Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Squad Battles - Any Good?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 12:33:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi All,
I have a hankering for a tactical WWII wargame. I have the combat mission
series and Steel Panthers plus I have experience with the ASL system (which
I enjoyed playing).

I've noticed a lot of people praising the above squad battles system and
claiming its the nearest thing to ASL on a computer. Is this true? The
screenshots seem a little amateurish to me, despite this, is the game system
anygood? Is it a recomended buy?If it is recomended, which version to get?
I'm primarily interested in the Western Front during WWII.

Thanks
RobP

More about : squad battles good

Anonymous
March 25, 2005 12:33:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ROBERT POLLARD" <RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FmG0e.889$IH3.238@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi All,
> I have a hankering for a tactical WWII wargame. I have the combat mission
> series and Steel Panthers plus I have experience with the ASL system
> (which I enjoyed playing).
>
> I've noticed a lot of people praising the above squad battles system and
> claiming its the nearest thing to ASL on a computer. Is this true? The
> screenshots seem a little amateurish to me, despite this, is the game
> system anygood? Is it a recomended buy?If it is recomended, which version
> to get? I'm primarily interested in the Western Front during WWII.
>
> Thanks
> RobP
>
>
The graphics may seem amateurish but gameplay is great. Alternative
graphics can be had at Glenn Saunder's site. I would recommend Eagles
Strike.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 12:33:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <FmG0e.889$IH3.238@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk says...

> I have a hankering for a tactical WWII wargame. I have the combat mission
> series and Steel Panthers plus I have experience with the ASL system (which
> I enjoyed playing).
>
> I've noticed a lot of people praising the above squad battles system and
> claiming its the nearest thing to ASL on a computer. Is this true? The
> screenshots seem a little amateurish to me, despite this, is the game system
> anygood? Is it a recomended buy?If it is recomended, which version to get?
> I'm primarily interested in the Western Front during WWII.

It's worth buying at least one title in the series, preferably the one
that covers the topic you find most interesting. Given your WF/WW2
interest, this would be EAGLES STRIKE.

The chief complaint I have with titles in the series (outside of my
perennial complaint of, "It's just another BATTLEGROUND.") is that the
AI is worthless and the scenario designs try to camouflage this by
pinching the player with time constraints that preclude anything but a
rush to the objectives.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this....

Unborn Child? Kill It.
Sick Woman? Kill it.
Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!"

- Wizbang Paul
Related resources
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 12:33:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:33:12 -0500, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:


>It's worth buying at least one title in the series, preferably the one
>that covers the topic you find most interesting. Given your WF/WW2
>interest, this would be EAGLES STRIKE.
>
>The chief complaint I have with titles in the series (outside of my
>perennial complaint of, "It's just another BATTLEGROUND.") is that the
>AI is worthless and the scenario designs try to camouflage this by
>pinching the player with time constraints that preclude anything but a
>rush to the objectives.

Yea, but as play by email games the Battleground series was stellar.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 1:20:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Squad Battles is a series differing from ASL in its focus. ASL places
immense importance on the leadership combat effect, whereas the
interest in SB is the unit. For this reason, the series is a surprise
with some definite design nuances in its own fashion rather than taking
the simple route of re-hashing ASL. Much in the way the old Campaign
Series of Talonsoft differs from its Panzer Blitz influence.

Squad Battle's AI shines in close terrain. It will attack, defend and
close assault with unnerving timing. Place the series in open terrain
however and the weaknesses of many other an AI will show. Therefore,
titles such as Vietnam and Eagle's Strike provide fine entertainment in
scenarios where the terrain offers cover and multiple routes of
advance. Scenario's such as Hue (Vietnam) and Rzhev (Advance of the
Reich) show the AI's lack of finesse.

Yet, again leadership and morale is where you'll find the greatest
divergence from ASL. Leaders in SB do not add shifts to combat or
assault. Leader's fire weapons, so these do count - and in one
scenario, an Lt of mine, dropping his M16 and picking up an abandoned
M60 held sway for a US win in a remote village who's name I shall never
remember. That was a great gaming moment.

But morale management and rally is where leaders are best employed.
Pinned units cannot assault - and assault is usually the only way to
gain a victory hex. Therefore, find your units pinned and under fire,
without a leader capable of entering their hex for a rally and your
scenario will be over.

A very different design approach to ASL to be sure. But a powerful one.

As different as SB is to ASL therefore I'd go all the way for a
divergent gaming experience too, if you decide to try the series. Drop
WW2 first up and go SB1 "Vietnam" - Marines/Airborne/VC/NVA. Hamburger
Hill is brilliantly depicted and you may just find some enjoyment in
Hue. Operation Tuscaloosa, once the subject of an AAR of mine (at the
Wargamer somewhere), can be as bloody as its real-life account.

Btw, in this series, you'll love calling in artillery and watching it
drift into your own lines!

Hope that helps,
Adam.


ROBERT POLLARD wrote:
> Hi All,
> I have a hankering for a tactical WWII wargame. I have the combat
mission
> series and Steel Panthers plus I have experience with the ASL system
(which
> I enjoyed playing).
>
> I've noticed a lot of people praising the above squad battles
system and
> claiming its the nearest thing to ASL on a computer. Is this true?
The
> screenshots seem a little amateurish to me, despite this, is the game
system
> anygood? Is it a recomended buy?If it is recomended, which version to
get?
> I'm primarily interested in the Western Front during WWII.
>
> Thanks
> RobP
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 2:23:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ROBERT POLLARD wrote:

> I've noticed a lot of people praising the above squad battles
system and
> claiming its the nearest thing to ASL on a computer. Is this true?

I won't comment on the Squad Battles series, but the nearest thing to
ASL on your computer is the VASSAL engine

http://www.vassalengine.org/community/index.php

... and it's free to boot

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
March 25, 2005 9:25:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1111731612.467294.75160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Squad Battles is a series differing from ASL in its focus. ASL places
> immense importance on the leadership combat effect, whereas the
> interest in SB is the unit. For this reason, the series is a surprise
> with some definite design nuances in its own fashion rather than taking
> the simple route of re-hashing ASL. Much in the way the old Campaign
> Series of Talonsoft differs from its Panzer Blitz influence.
>
> Squad Battle's AI shines in close terrain. It will attack, defend and
> close assault with unnerving timing. Place the series in open terrain
> however and the weaknesses of many other an AI will show. Therefore,
> titles such as Vietnam and Eagle's Strike provide fine entertainment in
> scenarios where the terrain offers cover and multiple routes of
> advance. Scenario's such as Hue (Vietnam) and Rzhev (Advance of the
> Reich) show the AI's lack of finesse.
>
> Yet, again leadership and morale is where you'll find the greatest
> divergence from ASL. Leaders in SB do not add shifts to combat or
> assault. Leader's fire weapons, so these do count - and in one
> scenario, an Lt of mine, dropping his M16 and picking up an abandoned
> M60 held sway for a US win in a remote village who's name I shall never
> remember. That was a great gaming moment.
>
> But morale management and rally is where leaders are best employed.
> Pinned units cannot assault - and assault is usually the only way to
> gain a victory hex. Therefore, find your units pinned and under fire,
> without a leader capable of entering their hex for a rally and your
> scenario will be over.
>
> A very different design approach to ASL to be sure. But a powerful one.
>
> As different as SB is to ASL therefore I'd go all the way for a
> divergent gaming experience too, if you decide to try the series. Drop
> WW2 first up and go SB1 "Vietnam" - Marines/Airborne/VC/NVA. Hamburger
> Hill is brilliantly depicted and you may just find some enjoyment in
> Hue. Operation Tuscaloosa, once the subject of an AAR of mine (at the
> Wargamer somewhere), can be as bloody as its real-life account.
>
> Btw, in this series, you'll love calling in artillery and watching it
> drift into your own lines!
>
> Hope that helps,
> Adam.


Weren't you a beta tester ? I know your views of HPS games tend to gloss
over/ignore their faults.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:52:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

JP wrote:

> Weren't you a beta tester? I know your views of HPS games tend to
gloss
> over/ignore their faults.

Not on this series JP, I paid for my Vietnam game. I've tested a few of
the Panzer Campaigns and Modern titles, my forte is the
small-small/medium scen vs AI. I've contributed art to the games being
some victory screens and side/bottom boxes. There's an unofficial mod
for the Nappy games with better 2d icons many people use. But my
biggest official contribution has been writing a number of the Getting
Started manuals.

At this stage, I've taken over test leadership of the second Modern Air
Power game. The original I had no involvement with whatsoever but that
title has legs and needs to/can be improved as a game. Hence my
invitation to join that team. I see immense potential.

Modern Air Power right now is more of a basic air warfare lab rather
than a competitive simulation. It's the genesis of efforts currently
being produced for the USAF and these will have a ripple effect into
retail. It's this ripple effect that I aim to help steer into even more
of a warfare laboratory and most importantly a competitive gaming
environment.

My involvement with HPS came about purely as a by-hobby. I made a side
box for Bulge 44 and people liked it!

As for any suggested bias though, I think my statement as to AI above,
is very clear:

"Place the series in open terrain however and the weaknesses of many
other an AI will show. Therefore, titles such as Vietnam and Eagle's
Strike provide fine entertainment in scenarios where the terrain offers
cover and multiple routes of advance. Scenario's such as Hue (Vietnam)
and Rzhev (Advance of the
Reich) show the AI's lack of finesse."

No JP I really like Squad Battles Vietnam. The day the AI rushed down
Hamburger Hill and attacked my hard won VP hex in close assault right
on the last turn, was the day I was sold. But in the streets of Hue,
where my Pattons can run amok amidst a lost gaggle of NVA, I cringe.

Wild Bill ran the SB titles from Vietnam on. Some of his scen designs I
like. Many of his scen preambles I think have been loosely crafted and
as Giftz says there are some scens based purely on tricks of the design
trade which I too don't like. Then I fired up SB Korea last night and
played a scen whose name escapes me but sees the Communists right in
the middle of a US Battalion's CP. A manic scen that.

Is the SB series as a whole my cup of tea? Not really. Just as I'd
wished that Talonsoft's Campaign series followed Panzer Blitz more
closely, I wish that SB had taken more of a lead from ASL than its own
track. By-pass movement, brevet leadership, top-down AFV graphics -
these are things I'd have liked.

But as for bias, that's for people who read my opinions to decide. I
own War in the Pacific, Battles in Normandy, Highway to the Reich, Tin
soldiers Alexander, Flashpoint Germany and Combat Mission because
foremost I'm a gamer.

And as a long-standing, long-buying war gamer I can tell you, I'm sick
of bull - especially from reviews and previews that have made me waste
my money for many years now.

Will you always see an HPS game on my screen each time you take a look?
No way! But they are reliable and stable. I'm still waiting for the
perfect war game, most probably just like you. My next buy will be
Grigsby's World at War - despite being disappointed by him now 3 times
in Battle of Britain, Twelve O'Clock High and War in the Pacific. This
one looks different. But already we're reading about bugs - from the
game's reviewers! And the game hasn't yet hit the shelves. There's
something to say about reliability JP.

Game on,
Adam.
March 26, 2005 10:02:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1111812742.572579.324560@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> JP wrote:
>
> > Weren't you a beta tester? I know your views of HPS games tend to
> gloss
> > over/ignore their faults.
>
> Not on this series JP, I paid for my Vietnam game. I've tested a few of
> the Panzer Campaigns and Modern titles, my forte is the
> small-small/medium scen vs AI. I've contributed art to the games being
> some victory screens and side/bottom boxes. There's an unofficial mod
> for the Nappy games with better 2d icons many people use. But my
> biggest official contribution has been writing a number of the Getting
> Started manuals.
>
> At this stage, I've taken over test leadership of the second Modern Air
> Power game. The original I had no involvement with whatsoever but that
> title has legs and needs to/can be improved as a game. Hence my
> invitation to join that team. I see immense potential.
>
> Modern Air Power right now is more of a basic air warfare lab rather
> than a competitive simulation. It's the genesis of efforts currently
> being produced for the USAF and these will have a ripple effect into
> retail. It's this ripple effect that I aim to help steer into even more
> of a warfare laboratory and most importantly a competitive gaming
> environment.
>
> My involvement with HPS came about purely as a by-hobby. I made a side
> box for Bulge 44 and people liked it!
>
> As for any suggested bias though, I think my statement as to AI above,
> is very clear:
>
> "Place the series in open terrain however and the weaknesses of many
> other an AI will show. Therefore, titles such as Vietnam and Eagle's
> Strike provide fine entertainment in scenarios where the terrain offers
> cover and multiple routes of advance. Scenario's such as Hue (Vietnam)
> and Rzhev (Advance of the
> Reich) show the AI's lack of finesse."
>
> No JP I really like Squad Battles Vietnam. The day the AI rushed down
> Hamburger Hill and attacked my hard won VP hex in close assault right
> on the last turn, was the day I was sold. But in the streets of Hue,
> where my Pattons can run amok amidst a lost gaggle of NVA, I cringe.
>
> Wild Bill ran the SB titles from Vietnam on. Some of his scen designs I
> like. Many of his scen preambles I think have been loosely crafted and
> as Giftz says there are some scens based purely on tricks of the design
> trade which I too don't like. Then I fired up SB Korea last night and
> played a scen whose name escapes me but sees the Communists right in
> the middle of a US Battalion's CP. A manic scen that.
>
> Is the SB series as a whole my cup of tea? Not really. Just as I'd
> wished that Talonsoft's Campaign series followed Panzer Blitz more
> closely, I wish that SB had taken more of a lead from ASL than its own
> track. By-pass movement, brevet leadership, top-down AFV graphics -
> these are things I'd have liked.
>
> But as for bias, that's for people who read my opinions to decide. I
> own War in the Pacific, Battles in Normandy, Highway to the Reich, Tin
> soldiers Alexander, Flashpoint Germany and Combat Mission because
> foremost I'm a gamer.
>
> And as a long-standing, long-buying war gamer I can tell you, I'm sick
> of bull - especially from reviews and previews that have made me waste
> my money for many years now.
>
> Will you always see an HPS game on my screen each time you take a look?
> No way! But they are reliable and stable. I'm still waiting for the
> perfect war game, most probably just like you. My next buy will be
> Grigsby's World at War - despite being disappointed by him now 3 times
> in Battle of Britain, Twelve O'Clock High and War in the Pacific. This
> one looks different. But already we're reading about bugs - from the
> game's reviewers! And the game hasn't yet hit the shelves. There's
> something to say about reliability JP.
>
> Game on,
> Adam.


<shrug> Fair enough. In terms of reliability, Model - t's were very
reliable too, but there's a reason they're not around anymore <g>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 10:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in
news:1111812742.572579.324560@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:


> At this stage, I've taken over test leadership of the second Modern
Air
> Power game. The original I had no involvement with whatsoever but that
> title has legs and needs to/can be improved as a game. Hence my
> invitation to join that team. I see immense potential.
>
> Modern Air Power right now is more of a basic air warfare lab rather
> than a competitive simulation. It's the genesis of efforts currently
> being produced for the USAF and these will have a ripple effect into
> retail. It's this ripple effect that I aim to help steer into even
more
> of a warfare laboratory and most importantly a competitive gaming
> environment.

<sigh> adding another game to my "games in development" list - my
backlog this year will be terrible :)  - I think Mr. Giftzwerg will like
this news as he *really* tried to like the first iteration but didn't
find a "game" in it.

> My involvement with HPS came about purely as a by-hobby. I made a side
> box for Bulge 44 and people liked it!
>
> As for any suggested bias though, I think my statement as to AI above,
> is very clear:

For what it's worth : I didn't see any bias in your statement - on the
contrary.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 2:44:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1111812742.572579.324560@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

I wish that SB had taken more of a lead from ASL than its own
> track. By-pass movement, brevet leadership, top-down AFV graphics -
> these are things I'd have liked.
>
> But as for bias, that's for people who read my opinions to decide. I
> own War in the Pacific, Battles in Normandy, Highway to the Reich,


Does "Highway to the Reich" appear on your screen anymore?

