Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Battle of the Manuals

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Battle of the Manuals Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Battle of the Manuals - 8/28/2011 9:07:57 PM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 968
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Here I thought WitE owned this category. Then I see a 444-page manual for CEaW-GS! I remember the original CEaW and it was not, and probably is still not, that complex. I downloaded it and need to check it out. I guess the difference is with WitE you need to memorize every page, because it matters if you want to play well.

Is there another Matrix game with more than 444 pages in existence? What's the shortest Matrix manual in existence?

I know... to much time on my hands
Post #: 1
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/28/2011 10:13:50 PM   
parusski


Posts: 4591
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline
Actually, I don't think there is any game manual with as many pages.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to rosseau)
Post #: 2
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/28/2011 11:49:52 PM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 968
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
I just realized CEaW-CS pages 344 onward are dedicated to every little patch made to the game. So WitE might take the cake after all...

And yes, Parusski, you are thinking board game manuals, too.

< Message edited by rosseau -- 8/28/2011 11:52:48 PM >

(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 3
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/29/2011 12:11:58 AM   
parusski


Posts: 4591
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline
We don't have to include board games, but it's the only shot we have...

I am looking at the hundreds of board games and billions of pc games I own and yep WitE wins.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to rosseau)
Post #: 4
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/29/2011 11:53:06 PM   
Lützow


Posts: 1476
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
If you think 444 pages would be much, have a look at the 737 NGX from PMDG. The full documentation has several ring binders with about 3.5k pages altogether.

PMDG 737 NGX

(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 5
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 2:10:32 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
I know this thread is for PC games but I cannot help but look at the shelf full of Star Fleet Battles manuals here in my room. What's scary is that after 20 years since I last played I still know the content. 

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Lützow)
Post #: 6
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 8:29:29 AM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4600
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski
Actually, I don't think there is any game manual with as many pages.


Battles from the Bulge has 382 pages, so comes close.

The question one should ask is why pc wargame which enjoy the advantage of UI tooltips and an engine which prevents you from making illegal moves have *more* pages in their manual than even the most complex board wargames.

If boardgame manufacturers can develop pretty complex boardgames with only 16-64 pages of rules, why can't pc wargame developers do the same ?

Personally I'm moving away from pc wargames and back to boardgames because I want to spend my gaming time thinking about strategies, not reading up on and remembering hundreds of fiddly rules and exceptions.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx


< Message edited by sterckxe -- 8/30/2011 8:30:34 AM >

(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 7
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 9:51:00 AM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2203
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski
Actually, I don't think there is any game manual with as many pages.


Battles from the Bulge has 382 pages, so comes close.

The question one should ask is why pc wargame which enjoy the advantage of UI tooltips and an engine which prevents you from making illegal moves have *more* pages in their manual than even the most complex board wargames.

The most complex board wargame that I have bought has 32 A4 pages of densely packed text in tiny font and is very hard to learn for me because the text is very dry. The reason why Battles from the Bulge manual has more pages is that it has much less text per page and has screenshots on lots of pages. Also, the text in computer wargame manuals is often more descriptive and easier to read/understand than paragraphs upon paragraphs of dry rules and formulas. Also, it's probably much more complex mechanically than any wargame and over 100 pages are for the editors.

Then for example in Airborne Assault: Red Devils over Arnhem you get 40 pages of history, 15 pages of strategy guide and 14 pages of OoBs.
That's 69 pages of "bonus materials". (my main criticism of the BftB manual would be cutting-down the "bonus materials" and leaving out the written tutorial in favour of loooooooooooooooong videos - out of them, I loved that one of the authors actually appeared on screen in the welcome movie - watching 2,5 hours of tutorial movies would be way too much for me, though.).

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

Personally I'm moving away from pc wargames and back to boardgames because I want to spend my gaming time thinking about strategies, not reading up on and remembering hundreds of fiddly rules and exceptions.

And which computer wargames actually require such a thing?

My main problem is the usual absence of printed manuals or cutting them down to bare minimum and lack of interactive in-game tutorials.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 8
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 10:13:31 AM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4600
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
The most complex board wargame that I have bought has 32 A4 pages of densely packed text in tiny font and is very hard to learn for me because the text is very dry.


The point I tried to make was that logically the manuals of computer wargames should be considerably shorter than those of board wargames because through their UI they can eliminate much of the text required in a board wargame where everything has to be described in detail.

The reverse is true.

I attribute this to bad design decision, both in needlessly complex game mechanics and the UI.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 9
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 11:05:13 AM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2203
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
The most complex board wargame that I have bought has 32 A4 pages of densely packed text in tiny font and is very hard to learn for me because the text is very dry.


The point I tried to make was that logically the manuals of computer wargames should be considerably shorter than those of board wargames because through their UI they can eliminate much of the text required in a board wargame where everything has to be described in detail.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
The most complex board wargame that I have bought has 32 A4 pages of densely packed text in tiny font and is very hard to learn for me because the text is very dry.


The point I tried to make was that logically the manuals of computer wargames should be considerably shorter than those of board wargames because through their UI they can eliminate much of the text required in a board wargame where everything has to be described in detail.

The reverse is true.

I attribute this to bad design decision, both in needlessly complex game mechanics and the UI.

And which computer wargame has needlessly complex mechanics and the UI? 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.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 10
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 1:40:00 PM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4600
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.

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.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 11
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 2:52:20 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2203
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

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 >


_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 12
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 3:12:02 PM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4600
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.


Exactly - that's how many modern pc wargames feel to me : like menial work where you have to keep track of things a real historical Big Cheese would and could not be bothered with. I want games where 80% of my time is spend considering alternative moves, long-time plans i.e. *thinking*, instead of manually shuffling counters from left to right with the mouse.

Computers should have made things easier for us wargamers, removing the menial work and the clutter and allowing us to focus on high-level tactics and strategy. By and large they didn't, but funnily enough the boardgame world has gotten the message and are producing more and more games which capture that feeling of being in command much better so the digital wargames I really look forward to are not from the traditional pc wargame publishers but from companies like GMT, VPG, Columbia and Decision Games porting their back catalog to the web, pc or iPad.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 13
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 3:47:26 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2203
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo
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.


Exactly - that's how many modern pc wargames feel to me : like menial work where you have to keep track of things a real historical Big Cheese would and could not be bothered with. I want games where 80% of my time is spend considering alternative moves, long-time plans i.e. *thinking*, instead of manually shuffling counters from left to right with the mouse.

Computers should have made things easier for us wargamers, removing the menial work and the clutter and allowing us to focus on high-level tactics and strategy. By and large they didn't, but funnily enough the boardgame world has gotten the message and are producing more and more games which capture that feeling of being in command much better so the digital wargames I really look forward to are not from the traditional pc wargame publishers but from companies like GMT, VPG, Columbia and Decision Games porting their back catalog to the web, pc or iPad.

To me, the main problem here is lack of exceptional talent/knowledge among most of developers. AI is the hardest part and games that aren't limited to having 3-12 counters on a board are inevitably going to be micromanagement hell games if they want to add any amount of detail.
Even the developer of otherwise pretty good Armored Brigade which makes regular updates to the game simply doesn't know how to make a good AI and subordinate AI.

Anyway, I played some solitaire board wargames during several last month and I'm considering getting into board game development. I think it could be a good beginning as I'm still pretty far from having enough knowledge to program even a simplest computer game.
That said, I still strongly prefer Armored Brigade with its command problems over Steel Panthers where I'd have to move and fire each unit manually.

Though I have to say that boardgames need right mood. Now I'm sick of everything and I can't play boardgames any more while I still can play computer wargames.

< Message edited by Perturabo -- 8/30/2011 9:01:34 PM >


_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 14
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 9:56:38 PM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 1894
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline
I've always wanted to see a game where you actually got to act like the commanding general while still retaining all of the individual unit detail of a game like WitE. I'm imagining here that you could issue attack and support commands to larger units such as an Army or Corps laying out the objectives, specifying available support and reserve commitment, etc and then when you hit the "execute" button the individual units move, attack, and defend to carry out your orders without you personally having to click and move every single piece!

Subordinate unit commanders could carry out your orders with varying degrees of ability based on their ratings.

You could intercede mid-turn to change objectives, add support, or cancel an attack so it would have an effect of a pausable, real time game engine.

