Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

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

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
MrsWargamer
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by MrsWargamer »

Just saying, I bought a couple of titles during the D-Day sale (many thanks), that started at 12 bucks and ended up like 7 bucks (Canadian).

Battle of the Bulge and Drive on Moscow are great little games.
I gave both an install and proceeded to clumsily play a few minutes of each.
I think they are potentially a lot of fun.

Compare them with some powerhouses of our hobby, such as Gary's War in the East and War in the West, and well, yeah, you get massively detailed, brutally complex, highly involved massive doses of time investment. Some serious manuals to read, and quite the printouts too.

I won't say they are not worth the money to anyone wanting them.
But, if I could undo my purchases, and I have made quite a few impulsive purchases too, I'd gladly say "nah, what was I thinking? I don't have the time factors needed any more than I have the table space required for my monster sized board game wargames.

War in the East is about as sizable a 'doable' challenge, as setting up the physical product Fire in the East.

I paid some serious cash to end up with War in the East just the base game purchase.
That game cost me more than Battle of the Bulge, Drive on Moscow, TOAW IV, and Kursk Battle at Prochorovka.

I've pondered Order of Battle DLCs (nice prices). But, it seems too similar in game style to my Panzer Corps collection.

Frankly, I think my money was better used on the smaller, more manageable/playable, more completable designs regardless of whether they might be lighter on hyper levels of detail and simulation.

I have War in the East and War in the West, as well as World in Flames, installed on my system.
To be honest though, the thoughts in my head to the effect "oh I'm going to get around to them eventually" sound like the same bullshyte I hear in my head when thinking of my large board game wargames.

I like the Panzer Corps design for the ease of getting into them.
I like the Battle Academy design, for the ease of getting into them as well.
I can sit down, and play the game, and likely have the current activity conclude with a completed game session.

When I first got into wargames in the 70s, a wargame wasn't something that used an entire day to play a turn.

I want more of what Battle of the Bulge or Kursk Battle at Prochorovka is offering.

I'm currently waiting on Steel Tigers. I'm worried that it's going to try and beat Steel Panthers a design that was polished for 20 years, on its opening release.
I'm not sure of the opening price, likely in the 60 buck range.
To be honest, I'd rather buy it the way Order of Battle is sold. A free base game, and a whole lot of DLC goodies for 10 bucks or so.

I'm beginning to shy away from the 80 dollar mega games.
I'm even getting shy with the 45 dollar games on sale for 35 bucks.
I'm getting tired I suppose, of mega designs that require mega time, and mega commitment just to begin playing them.

I've got more than a few titles I'd gladly sell if it was even possible.
But we all know, once registered, it's yours for good.

Part of me wants to throw out the printed manuals/books and delete the installers, and just pretend I never bought them.

Ive bought a number of the tablet-based wargames from Joni Nuutinen. The only real downside is once you get over the thrill of having handheld wargames, you realize, it's just no fun looking at a screen less than 10 inches in size. And carrying around a 10"+ sized tablet is a lot of weight in a purse.

Are you designers listening out there?
Stop pretending your wargame needs to be the most complete, most detailed mega experience.
I'd rather you made 5 decent sized simpler titles you could conceivably use a common software basis for, and charge 15 bucks for, than just one title trying to be perfect for 50 bucks. And it's basic math, 5x15 is more money too.

There are a LOT of good battles to choose from. I'd be getting Desert Fox from Shenandoah if not for the fact it's only an iOS title. I might grab Korsun from Yobo even though the battle isn't one of my favourites routinely.

I'm planning to start insisting on both Shenandoah and Yobo to release more content.
I'm going to see if Joni Nuutinen might do something to make his titles into a PC release.
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
Kuokkanen
Posts: 3692
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:16 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by Kuokkanen »

Yeah, I expected Gary's monster games to be like that and therefore I haven't bought them.
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
MrsWargamer
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by MrsWargamer »

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

Yeah, I expected Gary's monster games to be like that and therefore I haven't bought them.

Thanks dear, I like your opinions routinely, so I'm glad to hear I'm not just ranting :)
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27755
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by Orm »

I would like something in between. I liked War in Russia, and Pacific War a lot. And in theory I should love the improved versions. But I fail to see that a commander of an theatre should involve himself, or herself, with individual pilots training schedule. And so on. Some of it should be delegated. And perhaps even forcibly delegated.

