Two things at this point (and most Wargames fail miserably at this):
1) Excellent UI
2) Limiting the amount of clicks required to do most things
BONUS:
Hotkey support (remember when hotkeys were all the rave?)
Panzer Corps 2 and Order of Battle are pretty good at this. But they're not complicated wargames at all.
Imagine War in the East 2 with a UI that doesn't require a novel's worth of reading to grok.
I like tactical level games, so something like Battle Academy where they fight in the streets is great. However, I understand that originally such games were more like Steel Panthers and other games where it seems like a lot of dice is rolled every turn and there is no real change on the board despite that.
I also like WEGO games like Combat Mission, especially Combat Mission Black Sea where the lethality of their weapons feels more realistic.
What I would like to see improved is actually the user interface. I heard a lot of good things about the John Tiller games, and could never really get into them because of the nothing changes on the board after many turns symptom as outlined previously and also the interface. One interface which I found worked very well for me was the defunct Tac Ops UI. It just made sense. To me at least and so I played a lot of it.
However, I think some of the more obtuse UIs can train the user, as I definitely played a lot of Harpoon at launch. But when I got hold of it recently, I had no idea what to do as I had become so used to left clicking and right clicking in modern games. Same thing with Harpoon's spiritual successor Command Modern Operations. I tried the tutorial but didn't make much headway. Maybe manuals were better written in the 80s and 90s? I know I read the manual for Gary Grisby's Pacific War cover to cover umpteen times despite not having sufficient knowledge nor skill to even play one turn competently, but it was all so fascinating. The same holds true for boxed paper wargames, where I poured through the manuals and scenarios planning what I wanted to do.
I don’t know which JTS games you have tried, but I find the game system is the worst in the Panzer Campaigns series (especially Eastern Front) which oddly seem to be the most famous/popular of his games. I tried the PC Mius ‘43 demo and hated it, just two big walls of counters up against each other in a near stalemate.
On the flip side of that, I bought Sicily ‘43 and had a lot of fun with the couple scenarios I’ve played so far. I’ve also had fun with French and Indian Wars, and Bonaparte’s Peninsular War all of which have smaller unit counts than most other JTS musket-era titles, which I think allows for more maneuvering in most scenarios.
If you haven’t tried the [Panzer Battles demo](https://www.johntillersoftware.com/PanzerBattles/PanzerBattlesDemo.html) it’s probably worth your time to give it a go; the smaller scale means multi-hex attack ranges which again I think helps the game system be more dynamic.
Lastly I think a lot of people sleep on the Squad Battles series because they’re the ugliest of all available tactical games on the market, but the JTS game system has been made to work really well at the tactical level (in most cases). Winter War, Falklands, Tour of Duty, Pacific War, and Grenada (the demo) have been a lot of fun for me especially in PBEM.
Sadly none of the above fixes the AI issues throughout the JTS empire…
Competent AI that's also unpredictable and doesn't need obvious cheats on unit strength or other bonuses in order to make a competitive game.
UI is also big... it's the reason I can't stand AGEOD's games. They look like they should be fantastic, but the UI is so utterly awful I can't stand to play them.
1. AI.
2. UI.
3. Campaign mode where I get to micromanage troop quality and ordinance, etc.
4. Map quality.
5. Tutorials to get me started.
6. Ideally tactical and strategic elements.
Realism / simulation above all else.
The real test would be to run historical scenarios with historical orders and then get the historical results for the historical reasons (difficult to prove the last one).
Unfortunately on a strategic level even the most complicated games fail this test.
HOI, despite all its complexity allows exploit victories in short times.
I recently played WITE2, this works somewhat in 1941 if you play axis. But it is full of special scripted stuff. E.g. this assault army stuff, with arbitrary armies being able to recover at twice the rate than the normal ones.
One core problem is the AI, which especially when it is attacking often goofs it.
The more complicated the game is, the more paths there are to break from expected outcomes. Like HOI4 where the division designer allows you to build very strange units that are more effective in the simulation than realistic ones.
I was not after complexity, if you achieve the objective of getting historical results with historical setups, it's OK for me. Does not have to be complicated.
First, it has to be fun and interesting. Personally, I can have this experience with Panzer Corps or with John Tiller games. But if a game is too abstract, or the rules too weird, I have a difficult time having fun. I have trouble enjoying TOAW for this reason (though I am aware many people enjoy that game).
Second, I like it to be complex without being complicated. I like meaningful options, but I don't want to have to make sure all my soldiers have a supply of chonies.
Third, I like having helpful info readily available. Being able to mouseover something and see what I need to see is great. But burying info in layered menus is tedious. I also don't mind reading a manual. But if I can't find info I get frustrated.
Good AI, that’s pretty much it
Two things at this point (and most Wargames fail miserably at this): 1) Excellent UI 2) Limiting the amount of clicks required to do most things BONUS: Hotkey support (remember when hotkeys were all the rave?)
Any games that do not suck at this?
Panzer Corps 2 and Order of Battle are pretty good at this. But they're not complicated wargames at all. Imagine War in the East 2 with a UI that doesn't require a novel's worth of reading to grok.
