Realistic Matrix Wargame (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message


flibby -> Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/14/2008 11:46:55 PM)

What i'm looking for is a strategic/operational game which is both well supported and is the most realistic in the opinions of people here.

The two that stick out [i'm a big fan of GoA and Kharkov, but they have smaller communities] are Advanced Tactics, and TOAOWIII, could someone give me a brief run-down of the pro's and con's when realism is concerned with these two games? it would be greatly appreciated by myself!

Thanks




Widell -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 10:03:45 AM)

TOAW III statiscally gives more historical results since you don't control production, diplomacy, research and all the soft stuff. You are the military commander and that's what you are. TOAW also has an endless number of scenarios ranging from very small/local ones to huge mega scenarios. It also covers a long time span.

AT is a newcomer, that I belive will become a classic. It's benefits are that you control all aspects of warfare like research, production etc. Very little abstraction. The number of scenarios are still limited, but growing rapidly as the editor is really well developed making it possible to design almost any scenario.

If you are mainly a player, TOAW undoubtedly provides more scenarios and its well known pro's and con's. If you are mainly into scenario design, AT is a sure bet as the editor is simply great! The number of available scenarios cannot compare with TOAW yet, but my current bet is AT will close the gap very slowly (in terms of available scenarios that is)

The look and feel are quite different between the two games, so I'd recommend having a look at the two forums. Check out the AAR's and ask specific questions there. I own and play both games and enjoy them very much.




ANZAC_Tack -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 11:04:42 AM)

close combat series is a RTS, like looking down from a choppa, u command teams of up to 10 men, or a sniper, or a tank 15 units max. CCMT is modern(single games only),CoI is russian front WWII it goes for like years. its a bit cartoony graphics compared to new 3d stuff,but H2H is unreal.




Grell -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 12:27:38 PM)

TOAWIII is a great game, that is the one I'd suggest.

Advanced Tactics just bored me.

Regards,

Greg




Adam Parker -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 12:32:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

TOAW III statiscally gives more historical results since you don't control production, diplomacy, research and all the soft stuff. You are the military commander and that's what you are.



Disagree, in TOAW a unit is broken down into its full TO&E - how many men, machine guns, trucks etc., and then it fights with them all.

First of all, you're relying on the scenario designer to know exactly what each unit comprised of and then you're struggling with the fact, that no unit ever brought 100% of its TO&E to battle. A big design flaw.

Imho there's no such thing as a "good" operational/strategic "PC" wargame. However, if you can get it to run (and find it), Avalon Hill's circa 1995 DOS port of Third Reich offered a very good try.

Adam.




Widell -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 12:49:31 PM)

Well, all games have their flaws, and this is not, IMHO, the worst one for TOAW (air and naval being far more annoying at times!). Then again, the guy asked for a comparison between the two, and we're giving him details (TO&E is bad) or opininons (AT just bored me). On the other hand, the Matrix forums are prone to flame wars when it comes to comparing games, so my bet is we'll see some witty comments about how bad these two games rather than someone actually trying to provide some useful advice.

The only thing I have to add is: Buy both if you can afford it! Both are great games, but very different. Both have flaws, neither have any showstoppers. If you want a solid range of scenarios, go TOAW. If you are into scenario design and want see a newcomer game evolve, go AT. If you have the cash and time, go for both!




Adam Parker -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 1:04:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

On the other hand, the Matrix forums are prone to flame wars when it comes to comparing games, so my bet is we'll see some witty comments about how bad these two games rather than someone actually trying to provide some useful advice.


In all the years I've been here I've actually found the Matrix forums to be very professional and courteous. You wanna fight me on that [:D][:D]

You're right of course Widell, so long as we're playing and havin' fun [:)]

Adam.




GJK -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 3:08:21 PM)

I'd have to ask the OP to define what "realistic" in a wargame meant to him. Could be looking for a FPS 'because it looks real', who knows.




Kuokkanen -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 3:42:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

If you have the cash and time, go for both!

And people complain about having too many games they don't play [:'(]




JudgeDredd -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 4:09:32 PM)

Don't get Advanced Tactics [:D] (that one's for you Widell)




flibby -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 6:22:05 PM)

thanks for the responses so far guys!

Basically in terms of realism I desire a game that best represents the operational nature of warfare, without compromising on detail in respect of artillery, unit information and make-up to be honest.

Now obviously being into wargames, i'm not a stickler for graphics over game-play, but from the screenshots of TOAOWIII the map looks rather 'untidy'. A good map for me is something akin to GOA, which while being rather simple, is very easy on the eye, as opposed to something very cluttered.

I have looked into Conquest of the Aegean, despite it not being a conflict I am particularly interested in, but the real-time nature failed to put me off, so perhaps it would be a good option, but are there many options to expand into further theaters?

