And why shouldn't it be described in detail? While tooltips on GUI offer enough info to just jump in and play a bit, manuals are great for achieving deeper understanding on how to play effectively.
You're missing the point : all those details for details sake shouldn't even be in those games. <sigh> The type of wargames I like is where you're put in the commander's shoes and get to make the kind of decisions he historically had to make - nothing more, nothing less. In a typical pc wargame you have the emperor deciding on the color of the socks of 306th Soup Kitchen company.
Oh, you're talking about this thing. I thought that you're talking about BftB manual.
Same here. I really hated when they added the operational mini-game to Close Combat series. I wish there would be more wargames that at least try to simulate organization and command & control.
And which computer wargame has needlessly complex mechanics and the UI?
Where do I start ?
How many grand strategy pc wargames really let you focus on grand strategy ? Each and every one of them, from Hearts of Iron over War in the Pacific to the latest War in the East have you - the Big Kahuna of your country - move and controll each and every pitiful unit in the game. What are they simulating ? Being the chief secretary of the Supreme Ruler ?
I can understand having to move each and every counter in a boardgame, but in a computer wargame ???
Panther Games gets this right - as a corps commander you (move) give orders to regiments, occasionally battalions but not platoons - but this is the exception, not the rule.
What happens is that just because a computer can keep track of all the little details most pc wargame developers seem to think that they should, instead of trying to streamline and abstract their design.
I agree. I'd like to notice that Panther Games games are more complex than most of wargames, though, not simpler.
They are technically complex but in a way that makes playing them easier for us.
I wouldn't call moving every counter by hand complex design. I'd call it primitive and simplistic design as it's basically not including subordinate AI and making player do all the menial work.
AFAIK most of computer wargames are less complex than desired due to technical limitations, not more complex. I don't see posts in let's say BftB or Close Combat forums asking for removal of features. They ask for adding more features and more mechanics.
Exactly. And some people wonder why most pc wargames only sell a couple of thousand copies - tops.
These are wargames for experienced wargamers that want more and more. I'd say that the main problem is general lack of entry-level mainstream wargames like there used be - like Close Combat, Panzer General, UFO: Enemy Unknown, etc. that would introduce youth to wargaming - these kids/teens would later want more and buy more advanced wargames.
And the worst thing is that the press is biased against things like isometric view, topdown view, turn-based combat, etc. because of the black marketing done by corporations manufacturing cinematic cover shooters. Even new "XCOM" is a crappy cover shooter.
Also, most of the complexity wanted by players is more developer work side complexity than player learning side.
Seriously, they've lost me as a customer - I'm playing more tabletop and board wargames than ever before in my life , but apart from Panzer Corps and Panzer Command : Ostfront there's not a single release this year which has me sit up and take notice - and I count 23 pc wargames released thus far this year.
Personally, I'm playing mostly Armored Brigade, Operation Flashpoint, Battles from the Bulge and X-Com 3. Out of these X-Com 3 got horribly tedious due to too high amount of jobs that player has to do, Armored Brigade is ok and action-packed and has command delays that discourage micro-management but really misses ability cross-attach unit and a subordinate AI, Battles from the Bulge are nice but modding them requires a lot of work and Operation Flashpoint is great for single missions.
I can't really get into molochs like War Plan Orange.
< Message edited by Perturabo -- 8/30/2011 2:53:55 PM >
People shouldn't ask themselves why schools get shoot up.
They should ask themselves why people who finish schools burned out due to mobbing aren't receiving high enough compensations to not seek vengeance.