Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Review

 
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 >> Review Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Review - 5/24/2000 11:32:00 AM   
Big Joe

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 4/17/2000
From: Colorado
Status: offline
Has anyone seen the review at games domain by David Williams? Seems there is not much he likes about SPWAW. Complaining about every thing from the sound! to the AI. His biggest gripe though is with the interface as its such a intergal part of the game! Oh well too each his own.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
- 5/24/2000 12:04:00 PM   
Pack Rat

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline
Yeah I read it earlier today and was still fuming. Next time he should play it alittle longer. Slick graphics, slick interface do not a good game make, give me meat and potatoes anyday. He is right on some accounts but damnit, I don't think Matrix had a couple million for a budget. It's going to take time and who better to help than the gamers themselves? I was thinking a complimentary concusion granade would be a proper add on here but have changed my mind. Instead I don't give a Pack Rats Ass if he likes it or not. [This message has been edited by Pack Rat (edited 05-24-2000).]

_____________________________

PR

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 2
- 5/24/2000 12:57:00 PM   
kartono

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: jakarta
Status: offline
Well, I don't care of that d**n review anyway.. Obviously he hasn't played spwaw long enough to review it and does not know what good product is. All I know is that Matrix has done a wonderful and great job, I love it, I play it... I don't care what the heck the reviewer said... cheers Kartono

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 3
- 5/24/2000 12:59:00 PM   
Bondy

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 5/11/2000
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Status: offline
That review was just pitiful. Here's a few choice quotes with my thoughts: (Describing a bug) "Routed units spontaneously recover to pinned status when fired upon. Retreating units often retreat directly towards the enemy that is killing them." Isn't this a feature? I've read this in many places, maybe not the manual though. The routed infantry can go beserk and charge you if you keep firing at them. Please correct me if I'm wrong. "The AI of SPWAW can be quite horrid." I wouldn't argue this point if someone made it about any game, BUT, the AI is improved from the previous SP versions. That should be recognized. "The only negative thing I can mention about scenario design..." That makes him seem dissapointed! "Documentation on the new features of the game are barely adequate. The documentation on the old features of the game is worse, if it is even provided at all." Okay, it seemed good to me, but I know the system and read these forums. How about anyone else out there? Did you learn SP1-3 by reading the manual? Whenever I checked for something in the manual it was there. This seems like a weak argument to me. "Steel Panthers is a game for the patient. I spend nearly half my time watching the computer move and seeing the results of bombardment." This is like saying a games music is too loud. Just turn the delay down and the turns fly by. He does admit that you can adjust this at least. "All these bugs are merely the vanguard of an army of bugs that I feel I will spot at any moment..." That is the entire paragraph. Maybe I'm playing different game, but it would have helped me to know exactly what army of bugs I would be facing next. Also, would the bugs be advancing or defending?;-) "If you like Steel Panthers, there is no reason why you shouldn't like this game." In keeping with the article theme he uses a double negative to indicate SP fans will like it. "I have seen modifications by third party hackers change gameplay just as much (for games like XCOM or Diablo)." Whoa - Thems fightin' words! Michael Wood - you gonna take that?!?! Seriously, we know better - Matrix folks - Michael, Wild Bill, Paul, Nick, Scott, David, Maik, Tom and everyone, you guys did a bang up job. I haven't played SP this much since 1995. Let's hope GDR lets a wargaming fan review SPWAW for it's Second Opinion feature.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 4
- 5/24/2000 1:31:00 PM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline
Hey, we're having fun. He's not. To each his own. Thanks guys, for your support. That is appreciated and needed very much. At least he liked the scenarios...a little bit WB ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 5
- 5/24/2000 5:17:00 PM   
renwor

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline
Ok, just read the mentioned review. What problem do you have with it? Most bugs he describes simply ARE there, the game looks more like "beta" it's so. He just failed to capture how much fun it is to play SPWAW. It's fun even after learning to live with bugs. High cost for aircraft, unrealistic AI selection of MBT, core force management problems, double stats tables for units, all is there .... You don't see any army of bugs? I do. It would be nice if Bill could post a list of planned first patch fixes. ... first enemy bugs wave out Renwor