The John Tiller Civil War games had a very basic system where you could give orders to Corps and then let the AI move and fight, but the AI was so inept that it totally unsatisfying to play that way. Still, the idea was good... it just needed a lot more detail.



_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

Want Navajo Nation Photos? Go to:
http://fardareismai.piczo.com/?cr=4&rfm=y

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 15
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 10:47:02 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2203
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
One thing that I'd love to see done more often is simulation of propagation of orders and information. For example if a unit doesn't have a radio, it must be reached by a runner. Information flows to the player the same way. Radio reports, runners from units, etc.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 16
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 11:19:01 PM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 968
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
After I saw the 444 page manual, I bought CEaW-CS and am happy with it so far, partly because it's easy to mod. It may also be a good game to play hotseat against oneself, as the AI may not be too good.

Okay, for someone who has never played a real board wargame in his life (I tried ASL but gave up), which one gives the best solitaire experience, regardless of genre?

Thanks

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 17
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/30/2011 11:53:14 PM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 1894
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

One thing that I'd love to see done more often is simulation of propagation of orders and information. For example if a unit doesn't have a radio, it must be reached by a runner. Information flows to the player the same way. Radio reports, runners from units, etc.


Agreed. I always wanted to see a game with little messenger counters that physically had to travel to the commander before an activation or attack could occur. It might get a bit tedious though, but definitely more realistic.

Was thinking about that as I decided to undertake a fresh game of HPS Waterloo (full campaign) the other night. As I viewed all of the scattered Anglo Allied units, I had to think "wow, I can get every one of these guys moving towards Quatre Bras instantly, when a messenger would have taken 10 or 20 game turns to reach them with news of Napoleon's movements". Playing solitaire, I guess I should just implement a little house rule and freeze units in place until an officer can physically move to their location to release them. I wonder how that would screw up the game balance? Or would it actually improve the balance and historicity of the game?

I try to play historically in all my HPS Campaign series games (ACW and Napoleonics). For example, I don't allow a unit to advance towards the enemy once it is disrupted. I pull exhausted units out of the line and put them in the rear to recover fatigue. I allow turns to go by with nothing going on but some unit maneuvering and repositioning without endless firing by every unit in both armies every turn. I don't march approaching units all night either - they stop and "sleep". I don't launch dawn attacks at 4 am just because the visibility is back up to 70 hexes. I keep units in reserve and fighting tends to be localized on specific, well planned assaults, and not a general massed assault by the entire army clustered into unrealistic "super stacks" that attack way beyond the physical possibilities of human endurance. I keep units in line and strictly grouped with their units. Weird, eh? Definitely not for the "win at any cost" competitive gamer type.

I wish I could find a PBEM opponent who shared this philosophy and could play strictly historically and realistically.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

Want Navajo Nation Photos? Go to:
http://fardareismai.piczo.com/?cr=4&rfm=y

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 18
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/31/2011 12:37:49 AM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2203
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

One thing that I'd love to see done more often is simulation of propagation of orders and information. For example if a unit doesn't have a radio, it must be reached by a runner. Information flows to the player the same way. Radio reports, runners from units, etc.


Agreed. I always wanted to see a game with little messenger counters that physically had to travel to the commander before an activation or attack could occur. It might get a bit tedious though, but definitely more realistic.

There are some games that actually implemented propagation of orders.
From newer games there's Scourge of War.

From older games there are Peter Turcan's games. I'm waiting for arrival of his Austerlitz, Waterloo and Armada.
I made a topic about his Dreadnoughts some time ago.

Actually I'm a bit worried as I have ordered Austerlitz and Waterloo from two separate stores in UK 20 days ago and they haven't arrived yet. Usually mail from UK comes in 5-7 days. They could go missing but it would be weird if two separate packages directed to the same person would go missing.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 19
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/31/2011 7:25:39 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2767
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau
Okay, for someone who has never played a real board wargame in his life (I tried ASL but gave up), which one gives the best solitaire experience, regardless of genre?

Thanks



Hornet Leader / Phantom Leader from DVG games. Purely solitaire airwar.

