Just wondering, what preference members have when playing JTCS? - Playing an historical battle and trying to reverse the historical outcome or, how many players just play a scenario to enjoy the game with the forces they are dealt with, regardless of whether it's historical or hypothetical?
Just looking for opinions on it, not a discussion on which is perceived as the best way to play!:group:
I enjoy playing for playing; historical or hypothetical. It's a great game to unwind on.
I also enjoy playing as a historical learning tool.
But I enjoy designing more than anything. Creating scenarios that are as historical as I can make them (recently, anyway) and the playing them to see if I was able to recreate the "essence" of the battle. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, other times the scenario ends up in the bin.
Either way, since 1997, I have been completely "hooked" on the game and don't see that wavering.
Jason Petho
Thanks for your thoughts Jason!
I 'play around' with the designing of scenarios and feel that, with the tools available, i.e,map building,oob design, scenario design, there are so many scenarios available for creation which can only be good for the future of JTCS?
Like yourself, always fun to play, some, one feels proud of, some as you say get binned, historical or hypothetical.
I just like to play. I enjoy the historic battles, not so much to see if I can change the outcome, but to better understand why the outcome was the way it was. The fictional scenarios are more enjoyable (usually) for me simply because they're set up for the competition, especially the Blitz H2H games. I'm playing John Pirman's "45 Clicks to Moscow" right now. Lot of fun and John utilizes some of the new JTCS weaponary, like mine laying engineers.
Dave
(08-25-2010, 06:12 AM)Jason Petho Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy playing for playing; historical or hypothetical. It's a great game to unwind on.
I also enjoy playing as a historical learning tool.
But I enjoy designing more than anything. Creating scenarios that are as historical as I can make them (recently, anyway) and the playing them to see if I was able to recreate the "essence" of the battle. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, other times the scenario ends up in the bin.
Either way, since 1997, I have been completely "hooked" on the game and don't see that wavering.
What Jason said works for me. I do enjoy the historical types more but have had fun playing and designing hypotheticals. I don't really care for off the wall hypotheticals where tons of armor are racing around..prefer hypotheticals that could have a basis in reality.
I really hate scenarios that claim to be history based that have no semblance to the actual battles. Heck I'm not even sure that semblance is a word but figure it makes the point.
It's a great game and you can actually come close at times creating a realistic resmblance of actual battles.
Team games with good turn rate players are the best. Running a campaign is also a blast.
VE