Anyway. Since my favourite game of all time is World in Flames, and the computer version of it, I suppose that I fall into the big and complicated group.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 27755
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by Orm »

Now that I think of it I like many of the games that are easy to get into as well. Like Panzer Korps.

And, currently, I am not all that eager to get into games that are hard to learn and begins with a very important first turn.

Therefore I mostly play games that I already know the rules for. So at the moment I play MWIF, Bombing the Reich, and UFO: Enemy Unknown.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett
User avatar
MrsWargamer
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by MrsWargamer »

I'm looking forward to the upcoming release in the west from the Unity of Command series.

It's not complicated, but requires a player at least really try.

They're called GAMES and should never feel like WORK :)
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
AndySfromVA
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:53 am

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by AndySfromVA »

I'm still looking for a turn-based American Civil War game that strikes the right balance between realism and playability.
User avatar
MrsWargamer
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by MrsWargamer »

You might wantg to check out the titles by Joni Nuutinen then.

This is a list of titles I have and want.

D-Day 1944
Eastern Front 41-45
Panzer Missions
Battle of the Bulge 1944
Demyansk Pocket 1942
Fall of Normandy 1944
Kursk the Biggest Tank Battle
Operation Barbarossa 1941
Rommel and Afrika Korps
Iwo Jima
Operation Market Garden

options to get
Korean War 1950
German Ardennes Offensive 1944
Falaise Pocket 1944 Allied
Invasion of Poland 1939
Invasion of France 1940
Battle of Berlin 1945
Fall of Stalingrad
Axis Balkan Campaign 1941
Battle of Peleliu 1944
Battle of Moscow 1941
Allied Landing at Anzio, and Battle of Monte Cassino
Battle of Leyte Island 1944
Battle of Okinawa 1945
Battle of Guadalcanal 1942
Third Battle of Kharkov 1943
Battle of Luzon 1945
Allied Invasion of Sicily 1943
Axis Crimean Campaign 1941-1942
Case Blue Panzers to Caucasus
Panzers to Lenningrad 1941
Finnish Defense 1944
Invasion of Norway 1940
British Offensive Second Battle of El Alamein
Crete 1941
Winter War Suomussalmi Battle
Battle of Guam 1944
Battle of Saipan 1944

Not bad eh,
He has some WW1 and Civil War and Spanish Civil war titles as well.
And he has free versions (20 turn durations), of everything he has I think too.
So it's not like your money is at risk for looking :)
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
User avatar
Zovs
Posts: 8578
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:02 pm
Location: United States

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by Zovs »

One mans garbage is another mans gold.

I personally like complicated games, in fact I once played the board version of GDWs FitE/SE, granted it was solo and I took me 2 real years to go from June 41 to July 43, but it was a blast. I also have played both the board and computerized versions of SPIs WIE (DGs CWIE2) and have been a play tester for both GG WITE games and I love TOAW IV and Steel Panthers. The only board war game I still own is ASL.

I like challenges and hard ones not easy one off no brainers.

One mans garbage is another mans gold.
Image
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator
User avatar
ncc1701e
Posts: 10276
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:50 pm
Location: Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by ncc1701e »

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

I'm looking forward to the upcoming release in the west from the Unity of Command series.

It's not complicated, but requires a player at least really try.

They're called GAMES and should never feel like WORK :)

Me too, looking forward to Unity of Command 2. In fact, I like to switch between complexity and fun to play. Alas, this is not always simple to combine them.
Chancellor Gorkon to Captain James T. Kirk:
You don't trust me, do you? I don't blame you. If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by wodin »

Well I want super detailed. Not sure why you have a problem you mentioned way more lighter games than heavy duty so it seems you're catered for way more than those who want but and complex.

I say stop making all those lighter games and Panzer Joe is imitators and make some more in-depth wargames.
User avatar
TulliusDetritus
Posts: 5581
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by TulliusDetritus »

I would say it's us who like "complex" games (and I don't think that's even true, I mean the complex thing) that should be complaining. Very few games like this, that's the truth.

And there are still tons and tons of non "complex" games. So I don't get it.

Why I don't believe the complex thing.

Scenario A, WitE. You push your counters (let's say the five divisions of 16th Army). Scenario B, you push the counters of companies, battalions, regiments, sappers, HQs... To me it's the same thing (in fact, tactical games are complex to me hehe).

