Underwhelmed By Having To Manage My Platoon's Every Move

I think the gaming world online has changed for me.  I eagerly awaited the new APOS DLC Shilovo 1942 and jumped in immediately after downloading.  Two hours later I was considering what scenario I would play for Command Ops.  The new APOS DLC isn't bad, in fact the terrain and gameplay are as great as ever, but something for me has changed.

I finally bit the bullet about a month ago and began to teach myself Command Ops. I am still bad at it but I think I prefer that bigger picture management style of gaming than positioning my artillery and worrying about LOS for my motorized platoon of infantry.

We will have to see if this is just a short term rejection of that style of play or a long term trend for me.

Anyone else feel that way about their gaming?

I can see myself still enjoying APOS occasionally as well as the Combat Mission titles, but I think the bulk of my gaming time will shift over to larger battlefields and grander strategery...

UPDATE: This is Doug's excellent Command Ops Joe's Bridge AAR .  It's the style of gaming I think I am beginning to prefer.


Doug Miller said…
Chris, I an SO with you on this! As much as I enjoy both Combat Mission and APOS, too often anymore I just can't take the manual grind of micromanaging every silly little detail. I find that APOS, while still erring on the side of some micromanagement is better than Combat Mission about this. The CM games definitely show their turn-based heritage here.

Unfortunately, a lot of the more operational games are as bad, if not worse. Again, I enjoy the Tiller games...but man, so many evenings I'm just too freaking tired to push hundreds of counters around. Particularly when what I'm interested in is the grand tactical/operational aspects of the simulation, not the micropositioning of a particular regiment. I'm the general; I should be able to give orders to the brigade commander and let him position his regiments!

Command Ops is obviously great for this. I find that the Scourge of War games can be as well, and most of the AGEOD games allow a broader operational/strategic focus through their level of abstraction. Based on what JC has to say about Command, it's looking like a good option, as well.

Let's hope more games go down this path! Until then, Panther Games will continue to get my money.
Chris said…
Doug I agree that Scourge of War fits in this space. I really like it and find myself watching the battle more than running it which I seem to prefer these days. For the bigger SOW scenarios you can give your orders to brigade commanders and watch things develop.

I am also looking forward to Command. I was a fan of the Harpoon tabletop game but stayed away from the digital version when I heard about this being developed.

I have played the AGEOD games but like Command Ops I just haven't given them the time they deserve to learn.

Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue fits in the Tiller end of these games and takes a lot more management than command ops. I don't trust the engine enough but I do enjoy the game itself and level of detail.
Doug Miller said…
I have DC:WtP and like it, but yeah, much more management.

Ironically last night I took the plunge and spent some birthday money on War in the East. Talk about thousands of counters!
RangerX3X said…
Command Ops is a great alternative to many gaming dilemmas: It is scalable enough in approach that the player can micromanage down to proper terrain and LOS concealment for mortar platoons or macro manage up to simply giving one attack order to the entire division and letting them have at it. And to top it all off, you usually get vastly different outcomes on replays because the enemy AI is not scripted.
Chris said…
Hi Tim. I am really glad I took the time to start playing Command Ops. My favorite game these days.

Also, I started your Burning Metal scenario. I am about 8 hours into the 1st day and playing as the Allies.

Will post an AAR when I finish.