![]() Operational level is, at least for me (and that is subjective), the most interesting level for a wargame. TOAW makes part of this select group of games that came to be a reference for it’s longevity, continuous evolution and community contribution. You can prefer tic-tac-toe to chess and that would be a completely subjective matter, not open to discussion but you won’t find the same level of tactics and strategies discussion, interaction with people, championships, tools and the such for tic-tac-toe as you will for chess. In the realm of subjective matters, those objective variables make those games excel. Those will always present things like dozens of mods, scenarios, discussion forums, opponents or team mates, continuous support, articles, etc, which will always make them worthy. But chess is what it is today and that’s great for the simple fact that it benefited from centuries of evolution and tweaks and science and competitiveness, to the point of becoming an universal reference.Ĭomputer game history is more recent, but some almost universal references (at least for a particular field of interest) already come to mind, like Civilization, Steel Panthers, Combat Mission, Sim City, Microsoft Flight Simulator and TOAW. Chess could have been different if historical circumstances favored one of the other existing variables centuries ago. I figured out that there isn’t an answer to what makes a great wargame, but games in general are products of circumstances. With time I figured out that most aspects of wargames are very subjective, since even among military analysts there are discussions on the effects of any actions taken in a determinate circumstance and history is full of exceptions and subjective narratives that may bear support to any thesis. The fact is that I was always able to find some post or review that would destroy my will to play the game in question. It could be a reviewers disapproval of it’s AI, an execration of some aspect of it’s combat engine or anything else. I used to think that what made a great wargame was precise simulation and in search for the definitive wargame I went back and forth through the net reading reviews and posts until I found something that would disqualify the game I had in focus on the occasion. ![]() What makes a great wargame? Historical details? A great number of scenarios? Flexibility? Fun gameplay? A great community? Longevity and continuous evolution? An exhaustively tried engine? The promise of further development? Image from the Vietnam Series by Bonnierat (link below) ![]() You can find an example of such a review here: There are plenty of reviews which cover the game technical aspects. (notice that english isn’t my native tongue, so pardon me for any err or) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |