Hopes and disappointment

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Hopes and disappointment

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] >> Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets >> Hopes and disappointment

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Hopes and disappointment - 5/1/2008 11:44:29 PM

zanekin

Posts: 98
Joined: 9/18/2005
From: Lille, France
Status: offline

First of all, I would like thanks SSG for all these years of great work... in this forum since I prefer the tone and the constructive minds of the members of the Run5...

I buy and play thoroughly DB series and Battlefront for years. I had even the chance to explain my admiration to the last one in a french strategy wargaming magazine several times. I'm not the guy who drop a game because it doesn't fi my new high-tech CG max resolution, nor because I can't remember where to click after a week of real-world work...

I appreciate constant reffinements of DB system (BiN, BiI), and later Battlefront. They've showed design choice concentrated on a good balance beetween playability and realism.

but...

The outcome of Battlefront start to worry myself: the design team give the correct support to small bug issues but very few efforts to maintain a scenario design work which was left to voluntary involvement. No way, slowly, and despite a pretty arid scenario editor (and a huge amount of work to create map and counter), I could hope to have something else to dry my thirst of play.

This morning I found Kharkov and came the disappointment.

First, because I didn't wait for that. In fact, I didn't wait for anything after battlefront... if this meant modification to the subtle harmony

So, second because I dislike the change:
- The OA. On paper, a good idea, a kind of translation of the AI sector to avoid heretic behavior. But in fact, what we have here is fundametalism. A lof of wargamer "play" to reproduce or at least understand historical results of great victory/defeat. They all hope to do better than their historical counterparts and so demand strong historicity to evaluate their play. Right. But wargames are games and you must have fun. You should have some freedom to try something different than stupid orders, poor placement and foreseeable end. But there's plenty of battle totally unbalanced if you choose either way: strong restriction or lot of freedom. The solution is simple: the VP evaluation. In creating the OA system you create a strong restriction system unnecessary in my opinion.
- The new OP system seems to abandon the micro-management of units to unsure astounding manoeuvres. Now you must count on your HQ.
- The new HQ bonus increase the historicity restriction: the HQ are no more "C3I container" they're "historic behavior". I don't like.

And then, third because I'm still anxious about :
- the scenario editor doesn't seem to have change. It is more than demanding. And the community is tiny. Only three non-official scenario (Crusader, Nordwind, and recently Prokhorovka) since Battefront release. Several more in progress. In one year. How many years for the second Kharkhov scenario ???
- the future... Do you want to be a sort of anti-HPS ? Not trying to sell a plethoric production with the same old system to a slavicsh community but a rickety production with slight improvements of the system but no fuel in...

Nevertheless, I will try your game. Yes, I will certainly buy it. I have buy awfull game by the past and probably continue for more or less stupid reason. Kharkov is certainly not an awfull game. But I don't know if It is the worthy son of Battlefront.

... sorry for my poor english...

Post #: 1

RE: Hopes and disappointment - 5/5/2008 9:41:12 AM

Gregor_SSG

Posts: 681
Joined: 3/6/2003
Status: offline

I hope that when you actually come to play Kharkov you will come to regard it as indeed a worthy successor to Battlefront. I think that you will find that the Area of Operations feature is not as restrictive as you fear. In the first place its optional. In the second place, it operates more to prevent gamey or completely impossible tactics rather than to force you down a predetermined path.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the German 3rd and 23rd Panzer Divisions, acting as your fire brigade, can range far and wide over the map and you will always have plenty of places to use them. the extra realism in Kharkov does not come at the expense of fun, rather it actually enhances it. The system will also deepen your understanding of the challenges faced by commanders in the field, far more, in my opinion, than reading any number of books. To me, this is, more than victory or defeat, the best part of any wargame. Of course, I might be saying that because I'm only a moderate PBEM player, and routinely taste defeat against the better players!

Gregor

_____________________________

Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
See http://www.ssg.com.au and http://www.ssg.com.au/forums/
for info and free scenarios.

(in reply to zanekin)

Post #: 2

RE: Hopes and disappointment - 5/5/2008 2:37:50 PM

zanekin

Posts: 98
Joined: 9/18/2005
From: Lille, France
Status: offline

Thank you for your answer...

And to minimize my anxious thoughts, Brubaker has announced his intention to work on this system as soon as possible. Maybe, what I appreciate in Battlefront (a complex but open system) is the first reason of scenario shortage (with AI in particular) !!!

(in reply to Gregor_SSG)

Post #: 3

RE: Hopes and disappointment - 5/8/2008 2:19:51 PM

vonji

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/8/2008
Status: offline

I can see the usefulness of the OA : to obey the orders, like prohibiting the 6th army to get out of Stalingrad, but like zanekin, if the player wants to try something different than his "historical counterpart", he cannot.

(in reply to zanekin)

Post #: 4

RE: Hopes and disappointment - 5/8/2008 3:50:27 PM

JudgeDredd