Finally, what is the negativity surrounding AT? is it primarily because the simulation of wider aspects of conflict creates a less realistic actualisation?




Widell -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/15/2008 6:58:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby
Basically in terms of realism I desire a game that best represents the operational nature of warfare, without compromising on detail in respect of artillery, unit information and make-up to be honest.


Then between AT and TOAW, I'd say TOAW

quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby
Now obviously being into wargames, i'm not a stickler for graphics over game-play, but from the screenshots of TOAOWIII the map looks rather 'untidy'. A good map for me is something akin to GOA, which while being rather simple, is very easy on the eye, as opposed to something very cluttered.


Both TOAW and AT are kind of conservative board game graphics, which most turn, hex based games mimicking the boardgames usually are. IMHO the games that attempt fancy graphics are not the ones that become classics. There are mods for both games so you can get different look and feel of the maps and the icons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby
I have looked into Conquest of the Aegean, despite it not being a conflict I am particularly interested in, but the real-time nature failed to put me off, so perhaps it would be a good option, but are there many options to expand into further theaters?


COTA is in my opinion one of the best RT games. The AI and realism is great. In the same series, you can get the somewhat older Highway to the Reich (HTTR)and soon to be released Battles from the Bulge (BFB). In the plans are expansions or new games for more theaters as far as I know.

On the other hand, HTTR, COTA and BFB are completely and utterly different from both TOAW and AT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby
Finally, what is the negativity surrounding AT? is it primarily because the simulation of wider aspects of conflict creates a less realistic actualisation?


It seems it's the two schools of generating a historically likely outcome for a majority of the games played versus allowing for a more alternate development. AT represent the more alternate approach whereas TOAW represent the more historical approach. Of course this is only true looking at the design intentions of each game as there are scenarios for both "schools" for both games. It's more about if you like the implementation or not. Finally, AT has a long way to go before it gets the same (well deserved) cult status as TOAW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
In all the years I've been here I've actually found the Matrix forums to be very professional and courteous. You wanna fight me on that [:D][:D]
You're right of course Widell, so long as we're playing and havin' fun [:)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
Don't get Advanced Tactics [:D] (that one's for you Widell)


The force is strong with this one..... [:D]

[sm=sterb029.gif] We'll stay at the Geek/Nerd level, so Grog's we all are.... Recommend a visit to http://www.thinkgeek.com/ - More $'s to spend there...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell
If you have the cash and time, go for both!

And people complain about having too many games they don't play [:'(]


And with COTA and HTTR, he's up to three or even four, and we haven't even started on WitP, ACW, FoF, the GG games etc etc etc. Let's face it. We are all addicts. Just one more game.....[:D]




Veldor -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/16/2008 2:37:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby
Finally, what is the negativity surrounding AT? is it primarily because the simulation of wider aspects of conflict creates a less realistic actualisation?


AT hasn't been around as long, so it offends the cultist as already mentioned. Plus all the AT fans are too busy loving the game to post here. [:D] I vote for AT. One added reason is the very reason some hate it so much. The ability to also play randomly generated maps. If you don't like that and find it ahistorical.. just stick to published scenarios. But I find it gives me two games in one as it plays very differently for random games.





Jeffrey H. -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/16/2008 5:52:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor


quote:

ORIGINAL: flibby
Finally, what is the negativity surrounding AT? is it primarily because the simulation of wider aspects of conflict creates a less realistic actualisation?


AT hasn't been around as long, so it offends the cultist as already mentioned. Plus all the AT fans are too busy loving the game to post here. [:D] I vote for AT. One added reason is the very reason some hate it so much. The ability to also play randomly generated maps. If you don't like that and find it ahistorical.. just stick to published scenarios. But I find it gives me two games in one as it plays very differently for random games.




Here we go into that AT vs. TOAW debate.....

I can only say AT may not be "uber hysterical" but it's an awfully good game and through mods and scenarios, almost any operational situation should be possible.

One drawback of at is that it's not capable of ranged situations or tactical scenarios...no LOS..etc.






NefariousKoel -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/16/2008 8:28:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Widell

And with COTA and HTTR, he's up to three or even four, and we haven't even started on WitP, ACW, FoF, the GG games etc etc etc. Let's face it. We are all addicts. Just one more game.....[:D]


If you're not too stuck on turn-based ones, I'd definitely recommend giving one of those a shot. No hexes, no turns, very convincing in how they play.




GJK -> RE: Realistic Matrix Wargame (8/16/2008 9:04:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Here we go into that AT vs. TOAW debate.....

I can only say AT may not be "uber hysterical" but it's an awfully good game and through mods and scenarios, almost any operational situation should be possible.

One drawback of at is that it's not capable of ranged situations or tactical scenarios...no LOS..etc.



It is an excellent logistics simulator. If you like counting beans and bullets or if you're an old S-4 from the Army/Marine Corps, this game will entertain you. :D




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375