Field of Fire from GMT. It is one of the most unique company level board game simulations. Communication channels are important. Several modes are simulated. You have runners, you need to lay wires, and you also have wireless radio. But it's so complicated that it has lots of book keeping. Not fun for me. A computer incarnation would be nice.

Patton's Best (Avalon hill) is a good solitaire tank game that makes you feel like you're playing Tank Plattoon. The game is quite tense.



< Message edited by jomni -- 8/31/2011 7:27:42 AM >


_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to rosseau)
Post #: 20
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/31/2011 7:33:05 AM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4600
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: rosseau
Okay, for someone who has never played a real board wargame in his life (I tried ASL but gave up), which one gives the best solitaire experience, regardless of genre?

Thanks



Hornet Leader / Phantom Leader from DVG games. Purely solitaire airwar.

Field of Fire from GMT. It is one of the most unique company level board game simulations. Communication channels are important. Several modes are simulated. You have runners, you need to lay wires, and you also have wireless radio. But it's so complicated that it has lots of book keeping. Not fun for me. A computer incarnation would be nice.



The are plenty of dedicated solitaire wargames on the market

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1608/ambush comes to mind first, and here's a list of solitaire wargames :

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/8164/solitaire-wargames

That said, most wargames can be played solitaire to some degree so a good way to go about it is to pick a game based on your preferences and then check for solitaire suitability or variants. Playing solitaire also lets you try daft theories and tactics so that you then know if they work or not in your next FTF game.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 21
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 8/31/2011 5:18:38 PM   
parusski


Posts: 4591
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Wyoming, Even Liberals Welcome
Status: offline
My son and I have played Ambush for about 20 years and enjoyed it.

_____________________________

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 22
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/1/2011 1:06:04 AM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 968
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Thanks guys. Problem is I don't have time, the bookkeeping motivation or a son like Parusski has to play them with. I may try to get Patton's Best cheap just to see...

(in reply to parusski)
Post #: 23
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/1/2011 2:01:57 AM   
H Gilmer

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 7/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

The point I tried to make was that logically the manuals of computer wargames should be considerably shorter than those of board wargames because through their UI they can eliminate much of the text required in a board wargame where everything has to be described in detail.


When I was younger and we had the full box for computer games, we always wanted big manuals and intensively complex games. Maybe it's a holdover from that...

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 24
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/1/2011 9:19:15 AM   
sterckxe


Posts: 4600
Joined: 3/30/2004
From: Flanders
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

quote:

The point I tried to make was that logically the manuals of computer wargames should be considerably shorter than those of board wargames because through their UI they can eliminate much of the text required in a board wargame where everything has to be described in detail.


When I was younger and we had the full box for computer games, we always wanted big manuals and intensively complex games. Maybe it's a holdover from that...


My pet theory is that those wargamers who liked über-detail in their wargames have over the years all migrated to the computer platform as that's the logical way to play those monster games which were unplayable in the cardboard version. The result of this natural selection process is that boardgame developers by and large now have an audience that demands wargames that can be played in one setting, while in the pc world there's a serious demand for super-detailed games which makes developers cater to them almost exclusively and ignore the fact there's a market for simpler games too.

Once in a while a Panzer Corps comes along and has massive sales - doesn't surprise me in the least. In the pc wargame world only 2 types of games sell really well : monsters and easy-entry wargames. The games I like best : simple, streamlined mechanics but deep strategy are rare beasts in the pc world, but relatively common in the boardgame world hence my slow drift back to boardgames.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

(in reply to H Gilmer)
Post #: 25
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/1/2011 10:35:11 PM   
CarnageINC


Posts: 1973
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Rapid City SD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I know this thread is for PC games but I cannot help but look at the shelf full of Star Fleet Battles manuals here in my room. What's scary is that after 20 years since I last played I still know the content. 


STAR FLEET BATTLES IN THE HOUSE!!! WOOT!

(in reply to ilovestrategy)
Post #: 26
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/1/2011 11:31:15 PM   
Chliperic


Posts: 955
Joined: 3/21/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sterckxe

quote:

ORIGINAL: H Gilmer

quote:

The point I tried to make was that logically the manuals of computer wargames should be considerably shorter than those of board wargames because through their UI they can eliminate much of the text required in a board wargame where everything has to be described in detail.


