A feast of historical strategy games

[Kautilya]

Has anyone noticed the incredibly large number of grand strategy games based on history which will be released in the next couple of years?

There are three from Paradox (makers of Europa Universalis) a Crusades game, a Rome game and, most exciting of all, a WW2 grand strategy game.

Then there are four games from antik games, www.antikgames.com, Rome,Middle Ages,Napoleon and 19th century


and then two more games from Matrix games (www.matrixgames.com) :a Napoleon game and a WW2 Pacific theatre game.

Altogether 9 games spanning huge range of history. If even half of them turn out be decent we are in for a treat.

[Grumbold]

Yup. Its good news that even though (or perhaps because) the big boys have not caught on to this arena, the little developers with big ideas seem to be making some money out of the niche and therefore producing more. Once money gets involved the inovation is likely to be replaced by replication. Fingers crossed they live up to our expectations.

[da_jaymz]

yea, and don't forget for the WW2 RTS fans Sudden Strike 2(www.suddenstrike.com) and GiCombat(www.gicombat.com) by makers of Close Combat are coming out....realism is what we need...

[tniem]

Originally posted by da_jaymz
realism is what we need...

I disagree. Games should be fun. If realism helps to make the game fun, then I am all for it. But if realism bogs the game down into a boring game with tons of micromanagement then it is not what it should be. It should be fun first!

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by tniem


Games should be fun. If realism helps to make the game fun, then I am all for it. But if realism bogs the game down into a boring game with tons of micromanagement then it is not what it should be. It should be fun first!

I agree.

A World War II game? Can you play as the Nazis and rewrite the outcome?

[General Ludd]

Why do you compare Realism and 'fun'? I don't see how they are related at all.

[da_jaymz]

Well, lets say that I like games that makes sense in its own way, and when you play a game that plays pretty much the same as in real life it can get really exciting and fun to play.
Try downloading Close Combat or Jagged Alliance 2(semi-realistic) demo to see what I'm talking about...
I think you can them on fileplanet.com.

[Mr. President]

I tend to think that the early games were better, before people had an obsession with "realism". Compare a game like Super Mario World with a game like Resident Evil. Super Mario World is like an interactive cartoon, with simple but cute sprites, objectively low-quality but nice sound effects, and fun gameplay. A game like Resident Evil has much higher quality of graphics and sound, but they go towards making the bullet wounds realistic and programming scary sounds. Amazingly, it's not as much fun.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Mr. President
I tend to think that the early games were better, before people had an obsession with "realism". Compare a game like Super Mario World with a game like Resident Evil. Super Mario World is like an interactive cartoon, with simple but cute sprites, objectively low-quality but nice sound effects, and fun gameplay. A game like Resident Evil has much higher quality of graphics and sound, but they go towards making the bullet wounds realistic and programming scary sounds. Amazingly, it's not as much fun.

If Resident Evil is your idea of a realistic game...

[Mr. President]

Not the monsters, but the gore, the bullet wounds, and the death-screams. Add in the fact that I used to get nauseous after shooting fifty people in Perfect Dark, which is cartoonish, and I tend to stare very hard in a different direction whenever I see screenshots of it in magazines or websites.

[General Ludd]

So what, exactly, do you want?



Do you want games to be more 'cartoonish', and less gorey? (If that's the case I can't imagine what you are doing playing Resident Evil or a FPS)


Or do you just want to go back to the days of 8-bit glory and stomp on goombas?

[Cookie Monster]

Maybe it's better that the big boys don't do these types of games. They are usually looking for a big and fast profit and usually botch games like this. They create the hype and collect as much cash as possible until the general public discovers what crap they put out.


Now the small houses tend to put love and care in crafting wargames. It's too bad that sometimes they get bought out by a big company looking for an entrance into the genre just to collect the cabbage. Talonsoft is a victim of this.......................

[tniem]

Originally posted by Osweld
If Resident Evil is your idea of a realistic game...

I too, thought that Resident Evil, complete with all the blood and gore, was realistic. Then, something happened. I entered college. I quickly learned that blood only comes from people puking.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Mr. President
Not the monsters, but the gore, the bullet wounds, and the death-screams. Add in the fact that I used to get nauseous after shooting fifty people in Perfect Dark, which is cartoonish, and I tend to stare very hard in a different direction whenever I see screenshots of it in magazines or websites.

I got my character up to Perfekt ranking. This involved setting up round after round of 10 minute one-hit kill games in the smallest level with all-CMP 150s. I was able to kill the AI players at the reate of ~25/minute.

[KrazyHorse]

I also had to leave the machine running nights with an elastic band on the joystick...

[Mr. President]

I got my character up to Perfekt ranking. This involved setting up round after round of 10 minute one-hit kill games in the smallest level with all-CMP 150s. I was able to kill the AI players at the reate of ~25/minute.

Apparently, if you use remote mines in the Facility / Felicity / whatever, you can toss them in the areas where the simulants re-spawn and somehow trigger an endless explosion reaction, where they respawn in the middle of a fireball and die again immediately. I've never tried it, so I wouldn't know for sure if it works.

My friend is trying to get Perfect ranking at the moment. His biggest obstacle is the Damage Dealt rating. According to his calculations, he needs about 60,000 more kills to get the requisite numbers.

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Osweld
So what, exactly, do you want?



Do you want games to be more 'cartoonish', and less gorey? (If that's the case I can't imagine what you are doing playing Resident Evil or a FPS)


Or do you just want to go back to the days of 8-bit glory and stomp on goombas?

All of the above? 8-bit games rocked!

