WW II games

Snafu · Post by **Snafu** » 03 Jun 2002 01:16

Problem with computer war games is that they are only designed to be fun which means they are almost always seriously flawed in terms of realism and historical accuracy not to speak of troop morale and cohesion issues (i.e what really wears down units in combat). This does not only pertain to shooters and the arcade genre, but to posing to be more or less serious attempts such as the Close Combat series, Panzer General, Steel Panthers etc as well.
Some board games on the other hand are very good, too bad people in this digital age seem to lack the energy or enthusiasm to move little cardboard pieces around on big unwieldy paper maps for hours though... or on second thoughts, when on turn 23 one discovers the vital rule of 4.23.1 has been misinterpreted, maybe it's really not that strange?

Anyhow, when it comes to the board game genre I'd like to suggest the Tactical Combat Series from The Gamers, "Lost Victory" for a good Manstein at Kharkov depiction and Richard H Berg's great regimental based games for battles of the American Civil War.
And by the way, I've never liked the 250 meters per hex, 6-8 minutes per turn scale of such epic games as "Panzerblitz" or "Steelpanthers III". It gives tactical operations a needlessly abstract and quirky nature. About 90 m per hex (125 yards) and 20 minutes per turn is a much better scale to depict a platoon based (with individual AFV's) designed system.

Huh, maybe I got in a bit deep here?

Yours snafely,
Snafu

Bryan Poon · Post by **Bryan Poon** » 03 Jun 2002 03:34

I love "Hidden & Dangerous"

Snafu · Post by **Snafu** » 03 Jun 2002 09:13

I love "Hidden & Dangerous"

Me too. It's definitely one of the best (and funniest) shooters I've seen.

But of course, it has nothing to do with historical wargame simulations, being more akin to "Asteroids" or "Defender" than a study in any real world battlefield. It's not a wargame. But then again, I guess it was never supposed to be.

Ovidius · Post by **Ovidius** » 03 Jun 2002 09:35

The most realistic(in terms of damage, supply, manoeuvers etc) WWII game I've played until now is SuddenStrike(standard version). Also it has superb graphics.

However, since I've finished all missions of the German campaign, and all the custom missions I've found on the Web are designed for SuddenStrike Forever, it seems that my game has just become a waste of space.

I've also played Close Combat III and V, but the graphics sucks badly, although the action is interesting.

Panzer General II had superb simplicity in design, ease in operation, and interesting campaigns(the Polish one was the hardest mission in the game - I'm not joking). From this point of view, Panzer General 3D was a step backward - too complex, with high resource consumption, and the Eastern and Western Fronts split up in two separate games.

~Ovidius

Bryan Poon · Post by **Bryan Poon** » 03 Jun 2002 11:03

Hi Snafu

Yes, you are right. It cannot be classified into historical wargame simulations. But throught-out this game. I realize how good of the German Weapons and how poor the Russian's. I play this game many times and many rounds. Being a sniper. Target the Head ....and head and again.....

No one discover me.......

Regards
BP

Tolga Alkan · Post by **Tolga Alkan** » 22 Jun 2002 15:34

Close Combat series are good ones.I've also a game called "WWIIGI".AI isn't good but recommed for wwII gamers.

Schmauser · Post by **Schmauser** » 22 Jun 2002 16:01

Has anybody seen that new PS2 game 'Medal of Honor - Allied Assault' ? The graphics look stunning and from what i've seen on the advert, one level takes place on the Normandy beaches, practically reliving Saving Private Ryan. Must Get it! ... damn! gotta get a PS2 first!

~Regards Schmauser

saxon · Post by **saxon** » 22 Jun 2002 16:54

Hi Schmauser
I'm pretty sure that 'Medal of Honour - Allied Assualt ' is available on PC
I think you will need about 500meg of free space on your hard drive though.

Regards,

Derek

Schmauser · Post by **Schmauser** » 22 Jun 2002 22:44

Ah well that's me buggered then! My computer used to belong to Fred Flinstone, before he upgraded!

Thanks saxon

~Regards Schmauser

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 23 Jun 2002 11:21

Ovidius wrote: Panzer General II had superb simplicity in design, ease in operation, and interesting campaigns(the Polish one was the hardest mission in the game - I'm not joking). From this point of view, Panzer General 3D was a step backward - too complex, with high resource consumption, and the Eastern and Western Fronts split up in two separate games.

~Ovidius

I totally agree with you that Panzer General 3 was a step back from PzG II. That's why I still play it, but with the Oronzo equipment file (http://www.oronzo.com), which has a lot of new units and graphics. Btw I thought Novgorod was the hardest scenario, not Poland.

I would also like to add to the list a great game: Commandos.[/url]

Panzer general · Post by **Panzer general** » 23 Jun 2002 12:01

Victor wrote:I totally agree with you that Panzer General 3 was a step back from PzG II. That's why I still play it, but with the Oronzo equipment file (http://www.oronzo.com), which has a lot of new units and graphics. Btw I thought Novgorod was the hardest scenario, not Poland.

Hey thx for this usefull link. Its great! But I think PZ III Allied Assault has also a hard campaign. Namely Kesselring!

But I agree PZ II is the best and certainly with that Oronzo equipment I will play PZ II with pleasure again

Grtz

Panzer General

Ahmed · Post by **Ahmed** » 26 Jun 2002 15:27

My personal favorites are Medal of honour and the Steel Panthers series.
And I think Panzer General is way to simplifiyng. PG1 was cool because you could picture yourself moving divisions on a strategic map in relatively realistic way. But after PG1 the producers made a lot of mistakes. They changed the strategic map with a picture (PG2) and a 3D texturised polygon (PG3). I mean they now aime to animate the map too much- they abandoned the action films from PG1 and replaced them with 3D moving models. So I think a lot of my "suspension of disbelief" necessary to imagine myself leading armies is lost due to this lack of the concept of the game. Instead of concentrating on 3D grphics wich downplay realism (because they only make you aware that you're playing on a PC) they should have invested more effort in the composition of units (define their level- i.e. divisionary, increase the number of parameters that control the units behaviour in combat, etc).
Sorry for the long post but I think there's too much enthusiasm for PG from people who should know better.

-regards.

Petho · Post by **Petho** » 27 Jun 2002 10:32

Just because I'm persistant, I still think the Campaign Series offers the best bang for the buck when it comes to "playing" in the World War 2 era.

Madsen · Post by **Madsen** » 01 Jul 2002 19:49

I think that sudden strike is a great game.
bought the S S forever(the Add on for the game) and enjoying making my one battlefields. first setting my numbers of troops(ex nimbers of cannons and if i have air support) and then find a place on a map to defend. then when i think my defenders are ready and in right place i go in with the enemy and see how good my plannings are. its great.
And think of it: After a hard day on job or at scool.
Sit down by the pc and play your own Killer game. My is when about 500 russian infantry walk in to a town defended by me and my 25 art battery + 50 snipers and mortairs and so on. feels great.
By the way i see here that german weapons is better than the others
Bjørn

T.R.Searle · Post by **T.R.Searle** » 01 Jul 2002 21:57

I got "Medal Of Honor Allied Assault" 2 weeks ago and I found it disapointing. Its alright for some levels (especialy my favourite where you can drive a Tiger II

)some gun sounds seem wrong and the MG42 fires like it shoots at 700rpm or slower. I would prefer "Return to Castle Wolfenstein" now thats a game I like

.

T.R.Searle

Axis History Forum

WW II games

Sudden strike