Squad Battles - Any Good?

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
17 answers Last reply
More about squad battles good
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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>
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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! :)
  13. 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:ptidnRazKvULDNjfRVn-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
    >
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

PC gaming Video Games