I don't actually own Resident Evil; I saw it at a friend's place.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Mr. President


Apparently, if you use remote mines in the Facility / Felicity / whatever, you can toss them in the areas where the simulants re-spawn and somehow trigger an endless explosion reaction, where they respawn in the middle of a fireball and die again immediately. I've never tried it, so I wouldn't know for sure if it works.

My friend is trying to get Perfect ranking at the moment. His biggest obstacle is the Damage Dealt rating. According to his calculations, he needs about 60,000 more kills to get the requisite numbers.

I don't think so...

Damage dealt requirement is ridiculously low.

[Urban Ranger]

Long long time ago when strategy games meant boardgames, there were some good ones, such as World in Flames and Empire at Arms. I hope somes these computer games will be good with some degrees of added realism.

This is what computers good at: keeping track of nitty gritty details. Boardgames have a high degree of abstraction because it is unrealistic for human players to deal with these details.

Lets see how they turn out.

[David Floyd]

A WW2 grand strategy game??? LINK LINK LINK!!!

[Kautilya]

Go the www.europa-universalis.com web site . The game is called Hearts of Iron and you will find it in the forums section.

There is also a lengthy preview at www.strategy-gaming.com

[Grumbold]

Heard anything lately about the World in Flames production? The Australian Wargames Group were supposedly producing a multiplayer game first with the capacity for computer AI nations following in a second version. All this news was a while back though and nothing has crossed my radar since. I couldn't see a no-AI version selling enough units to be economically viable anyway, but perhaps my estimate of eager Flames by mail players is inaccurate

[ravagon]

Well its not exactly historical but with some luck it will be going down in history ... *cough*Candle'Bre*cough*

Originally posted by Grumbold
Heard anything lately about the World in Flames production? The Australian Wargames Group were supposedly producing a multiplayer game first with the capacity for computer AI nations following in a second version.

Lancer has posted about this on at least a couple of occasions - the last a few weeks ago. I think this was in the OT though...

[chronocrator]

Originally posted by Osweld
Why do you compare Realism and 'fun'? I don't see how they are related at all.

Just needed to bring that up again:
Actually fun and realism are quite closely connected, if you go overboard with realism fun will usually suffer. Let's take Colonization as an example (for those who don't know Col, it is a Civ-like game set in the time of the Colonization of America, your goal is to settle the new world, grow and prosper and finally achieve independence from your home country):
Col is certainly a game based on history, but it is not very historically realistic since all four nations (England, France, Spain, Holland) start their colonization exactly at same time, they start out with the same possibilities (well almost), it takes the same amount of time to go from the new world to any of the four countries and so on...
The reason for this is obvious, if the game was more realistic concerning the points mentioned above, it would be unballanced and therefore less fun.

BTW does anyone know anything about harpoon4? The website looks interesting but there were no updates recently...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by chronocrator
The reason for this is obvious, if the game was more realistic concerning the points mentioned above, it would be unballanced and therefore less fun.

Says who?
I don't see any reason why it couldn't be fun if made more realistic, unless the game was poorly designed.



And this makes me think, if realism inherently makes a game boring, does that mean the more abstract and surreal it gets, the more fun it will be?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by ravagon
Lancer has posted about this on at least a couple of occasions - the last a few weeks ago. I think this was in the OT though...

Hmm, cant find much except a link to the ADG website. Its not looking good if WIF the computer game has a link up saying "expect it in a few weeks'' dated August 2001

[chronocrator]

Originally posted by Osweld
Says who?
I don't see any reason why it couldn't be fun if made more realistic, unless the game was poorly designed.

Well let me use an extreme example, what if you played Holland and had no chance to begin your revolution because it never happend in history. What if you played the Babylonians in Civ and your empire gets destroyed every time you play, no matter what you do because it is obviously historically correct?
I wouldn't call that fun.

And this makes me think, if realism inherently makes a game boring, does that mean the more abstract and surreal it gets, the more fun it will be?

I never said that, I merely mentioned that too much realism can seriously affect the fun in games. I depends on the game but in some realism is a main part of the fun, in some it is the surrealism that motivates the player.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by chronocrator

Well let me use an extreme example, what if you played Holland and had no chance to begin your revolution because it never happend in history. What if you played the Babylonians in Civ and your empire gets destroyed every time you play, no matter what you do because it is obviously historically correct?
I wouldn't call that fun.

Why do you think a game has to follow history to the letter, in order to be realistic? You must be using a different deffinition of realism then me, if you can confuse it with so many other concepts.

Most historic games offer you the ability to play alternate histories and what-if scenarios, while still keeping things realistic and in check to make sure it stays believable, and doesn't get too fantastic. Europa Universalis, for instance.

I never said that, I merely mentioned that too much realism can seriously affect the fun in games.

Yes, but going by the same logic, doesn't that mean that abstractism/surrealism makes a game more fun?


Realism has nothing to do with how fun a game is - gameplay is what decides that, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

[David Floyd]

OK, I saw Hearts of Iron and almot came in my ****ing pants! If that game lives up to it's promise - OH MY GOD!

[chronocrator]

Originally posted by Osweld
Yes, but going by the same logic, doesn't that mean that abstractism/surrealism makes a game more fun?

No, IMO too much of either will make a game bad, it depends mainly on the szenario.

Realism has nothing to do with how fun a game is - gameplay is what decides that, and the two are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe we are indeed talking about different things, but I cannot agree, realism can limit gameplay seriously. In many games realism is reduced to a certain level so that there is less micromanagement and therefore more fun. Of course not every bit of realism results in a boring game but too much can do this.


David Floyd, what is that game you are talking about?