each language). I suppose such handy cards would be more useful with boxed games, but even pdf's might prove useful.
 
About ordinary pdf manuals though, couldn't a non-english speaker run chunks of the manual through an online translator, and then copy the results into a file? It would take a lot of time with large manuals, and charts are liable to make this difficult, but I do wonder if this wouldn't be the only recourse at this time? 
User avatar
Bigfish
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Bigfish »

Hi JudgeDredd,

ok i undestood what you mean about that CAW is to simple. In the historic Pearl scenario playing the Allies you just need to save the fleet out of Pearl sailing in southly direction. You win the game. If the game would be more realistic this scenario have to start at 7:55 o'clock in the morning with the first bomb droped at the american base!

Also i miss a feature: Why i can't detach ships from one TG and merge them to another?

I think my critic on the game controls is correct. If i compare with Carrier Strike the game controls of Carriers at War are realy complicated. To set up an air strike are too many sad things. If you ever get a chance to take a look at Carrier Strike 1942 please do so. Then you will know what i mean with game controls.

greetings from germany to england
Bigfish
Kuokkanen
Posts: 3692
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:16 pm

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Kuokkanen »

If it is necessary to have the mice in one hand and an dictionary in the other hand to play a game
Just had flashback of myself as about 10 year old playing Star Control 2 [X(]
Good thing I sometimes got my mom translate long conversations, though nowadays I'm better with english than she is [:D]
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

MekWars
Phatguy
Posts: 1348
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:08 pm
Location: Buffalo,ny

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by Phatguy »

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
What i want: Demo Versions from all games for free download - i had never bought TOAW3 when i had a chance to evaluate it. Same with Flashpoint and CAW.
...
You do not need a perfect 3D graphic in this cartegory of games but the TOAW graphic looks like DOS or C64.
When there aren't demos available, check out screenshots, read reviews, read AARs (After Action Report = player's report of played scenario), ask recommendations, check out if there are demos available of earlier versions... In case of TOAOW3, where you complained about graphics and user interface, screenshots alone would have told more of game than thousand words. In addition there is availalbe demo for TOAOW1, which at least looks very much like TOAOW3.

That's the way with turn based games. These guys don't have million $ (or £, €, whatever) budgets to work with and sales aren't counted in millions either. We turn based wargamers are marginal group and it shows. But graphics shouldn't be that great of an issue: just couple years ago I played Empire (PC version with graphics) and it seemed just fine to me. Right now I'm playing around with SPWAW, WinSPMBT and Combat Mission 2, all have outdated graphics which could be from last millennia but they fill their purpose.

What is different to games of previous millennia is depth and accuracy of data which don't necessarily show in GUI. Let's make simple comparison: Steel Panthers from year 1995 (some say it's from 1994) takes 30 megabytes (MB) of hard disk space without music tracks (played from CD). Steel Panthers World at War (SPWAW, modified Steel Panthers 3 that plays like the original from '95) with Enhanced DV (modification, or mod) eats OVER GIGABYTE! Now that includes music, scenarios (LOTS of them), campaigns (not Mega ones), manuals, all kind of editors... * load of data compared to the original. In addition gameplay is bit more realistic and historically more accurate. I see some differences outright (more weapons and stuff, differences in gameplay, small differences with GUI etc.), some that I don't understand at all.

But what is best part with SPWAW, is that it is available FOR FREE! Just try it, and if you ever happen to run out of scenarios and campaigns, you have all the tools to create more. There is also payable version of game that includes something called Mega-Campaigns. More info about those in SPWAW related sites.

Especially if you are not an native english speaker and the game itself as well as the game manual are only in english a good game control and gui is absolutely necessary.
I'm not native english speaker myself, and if I would need speak it, I guess I wouldn't make much sense. But I know how to read it and my typing is about as good as yours. I read lots of english literature and Internet and games have influenced my english skills greatly. Use and practice are keywords here.

So what does this have to do with wargames? I have found through hard way it is important to read manuals and understand them. In addition there are strategy guides and forums (like this one here) which teach and improve skills of players. Those can be very important, particularly when you start playing against other humans instead artificial insanity.

But looking at screenshots, reading reviews and AAR's is not the same thing, is it? A really well written AAR can enhance a poor game and a poorly conceived AAR can ruin it for a excellent game.
I know that Matrix does have a policy on demos, but I happen to disagree with it. A while back I bought Birth of America(brick-n-mortar store) because I played the demo. I looked over For Liberty, and while it did look interesting I assumed there was no demo so let it go and bought BOA.A few days ago I shockingly found a demo for For Liberty, played it and loved it. Now when I get back from my trip to Texas I plan on buying it. So now Matrix will some more of my money. I don't like to buy games(unless its a must buy for me) unseen, especially at 70 bucks a pop, so for me a demo is essential for titles that i'm interested in but still straddling the fence on.
My life is complete. 1000 Matrix posts.....
User avatar
*Lava*
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:44 pm
Location: On the Beach

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by *Lava* »

ORIGINAL: Bigfish

When i read the description of TOAW3 i think this is an intresting game - otherwise i hadn't bought it. But the "optic" of the game is bad - there are dozens of buttons on the right side and many "long text" menu selections - this goes better.

Dude!

Who uses the buttons?

Well... maybe some people. I think the only buttons I use are the zoom and supply button.

Get past the button thing and you will find a great game.

Ray (alias Lava)
User avatar
ilovestrategy
Posts: 3611
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:41 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by ilovestrategy »

Wow, you guys made me think of all those hours I played Age of Rifles! I miss that game a lot [:(]
After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!
Image
SMK-at-work
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: New Zealand

RE: Current Strategic Games vs. older games

Post by SMK-at-work »

Hey I use the TOAW buttons - I don't have enough brain cells left to remember the shortcuts!! :)
 
And it's stil a great game - long learning curve, but if you can find a scenario you like you can play it dozens of times to figure out what's happening - for me teh scenario was the battle of Lodz, 1914, from eth "Forgotten Battles of WW1" series - I must have played that 30 or 40 times, mostly getting done like a dog's dinner!!
 
And yes I got sick of it a few times....but I kept coming back.....it had me hooked.
 
For me the great strategic game was USAAF by SSI from teh mid 80's, played on an Apple II - the US daylight bombing campaign with 1-day turns.  similar but of shorter duration was "Fighter Command" - the Battle of Britain, also by SSI.
 
I've not seen games of their simple subtlety since them quite frankly.
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”