Frustration (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Ancients] >> Tin Soldiers: Julius Caesar



Message

Prince of Eckmühl -> Frustration (4/2/2008 11:58:13 PM)

I purchased the game last weekend, installed it, and read the manual. I've spent perhaps ten hours playing and picking up the GUI. Having done so, I have to say that I'm finding aspects of TSJC very frustrating:

1) I'm having a lot of trouble manuevering my units. And I'm not talking about combat, but just moving them around the map. The culprit appears to be the irregular (and largely predictionless), sequence in which units get their "turn" to execute movement. The practical impact of these mechanics is that a column composed of individual units doesn't appear to be capable of moving across the map in a reliable and timely fashion, no matter how far away the enemy is.

2) The FOW/visibility functions strike me as truly odd, in that an enemy that's close enough to throw a javelin or shoot an arrow is sometimes too far away to be seen. At first, I thought that this might have something to do with the time of day, but experience suggests that this is not the case. The imposition of such severe visibility restrictions places the human player at a pretty severe disadvantage, perhaps too much so, IMO.

3) In spite items 2 & 3 above, I find myself able to get the upper-hand against the AI by maneuvering against one of it's flanks, using the map edge to protect my left or right, and deploying my cavalry en masse to hit the AI as it attempts a flanking maneuver of its own. The result? I lose. Why? Because the clock runs out. Phooey!

Thoughts, anyone?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



koiosworks -> RE: Frustration (4/3/2008 1:03:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I purchased the game last weekend, installed it, and read the manual. I've spent perhaps ten hours playing and picking up the GUI. Having done so, I have to say that I'm finding aspects of TSJC very frustrating:

1) I'm having a lot of trouble manuevering my units. And I'm not talking about combat, but just moving them around the map. The culprit appears to be the irregular (and largely predictionless), sequence in which units get their "turn" to execute movement. The practical impact of these mechanics is that a column composed of individual units doesn't appear to be capable of moving across the map in a reliable and timely fashion, no matter how far away the enemy is.

2) The FOW/visibility functions strike me as truly odd, in that an enemy that's close enough to throw a javelin or shoot an arrow is sometimes too far away to be seen. At first, I thought that this might have something to do with the time of day, but experience suggests that this is not the case. The imposition of such severe visibility restrictions places the human player at a pretty severe disadvantage, perhaps too much so, IMO.

3) In spite items 2 & 3 above, I find myself able to get the upper-hand against the AI by maneuvering against one of it's flanks, using the map edge to protect my left or right, and deploying my cavalry en masse to hit the AI as it attempts a flanking maneuver of its own. The result? I lose. Why? Because the clock runs out. Phooey!

Thoughts, anyone?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



1. initiative is assigned every turn. the better trained troops have a large advantage to getting lower intiative. it is one of the major advantages of the romans (and greeks in Alexander). So, in general, your vets will move ealier than the green barbarians but not always the case. Keep your legions together and they will stay pretty organized. they get an advantage if they are near other units in their same legion.

2. height adds a lot to sighting. scouts also have a bonus to sighting. put scouts on hills for great visibility. Use your light cavalry to scout. Ceasar was ambused and almost destroyed in several battles when the barbs came out the woods by surprise. Once you get to the civil war part of the game, the legions tended to fight more in open fields with less problems on sighting, but the 1st part with the barbs in woods can get you surprised! (likewise, in the Alexander game, flank the enemy a lot with your massive cavalry, alex was a master at that)

3. the clock is to get the attacker on the move. in most ancient battles, waiting around for combat was a bad idea since the barbians usually had large reserves that could come to reinforce. I'm guessing you are spending too much time moving to map edges for advantage. Your legions can tear up the barbs head to head, just keep a few light legions on your flanks to stop enemy flanking and straight ahead and break the barbs.

