Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I know many on here aren't into computer games but there are two simulation style pro football games now that are extremely realistic. Strat-o-Matic and Front office football. Strat-o-Matic is more for those that prefer playing with real teams from the present or past. While Front office Football is for those that like creating their very own franchise and playing it into future seasons.

How does the computer version to Strat-o-Matic compare to the dice and chart version?

I never warmed up to the dice and chart version to Strat-o-Matic because the game (as far as I can tell and please forgive me if I am out of line) is completely based around the following: for each play roll a 6-side dice. If a 1-3 the result is taken from the offensive players chart; if a 4-6 the result is taken from the defensive team chart.

It does not take a great deal of discernment (and Strat-o-Matic aficionados please go easy on me if, again, I am out of line) to see the flaw in this premise. You could be coaching an all time great defensive team - 76 Steelers, 85 Bears, 00 Ravens, pick your poison - but if the die roll consistently comes up 1-3 then that defense has no impact whatsoever on the results of the play. It would get kind of despairing, for instance, if I am coaching the 85 Bears against, let's say, the 98 Broncos and the dice roll keeps coming up 1-3 and repeatedly get steamrolled by Terrell Davis!

Of course, the 'law of averages" say that on any game based around a 6-sided die roll the averages are going to even out and the better team over a 4 quarter game is going to come out on top. Problem, however, using this type of methodology you do not get the same type of feel in regards to matching the strength (or weakness) of the offense against the defense that T.H.E. Football provides (in which individual offensive linemen match up again defensive linemen and linebackers. Wide receivers and tight ends match up against defensive backs).

For example, let's say I want to replay the 1975 AFC Championship game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Oakland Raiders using T.H.E. Football. On first down I want to run up the middle using Franco Harris. First, however, I combine the offensive run block rating of the three Steelers interior linemen: LG Jim Clack (3), Center Ray Mansfield (3) and RG Gerry Mullins (3) for a total of 9.

I then match this total against the combine total of the Raiders interior linemen and middle linebacker: LT Otis Sistrunk (3), RT Art Thoms (2) and MLB Monte Johnson (2). So based upon this the Steelers are graded at +2 on interior runs.

Now, let's say Terry Bradshaw wants to throw deep to Lynn Swann, whom has a pass catcher rating of 5 but is being defended by Willie Brown, whom has a pass defense rating of 5. Is that a battle for the ages or what? Then it is a wash or -0-.

That is why as a young person I was taken with T.H.E. Football over other simulation games of the time such as Strat-o-Matic or (even worse) APBA. You had a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of individual teams and how those strengths and weaknesses matched up on and individual play basis.

Some Guy From Mars wrote:That is why as a young person I was taken with T.H.E. Football over other simulation games of the time such as Strat-o-Matic or (even worse) APBA. You had a feel for the strengths and weaknesses of individual teams and how those strengths and weaknesses matched up on and individual play basis.

I remember with APBA getting 28 little envelopes (one for each NFL team at the time), each containing about 40 'player cards', and thinking "Wow! The level of detail is amazing. This is going to be great!". I quickly realized that the games could be played with 4 player cards...the QB card for each team and the best RB card for each team. Every play had you rolling the dice and then consulting one of those four cards for the play result. The other 76 or so player cards involved in the game were essentially meaningless.

lastcat3 wrote:I know many on here aren't into computer games but there are two simulation style pro football games now that are extremely realistic. Strat-o-Matic and Front office football. Strat-o-Matic is more for those that prefer playing with real teams from the present or past. While Front office Football is for those that like creating their very own franchise and playing it into future seasons.

I prefer the Front office Football style as I get a little bored playing with the same teams all the time. I like it when teams change year after year. Players change teams and get older while new players are drafted into the league.

This is what I play. http://www.dksports.com/football.htm

I have seasons 1946-2002 including the AAFC. I replay seasons and get some interesting results. For example, in my 1967 replay, I coached the Packers to a no defeat 1 tie season. The tie was in the opener against the Detroit Lions which actually happened in real life. Once we got to the playoffs Lombardi's team "choked" and lost to the LA Rams. LOL. I like doing the old replays because it helps me learn about players I have never seen play or heard of. Those good but not great guys. Somebody like Chuck Walker of the Cardinals who was a pretty good DL in the 60's.

To the OP, I had the Paydirt game and the season I got was 1980. I have also replayed the 1980 season using Action PC. In both cases the Eagles performed pretty much like they did in real life, however the Raiders did not. It made me question about how good that team actually was. It seems like on paper they aren't good so the computer games and formulas can't account for what they did in real life.

nicefellow31 wrote:To the OP, I had the Paydirt game and the season I got was 1980. I have also replayed the 1980 season using Action PC. In both cases the Eagles performed pretty much like they did in real life, however the Raiders did not. It made me question about how good that team actually was. It seems like on paper they aren't good so the computer games and formulas can't account for what they did in real life.

I used to play an old 1995 IBM game called NFL Pro League...



...and I remember being frustrated beyond belief that I couldn't get the 1975 Steelers to be anything better than a .500 ballclub. My Steel Curtain defense couldn't stop anyone on the ground. The individual defensive players had "run" and "pass" ratings based on a 1-100 scale (Andy Russell - 96 RUN 93 PASS), and all of the Steeler players had top ratings.

I finally figured out that the game only used the team defensive YPP stats for that season. The individual player ratings were worthless. In real life, OJ Simpson had a big game against the Steelers in 1975, Mike Adamle had a 100-yard rushing game against the Steelers (while the Bears offense totaled 3 points), and the 1975 Steelers defense gave up 4.2 yards per carry and uncharacteristically finished 22nd in opponent rushing average (the Steelers gave up 3.4 YPC in 1974, 3.2 YPC in 1976). This carried over into the computer simulation, and all you could do was watch Ronnie Coleman march the Oilers down the field 5 yards at a time.

nicefellow31 wrote:To the OP, I had the Paydirt game and the season I got was 1980. I have also replayed the 1980 season using Action PC. In both cases the Eagles performed pretty much like they did in real life, however the Raiders did not. It made me question about how good that team actually was. It seems like on paper they aren't good so the computer games and formulas can't account for what they did in real life.

Looking back on the 1980 Raiders in hindsight, after the Pastorini injury, when they were 2-3, and Plunkett took over, from that point forward they were clearly the best team in the league. They only lost twice the rest of the way, at home against Dallas by six points when Matt Bahr missed three FG's from 22, 38 and 41 yards, and Plunkett was intercepted twice in the final two minutes, once in the Dallas end zone and another time at the Dallas 10-yard line. The other game they lost at Philadelphia 10-7, and Bahr missed a 45-yard FG that hit the upright, along with Raymond Chester fumbling at the Eagles 5-yard line, and Plunkett was intercepted twice, once in the end zone, and a second time at the Eagle 22-yard line as time ran out.

The problem with games is that they add in all the team's stats for the season, and really don't take into account the momentum a team builds up as the season progresses, and I don't know if there is a way to build that into the game. The Raiders were a much different team with Plunkett at the helm, and I think if he took the starting job on opening day, they probably would have won 12-13 games.