strategic simulations inc.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

strategic simulations inc.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> strategic simulations inc.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

strategic simulations inc. - 9/3/2000 12:50:00 PM

Colonel Klink

Posts: 103
Joined: 4/9/2000
From: Northern California
Status: offline

man, do i like to post controversial stuff or what? I was just explaining to an SP friend why matrix is doing all of this fantastic work for free. It then occured to me that SSI really "missed the boat". Why don't they hire u guys to put out a commercial version of spw@w so everybody makes money out of the deal. Just my random thought pattern flowing here. keep up the great work guys! you are the best!!

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 9/3/2000 1:43:00 PM

Bonzo

Posts: 676
Joined: 9/3/2000
From: Peace River, AB, Canada
Status: offline

I think that SSI (as it & many other companies have come to be in recent years) would have stopped working on the project at the V.2.0 or 2.1 stage, called it a job well done, & moved on to new projects. As a long time gamer, I like to see game companies making money. Companies with money can afford to put the time and effort into a good game to make a great game. When they are short of cash, the bean counters tend to step in, & you get "Star Trek Deer Hunting". The trick is balancing the insatiable demands of the gamer & the need to spend either money or product on promotion with the need to pay the bills (without selling your childen). I expect that Matrix Games is working on that balance.

Bonzo ------------------ Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay Coordinator: 28th (Northwest) Battalion Headquarters http://dreadnaught.home.icq.com/enter.html

_____________________________

Robert (Bonzo) Lindsay, Webmaster 28th (North-west) Battalion Headquarters Main http://www.nwbattalion.com E-mail

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 2

- 9/3/2000 10:28:00 PM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

We are learning as we go, Bonzo. David Heath is quite a capable man in the leadership position and we believe in what he is trying to accomplish. I believe Matrix will do well. A gaming Company whose staff are all die-hard wargamers should do well. That is our hope. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 3

- 9/4/2000 2:28:00 PM

Colonel Klink

Posts: 103
Joined: 4/9/2000
From: Northern California
Status: offline

can u get David Heath to run SSI? they've really blown big time the last few years, IMO of course. Here's a list of things they've done wrong in my bloated and pretentious way of thinking: 1. Allied General this was my first computer game and i really liked it alot. What got me was their lack of support for the pbem prestige bug. They came up with a non-sense adjustment solution then claimed the problem solved. They would not acknowledge anything to the contrary even tho the "fix" did not work. It was a major bummer and my first disappointing experience with a game and company i really liked. 2. Panzer General series to me, this was a big disappointment. Everything created after the original was simply awful. IMO of course 3. Soldiers at War another super game i really liked. Despite a simply awful online tcp/ip system, i hung in there playing several games w/pals. This game could of been worked on and improved but it has seem to go the way of the DO-DO. another big disappointment. Panzer Commander: a rare jewel.. IMO of course Silent Hunter II: sub warfare always appealed to me and i was looking forward to playing their latest version. Last i checked, this game has been shelved also. close combat iv: i like this series but their version mucked it up. I preferred microsoft's sleek design to SSI's steel plate offering. well thats it for my ssi bashing. like i said, i started off really liking them but through the years they just ended up alienating me. I sure hope that once you guys get big-time that you don't forget the little dog-faces. This spw@w experience is truly unique. Kind of like in the movie "Excalibur" when arthur unites his kingdom on the battle field and merlin makes a point for everybody to remember the moment. "for it is the doom of man, that they forget" Lastly i would like to commend SSI for providing you folks with the programming code. SPw@w is a super game and I will again express my appreciation for the work you guys have done. Hey, maybe u guys and SSI can combine forces. Let David Heath run the show and my faith in SSI would be restored. :-)

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 4

- 9/5/2000 11:35:00 AM

Desert Fox

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Colonel Klink: close combat iv: i like this series but their version mucked it up. I preferred microsoft's sleek design to SSI's steel plate offering.