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 6
- 5/24/2000 7:20:00 PM   
krull

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: USA
Status: offline
D***mn reviews are never very accurate mostly desgned for rock em sockem people who want quick graphical fast gameplay. @nd army of bugs? heheh I got all the steel panthers as the emerged and seems too me they had just as many if not more bugs hahah. I think this is the first game i have every seen or tried where they MAKERS realy want people to find stuff wrong anf make suggestions which to me makes the game worth while if it crashed my computer every 20 minutes hehe anymore than that id say my wife did it to get me off so she can play steel panthers WaW hahahaha

_____________________________

Krull

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 7
- 5/24/2000 7:43:00 PM   
renwor

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline
Well I hate to defend the reviewer, but I guess somebody should. I never said SPWAW is bad game, unplayable game or not fun. If that would be my opinion, I wouldn't hang around here. It's just not finished. I believe even Matrix, Bill & Raiders and Paul would admit it. And thats the ground for the reviewer. Of course he could take another way around and mention just few bugs and go on about fantastic gameplay. But his points are valid. I just think, that calling this release public "beta" would have been smart move on the Matrix part. It would take wind out of many criticist sails. Let us concentrate on the core, the game mechanism, gameplay and leave minor bugs aside. SPWAW is the best beta i had seen in years. Renwor

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 8
- 5/24/2000 8:26:00 PM   
Arralen


Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline
Read through the review quickly - seems that the author is right with most complaints: - the AI is weak - pathfinding virtually non-existent - unit stats are questionable - documentation is bad (if any..) But he missed a most important point - not only that they give it away for free but that they are still working on it. If I think back how horrible the first Stars!2.0 was, and to what a marvelleous and well-respected game it developed over >4 years, I can only say I'm looking forward to the future development of SP-WAW - I hope MatrixGames will put as much effort into it as Mare Crisium put into Stars!, and SP-WAW will become a true classic this way! Arralen PS: ..o.k., let's start rooting these bugs out .. X-Com experience says heavy weapons are used best ;-)

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 9
- 5/24/2000 8:50:00 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline
Frankly that a "mainstream" game site even gave us the time of day is a good thing!! As was said some of this is perhaps poor perception management on our part.... Having been involved for years now in updating SP games, it was sort of "assumed" that the "process" was understood. This whole "update an old game for free" thing is sort of virgin territory for all of us! This ain't a "finished product"! Something the reviewer was expecting, and that was the criteria he used to judge. Thats fine and frankly I have little beef with him on that! The idea, as with SP:WW2 before us, was to release something when we thought it was far enough along that folks could start getting enjoyment out of! We didn't call it a "Beta" becasue in effect the game will ALWAYS be a "Beta". There are enough "bugs" and new features to add to keep us busy 20 more years! Its not "done" until we simply run out of resources to support it! Someday we may do our own tactical combat game, but until we have a compelling alternative to offer, we look on SP:WaW as an ongoing dialogue with the SP community. We released the game not becasue we thought it was "done" but becasue we thought it was mature enough to be enjoyed! IF you think its "not soup yet" as the reviewer seems to, well, wait until a few more patches come out and try it again! Those that DO think they can enjoy it, CAN! From the enthusiastic response, we think we at least were in the ballpark of "maturity" for releasing the game. Sure there are rough edges, but it would have taken us months in our small playtest group to find some of the things that the mass of you supporters found in 2 weeks. There can be compelling argument for "public beta", from an efficiency standpoint and to some extent the market niche we are in requires a certin buy in form the "early adopters" to put up with rough edges in even a pay 1.0 product. Very few 1.0 games have come out bug free! Its the support after the sale that we feel is key! Now for games we expect money for, obviously a different notion than the SP:WaW model is required, but unfortunatley the economics of the wargame industry are either you wait for 3 or 4 or more years to get an imaculately groomed product, or you set your initial sights a little lower complexity wise and increase as you develop more games in the "series". For gamers, both have their drawbacks, either you wait interminably for "vaporware" to materialize, or you feel like the company is contually dipping into your pocket. From my standpoint with 2 kids and a wife (yes she hasn't left me yet despite I tell her that I have "cleaned out the 7 garage hexes") when we go out for a night ,its 15 bucks for a babysitter, 30 bucks for a decent dinner and 20 bucks to go to a movie and 20 bucks or more to go somewhere after wards - 85 bucks minimum for 5 or 6 hours out. By a "Dollar/Hour" standard, wargames tend to be pretty cheap entertainment :-) A new thread to discuss these issues may be inorder if any of you are so inclined... [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited 05-24-2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 10
- 5/24/2000 8:59:00 PM   
grockall