Orm, re the pilot training thing in WitP, you're doing something wrong, because to me it's easy and quick: I mass produce what I need and want and only pay attention to the programme twice in a month. Only problem is the bloody mouse clicks.

"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
User avatar
MrsWargamer
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by MrsWargamer »

ORIGINAL: wodin

Well I want super detailed. Not sure why you have a problem you mentioned way more lighter games than heavy duty so it seems you're catered for way more than those who want but and complex.

I say stop making all those lighter games and Panzer Joe is imitators and make some more in-depth wargames.

Missed the Panzer Joe thing.

I don't think there is any shortage of complex in-depth titles out there.
The thing is, Gary's War in the East is the entire Russian Front start to finish to a point. How many times though, does the market need that sort of product. Gary essentially eliminated much of any reason to try.

Meanwhile, the Russian front is just a massive sum of potential important battles.
I think there's lots of room for a lot of lesser complexity product.

And the sad truth, is I'd have never seen the hobby grow out of the 70s if everything began as with Fire in the East level of magnitude. I began with Tactics II, not Fire in the East :)

We need more product aimed at the potentially casual wargamer, who might later become the hardcore War in the East type.
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
User avatar
Commanderski
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:24 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by Commanderski »

I like the complicated ones. It makes you think, sort of like chess. In the games War in the East and War in the West.the decisions you make on moving one division may have an affect 2 or 3 moves later that you didn't see and could collapse your whole front or provide an avenue to attack and penetrate your opponents front.

In these game you can make them as complicated as you want or simply push the counters around without really thinking too much.
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1138
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by IslandInland »

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Just saying, I bought a couple of titles during the D-Day sale (many thanks), that started at 12 bucks and ended up like 7 bucks (Canadian).

Battle of the Bulge and Drive on Moscow are great little games.
I gave both an install and proceeded to clumsily play a few minutes of each.
I think they are potentially a lot of fun.

Compare them with some powerhouses of our hobby, such as Gary's War in the East and War in the West, and well, yeah, you get massively detailed, brutally complex, highly involved massive doses of time investment. Some serious manuals to read, and quite the printouts too.

I won't say they are not worth the money to anyone wanting them.
But, if I could undo my purchases, and I have made quite a few impulsive purchases too, I'd gladly say "nah, what was I thinking? I don't have the time factors needed any more than I have the table space required for my monster sized board game wargames.

War in the East is about as sizable a 'doable' challenge, as setting up the physical product Fire in the East.

I paid some serious cash to end up with War in the East just the base game purchase.
That game cost me more than Battle of the Bulge, Drive on Moscow, TOAW IV, and Kursk Battle at Prochorovka.

I've pondered Order of Battle DLCs (nice prices). But, it seems too similar in game style to my Panzer Corps collection.

Frankly, I think my money was better used on the smaller, more manageable/playable, more completable designs regardless of whether they might be lighter on hyper levels of detail and simulation.

I have War in the East and War in the West, as well as World in Flames, installed on my system.
To be honest though, the thoughts in my head to the effect "oh I'm going to get around to them eventually" sound like the same bullshyte I hear in my head when thinking of my large board game wargames.

I like the Panzer Corps design for the ease of getting into them.
I like the Battle Academy design, for the ease of getting into them as well.
I can sit down, and play the game, and likely have the current activity conclude with a completed game session.

When I first got into wargames in the 70s, a wargame wasn't something that used an entire day to play a turn.

I want more of what Battle of the Bulge or Kursk Battle at Prochorovka is offering.

I'm currently waiting on Steel Tigers. I'm worried that it's going to try and beat Steel Panthers a design that was polished for 20 years, on its opening release.
I'm not sure of the opening price, likely in the 60 buck range.
To be honest, I'd rather buy it the way Order of Battle is sold. A free base game, and a whole lot of DLC goodies for 10 bucks or so.

I'm beginning to shy away from the 80 dollar mega games.
I'm even getting shy with the 45 dollar games on sale for 35 bucks.
I'm getting tired I suppose, of mega designs that require mega time, and mega commitment just to begin playing them.

I've got more than a few titles I'd gladly sell if it was even possible.
But we all know, once registered, it's yours for good.