You might try playing on the easy setting to you get the hang of it. Alexander did not have an easy setting, but Ceasar does.


hope that helps! Enjoy!



ravinhood -> RE: Frustration (4/4/2008 9:48:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

I purchased the game last weekend, installed it, and read the manual. I've spent perhaps ten hours playing and picking up the GUI. Having done so, I have to say that I'm finding aspects of TSJC very frustrating:

1) I'm having a lot of trouble manuevering my units. And I'm not talking about combat, but just moving them around the map. The culprit appears to be the irregular (and largely predictionless), sequence in which units get their "turn" to execute movement. The practical impact of these mechanics is that a column composed of individual units doesn't appear to be capable of moving across the map in a reliable and timely fashion, no matter how far away the enemy is.

2) The FOW/visibility functions strike me as truly odd, in that an enemy that's close enough to throw a javelin or shoot an arrow is sometimes too far away to be seen. At first, I thought that this might have something to do with the time of day, but experience suggests that this is not the case. The imposition of such severe visibility restrictions places the human player at a pretty severe disadvantage, perhaps too much so, IMO.

3) In spite items 2 & 3 above, I find myself able to get the upper-hand against the AI by maneuvering against one of it's flanks, using the map edge to protect my left or right, and deploying my cavalry en masse to hit the AI as it attempts a flanking maneuver of its own. The result? I lose. Why? Because the clock runs out. Phooey!

Thoughts, anyone?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)


lol Prince I find it hard to believe you are having such a tough time with such an easy to play game? You sound like you have the right idea (although exploiting the game mechanics and AI by using the map edges to prevent flanking...I would never do that) ;) LOS and FOW are two important features that yes benefit the AI and I have no issues with that since I can eek out minor victories evenso. I'm not going to tell you my strategy, because it's more fun (at least for me) figuring it out on my own. Being able to beat the AI first time everytime isn't very fun. It just takes some time to get use to how it plays.

You've only had the game for a short time, why must you master it within a week? I'm happy if I have a game I can never master like Civilization on the highest difficulty with 14 AI opponents. I can't beat it, but, it's still fun trying and just to see how long I can last. To win against Tin Soldiers AI you must think AHEAD and not just what is in front of you, but, what may be in front of you or at a position during the 5 minute turns and the complete 15 minute intervals. Keep reserves to exploit weaknesses the AI leaves, don't commit everything you have in the first two 5 minute increments. It's like playing chess really. You have to see moves ahead of you even with the FOW and that's kinda like it was back then. They didn't have radios yah know to send instant commands an orders. I've busted the AI a few times by calculating what it's going to do. Those are the most fun encounters cause usually it's a flank or rear attack. Also, remember the ole saying. A good offense sometimes is a good defense. Plus learning and knowing your units and the AI's units and what their powers and handicaps are takes time. ;)

Anyways hope you give it more time. I still think TS:JC is one of the best games I ever sank money into. A really good AI (if you don't exploit it) ;)



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Frustration (4/4/2008 7:56:21 PM)

RH,

In my last game of TSJC, a line of invisible legions routed ALL of my missile troops (which were located behind my own line of legionaires). None of my troops got to fire ranged weapons in the entire turn.

For the benefit of anyone who's unfamiliar with the game, here's how it happened:

1) In the game, you can't fire missiles at what you can't see.

2) The AI's line was two-to-three spaces in front of my line of infantry, and three-to-four spaces away from my four missile units (which were directly behind my line of infantry). If it sounds like I'm fudging on the exact range numbers, forgive me, all I could see of the enemy was pilas flying through the air.

3) The enemy infantry was out of visual range of ALL my units, but ALL my units were in its visual range. All the units involved were in open terrain, BTW.

4) I believe that the still invisible AI attacked my missile troops with its pilas because they are easier to inflict casualties on than legionaries.

5) The missile combat was resolved, my missile troops were badly depleted and the survivors routed.

Okay, RH, I'm having a real conceptual problem with what I've described above. I simply can't buy the notion that the AI can throw a pila farther than my units can see. I don't want to sound overly critical, it, but that strikes me as just plain goofy. I understand that the developer wanted to limit the information available to a player as he issues orders, and I take no real issue with this. I do, however, believe that this particular device is so crude and ill-considered as to seriously undermine the substance of the game.

Were you playing SPI games back in the 70's? If so, you might remember that many of their titles had what my friends and I referred to as "idiot rules," ones that were intended to produce an outcome, rather than model the tactics and weapons of the era in question. On some level, the handling of visibility in TSJC strikes me the same way. Again, I think that I understand what the developer is trying to achieve. But, I simply can't sustain a fit rationale for the means by which they went about accomplishing it.

