What Military Strategy games have you played?

[HoHun]

Hi Freebird,

>Did you play Harpoon very much? GDW's were my favorites, some very good releases

I have to say that I played the boardgame version only two or three times as there seemed to be an enormous administrative overhead in preparing all the platform data sheets. I remember winning one Falkland War scenario as the British player by sinking the Argentine fleet by virtue of a couple of miles more anti-ship missile range. My missiles actually did not do much damage, but each hit spilled a bit of rocket fuel that lead to critical fires. The Argentine player was rather frustrated because he even lost the Admiral Belgrano to just a few hits, and I was frustrated because an entire afternoon of filling out data sheets had only yielded about three game turns of enjoyment.

The computer game version was easier to handle and had a great graphical interface (for the time). I seem to remember it had originally been developed on an Atari ST, which had a rather advanced user interface, which was copied for the DOS version of Harpoon. I played this more frequently!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[A4K]

Is 'Harpoon' what we call 'battleships' ? IF so I've played that alot of times. Played 'Axis and Allies' a couple of times too - great game.
Chess, checkers, etc too of course, aswell as 'Medal of Honour' on PS2.

[HoHun]

Hi A4K,

>Played 'Axis and Allies' a couple of times too - great game.

Roger that, really a smooth design with excellent depth considering the easy gameplay mechanisms.

I still vividly remember my first "Axis & Allies" experience! We had an Axis team and an Allies team, with every player commanding one nation - I was the Soviet player. I had a look at the game mechanisms and decided that the Soviets should have a mix of infantry for defense and tanks for counter-attacks.

When I bought these units, there was an outcry in the room - no-one had ever played it that way, and it was common wisdom that the only way the Soviets could survive the German onslaught was to raise masses of infantry, dig in and wait for the Western Allies to weaken Germany's capacity to wage war. I insisted and came close to being thrown out

The nice thing is that my initial thought proved to be right - the Soviet counterattacks forced the German player to add a share of defensive infantry units into his force mix, and his advance was delayed considerably and finally stopped, with Soviet tanks finally rolling west even before the second front was opened.

None of the veterans had seen that happen before I didn't play again with that particular group, but a friend who was a regular in that group later told me that Russia buying a share of tanks had become a standard move with those guys.

To be honest, I suspect that the subconscious reason for my lucky decision simply was the expectation that counter-attacking and losing would be more fun than digging in and watching the Western Allies win the game!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Njaco]

A4K, if you have PS2 you have to get "Call Of Duty" or "Brothers in Arms" - much, much, MUCH better than "MoH".

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi Comiso,

>allied general!

A friend once asked me for my opinion of Panzer General when the game was freshly out. My answer was "Captivating but not fascinating" - it manages to grab and hold your attention very well, but it offers only very slow development with hundreds of micromanagement tasks and the time panic at the end of a scenario as the main difficulty.

I don't know if you're familiar with the original "Empire" - it was sort of a "Civilization" without the civilization bits! In fact, Sid Meier's brilliance in creating Civilization was to replace the quantitative (and exponential) growth of units that bogged you down in unit-pushing tasks by qualitative growth, giving you fewer, more expensive, more powerful and (most importantly from a gameplay point of view) more manageable units instead.

"Empire" - much like the more complex "Panzer General", but also much like the far simpler "Tetris" - was able to generate a so-called Flow Effect ... something I'm sure most computer gamers will recognize even if they haven't heard it called by that name:

Flow (psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The list of nine components in the Wikipedia article is the bit to read ... for some reason, "flow" has been considered something entirely positive, but if you have experienced it, perhaps even with otherwise second-rate games, you'll probably recognize that it's neither good or bad in itself, just a mode the human brain can get into.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hola Ho-hun,

Games like Panzer General and Allied General suit my computer habits. Turn-based simulations are conducive to multi-tasking. I RARELY sit at the computer and dedicate time to a game. Most of the time, I'm watching TV, playing on-line poker, surfing the web and answering e-mails.

Is Civilization turn based?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by A4K

Is 'Harpoon' what we call 'battleships' ? IF so I've played that alot of times. Played 'Axis and Allies' a couple of times too - great game.
Chess, checkers, etc too of course, aswell as 'Medal of Honour' on PS2.

No I think you are thinking of something else. This is a complex game, including all of the worlds Navy's in the late 1980's {but mainly Soviet & US} with very realistic situations of hypothetical Naval battles in the N. Atlantic, Persian Gulf, etc.

There are also subs, aircraft & missiles represented.

{from Wikipedia}

''Harpoon'' is a realistic air and naval simulation game based upon Larry Bond's miniatures game of the same name. A Player can play one side: Blue or Red, in simulated naval combat situation, both local conflicts, as well as in Cold War confrontation between the Superpowers. Missions differ from small missile boat engagements to large oceanic battles with tens of vessels and hundreds of aircraft. The game also includes large database containing many types of real world ships, submarines and planes.

This game system was also used by Tom Clancy to help in writing his book "Hunt for Red October"

{Harpoon computer game}

Harpoon's interface emphasises technical accuracy over graphical polish, with simple 2D polygons reminiscent of a warship's radar display. There has been considerable debate in the game's user community about the decision of the developers to utilize 3D graphics in later versions of the program. ''Harpoon Classic'' and ''Harpoon III ANW'' are offered to AGSI civilian customers. Military customers are offered ''Harpoon III Pro'', which is tailored for customer specifications. Development of both versions is ongoing, with v3.8 essentially complete and in the final stages of beta. V4.0 is expected to undergo a graphical overhaul. Further development of the civilian variant will include a totally new user interface and improved graphics capability.

