Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001 Status: offline
|
I was going to say that the complaintant should look at the SPWAW logo screen and should be able to figure out that this isn't just an SSI soop-up job, but that it's by a completely different company, that just happens to be taking on somethign of the same theme as SP. Then I remembered, that part of the logo screen(s) involve the Matrix logo as well, so I can see how it can get easily confused, perhaps one might think that Matrix was just SSI with a new name; it can get so confusing. In any case, while this game may seem to just be a pretty-up job on SPWAW, realize that SP isn't even Matrix's product, but that it's basically on loan. Also if the promised operational overlay comes through, it will be quite unlike any prodcut to date gameplay-wise too. $40 is what you charge for something that's cookie-cutter and might be just a little better graphically than it's predecessors, alongside it's having an even more slavish audience (they'll buy virtually anything that hits the shelves) who they can depend on in far greater numbers. I recall War in Russia was pretty innovative for it's time, getting down to individual numbers of tanksetc, to where you didn't just have generics such as 7-6-4 for ratings, and it was priced at between $70-80. How long ago was that? Maybe 10 years ago? I probably got $500 or more value out of that game, whereas most of the graphical games have barely reached the value they asked for it. If SPWAW or SPWW2 were on the market today, gameplay-wise, while likely as good as CL will be, they would still be worth $60 to me, so the question of CL being worth $60 is a no-brainer. Only if CL didn't have an operational overlay, alongside it's competition of SPWAW/SPWW2 being free, would I even consider that it might not be worth $60, if for no other reason than I tire of just winning a battle without it having an affect for the nation I'm playing in a more profound way. In short, CL should be to tactical gaming, what War in Russia was to strategic gaming, in that it should have some way of relating to a nation winning or losing through you battles. In WIR you would lose production of various portions of industry and important lines of supply by losing battles. In CL you should lose various supplies, such as fuel, if you don't cover your operational hexes well enough, and I understand that this is what is in mind. Losing a battle on an operational hex somewhere else, in some cases ought to affect what kind of units and/or supply you're able to dedicate somewhere else, which would be innovative, alongside the idea of actually being able to ever reach those so-called offboard artillery units, which no matter how many consequetive battles you won in SP, were always offboard and never blitzed no matter how quickly and handily it was done. Ah, how satisfying it would be to concentrate force and blitz through an enemy flank and run upon their offboard aircraft hex! Captive audience or not, I don't know a game where I can at least dream that such things are possibilites.
|