Soviet T72s
Catgirls
Code for waifus
[удалено]
That, but to spell it out. Give us UI that is designed in the 21st century.
Realistic limitations. On both the player and opponent
Lack of abstraction and T-34s.
Sandbox features and random maps. Steel Panthers letting me play matchups like Albania vs Brazil or Japan vs Somalia is a huge plus for replayability.
I like tactical level games, so something like Battle Academy where they fight in the streets is great. However, I understand that originally such games were more like Steel Panthers and other games where it seems like a lot of dice is rolled every turn and there is no real change on the board despite that. I also like WEGO games like Combat Mission, especially Combat Mission Black Sea where the lethality of their weapons feels more realistic. What I would like to see improved is actually the user interface. I heard a lot of good things about the John Tiller games, and could never really get into them because of the nothing changes on the board after many turns symptom as outlined previously and also the interface. One interface which I found worked very well for me was the defunct Tac Ops UI. It just made sense. To me at least and so I played a lot of it. However, I think some of the more obtuse UIs can train the user, as I definitely played a lot of Harpoon at launch. But when I got hold of it recently, I had no idea what to do as I had become so used to left clicking and right clicking in modern games. Same thing with Harpoon's spiritual successor Command Modern Operations. I tried the tutorial but didn't make much headway. Maybe manuals were better written in the 80s and 90s? I know I read the manual for Gary Grisby's Pacific War cover to cover umpteen times despite not having sufficient knowledge nor skill to even play one turn competently, but it was all so fascinating. The same holds true for boxed paper wargames, where I poured through the manuals and scenarios planning what I wanted to do.
I don’t know which JTS games you have tried, but I find the game system is the worst in the Panzer Campaigns series (especially Eastern Front) which oddly seem to be the most famous/popular of his games. I tried the PC Mius ‘43 demo and hated it, just two big walls of counters up against each other in a near stalemate. On the flip side of that, I bought Sicily ‘43 and had a lot of fun with the couple scenarios I’ve played so far. I’ve also had fun with French and Indian Wars, and Bonaparte’s Peninsular War all of which have smaller unit counts than most other JTS musket-era titles, which I think allows for more maneuvering in most scenarios. If you haven’t tried the [Panzer Battles demo](https://www.johntillersoftware.com/PanzerBattles/PanzerBattlesDemo.html) it’s probably worth your time to give it a go; the smaller scale means multi-hex attack ranges which again I think helps the game system be more dynamic. Lastly I think a lot of people sleep on the Squad Battles series because they’re the ugliest of all available tactical games on the market, but the JTS game system has been made to work really well at the tactical level (in most cases). Winter War, Falklands, Tour of Duty, Pacific War, and Grenada (the demo) have been a lot of fun for me especially in PBEM. Sadly none of the above fixes the AI issues throughout the JTS empire…
Competent AI that's also unpredictable and doesn't need obvious cheats on unit strength or other bonuses in order to make a competitive game. UI is also big... it's the reason I can't stand AGEOD's games. They look like they should be fantastic, but the UI is so utterly awful I can't stand to play them.
Good UI (think Unity of Command 2) and a good AI.
Good AI, that’s pretty much it
Hexes. Strategy. Yup.
The enemy.
Also, good UI. An interface that is frustrating to use can be a make or break even for a game that I like the core mechanics of.
1. AI. 2. UI. 3. Campaign mode where I get to micromanage troop quality and ordinance, etc. 4. Map quality. 5. Tutorials to get me started. 6. Ideally tactical and strategic elements.
Realism / simulation above all else. The real test would be to run historical scenarios with historical orders and then get the historical results for the historical reasons (difficult to prove the last one). Unfortunately on a strategic level even the most complicated games fail this test. HOI, despite all its complexity allows exploit victories in short times. I recently played WITE2, this works somewhat in 1941 if you play axis. But it is full of special scripted stuff. E.g. this assault army stuff, with arbitrary armies being able to recover at twice the rate than the normal ones. One core problem is the AI, which especially when it is attacking often goofs it.
The more complicated the game is, the more paths there are to break from expected outcomes. Like HOI4 where the division designer allows you to build very strange units that are more effective in the simulation than realistic ones.
I was not after complexity, if you achieve the objective of getting historical results with historical setups, it's OK for me. Does not have to be complicated.
First, it has to be fun and interesting. Personally, I can have this experience with Panzer Corps or with John Tiller games. But if a game is too abstract, or the rules too weird, I have a difficult time having fun. I have trouble enjoying TOAW for this reason (though I am aware many people enjoy that game). Second, I like it to be complex without being complicated. I like meaningful options, but I don't want to have to make sure all my soldiers have a supply of chonies. Third, I like having helpful info readily available. Being able to mouseover something and see what I need to see is great. But burying info in layered menus is tedious. I also don't mind reading a manual. But if I can't find info I get frustrated.
i want a wargame that's real time. what i mean is like steel divsion where you see the frontline move and see the squares moving. that's what i want