[A4K]

Yep, sounds like two different games. There's nothing complex about Battleships, and I played it as a kid. You can play the Milton Bradley normal and computer versions, or just on paper as we do here.

Thanks too Njaco and Henning. I dont have PS2 myelf, just borrowed one from a mate for a while. I think I must have driven the neighbours nuts with my swearing trying to play that game!

[HoHun]

Hi Comiso,

>Games like Panzer General and Allied General suit my computer habits. Turn-based simulations are conducive to multi-tasking.

Ah, I see!

>Is Civilization turn based?

Yes. It was something like "Empire", then add simple economy and qualitative growth and you get "Civilization", or a hex grid, a unit experience system and a point system for buying units, and you get "Battle Isle" or (later) "Panzer General". It's all the same evolutionary branch of game development - for once, I'd actually believe in "intelligent design"

EMPIRE, Wargame of the Century (tm) A Brief History of Empire

Civilization (computer game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Battle Isle (series) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[B-17engineer]

I've played axis vs. allies

[joy17782]

i played risk and axis and allied and panzer leader back in the 80s , now i play computer games alot cfs 3 and star wars , and such , i also got a ps2 and have played all the ww2 games , they keep me out of trouble , untill i spill my beer on the couch , you realize how hard it is too play cfs 3 drunk ,

[Njaco]

and holding a controller and a beer bong!

[ScOoTeR1992]

nah the only strat game i play is company of heroes
Company of Heroes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freebird]

Originally Posted by HoHun

Hi A4K,

>Played 'Axis and Allies' a couple of times too - great game.

Roger that, really a smooth design with excellent depth considering the easy gameplay mechanisms.

I still vividly remember my first "Axis & Allies" experience! We had an Axis team and an Allies team, with every player commanding one nation - I was the Soviet player. I had a look at the game mechanisms and decided that the Soviets should have a mix of infantry for defense and tanks for counter-attacks.

When I bought these units, there was an outcry in the room - no-one had ever played it that way, and it was common wisdom that the only way the Soviets could survive the German onslaught was to raise masses of infantry, dig in and wait for the Western Allies to weaken Germany's capacity to wage war. I insisted and came close to being thrown out

The nice thing is that my initial thought proved to be right - the Soviet counterattacks forced the German player to add a share of defensive infantry units into his force mix, and his advance was delayed considerably and finally stopped, with Soviet tanks finally rolling west even before the second front was opened.

None of the veterans had seen that happen before I didn't play again with that particular group, but a friend who was a regular in that group later told me that Russia buying a share of tanks had become a standard move with those guys.

To be honest, I suspect that the subconscious reason for my lucky decision simply was the expectation that counter-attacking and losing would be more fun than digging in and watching the Western Allies win the game!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

a real brilliant idea for A&A, they must have sold millions....

[parsifal]

Lets see

1) War In the Pacific (1977 SPI), seven maps about 3000 counters, about 200 hours playing time. Weekly game turns, has a semi tactical air combat system. biased in favour of the japanese. A newer version is now in print, apparaently they have minimaps of every island in the Pacific, and you can fight the island battles tactically. Some people have way too much free time

2) War In Europe (SPI 1974) same as above but much simplified. It rarely plays as history

3) Britannia (I think Avalon Hill) A neat game on the events in Britain, AD 450 through to 1100. Can be played in about 4 hours. A real beer & pretzel game, but a lot of fun

4) Power grid (some german company, its my friends game). One of the modern genre games comming out of Europe at the moment. You build power grids across europe, using various technologies. has no dice, can be played in about six hours, Has no dice, but is mostly strategy.

5) Next War (SPI 1980) Covers combat in Germany in the '80s. Most of my friends hate this game, because of its weird a**ed combat results tables, but I like it.

6) Campaign For North Africa (SPI 1980) Its basically North Africa at Bn level. Combat system is easy, logistics a nightmare. dont even think about trying to play the whole campaign. It has the best maps of North Africa i have ever seen, more accurate in my opinion than even "proper maps".

7) Computer Games WWII: Carriers At War, Uncommon Valour, Talonsofts East Front and Westfront, Crown Of Glory (Napoleonic), Blue & the Grey (Civil War), Civilzation II, III and IV (when i can get it to work), for just a bit of fun, I enjoy Panzer General

To be honest, I dont play games all that much anymore. I much prefer the design aspect. Current project of the design group i work with is working on is a playable monster (ie 150-200 hours), covering the entire war. Scale is about corps level, but smaller formations are available (you cannot do a pacific game in a serious manner at Corps level, whereas for Europe you can get away with army sized formations). Air warfare is managed by on map "groups, of around 200 a/c per group, managed by off map air points, about ten aircraft per point. Ships are single hulls down to cruiser, then multi hull per counter after that. Merchant shipping is about 10-20 ships per counter. We have tested the entire war twice now, and played numerous bits of the war, When the playtesters try to play historically, the results are +/- 5%, and we can get to surrender +/- 3-4 weeks historical. Am happy with the accuracy then, but it takes too long to play, and some things are a bit dicky still (nobody in their right mind as the axis will fight the BoB, no sane japanese Player ever gets Midwayed, no Soviet player hangs around at the front after barbarossa). We are working on the problems, and am confident that our game will be the most accurate operational level simulation to date, covering the entire war.


Have attached a few examples of the counters for the new game. We think the title will probably "Might & Power"

[Milos Sijacki]

Hearts of Iron 2: Doomsday

This is my favorite one, but I also like many others, like: Total War genres, Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War, C&C Generals, Starcraft and many others.