RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix

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] >> Decisive Battles: Battles in Normandy >> RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 3:16:24 AM

SlapBone

Posts: 269
Joined: 7/27/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

I don;t want to lock the thread - but lets be adults here. The point of the forum is for people to voice their opinions. If you disagree, there is no need to hurl insults. Just say nothing and let the thread die. The question was raised, answered, and subject to discussion. We don't need the likes of Olympic Gymnastics judges providing opinions on opinions of opinions for score...

So lets show a little more mutual respect...please?

Good post... I'll give you a 9.4 for the technical but the opinion gets a 7.5

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 61

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 5:46:35 AM

Neilster

Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

Of course, the AI will be hopeless, since it will end at Turn 32, but if you just use it for PBEM play you'll be fine.

Does this mean that any user created scenario of the full campaign will have a hopeless AI after turn 32?

Without getting involved in this impending flame war, it does seem a bit disappointing that better than historical results in the first half of the campaign cannot be capitalised on in the second half but if there are good reasons for this, then so be it.

Cheers, Neilster

< Message edited by Neilster -- 9/24/2004 1:08:12 PM >

(in reply to Carl Myers)

Post #: 62

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 6:04:04 AM

Adam Parker

Posts: 1848
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Melbourne Australia
Status: offline

G'day Neilster. I'd imagine in DYO that you determine what the AI does by setting its behaviour/broad direction. Gregor may have been suggesting here, a quick way to get a 70 turn scen established solely for HTH play (the original poster's initial wish) without needing to fiddle with tweaking the AI for the latter half solo.

Again I'm speculating as the product is not mine yet but that's the way some other editors work.

Adam.

(in reply to Neilster)

Post #: 63

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 10:24:31 AM

PresbyterJohn

Posts: 136
Joined: 5/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBeves

Prester...don't know what else I can say to you in order to illustrate my point...

Perhaps this ....

A battle of waterloo game that ended at 1.30 in the afternoon.
A gettysburg game that ended on day two of the battle...
A Korsun pocket game that included only separate scenarios on the encirclement and the breakout/rescue but nothing that linked the two together as a whole so the latter starts from a position that is completely unrelated to the former .

Just my view and my interest in BIN and this discussion is sadly at an end till my wish above is fullfilled.

You have said that you want a monster campaign and that you think that most other players want it too. I asked why you think this is so and you have given no clear answers, just concepts which illustrate nothing in relation to BiN. BiN is a game which covers the major actions following the Normandy landings and I can't see that you have any serious evidence that the value of the product is diminished for the great majority of players by the lack of a monster campaign. You, who have stated now that you are not going to play the game at all since SSG have not produced the monster campaign, are clearly in a minority and without a good business case it seems will sadly remain that way.

(in reply to DBeves)

Post #: 64

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 10:27:21 AM

PresbyterJohn

Posts: 136
Joined: 5/1/2004
Status: offline

I wonder how much cheaper it would be to produce a game like this with no AI, only head-to-head options. Then it would be just like a board game on the monitor, with no pieces to sort out and no clearing off the dining room table to play.

Probably wouldn't sell well though.

(in reply to Adam Parker)

Post #: 65

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 2:15:19 PM

DBeves

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline

Prester_John,
What else can I say to you ... given that you seem to be intent on deliberately misunderstanding / misinterpreting the argument I have been making merely to prolong a thread that was dead a long time ago because the purpose of my thread was served by the response I received from SSG.
I have repeatedly and quite plainly said that this is MY point of view. Never have I disputed the fact that others have different opinions - and that this is MY view of the value of the product to ME. I have clearly stated the fact that for ME the value of the product is diminished by the lack of what I percieve as an essential part of what the product should have been. I see no reson to provide "evidence" as you put it for a PERSONAL and subjective opinion of something. If I was claiming at any time to represent "the great majority of players" indeed I would have to. I in fact sincerely hope that this is not the case as I wish SSG to continue producing games for many years. I fail to see the reason for the agressive nature of the posts directed aginst me when as previously stated I had severe doubts about the lack of the full scenario but STILL bought the game - partially based on the excellance of KP and ATD and partially to support my hobby. Unfortunately for ME the lack of a full scenario in the product will mean that given the VERY limited nature of my gaming time I will leave the product until the full scenario hopefully does appear and play other games that I will enjoy more as a result of the lack of what I see as the full experience.
I PERSONALLY have a dislike of small scenarios so this eliminates all but two in the game for ME - I dislike the first scenario as - due to the fact that it ends half way through the campaign it enables both players to do completely Ahistorical things as they know they dont have to worry about the second half of the campaign. Why worry about the 3 armoured and 4 infantry divisions massing on my left flank as the german player when I know he will never have the time to do anything with them, as the allied player why put them there in the first place ?. So personally - this leaves only one scenario to play - for �40 - but again - as I said - this is MY opinion of the game and I still bought it.
The only time I ever claimed upon other peoples views ... ... was when I stated that if SSG had asked about inclusion of one - AI or no AI - most would have said yes please. Can't see much doubt about this - especially given the posts from Run5 that this is "Obviously" very high on the list of the "really wanted". I consider that as the primary user community of this product I should put some value on their opinion.

My primary disagreement with SSG was the fundamental importance they placed on computer AI in deciding what went into the product. Given that if all companies thought the same way then the only wargames on the market would be small partial campaigns I probably would not be playing anything at all. If you subscribe to this point of view then War in the pacific is a completely worthless product in that most of its scenarios are way over 30 turns long and it is utterly impossible to design a scenario that lasts this long.That is a design philosophy I disagree with - but that is MY opinion.

Given that I think that ANY AI can never provide more than a cursory - system learning experience - I for one would certainly buy the product mentioned in your second post - especially if it meant designers had then more time to code in features to the game they would not otherwise be able to do so as they had spent months coding an AI that people only end up complaining about anyway. It may also lead to a wider variety of wargames being published.
It is always an annoyance to me when players post to boards complaining about an AI doing something stupid or suicidal (BIN already has a couple of these) - it displays a complete lack of understanding as to what is actually possible given todays technology - however good the programmer or the amount of time spent on it. I can't claim what others opinion of a radical shift from current trends of providing a crap AI to providing the product you mention ... you seem to be able to....Aide De Camp ... different tool / different purpose but quite popular I believe.

I am sorry if you are unable to understand that this was MY opinion but I guess if not you will post again deliberately ignoring this fact.

(in reply to PresbyterJohn)

Post #: 66

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 4:47:08 PM

PresbyterJohn

Posts: 136
Joined: 5/1/2004
Status: offline

Of course you have your opinion, but you use silly examples to justify your opinion as being valid. Silly things like a game about the battle at Waterloo being cut short. Are you seriously proposing that a Waterloo game can leave out the encounters at Ligny and Quatre Bras because they really are integral to the Waterloo campaign. Same goes for KP. How can you possibly accept a game based on KP which does not include the creation of the bridgehead. And you would certainly decry as unplayable a Gettysburg game which did not include the initial contacts on the first day and allow you as the Confederate to seize the key terrain in a full attack on day one thus preventing the subsequent main battle. Do you seriously consider these positions just as valid as yours regarding the BiN monster campaign?

(in reply to DBeves)

Post #: 67

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 6:09:46 PM

DBeves

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline

Prester ... well yes ... I can only agree with you ... and I am somewhat confused as you seem to be making my point for me..

The campaign in Normandy is generally accepted to have lasted from the initial landings until the closure of the falaise pocket - is this what you do not agree with ?
If you agree with this as being valid then I can only say that I would feel that a game on the normandy campaign that did not represent this - with a scenario -- uniterrupted -- from start to finish would be as deficient as a game that attempted to represent the FULL battle of Gettysburg without the first day. Your point about waterloo without ligny and quatre bras is not relevant as the Waterloo battle can be defined as a separate and complete entity without quatre and ligny - they served to give waterloo its start point. In designing a game for a campaign you obviously attempt to scope it in some way so that your start and finish points have some historical validity - to me BIN falls short of doing this because Normandy was a very clearly defined campaign from landing to falaise. Any game that claims to be on the normandy campaign but fails to represent the full three months as a separate and complete scenario falls short of being complete.
Let us say then for example that someone buying the game - without having read the BIN web page but basing their purchase solely on the quality of the KP and ATD products - possesing a full and detailed knowledge of the Normandy Campaign - would they not feel just a little short changed by BIN without this scenario?

(in reply to PresbyterJohn)

Post #: 68

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 6:59:07 PM

PresbyterJohn

Posts: 136
Joined: 5/1/2004
Status: offline

Only as short changed as they felt when they found out that they had bought one of the many Gettysburg games that only cover the last 2 days, or the KP game which doesn't cover the formation of the bridgehead, or a Waterloo game without any reference to the Prussian forces.

< Message edited by Prester John -- 9/24/2004 5:07:01 PM >

(in reply to DBeves)

Post #: 69

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 8:11:59 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

DBeves, you've now tried to substitute the appellation "Normandy Campaign" as what was being marketed, instead of the actual "Battles in Normandy". Anyone able to read and comprehend w/o reference to this message board would surely understand that the game is about multiple "battles IN Normandy", not the entire campaign. Your preference might be a valid game idea, but it in no way makes BiN invalid, either in actuality or by what was represented.

The series, in fact, is called "Decisive Battles of WW2". These battles may or may not constitute a "campaign". The campaign in North Africa is a huge undertaking. The Gazala battles would not be, and may be a suitable subject for a future DBWW2 game. This is an operational scale battle game that may be able to convey some small "campaigns", but mostly if the campaign is merely a single operation over limited territory for a limited time. If you don't like the premise, you don't have to buy or play.

_____________________________

(in reply to PresbyterJohn)

Post #: 70

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 8:23:21 PM

DBeves

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline

Sorry Prester ---- but now I am completely baffled ...
What are the "Many" computer wargames out there that cover ONLY the last two days of gettysburg ? I cant think of THAT many that cover the battle let alone ANY that dont have a full THREE day scenario. If you are suggesting the sid meier game as one of these then I for one don't put that in the same genre as BIN and if i recall correctly that ended up having a full three day scenario implemented by the designers after repeated request from users - so quite what point you are trying to make with your last post I am mystified.

Similarly ... What computer wargame on waterloo leaves out the prussians ? I can only think of two that cover the actual battle and one of those even has Ligny and Quatre bras scenarios designed for it that link in a small way to the main battle.

Your point about KP is spurious and again deliberately stretches my point to fit your argument... any game that did not cover the ENCIRCLEMENT and the breakout / rescue is what I said not the bridgehead that formed the salient if YOU want to be silly about it you could take that argument back to include the fact that the game should include the entire eastern front back to June '41 - BIN with the invasion of France in 1940 is not what I am suggesting should have been there.

The sum total of all this is only to make me believe even more strongly that anyone not reading the BIN website before buying the game and picking up on the lack of a full scenario in the text of that is going to be VERY disapointed...

(in reply to PresbyterJohn)

Post #: 71

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 8:43:47 PM

DBeves

Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2002
Status: offline

Well no Capitaine ... I disagree ...for me... The title of the game would suggest to me that it had a number of scenarios to cover the smaller engagements that occurred as part of the Battle of Normandy. To me ... Epsom was not a "Battle" as such but merely a small part of the overall "Battle" of Normandy. The campaign for me was "Northwest Europe" --- This may seem pedantic to you but then again I am not the one suggesting that what I deem should be part of a game about Normandy should be inferred from its title. What if the game had a title of Battle in Normandy what can I expect then... :)
But I take your point Capitaine... you are the first person in this thread to proffer the argument the the DBWW2 engine is simply not capable of simulating the Normandy campaign in its entirety - and had that been the answer given by SSG (which I did suggest in my original post) I would have gone away disapointed but accepting of that fact...

I guess maybe yours should have been the final post as if you are indeed correct then I should not bother waiting around for the guys at Run5 who said they would produce one as it is clearly not do-able within the limitations of the game engine. I sincerely hope you are wrong as I very much like the system SSG have designed for us.

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 72

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 8:56:01 PM

hellycoptair

Posts: 2
Joined: 9/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

you are the first person in this thread to proffer the argument the the DBWW2 engine is simply not capable of simulating the Normandy campaign in its entirety

How many people have now tried to explain this to you in this thread ? Maybe you should read it again from top to bottom !

(in reply to DBeves)

Post #: 73

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 8:59:22 PM

PresbyterJohn

Posts: 136
Joined: 5/1/2004
Status: offline

Oh I wasn't just thinking of PC games, not at all. There is a huge range of games that were around for Gettysburg and Waterloo. Each gaem company would have had at least one on each subject. Only in recent times have the PC games become popular.

Also you are the one stretching the points to fit what you want to see. There is no reason why your stretching logic should not work in the other direction.

< Message edited by Prester John -- 9/24/2004 7:03:07 PM >

(in reply to DBeves)

Post #: 74

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 9:26:05 PM

Toby42

Posts: 1626
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: Central Florida
Status: offline

I can't believe that DBeves has all of this time to write all of this "Stuff"

_____________________________

Tony

(in reply to PresbyterJohn)

Post #: 75

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 9:35:30 PM

TheHellPatrol

Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Treale

I can't believe that DBeves has all of this time to write all of this "Stuff"

Hmmm, someone doesn't have a "life"

Personally, when i purchase a game, i get more enjoyment from playing it as opposed to talking about it...excuse me...WAITER!!!...more whine please

.

_____________________________

A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone.
Henry David Thoreau

(in reply to Toby42)

Post #: 76

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 10:52:45 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

you are the first person in this thread to proffer the argument the the DBWW2 engine is simply not capable of simulating the Normandy campaign in its entirety - and had that been the answer given by SSG (which I did suggest in my original post) I would have gone away disapointed but accepting of that fact...

Well, "not capable" is a strong word. Perhaps "not optimized" or "not really feasible"? It's been my observation since the debut of TAO1 back in the mid-90's that SSG have been shortening the turn lengths of their "battles", including deleting the "full" Battle of the Bulge scenario that previously had been published.

Others want this kind of thing, but I believe -- now -- that the AI is best suited for games of a length of around 30 to 40-some turns. And if you look at the future slate of titles, we know that 3 different "battles" will be portrayed: Sicily, Salerno and Anzio. No word of a "grand Italian campaign scenario". That would be far beyond the scope of the AI. I also doubt we'll get a map of all of lower Italy (like AH's "Anzio" game), although that would be cool.

What you can do is design a pbem scenario of a longer situation. This has been suggested to you and will no doubt come into being with or without your protests.

Nevertheless, there are still a LOT of cool battles this system can model within its intended scope: Crete, many battles in North Africa, numerous East Front operations (Velikye Luki is always a good one), and perhaps an Ardennes 1940 game, eh? Enjoy this operational system for what it is, and don't bemoan it for what it isn't. They've given us a great game, with numerous battle scenarios. Be grateful for what we've got b/c it IS a fine system when you accept it on its own terms.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheHellPatrol)

Post #: 77

RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix - 9/24/2004 11:04:39 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Ok guys, this thread has gone on long enough and it seems to me to be incapable of "dying". Time to end its unnatural life.

There is nothing wrong with the opinion that the game should have a full length scenario. Neither we nor SSG mind that input. The tools have been provided to make many modifications, including a long campaign. With Gregor's additional instructions, it should be relatively easy for someone familiar with the editor to post a longer scenario to satisfy those players who are interested in it.

I don't want to see any more personal attacks on this issue. We made a decision on which scenarios to include for release - for those that don't agree, SSG provided a powerful editor with instructions and an active community site with designer support at Run5. I think any special requests will be met in time. We did not promise anything that we did not deliver, so I think that with all constructive suggestions heard and accepted, we should all move on.

Thanks to everyone for your input.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 78

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Decisive Battles: Battles in Normandy >> RE: Great game but very disapointed with matrix

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]