Part of me wants to throw out the printed manuals/books and delete the installers, and just pretend I never bought them.

Ive bought a number of the tablet-based wargames from Joni Nuutinen. The only real downside is once you get over the thrill of having handheld wargames, you realize, it's just no fun looking at a screen less than 10 inches in size. And carrying around a 10"+ sized tablet is a lot of weight in a purse.

Are you designers listening out there?
Stop pretending your wargame needs to be the most complete, most detailed mega experience.
I'd rather you made 5 decent sized simpler titles you could conceivably use a common software basis for, and charge 15 bucks for, than just one title trying to be perfect for 50 bucks. And it's basic math, 5x15 is more money too.

There are a LOT of good battles to choose from. I'd be getting Desert Fox from Shenandoah if not for the fact it's only an iOS title. I might grab Korsun from Yobo even though the battle isn't one of my favourites routinely.

I'm planning to start insisting on both Shenandoah and Yobo to release more content.
I'm going to see if Joni Nuutinen might do something to make his titles into a PC release.

More drama.


War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion Beta Tester
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
Strategic Command American Civil War Beta Tester
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
User avatar
MrsWargamer
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by MrsWargamer »

ORIGINAL: IslandInland




More drama.



Really, you came on the thread, to say that? Is your day really that dull?
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
User avatar
wodin
Posts: 10709
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:13 am
Location: England
Contact:

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by wodin »

Still don't get why you feel hard done by. Again way more wargames released on the light side than vice versa.

Really those who want more "complex" games aren't catered for rather than the other way round.

I wish we had as many games to choose from or look forward to as you do.

Sit down and write a list. One listing the complex games and another the lighter games. I know which will have way more games than the other

You should be overjoyed with how well your tastes are satisfied.

Honestly I'm sure your complaint has wound people up and I can see why.

There is no valid reason why you can possibly feel the way you do.

There is one thing though if you are correct. Can you point me to all these complex games being released or in the pipework. I'm obviously missing out on a whole heap of fun.

I count 6 legitimate hard-core wargames on main game forum (GGWITE, GGWITW, Command, TOAW IV, WITPAE and WiF) compared to 30+ on lighter side. Also as far as I'm aware about 2 complex games being developed. Countless light wargames though, check Steam.
User avatar
MrsWargamer
Posts: 1653
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by MrsWargamer »

Maybe it's the term 'wargame'.

I call it a wargame if it looks like a board game wargame.
Thus, to me, Call of Duty is just an arcade game. Lots of mindless shooting and hopping around.

As I said, once you achieve a War in the East grade of game, who really wants to see another mega Russian Front design at all? Well not me at least. Hey, if Gary's game isn't good enough, good luck beating it with some other person's design.

Not sure I know of all these myriad designs out there. Well WW2 designs I suppose in my case.

I also prefer turn based hex using, or close to it (areas are ok). If it's 3d and or real time, it's too close to an arcade game, and not close enough to a classic board game wargame. Close Combat is about my limit for not turn based.
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
User avatar
Infierno
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:33 pm

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by Infierno »

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Gary's War in the East is the entire Russian Front start to finish to a point. How many times though, does the market need that sort of product. Gary essentially eliminated much of any reason to try.


You say that, yet WitE2 is one of the most highly anticipated wargame titles in development. There's nothing wrong with preferring lighter games, but I gotta agree that there's already a huge selection of light, introductory/intermediate wargames. I would like to see more hardcore wargames that cover lesser known conflicts in great detail. For every WitE, there's 15 different Strategic Commands, Order of Battles, and Unity of Commands, to the point that they feel pretty much interchangeable aside from art style and scale.
If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
User avatar
Gilmer
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:01 pm
Contact:

RE: Big and complicated and super detailed isn't always a winner

Post by Gilmer »

Well... to me it's like do you like steak or do you like chicken, or whatever. It's just peoples' tastes. I have played through War in the East once fully and played many of the smaller scenarios and have enjoyed them all. I have not played through War in the West or WITPAE all the way through but I expect I will at some point. I've been pretty close with WiTW.

I need to do a little more learning for WITPAE, but I like learning how to do things.

"Venimus, vidimus, Deus vicit" John III Sobieski as he entered Vienna on 9/12/1683. "I came, I saw, God conquered."
He that has a mind to fight, let him fight, for now is the time. - Anacreon
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”