You are not alone on this. However, I would not blame SSI for CC4. As far as I know, they were just the publishers and atomic did the game design. I blame atomic for the horrible changes in game design that came with cc3 and cc4. Now that they are making cc5, one can only wonder what they will screw up next. Aside from that, their bug hunting and subsequent patching is notoriously dismal. It really is apparent that they are not interested in fixing the bugs of their games, and instead moving on to the next game in the series. Patching does not make money after all. Anyways, my experiences with SSI are limited to the SP series and SAW. I was highly impressed with both, and only wish my brother had not lost my SAW cd.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 5

- 9/6/2000 12:29:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Oh, and don't forget Fighting Steel, which was fantastic, so they went and dumped the team that made it, and Luftwaffe Commander, which is a stinking dog turd of a game, produced by incompetents.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 6

- 9/6/2000 2:06:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

gotta disagree on 'Fighting Steel' and i wish it was only because of the numerous bugs that the game came with originally. Big disapointment for me. Main problem was the they could'nt completely divorce themselves from the urge to 'simm' the naval combat vs. a more pure 'wargame' of which SP:WAW must be one of the ultimate examples. Though better than the GNB series, one still ended up drumming their fingers as they played wondering what was going on or what they'd done to the enemy. Though they'd fixed the armor vs pen bug vs. the GNB series the damage routine was skewed by the instituation of a 'hit points' system which in my humble opinion has NO place in game outside of Dungeons and Dragons. End result was that bigger units could kill smaller units with arcade like efficiency. Never forget the Guadalcanal scenerio i played featuring the battleship Kirishima, I consistantly and leasurly could dispatch all four Allied cruisers with only a few salvos each (glub glub glub) Made me feel like i was piloting a space battleship, not a seagoing one. The torpedo design was also a travesty, you could only aim where the enemy would be if he went in a straight line and did'nt change speed, not where you might 'anticipate' where he might be which is the true challenge of torpedo warefare. their decision to drop the game in the face of numerous complaints/suggestions vs. attempting to fix/improve the game was nothing short of inexcusible. SSI has dispointed of late but i must at least give them massive kudos for releasing the source code to SP so that Matrix could make a classic game even better.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 7

- 9/6/2000 2:23:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Well, most of your points about FS are true. However, the game had such potential, and was so much fun to watch. It was really unique. Actually, there was a preference option that let you see exactly what you've done to the enemy, so I don't follow you on that point. I thought that the graphics were fantastic, IF you take into account the fact that they were designed to work even on really low-end models. I'll accept that they were probably a bit disappointing for folks with massive 3-D capability. Also, I see no reason why a BC shouldn't be able to waste a CA with a few salvos, if they all hit. Of course, if it's firing three salvos, and hitting with all 24 shells, that's a little odd, so maybe you were complaining about that, which I'll grant as totally unrealistic. Still, it doesn't even come close to Luftwaffe Commander. I still fantasize about punching the 'programmer' in the nose. What a huge waste of money. Don't even dirty your fingers on a bargain bin copy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 8

- 9/6/2000 2:30:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

SSI has made a lot of mistakes recently. Its too bad, cause I really liked them. I think it has something to do with being under the umbrella of Mattel nowadays though... I dunno though. By the way, what is it about the recent Close Combat games that people earlier thought ruined the game?? I really like those games, all of them.. and I like the new pseudo-operational level interface that the campaigns have. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 9

- 9/6/2000 2:43:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

yes i know about the preference seeing most (not all) of the hits on the enemy. What i was reffering to was being able to see just 'what' the shells were doing to the enemy as opposed to just being told that you 'hit' the enemy. Granted, that level of info is not 'realistic' but for a wargame, information is key to enjoyment. It would be like playing SP without being told what your shells are doing to the enemy forces and vice versa. More realistic? yes, fun and informative as you see what weapons do what in what circumstances, DEFINATELY yes. That was what i meant by 'wargame' vs 'simmulation' Now i know not all agree with that level of detail which was why i always suggested this be implemented as an option during the time when FS was still alive and there was active and spirited debate on what should and should not be done to improve the game. I'll still think Gary Grigsby's 'Warship' and 'Battlecruiser' were two of the best (if not the best) tactical wagames on naval combat ever made. Not without weakness, but superb 'wargames' that deluged the gamer with info on the tactical situaiton, very very fun even with text and primitive graphics. Eye candy is great but i'll take info and historical accuracy over that any day. on the issue of quick and consistant dispatch of warships....respectfully disagree. Outside of a catastrophic event (magazine explosion) warships in more numerous than can be counted situations proved to be tough vessels to sink. Look at the USS Laffey, IJN Aoba at Guadalcanal, USS San Francisco, (which took a close range whaloping from 14" guns on down) but lived to tell the tale. There are many many other examples. Note that i'm not talking about 'disablement' , but full sinking and this was'nt isolated in the FS game system, i repeated the event numerous times both on the giving as well as the recieving end. Warships are simply not that fragile. And if they are to sink, i want it to be for a specific reason, i.e. a penetration to a magazine, or numerous hits that cause progressive flooding, *NOT* because a warship has its theoretical thresold of *Hit Points* exceeded. I managed to sink the Battleship Gneisenau with a Brooklyn class CL because i was able to chip away at its 'Hit Points' even though i was not effecting any penetrations. nope, i'll stick with the Warship game engine for that, no HP, only critical systems. So that a ship may take incredible punishment but stay defiantely afloat, or maybe take a critical hit or two and founder quickly. Both were possible in that game, not so in FS.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 10

- 9/6/2000 4:41:00 AM

Marc

Posts: 280
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Braunschweig, Germany
Status: offline

I really loved Warship in the 80's on my Atari XL. It was my first Wargame at all. But Action Stations! is much better and its realism is amazing compared to Warship. Take a look at it http://www.theunderdogs.org/game.php?name=Action+Stations%21

_____________________________

IJN Chokai

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 11

- 9/6/2000 8:51:00 AM

Graf Speer

Posts: 99
Joined: 7/23/2000
Status: offline

quote:

A gaming Company whose staff are all die-hard wargamers should do well. That is our hope. --Wild Bill

Praise the gods!

. . . and it doesn't hurt to have the experienced wherewithal and level of maturity that appears to come from a Matrix team combination of expansive, grognard-like critical attention to details, details, details (this quality in wargame design seems so rare today)

. . . while actively acknowledging gamer praise, criticism and requests . . . . Keep it up, Matrix. In the meantime, I still wish SSI could do another good game or three, but several times now it appears that once small fledgling companies start out doing wargames and then as they experience success, they branch out from the 'niche' market of wargames and never quite find their way back to taking the genre as seriously as we would want or ask them to. (probably, because we don't generate enough profits to lure them back?) . . . it's frustrating, but it seems to run deeper than just SSI missing that boat. Albert [This message has been edited by Graf Speer (edited September 05, 2000).]

_____________________________

The Good Nazi

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 12

- 9/6/2000 12:15:00 PM

Desert Fox

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone: By the way, what is it about the recent Close Combat games that people earlier thought ruined the game?? I really like those games, all of them.. and I like the new pseudo-operational level interface that the campaigns have. Tomo

Well, I have a lot of experience with the Close Combat games. I play cc2 online quite religiously. I also own cc4, but have only played the demo of cc3. I do know a lot of folks who have played cc3, and their experience mirrors my experience with the demo. Basically, infantry is completely useless against tanks in cc3. Many cc3 maps are wide open spaces apparently, so infantry is definitely not great in these areas. However, in the demo, the battle was in a city map, and there are also some other city areas in the game itself. In these maps, tanks regularly spot hiding infantry in buildings from absurd distances, with no infantry acting as recon units. This is coupled with the fact that tank fire is incredibly more lethal and has excellent accuracy. Teams hidden in buildings can be wiped out before they can even get up. This is a large reason why people would end up with 15 tanks as their only force in campaigns, the infantry was just useless. Aside from that, I can't really comment about the rest of the game. CC4, however, is just horrible. First off, there is no battlemaker or requisition screen for internet play. This is why you rarely find more than 10 people in the cc4 room on the zone. While cc4 does implement a new close assault ability for infantry, they are really lucky if a tank does not kill them before they can assault. The tanks still spot infantry from absurd ranges, and are still overly lethal. Another thing I absolutely detest about the game is its pace. It is much faster than cc2 is, and consequently, AT guns can run out of ammo firing at the front of a king tiger while you are giving orders to a few infantry units on the other side of the map. It is also very difficult to give orders that might save any unit before it is subsequently destroyed. I also absolutely hate the pop up information screens that cover the battlefield. If your units happen to be on the edge of the battle map, you have to either close or move those information screens before you can give those units orders. I much prefer the cc2 system of information screens in which most of the map iss dedicated to the battlefield, while at the bottom of the screen, there is an information display that shows everything the pop up information screens show, but in a smaller area, and it does not cover any part of the battlefield. Another major beef I have with cc4 is regarding inf AT. The panzershreck is the mainstay of the german forces, and is remarkably accurate, has immense destructive potential, and has a large effective range. On more than one occasion, I have destroyed 2 sherman tanks with a single panzershreck shot. They also come with 6 rockets, which is not bad, considering how effective they are. However, by comparison, the allies get the bazooka, and they are totally useless. The bazooka has a shorter range than the panzershreck, cannot penetrate german armor in most situations, and they are horribly inaccurate. The worst part about the bazooka in cc4 is the fact that they get only 4 shots. Now, I do know bazookas definitely had trouble penetrating german armor historically. I do not know how ranges compared between the shreck and bazooka, nor do I know much about accuracy, historically. However, I do know that in game terms, there is no balance here. A bazooka is simply not a threat to german armor, while the panzershreck is utterly deadly to allied armor. Another problem facing both inf AT units is a ridiculously long 'setup' time. The units, for whatever reason, must sit there and stare at the enemy armor for nearly 10 seconds before firing. This is more than enough time for a german tank to do a 180, or for any tank facing them to wipe out the team with a hail of fire. This is almost certain, due to the absurd ability of tanks to spot enemy infantry. I will say that there are some good points about cc4. I do like the new strategic map, and the ability to decide where to move your units. If you have ever played cc2 and one of the successors, you will know immediately that tank drivers are no longer drunk when they go into battle, though there is still a large room for improvement. The newer games also incorporate a facing system to keep tanks from doing the 'dance of death' so feared in cc2. As for graphics, I really can't say much since they eliminated the close up zoom level in cc4. To me they just look like cartoon tanks. My final opinion on the cc games is that they are all very fun games. They all have their niche, with cc2 being closest to mirroring the reality of the inf vs. tank battles, and being the best balanced of all the games. Infantry is hard to spot, and in close quarters, such as a city, they can easily destroy a tank. CC3 does not portray this, rather it ends up being a huge tank battle, which can be just as fun as blowing up a panther with a well executed bazooka ambush, though it is far from realistic. CC4 is a good game for people who like to do campaigns. Other than that, it really is not very good. Sorry about the rambling, but you did ask for it...

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 13

- 9/6/2000 9:45:00 PM

jerrek

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/7/2000
From: australia
Status: offline

my biggest gripe with the series is that the maps are 2 small - the area they cover is fundementally to small to simulate tank battles - from one end to the other is often barely more than point blank range (for tanks with late war guns) - I think the strategic wrapper for cc4 is a good idea as i played a bit of the cc3 campaighn and it does not feal like a campaign. My flatemate likes these games a lot more than i and he gets tank kills from inf. One thing i dislike is that the instance you move your inf in a foxhole they are visible and basically dead. with the panzershrek vs bazooka - front on at least a bazooka should struggle from pIV to PVIb but a panzershrek should be good against shermans - panzershrek (and panzerfaust) had much bigger warheads. Perhaps i would have thaught that the germans had a lot more panzerfausts which were cheaper, easier to train for and had a much lower accuracy/range maybe.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 14

- 9/7/2000 1:18:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

Those are fair criticisms. Its true that tanks take a big step up from cc2 to cc3. But I disagree that infantry are useless.. (granted the way I used to play cc3 for the most fun was with NO tanks) They can take out tanks, its just REALLY tricky... perhaps too tricky. In cc4 the game was balanced a bit to heavily in favor of the germans, but its just like cc3 otherwise. (Plus the enhanced campaign game) Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 15

- 9/7/2000 3:18:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

What I always found incredibly amusing was to set up all my tanks and guns right up front on high ground and hit start. As soon as you do that, everything fires at once, there's screaming and explosions for a second or two, and then it's basically over. Usually works in your favor too.

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 16

- 9/7/2000 10:07:00 PM

jerrek

Posts: 47
Joined: 7/7/2000
From: australia
Status: offline

if the maps were bigger this wouldn't happen - maps should be at least 2 klms. This would also allow more real manuvering

_____________________________

(in reply to Colonel Klink)

Post #: 17