When I was younger and we had the full box for computer games, we always wanted big manuals and intensively complex games. Maybe it's a holdover from that...


My pet theory is that those wargamers who liked über-detail in their wargames have over the years all migrated to the computer platform as that's the logical way to play those monster games which were unplayable in the cardboard version. The result of this natural selection process is that boardgame developers by and large now have an audience that demands wargames that can be played in one setting, while in the pc world there's a serious demand for super-detailed games which makes developers cater to them almost exclusively and ignore the fact there's a market for simpler games too.



Eddy Sterckx



Agreeing. I would add the current situation reminds me Boardgames one in the first part of the 80's, after SPI collapse: games were more and more monster ones, most often unplayed. At first, they were bought, and unpunched. Then they weren't bought at all, because there a time for dreaming about games you want to play without having time, space and friends needed, before realizing you're just spending money for nothing.

I'm convinced much of the monster computer games today are bought and discussed more than really played. Too muuch bugs, too few time, too long rules, crancked GUI. Maybe the time is close where these games will not be bought at all and on the contrary, the new and simpler games on Ipad will rise, because in the end they deliver what is more and more lacking in computer wargames, fun. Too much wargames are just requering players to work, not really play, if we define work like all actions you need to do without having pleasure at :-).

Eventually I'm convinced the computer wargame market, certainly today overcrowded, to shrink in the next years. In some sense, it has yet occured with the low prices more and more used.

Last point: I don't think devs to be subpar or not at the required level. I believe they are doing detailed games an AI can't really master. the more complex a game engine, the less the AI knows how to use the whole set of rules, if ever he is aware of the whole booklet. If chess programs have better AI, it's partially because rules are very simple.


_____________________________

Fatal Years mod for RUS version 1.07
Struggle for a Vast Future 2.0 for AACW in advanced beta:

http://moddercorner.com/

(in reply to sterckxe)
Post #: 27
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/2/2011 1:56:29 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 1894
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline
I think your comments are correct. I was totally idiotic for buying all these monster games, but that was really what I bought for the most part. The Beer and Pretzel games never appealed to me. I passed on all the SPI "Quads" and folio games, for example. It did take the computer revolution to make this sort of thing playable (kinda). Even now... my first choices are always for the monsters. Actually, I consider the HPS Civil War and Napoleonic series as "Monster Games' though their scenarios are imminently playable in less time than a full Gettysburg Campaign with multiple battles.

I'm looking forward to CWIF and want to spend more time with WiTP and WiTE now that I'm retired.

I also am picking up all my old boardgames and thinking about giving them a shot... working through all of the Squad Leader series, for example, and then finally trying the ASL rules and 1st module that never got played.

I'm fixed for the rest of my life... but will probably keep buying stuff till I'm too senile to find the "submit order" button


_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

Want Navajo Nation Photos? Go to:
http://fardareismai.piczo.com/?cr=4&rfm=y

(in reply to Chliperic)
Post #: 28
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/2/2011 4:43:01 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chliperic


Agreeing. I would add the current situation reminds me Boardgames one in the first part of the 80's, after SPI collapse: games were more and more monster ones, most often unplayed. At first, they were bought, and unpunched. Then they weren't bought at all, because there a time for dreaming about games you want to play without having time, space and friends needed, before realizing you're just spending money for nothing.




This is why I loved Star Fleet Battles so much. It was a monster game but bought in stages. For example, the advanced rules, maps and counters came in 3 volumes, each following the other. And that's not counting all the literally dozens of small scenario books and extra SSDs.(Ship System Display).

I'm sitting here thinking of the summer that we had our version of the General War. We had ship rosters with names. By the end of the summer both sides were down to light cruisers being flag ships!

It was glorious.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Chliperic)
Post #: 29
RE: Battle of the Manuals - 9/2/2011 4:44:42 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3628
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC


quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

I know this thread is for PC games but I cannot help but look at the shelf full of Star Fleet Battles manuals here in my room. What's scary is that after 20 years since I last played I still know the content. 


STAR FLEET BATTLES IN THE HOUSE!!! WOOT!



There was a time that I had the BPV(Basic Point Value) memorized for each and every ship in that game, and I mean all of them.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to CarnageINC)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Battle of the Manuals Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.215