Cheers, Reddog
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 4:58:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Reddogfive wrote:
> "Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1111812742.572579.324560@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I wish that SB had taken more of a lead from ASL than its own
> > track. By-pass movement, brevet leadership, top-down AFV graphics -
> > these are things I'd have liked.
> >
> > But as for bias, that's for people who read my opinions to decide.
I
> > own War in the Pacific, Battles in Normandy, Highway to the Reich,
>
>
> Does "Highway to the Reich" appear on your screen anymore?
>
> Cheers, Reddog


Hi Reddog, I'll take the bait! It does (all my Matrix ansd HPS games
will continue to live on my HD) - however though having a smooth
interface, great wheel-scrollable map with huge, non-degradable zoom-in
- it suffers from just one flaw imo:

Yesterday I played Joe's Bridge - I clicked on the Irish Guards HQ and
clicked on the bridge itself with orders to "secure crossing". Off the
troops went and I won a major victory.

I didn't do anything other than to click the HQ one more time and say
"attack" a couple of kilometers up the road... because well... I just
didn't like seeing Germans there!

HHTR is smooth and stable but for me low on game play. But version 2 is
soon to arrive in terms of COTA so we can see what that brings. HTTR
though is not Flashpoint Germany. It is in all respects, a living game
inside.

To this extent, HTTR shares a little of the main issue I have with
HPS's Modern Air Power Vietnam. They're both for the most part
operational "laboratories" which can be enjoyed as is. But given their
WEGO format are susceptible to the "click and win" phenomenon.

Cheers,
Adam.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:42:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Adam,

While it is possible to do as you say - just give a simple order and
let the AI manage the rest. This is not the recommended mode of play.
This is only achievable in those scenarios where there is a single
objective, such as Joe's Bridge, which BTW is a very small scenario,
involving a small map and just one Bde on each side.

To gain the real experience of joy in playing HTTR, I strongly
recommend you try one of the larger scenarios with multiple objectives.
I also recommend commanding at least one level down, as do most real
commanders. For large battles like the Mook Right Hook, where
eventually you end up with a Corps on map, I tend to issue orders at
the Bde level and when the action gets a little tight down to Bn level.
In a scenario like the Mook Right Hook you have many objectives to
achieve and you need your wits about you.

The AI has been developed so that it can be relied upon to do a
reasonable job. So we have spent a lot of time ensuring that in games
where the Player is a Corps or Div commander it can handle a Bde or Bn
very well. And it does a pretty good job.

It's a bit like flying a high performance aircraft that has an
auto-pilot feature. This may be useful but why would you use is when
there is so much joy to be had in taking the controls yourself.

It's time to fly! :) 
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:49:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Highway to the Reich is a very good. I don't think I know of a wargame that
is as technically accomplished. It does so many things well, the AI is top
notch and it is imo a vast improvement over the hex based operational games.
That said I'm seriously thinking of buyng France 40 which is hex based. (But
I do like early war). I will buy one squad battles module to see how it
does, but the game I have my eye on is Combat Leader when it comes out, as
it looks vedry good.

RobP

"Reddogfive" <reddogfivenospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p tidnRazKvULDNjfRVn-gA@rogers.com...
>
> "Adam Parker" <joadpar@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1111812742.572579.324560@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> I wish that SB had taken more of a lead from ASL than its own
>> track. By-pass movement, brevet leadership, top-down AFV graphics -
>> these are things I'd have liked.
>>
>> But as for bias, that's for people who read my opinions to decide. I
>> own War in the Pacific, Battles in Normandy, Highway to the Reich,
>
>
> Does "Highway to the Reich" appear on your screen anymore?
>
> Cheers, Reddog
>
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 1:25:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1111874332.016338.61640@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
joadpar@bigpond.com says...

> To this extent, HTTR shares a little of the main issue I have with
> HPS's Modern Air Power Vietnam. They're both for the most part
> operational "laboratories" which can be enjoyed as is. But given their
> WEGO format are susceptible to the "click and win" phenomenon.

Whaaaaat? The "click and win" whatzit?

(1) What (TF) is the "click and win" phenomenon?

(2) How, exactly, does the WEGO format perpetuate this phenomenon?

(3) Why is HTTR a "laboratory" of anything?

(4) Why should we not think you insane for mentioning WOV in the same
paragraph with HTTR?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this....

Unborn Child? Kill It.
Sick Woman? Kill it.
Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!"

- Wizbang Paul
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 11:47:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:
> In article <1111874332.016338.61640@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,

> Whaaaaat? The "click and win" whatzit?
>
> (1) What (TF) is the "click and win" phenomenon?
>
> (2) How, exactly, does the WEGO format perpetuate this phenomenon?
>
> (3) Why is HTTR a "laboratory" of anything?
>
> (4) Why should we not think you insane for mentioning WOV in the
same
> paragraph with HTTR?

1. The state of being whereby you give orders to your forces, go and
watch TV and come back to a victory.

2. The word was "susceptible". WEGO goes hand in hand with continuous
time/perpetual command - a key environment for giving orders and going
to watch TV, to win.

3. Instead of going to watch TV knowing you will win, a player micro
manages his September 1944 forces experimenting with command and
outcomes in the region between the Escaut Canal and the Rhine. This lab
metaphor is also a "phenomenon"! Akin to playing a low-solitaire rated
boardgame - solitaire, knowing the rules are being broken but sitting
down with your nose to the game map and taking hours pushing cardboard
around experimenting with similar command/outcomes. "Laboratory" coming
from the Greek "Labros" refering to a large, short-haired dog.

4. It's another phenomenon.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 10:22:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1111938470.356176.6870@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
joadpar@bigpond.com says...

> > Whaaaaat? The "click and win" whatzit?
> >
> > (1) What (TF) is the "click and win" phenomenon?
> >
> > (2) How, exactly, does the WEGO format perpetuate this phenomenon?
> >
> > (3) Why is HTTR a "laboratory" of anything?
> >
> > (4) Why should we not think you insane for mentioning WOV in the
> same
> > paragraph with HTTR?
>
> 1. The state of being whereby you give orders to your forces, go and
> watch TV and come back to a victory.

"Joe's Bridge" is a very small, quite limited introductory scenario
that's hardly characteristic of the game system. I think you'll find
that overall this method of command will amass more defeats than
victories, particularly in the 9-day historical campaign scenarios.

> 2. The word was "susceptible". WEGO goes hand in hand with continuous
> time/perpetual command - a key environment for giving orders and going
> to watch TV, to win.

Any number of games offer scenarios where simply implementing the
initial strategy can lead inexorably to victory; the fact that one needs
to cut into the TV-watching to enter orders each turn doesn't mean that
turn-basing is more interesting or absorbing - or useful or valid.

> 3. Instead of going to watch TV knowing you will win, a player micro
> manages his September 1944 forces experimenting with command and
> outcomes in the region between the Escaut Canal and the Rhine. This lab
> metaphor is also a "phenomenon"! Akin to playing a low-solitaire rated
> boardgame - solitaire, knowing the rules are being broken but sitting
> down with your nose to the game map and taking hours pushing cardboard
> around experimenting with similar command/outcomes. "Laboratory" coming
> from the Greek "Labros" refering to a large, short-haired dog.

We could test your theory easily enough. Simply set up an HTTR scenario
of sufficient size to provide a useful "laboratory," and allow yourself
to give orders to a regiment *only once*, the moment it appears, and not
subsequently. I should think that the AI could probably claim a victory
if you actually used this method - and certainly a human player would
flatten you. Indeed, if a human opponent was *aware* that you were
using this method, he'd bounce you like a basketball.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this....

Unborn Child? Kill It.
Sick Woman? Kill it.
Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!"

- Wizbang Paul
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 11:41:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1cb10a2ce21ef87e98a245@news-east.giganews.com:

> We could test your theory easily enough. Simply set up an HTTR
scenario
> of sufficient size to provide a useful "laboratory," and allow
yourself
> to give orders to a regiment *only once*, the moment it appears, and
not
> subsequently. I should think that the AI could probably claim a
victory
> if you actually used this method - and certainly a human player would
> flatten you. Indeed, if a human opponent was *aware* that you were
> using this method, he'd bounce you like a basketball.

Actually, this is one of the tests I put scenario's through - give
orders at scenario start and just let it run. I must confess that I look
upon COTA as a "laboratory" myself as in "let's do something
stupid/surprising here and watch how the AI reacts to it" - lab
experiments if you like :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
!