historical gameplay

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

I do not usually follow Extra Creds but this one is quite a brainstorm kicker, that is if you like these kind of games.

 

Ultimately NA falls into the spectrum

 

[Anolytic]

Rome 1 was so much better than Rome 2. This from a guy who played Rome 2 for more than 1k  hours.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

I know they focused on rome, but it is a generic discussion amongst historical games.

 

>>> perfect mix of historical credibility, engaging simulation and fun gameplay

 

It is really hard to get if you throw the player "cultures" in the mix. From the competitive powergamer, to the grognard, to the combat arcade junkie so it is a Developers job to keep the discipline, vision and engaging the potential audience to the importance of playing the game and the why and how.

 

Why would someone want to be a pilot of the RAF ? Why would a player want to play as Napoleon ? Why do we want to emulate a Royal Navy captain ?

 

Is it the mechanics ? They surely make believe. But it is the voyage, that those mechanics make possible, rather than the end that makes us to play them. IMO

 

 

As a sidenote, and having been a die hard CA TW follower, the very first product still delivered the most elegant, engaging and mechanically sound of all TW games. Shogun transpired history, engaging battles - probably the TW I played most MP - and zen and effective mechanics.

[Captiva]

Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg

 

Scourge of War: Gettysburg

 

Command Ops 2 

 

All highly historical, fun and challenging.

[Malachi]

Shogun transpired history, engaging battles - probably the TW I played most MP - and zen and effective mechanics.

 

 

Yeah, Shogun was a true gem and one of my all-time favourites. Sprite-Samurais!!!

 

Medieval 1 wasn´t bad either, but the rest...utter shit. Europa Barbarorum for Rome 1 was amazing, though.

[Chijohnaok]

Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg

 

Scourge of War: Gettysburg

 

Command Ops 2 

 

All highly historical, fun and challenging.

 

Scourge of War: Gettysburg is a very good game IMHO.  

I like it's level of historical accuracy and the games attempt towards historical accuracy.

 

I think that the NA devevlopers are making a good effort towards historical accuracy (but there is room for improvement---and as an early access game I have confidence that the game will eventually get there).

 

I have not played the other two mentioned.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Chijohnaok

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

SoW and HistWar, "Kriegspiel" mechanics in computer form.

 

I have the vice to always throw cash at historical gaming and not only strategy mechanics, being War of Rights and Kingdom Come the most recent ones.

 

NA obviously and it has the added benefit into bringing me into a subject I knew very little about

 

We discuss mechanics of the game every day, how to make it this or that, but how important are these mechanics to simulate the historic experience ? Are they making NA a more credible game in the historical sense of making us feel like the captain of a ship or the admiral of a fleet ? How important is that versus the fast access to action of the combat game part aka. arena with historical skin.

[Captiva]

I believe you nailed it when you suggested that Naval Action falls into the category of combat (and economy) wrapped in a historical skin as opposed to representing actual historic events.

 

For me this is just as entertaining as any of the other historical games I mentioned. I've played Naval Action for a much longer and consistent amount of time than any of the others. I supposed that it's because of the unique era in which the game resides plus the effort at representing the ships and battles in a historical manner. The best is yet to come for this game.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Well, I believe NA gives us the freedom to represent fictional events from history.

 

Given many voices outcry for a less compeling historical credibility through lesser simulation mechanics, hence this thread.

 

If we have the freedom of action how important is the simulation, and the mechanics allowing for that, for our representation of history ?

[Chijohnaok]

SoW and HistWar, "Kriegspiel" mechanics in computer form.

 

I have the vice to always throw cash at historical gaming and not only strategy mechanics, being War of Rights and Kingdom Come the most recent ones.

 

NA obviously and it has the added benefit into bringing me into a subject I knew very little about

 

We discuss mechanics of the game every day, how to make it this or that, but how important are these mechanics to simulate the historic experience ? Are they making NA a more credible game in the historical sense of making us feel like the captain of a ship or the admiral of a fleet ? How important is that versus the fast access to action of the combat game part aka. arena with historical skin.

 

Well, there must of course be a balance between historical accuracy and playability.

 

The trick of course is to find a good balance between the two.

[Captiva]

For me, the breaking point is when there becomes too much micro managing in order to achieve historical simulation at the expense of loss of enjoyable gameplay. But aside from that, a degree of historical simulation adds to the immersion in game. As the previous poster said, it is a challenging balancing act.  

Edited June 4, 2016 by Captiva

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

Now that is a good one Captiva.

 

I am just remembering Scourge of War versus HistWar.

 

Both based on the same theoretical war academy game but so distinct in their mechanics and approach to the chain of command simulation ( love them both btw )

 

In the end I have more pleasure with HistWar because it "delegates" the micro management down the chain of command although it is still being developed and the UI is bit difficult.