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 4/19/2000
Status: offline
I don't think I even want a finished product. It will be a sad day when nothing more can be learned or improved.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 11
- 5/24/2000 9:42:00 PM   
renwor

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by grockall: I don't think I even want a finished product. It will be a sad day when nothing more can be learned or improved.
Don't be afraid. It cannot happen. Never, ever. Renwor

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 12
- 5/24/2000 9:47:00 PM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
I don't think most reviewers would know weak AI if it bit them on the face. From what I've seen, you generally have to play all types of missions several times in order to ascertain whether the AI is weak. I think reviewers just use 'weak AI' as just a common problem of all games and don't bither to really investigate. Is weak AI designated by the player winning decisively against a weak opponent? Has the reviewer been assaulted by the Poles (though not the strongest of nationalities) with visibility of six at three different objective clusters at the same time? No, didn't think so. So what 'really' makes weak AI? In my view it's that the AI doesn't adjust to player strategies, which I suppose would be most AI. In any case, it takes a while before you can determine if the AI is really adjusting to different players, different types of battles, and different types of attack/defense. I "think" my attack and defense plans are pretty good, but put the same strategy in the hands of playing the Japanese and it probably wouldn't go so well. In any case, the way I feel about it, unless the griper cares to furnish his final scores and whether he basically didn't cheat, I feel they have no grounds to be trusted. Sure, I had a decisive victory against the Poles, the first battle, but part of the beauty of the system, at least as fighting as Gerry in campaign, is that I'm merely warming up for the Big Boy of Ruskie, and if in getting my decisive victory, all my losses were the most depended on pieces, then how much will it hurt me down the road, and how well will I adjust to the various upgrades available later? If every battle was only one mission, with no campaign, and there was only one type of battle with only one nationality to pick with only one possible opponent, then maybe one battle might be able to tell you that there is weak AI across the board. In my opinion "weak AI" cannot be determined just because you win overwhelmingly, nor is it necessarily tough because you lost half of your core. Sometimes, particularly with reviewers, and the ability to redo a move, or save a game, I think we can get too much into 'not thinking' very well about what we do, so that we lose the main reason we started playing in the first place. How many people who complain about weak AI, still just put all their tanks and guns on hills? I notice the reviewer comaplained about objecitves being in bad places. Ah, I see, he must be one of those hill hogs, who might be frustrated that he would actually have to do some fighting off of hills (imagine that).

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 13
- 5/24/2000 10:19:00 PM   
renwor

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: czech republic
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: How many people who complain about weak AI, still just put all their tanks and guns on hills? I notice the reviewer comaplained about objecitves being in bad places. Ah, I see, he must be one of those hill hogs, who might be frustrated that he would actually have to do some fighting off of hills (imagine that).
Forgive me, but due to weak AI, whats wrong with strategy to put all my guns and armour on hills ??? :P Errr ...whats overally wrong in putting long range weapons on hills? If I put all my ATGs like 88's in deepest woods, it may be surprising move, but I doubt It will put AI off-balance!!!! Hasn't tougher battles always been fought for various, even nameless hills? I probably missed some point here. Renwor

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 14
- 5/24/2000 10:58:00 PM   
ncpanther

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 5/22/2000
From: NC
Status: offline
To hell with this guys review!! I make my own opinon about a game anyway! The Matrix Team did a GREAT job with this game and I was surprized that it was FREE! I had all but quit playing SP when this came out. Now ive discovered SP all over again!! And its got alot of what WE ALL WANTED in a game because Matix LISTENED TO US, the Gamers!! Thanks Gents!! ------------------ NC

_____________________________

NC Airborne Sappers Lead the way!! SAPPERS ATTACK!!!!

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 15
- 5/24/2000 10:58:00 PM   
grockall

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 4/19/2000
Status: offline
If you've got a pair of 88's stick them on a hill preferably in rough ground. If they can't take on the enemy at range their crews will start taking casualties far too soon. Battles have been won for centuries due to holding the high ground

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 16
- 5/24/2000 11:29:00 PM   
Mark_Ezra

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/6/2000
From: Trabuco Canyon, Ca....USA
Status: offline
Ok I read the review carefully. Had I been Mr Williams editor I would have asked to move ..."That every major gripe I had with the original Steel Panthers still holds." from the end of the review to the top. Does he make valid points? Yes. It's important for Matrix to read what the harshest critics have to say. They are new to the business and need to learn to operate in the world they find themselves in..(not the world you and I want for wargaming) New Hybride Wargamer devotees cum producers are not going to be accepted by the industry with open arms. Many a tame reviewer will pound hard on any defect found to crush these young upstarts. That is NOT to suggest that Mr Williams is a hack. Frankly alot of what is says is correct. That he has a longstanding opinion less than favorable towards SP needs to be remembered when we review his review.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 17
- 5/25/2000 1:11:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
renwor: I was trying to say, that if someone has such a limited scope of developing offense/defense, that he still resorts to only sitting on hills, particularly since that's the area that an AI, weak or strong would bombard, then he's not a very good judge of weak tactics. Or perhaps, to be a little more direct, if this guy played Gerry with the 88's, and fairied around leaving them there, lame enough to fire them on the first spotted unit, only to have them wiped out for lack of moving them out after firing that first turn (because we mustn't lose our precious entrenched status), then he has no room to gripe. If HE cannot adjust to what a supposedly weak AI would dictate, that it pays to not keep everything on hills all the time, then he expects out of the AI, what he himself doesn't do. In any case, to complain about the weird placement of the objective hexes, in my book, is tantamount to his admitting that he has little concept as to where the objectives are, matters. When I saw so many objectives and seen where they were placed, being an SP vet., I was most intrigued. In my latest battle there was a fairly wooded southern hill, with a valley within some of the hill's eyeshot, which had objective hexes, which was unoccupied during my advance, but was later counterattacked by the Poles to retake. I don't know about him, but when I see objectives in a valley, and the advantage of a hill nearby, somehow I realize that it calls for quite a change in tactics as opposed to the objectives being on the same hill (hopefully one stocks the valley with infantry for a start). I wonder if mister expert reviewer would realize what a profound difference it would make, if all of the objectives were in the sea or on an island with only a connecting bridge to the mainland? [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 05-24-2000).]

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 18
- 5/25/2000 3:02:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline
I read it Mark. We all read it here in the SPWAW group. We probably had it before you guys did. We take it all very seriously. If there ever comes anything that everybody approves, I'll be wondering what the catch is . To be honest, our best critics are you players. I put more credence in the troops than the generals. He has some good points and he is in error in some places. And we will learn and improve from all of it. In my personal life, I always go see the movies the critics put two thumbs down on "Red Dawn" was the worst movie ever made. So said the critics. I loved it. I read what the critics say. I learn from it. I make my own choices based on personal likes and dislikes. Beth, my wife has faults (Shh!). I make a pro-con list. The pros outweigh the cons so much that I'll take her, keep her, love her and enjoy her as long as God gives me breath! SPWAW is kind of like that to me. It has faults. But I love it. I love playing it. And I'll keep on playing it. And I'll keep on striving to improve it. ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 19
- 5/25/2000 4:20:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
BTW, I thought I'd clarify the battle which I described earlier. The southern hill's valley, that has the objectives, is south of the hill (if you consider the bottom of the screen south), while there are thick woods to the west, with relative clear to the east and north. In other words, the hill has enough cover, that very few hexes can do a reliable job of observation to cover the objectives. I've been forced to cover the, what by now has amounted to an en masse rush from the north to go over the hill and retake the objectives, an armored thrust from the west to take the objectives, some of have attempted to take the hill, while others have attempted to go straight for the objectives. The defense has amounted to my having to split up some three tanks to cover the objective area, should the armor get beyond my platoon of infantry, and overlook some to the west from the hill, some three tanks to try to flatten, along with some of my units which make up my main force back east the onslaught from the north, and some four tanks to cover the thick woods direct west of the hill, from which there is a small line through the woods they can cover. The change ongoing, has already required the movement of some of the tanks on the hill, to other positions of the hill, to help out when their covering area becomes tamer (there was never any time to dig-in). From the game where I fought the Poles with six visibility, I know that it probably won't be too long before the my tanks have been moved, that they may have to get back to cover their old arc of fire. All this, not dug-in, not sitting pretty on some obvious hill with an objective area right smack dab on the hill or directly in front of the hill, so that the hill only need be manned. Frankly, if the en masse infantry gets to the hill, I don't know what I'm going to do (perhaps temporarily vacate the infantry from the objective areas). This all complicated by at least five 75mm flaks of the enemy's, which can't see this particular hill, but are a potential dominating force should I move the eastward larger forces west, or the hill forces north. Not exactly an objective area which is directly in the path of the enemy that the hill overlooks terribly well, in other words, sitting on a hill back at my own lines wouldn't cut it, and the original cautious recon had to be sent emergency relief. Also, As I mentioned earlier, the front of the deployment line was scarcely manned (this is a surprise), and where the infantry was manned (for the most part behind some level five, one hex deep, line of hills), the concentration was massive. If objective areas are on key hills or directly in the normal path of the enemy with a key hill backing it up, and behind your own lines, that's a MASSIVE difference as compared to what I just described. I would also would question whether the reviewer even bothered to see how large an impact that scouts could have, alongside the fact that infantry can be so much more obscured. I have to think that he also has no idea just how much fun creeping with snipers and scouts are. Now that I've ranted a bit, I have a question: Is there a way, during battle, where I can place a cursor over a hex, and see what that hex would see? It seems this is needed in order to access whether the hex I'm moving into is relatively safe, particularly since command control orders are used for each single hex that I move into. Interesting sidenote here, scout units don't use orders to plot one hex at a time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 20
- 5/25/2000 5:29:00 AM   
Wild Bill

 

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline
The ability to see is a variable, Charles so that would be difficult. Different units see differently Recon always sees more. So do snipers. Units with some suppression will see less, so will units with lower experience ratings. Realistic, they are not proficient in finding the hidden enemy. You'll have to put a unit in the hex and see what it sees, which may not be all you want it to see. Such is the life of a commander, Charles. WB ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________


In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 21
- 5/25/2000 5:39:00 AM   
Jon Grasham

 

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline
IMO, the reviewer did leave several important factors out... First, he stated that PBEM/Hot seat was the *only* way to play against a human... no mention of the live connection play coming soon. He said all these bad things, and no mention that patches, improvements, and all else that is good and tasty in the SPWAW world is coming soon. He also had a few things "off" IMO... the graphics look very nice at the higher res setting. Also, he says that the turns require watching..... that was the one that threw me off. Maybee he should go play Red Alert 2 instead, as in *ANY* turn based game, you must watch the AI/opponent play his turn, and the larger the scenario, the longer the wait. Also, maybee I am nuts, but many people prefer PBEM since they rarely have a several hours to play out a scn, and PBEM is easier to schedule, since both people must not be free. For the armor values, I think that he either did not bother to read/learn just how important shot angles are to armor engagements, or is so used to RTS games, or the orignal SPs, where a 45 degree shot was just as good as a perfect perpendicular shot. Also, the armor is almost always listed differently than the encyclopedia, as a result. Guess since I beefed up on all this stuff long ago, it came much easier to me than some, but it is invaluable knowledge for games that take it into account. (Panzer Elite is another fine example where it is crucial). Oh well, a review is an opinion, and we all got one, etc.... [This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited 05-24-2000).]

_____________________________

?

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 22
- 5/25/2000 7:38:00 AM   
kartono

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: jakarta
Status: offline
gee... guys, the reviewer may have his own opinion, but , I also have my own opinion, bugs or no bugs,I still love SPWAW... and this one will sits for a along time in my hard drive.... so... the heck with the reviewer... I'm going back to my kampfgruppe... :-)

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 23
- 5/25/2000 7:42:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Wild Bill: What I'm talking about, is the sort of function for visibility you can use in deployment, in other words, it's the full visibility applied to the hex in all directions. As far as functionality is concerned, perhaps it's better you don't know in advance, the full visibility applied, because it might be quite disappointing to find the unit moved in there, didn't meet that visibility standard. Another thing, the advertisements have one banner for "Wild Bill and the Raiders". Does the picture of the man there look anything like yourself? Are you as "Wild Bill" as that?

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 24
- 5/25/2000 8:13:00 AM   
troopie

 

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline
The reviewer, b*gg*r him, we've got a war to win. troopie

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 25
- 5/25/2000 10:35:00 PM   
Von Rom


Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline
I read the review, and although I have not played SPWAW yet, I have played many an hour with the whole SP series. First, the reviewer states that he was never a fan of the SP series to begin with - should he have been the person to have done the review? An obvious bias here - don't you think? Second, while many of his comments regarding bugs etc may have been valid - I felt he was going out of his way to pick, pick, pick EVERY little "bug" he could find - and to concentrate ONLY on the negative. The editor should have balanced the review a bit more. To me this is sloppy editing. Third, very little credit was given for the fact that this game was the result of the efforts of a group of volunteers that worked an untold number of hours, and that it was provided free - and who have a wonderful record of patching and improving their products (unlike many "established" game companies that leave gamers twisting in the wind once a game has been released). Fourth, IMHO could this VERY negative review also have been a deliberate attempt to knock Matrix and its unique approach to gaming? Matrix's approach is quite revolutionary. After all Matrix is offering this game free; it's going to be added to computer game magazines coming out this summer; there are ads in the games; Matrix's employees "listen" to gamers; etc, etc, etc, I could go on... (and I will ) In addition, Matrix is seeking to revive many of the older classic games - heaven forbid - does that mean we won't have to stay on the up-grade treadmill? Boy I'll bet that sends a shudder through the corridors of computer and video card makers Finally, my over-all impression to the review was that it was overly negative - sure no game is perfect - but I don't like Command and Conquer - should I then be the person to be selected to do a review of that game? Ridiculous. SPWAW should be reviewed by a knowledgeable wargamer - this game is for wargamers - it is NOT a game for the "twitch" crowd. Also praise should have lavished on Matrix for their extreme support and help that they are giving to this game and to gamers. Believe me - this type of support shows - Matrix and company will be around a long time - and they will proudly be able to show the "big" companies how gaming should be done. Way to go guys - we are behind you all the way ------------------ A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 26
- 5/25/2000 10:47:00 PM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline
After playing the 'Betio' scenario as japanese I actually begun to understand some points of that review. This relates to the long time it takes for the computer to finish it's turn. Now in this scenario there are several HMG nests that are armoured all around. There was a phase when one such nest was visible to 30+ US units. And of course when computer had it's turn, most of those units unloaded their _useless_ rifle, mg and lmg fire at this nest, achieving absolutely nothing else than lots of wasted time even with message delays at fastest. I actually read a book during this time as I knew AI cannot achieve anything Now as it is near impossible to cause any suppression to tanks/bunkers with rifle fire, could it be possible to implement an AI check to see if any damage can be caused? If not, then that unit would move until new target appears instead of wasting rifle fire to immune targets. I think such method would benefit the AI play as it would not mill in front of bunkers until some tank or engineer finally destroys it. Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 27
- 5/25/2000 11:56:00 PM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Why does the computer fire on units it either doesn't destroy or can't? Very simple, because I do the same thing. Why? It's a matter of doing everything you can. If you play Gerry, and all the 88's are knocked out, what do you do with T34 hordes coming at you? You're dead meat. You run them into infantry or else. Naturally the computer doesn't send the T34's in alone, so how do you defeat them? You try to chip away at the other portions of the Ruskie force, while you try to lay so much suppressive fire at the T34's that they retreat. Hopefully they might retreat enough to go off the board. In any case, a unit retreated, if that's all you can manage, is a unit moved, a unit unable to fight for a while. No T34 can withstand several squads of infantry after it, with suppressing fire from tanks, if the rest of the opposition is so crippled that it cannot hamper the infantry. Besides, just how accurately does a T34 with 10 suppression or more, fire, even if it doesn't retreat? Just how many orders can it execute with huge suppression? If you've ever had a lone King Tiger on the front line, you learn what suppression does real easily. It all but makes the unit useless. You see, the battle isn't always who kills the most, but also who has the least suppression, besides, any tank can suffer a top or track hit, thereby rendering that unit, sooner or later, as mere infantry target practice. Even if your troops have super morale, every turn that your having to rally off suppression accumulated from non-lethal fire, you are losing another part of the battle, and that is the battle to store up orders so that more can be done in movement and changing stances. Don't let your eyes deceive you, there's more to the battles than the AIP just being stupid because there's no casualties coming. I've saved my forces, in past SP games, many times, by fighting the battle of suppressing the living daylights out of the opponents most invincible units. The AIP may not often pick the best target in the world to suppress, but if the unit is very costly, you can depend on suppression, as many a 88 flak user knows all too well.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 28
- 5/26/2000 1:07:00 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: Why does the computer fire on units it either doesn't destroy or can't? Very simple, because I do the same thing.
Then we have a slightly different style of playing. Yes, in the other versions of SP I also spent a lot of rifle fire at tanks to suppress them. Not any more as it isn't very useful. Unless I'm able to suck out the opportunity fire and then move to assault I move my troops into hiding and hope that those T-34's run blindly into them. Also if you think my bunker example, the AI's problem is that it only sees that bunker as something that has to be killed before troops can move, thus it fires everything. If the situation is reversed, you'd use near-dead units to draw fire and then encircle and assault from sides/rear, you don't shoot tens and tens of rifle shots at that bunker. At least I don't. Test sometimes how many rifle/mg shots is now needed to cause tank to retreat, heck, even multiple penetrating AT-gun hits aren't usually enough to make them retreat. Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 29
- 5/26/2000 2:48:00 AM   
Charles22

 

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Voriax: Good points, only the concept is still valid. Yes, the tanks aren't so prone to suppression fire from infantry in SPWAW, but the way I play my games, I generally, not now or before, relied on infantry for that (only if they've been spotted by the tank and have nothing better to do). Generally, I'm talking about suppressing T34's when they're considerably further off than are a threat to my infantry anyway. The way I've tried to deal with T34's in the past, was to keep the infantry down to range 1, and to concentrate anti-tank fire on the T34's. True, it does seem as though this game is much more apt for units to recover from retreat quicker, but as I said, a heavily suppressed unit fires far less anyway. What's the advantage to a tank that can only fire once? Also, when a few of the enemy units are set into retreat, other than the T34, that also suppresses the T34. If nothing else, in such a situation, fire should be kept up, if only for the hope of blowing the tank's track. As far as infantry firing on infantry, with no kills to show for the shooting, the suppression may get them out of the hex, and even if it doesn't, it causes them to shoot less accurately, less often, and given computer tendency to attack en masse (or at least from what I've seen to date here), suppressive fire can keep your infantry unit, so allegedly safe, from countering that unit coming up behind the enemy suppressive fire, who will assault because the non-lethal fire has kept your unit from firing back any more.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big Joe)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Review Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.813