eddysterckx@hotmail.com
12/23/2009 7:52:00 AM
On 23 dec, 00:21, Oleg Mastruko <oleg@_REMOVE_bug.hr> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:40:14 -0800 (PST), "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
>
> <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> TW games are very very complex with LOTS of number crunching
> >> going behind the screen.
>
> >Garbage in, garbage out ?
>
> Your opinion, prolly based on Internet bullshit
Nope, based on that game trailer where troops where firing *through*
ranks in front of them to enemy troops beyond.
> and the fact
> that the game actually looks nice (an unforgivable no no for some
> grognard circles),
Not for me - I like good graphics - I wish all wargames had good
graphics.
> and sells good (an even bigger no no for grogs).
Again not my reason to dislike the game
> >Oh, great, they act like brittle European line infantry.
>
> No they do not.
The real question is : do they act like the Mohawks historically did ?
And the answer is a resounding no, thereby pretty much destroying your
"oh, but the game is soooo historical" claim.
> >What games have you been playing ? Even the HPS Napoleonic
> >Battleground games model fatigue.
>
> Then go play HPS crap and enjoy yourself!
Weird. I thought it was you who claimed that "no other period wargame
on the market models fatigue" - while it was my argument that even
crappy HPS games modeled fatigue and it was up to you to provide a
single period wargame which *didn't* model fatigue. <looks around for
such an example> seems like you failed, so there goes your claim about
the TW game.
> >So basically you agree that a TW game right out of the box is a piece
> >of crap and that it's only saved by the grace of modders.
>
> No.
>
> Besides, Eddy, you do really REALLY bad Giftz role playing
> routine. I suggest you just let Giftz be Giftz and switch to some
> other role.
You made claims. I countered them and asked you to provide proof. It's
not my fault that you like the game so much that it blinds your
judgement.
> Other than that, we may discuss the fact (or hypothesis) that
> most modern games do rely on some sort of community effort to really
> succeed, or merely survive.
Most wargames try to get that sort of thing started - and most
wargames released today fail at it. There simply isn't the mass
anymore needed for a vibrant mod community except for very, very, very
good games.
> So yes, for Rome TW I do agree the game was piece of crap outta
> box (it's a long story though), but it was eventually modded to almost
> perfection (we probably won't agree there).
I wouldn't know - you have to be in love with the base game to even
bother following the mod scene - I don't in this case - given limited
time I prefer to put it into following the mod scene of games that
appeal to me straight away. That's why I post about mods for
Commander : Europe at War, but not about mods for the TW series.
If someone else is convinced that particular mods really elevate the
base game to "real wargame" standard he's free to post about it in
here and I might investigate it. But blank claims about the TW series
being sooo superior to anything we play ain't gonna fly.
> Medieval 2 TW was pretty fine right outta box, and it was
> furhter modded to best medieval wargame I know of.
In the land of the blind ...
> Empire TW... is more complex... right outta box it had
> completely broken diplomatic model - something we don't discuss here
> anyway, as we are commenting only tactical battles.
Usually pretty much every aspect of a game is discussed here in my
experience.
> The problem is on the other side of the fence: some
> people can't forgive TW series being pretty and actually successfull.
>
> Being "pretty" does not make any game necesarilly bad, you know.
I think you'll have a mighty hard time coming up with a post of mine
in which I diss good graphics or successful games just because of
those reasons.
> Tin Soldiers were really really bad. That one I actually tried.
> Developers seemed like a nice bunch of boardgame-obsessed dudes who
> got the PC by some chance, so I refused to write bad review for my
> local magazine, but hell it was bad.
Huh ? The Tin Soldiers series was a *tabletop* system transfered to
the pc, not a boardgame. And when you got stuck in you couldn't help
but notice the AI was pretty sharp and agressive.
I've always played boardgames and tabletop wargames which has made me
accutely aware of the limitations of pc wargames, especially when it
comes to accurately portraying period tactics. This experience, more
than anything else, makes me look at the E:TW trailer, shake my head,
and pick up my copy of Black Powder or Shako and mumble "amateurs" and
I think that you would too if you widened your horizon beyond pc based
wargames.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx