This is the emulator for two player game sessions, Plus-F at http://plus-f.socialthingy.com It's in the beta stage and sound is not enabled yet.
I thinh there was something on EmuzWin for turn based games but this one seems to aim at any game for two players at once?
What would be left if RT Smith and Julian Gallop were taken out of the equation?
Not much I think . So , on this perspective Speccy strategy games offer "thinner pickings" than I had previously thought . And it is surprising that there is so much consensus about what the best games are (another indication of "not much good stuff around"in this genre).
What would be left if RT Smith and Julian Gallop were taken out of the equation?
Not much. I was always envious of the choice on the C64. From actual war games, there was Viking Raiders from Firebird (Sequel to mentioned Battle 1917), and Swords of Bane. CCS kept producing games for a long while, but never matched the quality of Vulcan again. They did publish later games that were blatant RT Smith ripoffs (See Avalanche and Crete 1941 by some bloke called Steve P. Thomas) but they just weren't interesting. There was also Invasion Force by CCS which had huge potential as a mix between Vulcan and Advance Wars, but again its missing something.
Yes I have got all those but they have not seen the "light of day" for many years . Before I play them again I just have to scan the instructions to create a comprehensive TZX master folder (to include all relevant docs for each ) so it will be quite a lot of work . Yes , I quite liked the Thomas games but agree also with what you are saying. .I think that maybe RT Smith also had an "apprenticeship" at Lothlorien and so by the time he got to CCS he had "got good" . I cannot remember exactly what was less good about the earlier games but I think it was to do with initial player choice and game set up which somehow limited the games' appeal and playability. Again I need to look at these titles again to check on these aspects
So maybe it is not the excellence of these other games that makes them special but the fact that NO ONE is ever going to produce their like again . Will large American co ever produce games about battles like Blore Heath and other minor skirmishes? And I suppose the biggest cultural "relevance theme" applies to Falklands (PSS) which also did not get good reviews at the time.
So "cultural relevance" is not quite the same as the "BEST STRATEGY GAME" but it is also an important factor when choosing games to get and I suppose I got a lot of these for that reason (these battles will never be "covered" again by anyone and are unique)
how easy would it be to play a 2 player strategy game by sending the snapshot between 2 players via email?
and wouldnt it be a laff to send a snapshot of Chaos between 6 people
You just reminded me that I organised such a thing around 1995 on comp.sys.sinclair. I seem to remember it being a lot of hard work.
Comments
I thinh there was something on EmuzWin for turn based games but this one seems to aim at any game for two players at once?
JSpeccy-win32-portable
JSpeccy-win32-portable
Not much I think . So , on this perspective Speccy strategy games offer "thinner pickings" than I had previously thought . And it is surprising that there is so much consensus about what the best games are (another indication of "not much good stuff around"in this genre).
Not much. I was always envious of the choice on the C64. From actual war games, there was Viking Raiders from Firebird (Sequel to mentioned Battle 1917), and Swords of Bane. CCS kept producing games for a long while, but never matched the quality of Vulcan again. They did publish later games that were blatant RT Smith ripoffs (See Avalanche and Crete 1941 by some bloke called Steve P. Thomas) but they just weren't interesting. There was also Invasion Force by CCS which had huge potential as a mix between Vulcan and Advance Wars, but again its missing something.
Reply to Morph
Yes I have got all those but they have not seen the "light of day" for many years . Before I play them again I just have to scan the instructions to create a comprehensive TZX master folder (to include all relevant docs for each ) so it will be quite a lot of work . Yes , I quite liked the Thomas games but agree also with what you are saying. .I think that maybe RT Smith also had an "apprenticeship" at Lothlorien and so by the time he got to CCS he had "got good" . I cannot remember exactly what was less good about the earlier games but I think it was to do with initial player choice and game set up which somehow limited the games' appeal and playability. Again I need to look at these titles again to check on these aspects
So maybe it is not the excellence of these other games that makes them special but the fact that NO ONE is ever going to produce their like again . Will large American co ever produce games about battles like Blore Heath and other minor skirmishes? And I suppose the biggest cultural "relevance theme" applies to Falklands (PSS) which also did not get good reviews at the time.
So "cultural relevance" is not quite the same as the "BEST STRATEGY GAME" but it is also an important factor when choosing games to get and I suppose I got a lot of these for that reason (these battles will never be "covered" again by anyone and are unique)
You just reminded me that I organised such a thing around 1995 on comp.sys.sinclair. I seem to remember it being a lot of hard work.