What SB do you want to see?

[TheBigRedOne]

Describing my mods as appealing to some because they have a lot of 'toys' in them is short-sighted. They have no more 'toys' than, say, Soviet-Afghan War and it's not weapons or equipment that necessarily win a battle but how they and the troops that use them are employed. Modern warfare can be more intense than what pre-dated it and often requires a different approach as some players have recently discovered. It may not be for everyone, but there's more to successfully fighting a modern war than what weapons are at hand.

It wasn't a criticism of your work, Andrew, you should know that based on our conversations...

I think my comment stems from reactions on a variety of the boards from folks who said that LW is one of the best SB games out there. Clearly, it's impressive work, and you and I have many PMs discussing this and other work you've done. I'm a fan, you know that, but LW was more of a showcase, as you've stated. The initial scenarios weren't fully developed as a commercial release, so for some folks to be that enthralled with it tells me that it was a lot of the goodies and new graphics that caught people's eye rather than the depth of the scenarios. SAW has a lot of goodies too, but unless you're a fan on the Soviet-Afghan conflict, or know a whole lot about Russian equipment, much of what is in there might not be familiar to people. There were some comments when it came out from some folks that they simply had no interest in the conflict. Now, M1A1, Hummer, Bradley, these are things that are tangible to folks because we see it daily in the news. These are American forces and equipment, and that appeals to many people.

AIW is a different story, the scenarios are much more 'complete', which shows me that you're improving as a scenario designer. Having Ozgur's work in there also adds to the depth of the game. I consider him to be a simply fantastic designer and the top SB player. You're artwork is, as always, superb.

The new MODs have filled a gap in the SB line. The last two releases have been, as many have said, 'bolt-action' rifle heavy. No fancy armor, new equipment. They cover smaller conflicts, even obscure ones, but the depth of the scenario coverage is really outstanding, and the scenarios themselves are very well done. One of the reviews for SCW mentioned that you can play it and learn a lot about history at the same time. Ditto for WW, which I knew nothing about until I started playtesting some of the scenarios, which got me to read several books on the conflict. I now consider the Winter War to be one of my favorite moments of WWII.

The community eagerly awaits further IronX stuff, without question. I still think, however, you should play in the tourney here if it's AIW. Gives your fans the chance to knock off the creator!

;)

[TheBigRedOne]

Bump.

Still a relevant topic given that HPS just released DBP.

[Rabbit]

I voted "Other" just now as a follow-up to a post I recently made in which I expressed interest in a SB game that focused more on both sides being on offense (such as in the game "Capture The Flag"), rather than the usual "one side is the attacker while the other side defends". I don't think many wars lend themselves to both sides generally being on the offensive simulatenously, which I why I tend to think a set of non-historical scenarios would make more sense for this. If it needed a context, perhaps the game could be called "Red Team, Blue Team" in which the scenarios are considered training exercises for any generic army. I tend to think you could have some extremely fun scenarios with two evenly matched sides both being on offense simultaneously if you eliminated the constraint of trying to make it historically accurate. Eliminating the historical aspect would also allow you to include scenarios from any timeframes, from SB Cave Man to modern times. The goal would be to concentrate on the head-to-head playability of the game which I think would yield some great scenarios.

[Rabbit]

If it needs to fit within a historical context, then my preference would be for a WWII campaign in Italy. I am a sucker for terrain effects (especially elevation) and I think an Italian campaign would give a good backdrop for that plus there were some fascinating battles in that the Italian/Mediterranean arena.

[Mad_Dog]

The battle for Ortona would be great! The engine suits it perfectly.

[Ozgur Budak]

I voted "Other" just now as a follow-up to a post I recently made in which I expressed interest in a SB game that focused more on both sides being on offense (such as in the game "Capture The Flag"), rather than the usual "one side is the attacker while the other side defends". I don't think many wars lend themselves to both sides generally being on the offensive simulatenously, which I why I tend to think a set of non-historical scenarios would make more sense for this. If it needed a context, perhaps the game could be called "Red Team, Blue Team" in which the scenarios are considered training exercises for any generic army. I tend to think you could have some extremely fun scenarios with two evenly matched sides both being on offense simultaneously if you eliminated the constraint of trying to make it historically accurate. Eliminating the historical aspect would also allow you to include scenarios from any timeframes, from SB Cave Man to modern times. The goal would be to concentrate on the head-to-head playability of the game which I think would yield some great scenarios.

Bill, I think this is a good idea applicable to any title. Maybe, for the future titles, I can do a series of "boot camp" type scenarios that have even forces and aspects you mentioned. They will also be good for training.

[HirooOnoda]

Something modern. I love SB: Afghan-war. I do enjoy the others, but let's see some modern-stuff.