SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Sailor Steve · 01-01-14, 08:05 PM

I play a 3D airwar game using models on stands. Aircraft are defined by speed, climb rate, roll rate, turn rate, and is so well set up that you actually fly the plane through the maneuvers. If you outmaneuver the other guy and set up a shot, you still have to roll dice, for the simple reason that no matter how good you are (we do have plusses to the roll for aces) you can still miss. The guy taking the hits can survive multiple critical hits with no damage, or he can be killed on the first shot. Nothing is ever set in stone.

As someone once said, no battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.

[edit] That said, I'm reading the rules right now.

[edit 2] Okay, I've given the rules a going over (not in-depth, mind you), so my comments will be limited to observations.

Observation 1: You seem to boast a lot about how much better your game is than any others. That's fine, but when done within the rules themselves it's a bit of a turn-off. They are free, however, so that makes a difference.

Observation 2: Your game seems to rely a lot on abstracts. Actual combat is not reflected. It also seems to be mainly strategic, though some tactical components are involved, it seems to be mainly for the player who wants to be a world leader, not for the player who wants to be a pilot or command a ship. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're after. When you defend your concept you need to face the fact that your game is somewhat limited in scope, as are all games. You can't be all things to all players.

Opinion: Years ago I played World In Flames. In my opinion it is still the finest strategic WW2 game yet created. That said, I only played it once, because I've never wanted to be a world leader or even a general, and strategic games turn me off. As I said earlier, the kind of game that turns me on are the ones that put me on the bridge of a ship or in the cockpit of a fighter. I have to agree with what people said the last time around, which is that without some sort of true randomness, accounting for the fog of war, you can't properly represent the battlefield, or even the give-and-take of strategic warfare. No one person can ever be in control of everything involved. One look at Jutland, or the death of the Red Baron, should make that obvious.

I'm glad you have people downloading your game and playing it. I personally find no attraction in that sort of thing.

But that's just me.

01-01-14, 08:05 PM	#19
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	I play a 3D airwar game using models on stands. Aircraft are defined by speed, climb rate, roll rate, turn rate, and is so well set up that you actually fly the plane through the maneuvers. If you outmaneuver the other guy and set up a shot, you still have to roll dice, for the simple reason that no matter how good you are (we do have plusses to the roll for aces) you can still miss. The guy taking the hits can survive multiple critical hits with no damage, or he can be killed on the first shot. Nothing is ever set in stone. As someone once said, no battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. [edit] That said, I'm reading the rules right now. [edit 2] Okay, I've given the rules a going over (not in-depth, mind you), so my comments will be limited to observations. Observation 1: You seem to boast a lot about how much better your game is than any others. That's fine, but when done within the rules themselves it's a bit of a turn-off. They are free, however, so that makes a difference. Observation 2: Your game seems to rely a lot on abstracts. Actual combat is not reflected. It also seems to be mainly strategic, though some tactical components are involved, it seems to be mainly for the player who wants to be a world leader, not for the player who wants to be a pilot or command a ship. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're after. When you defend your concept you need to face the fact that your game is somewhat limited in scope, as are all games. You can't be all things to all players. Opinion: Years ago I played World In Flames. In my opinion it is still the finest strategic WW2 game yet created. That said, I only played it once, because I've never wanted to be a world leader or even a general, and strategic games turn me off. As I said earlier, the kind of game that turns me on are the ones that put me on the bridge of a ship or in the cockpit of a fighter. I have to agree with what people said the last time around, which is that without some sort of true randomness, accounting for the fog of war, you can't properly represent the battlefield, or even the give-and-take of strategic warfare. No one person can ever be in control of everything involved. One look at Jutland, or the death of the Red Baron, should make that obvious. I'm glad you have people downloading your game and playing it. I personally find no attraction in that sort of thing. But that's just me. __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo Last edited by Sailor Steve; 01-01-14 at 08:33 PM.