To summarize, RH, I simply can't accept a game feature which suggests that ancient armies could throw/hurl/shoot handheld weapons farther than the eyes of an entire army could see. It just doesn't wash.

Your thoughts?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)




ravinhood -> RE: Frustration (4/5/2008 12:05:57 AM)

Trench Warfare and runners are my thoughts. Every square of terrain is not just a flat piece of land when I play it. And the fact that the AI can toss missles at me when I can't see gives me food for thought on "how would I have done this if I were there". I thought of trenches built during the night before the big battle or maybe a sunken road or maybe a grassy knoll where they rise up toss their spears and then duck back down. One has to use their "imaginations" sometimes. These are barbarians remember? Kings of the AMBUSH and thus ambushes have to be modeled some way into an open tabletop game where one can see all. With the computer we have FOW and that's why you can't see them. If you were playing on a tabletop they would still be launching them, but, you would see from exactly where.

I don't have a problem with this as with imagination and realizing the developers had to do something to model ambushes even in what APPEARS to be open flat square terrain. They just didn't model in trenches or other formations within each terrain square. Remember too barbarians were tough and strong so they had some spear chunkers that could throw futher than a decked out legion. ;) Just using my imagination here. ;)



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Frustration (4/5/2008 2:11:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

These are barbarians remember? Kings of the AMBUSH and thus ambushes have to be modeled some way into an open tabletop game where one can see all. With the computer we have FOW and that's why you can't see them. If you were playing on a tabletop they would still be launching them, but, you would see from exactly where.

Nah, the fighting was Roman vs Roman. Two tidy little lines of legions, one invisible, and the other fully revealed. And even if it was a line of a hundred-thousand Gauls, I ought to be able to detect them before my rear-deployed missile troops catch one in the belly, no?


quote:

I don't have a problem with this as with imagination and realizing the developers had to do something to model ambushes even in what APPEARS to be open flat square terrain. They just didn't model in trenches or other formations within each terrain square. . ;) Just using my imagination here.

The terrain as depicted by the map was open-ground. If it's supposed to be some sort of prepared field-works, it ought to be portrayed as such.

Again, I have no quibble with the developer's attempting to limit my command and control options and/or effectiveness in the game. However, they've run afoul of some basic physics. Missile troops shouldn't be able to fire farther than the eye can see. Heck, for that matter, they shouldn't be able to fire farther than an infantry or cavalry unit can march in a fifteen-minute turn.

Altering relationships such as these, ones fundamental to time and space, undermines what I referred to above as the "substance of the game," that which makes it a wargame (as opposed to checkers or chess). Mechanics-wise, TSJC may as well be about WWI, at least to the extent that 1914 actually saw armies fielding weapons that could fire farther than the eye could see (or a combat unit could march in fifteen minutes). Just redo the art and rename it "Tin Soldiers: Blackjack Pershing."

See the problem?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)





ravinhood -> RE: Frustration (4/5/2008 5:17:12 PM)

Maybe they are using OFFboard artillery like BALISTAS? ;) Now I'm sure you don't complain when you play a WW2 game that has offboard artillery? ;) Just because YOU don't have balistas doesn't mean your opponent doesn't. ;) Balistas had a much longer range and could easily fire at an infantry or cavalry unit 15 minutes away with defensive units in front of it. ;) Cmon Prince use your imagination here. Quit being SPOCK this isn't Star Trek. ;)

Oh and one more thing I'm noticing and maybe this is where you're not seeing why. Go back into that scenario and check the ELEVATIONS between you and your opponents "missle" firing units. What are the elevation numbers from where your archer are and these socalled magical missle units that can fire at you from the FOW and you can't fire at them? I recall reading in the rules/manual that higher elevated units get a better LOS rules and also distance and damage capabilities. You can shoot an arrow or throw a spear a lot futher from a downhill prospective vs an uphill one.




Erik Rutins -> RE: Frustration (4/5/2008 7:01:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
3) The enemy infantry was out of visual range of ALL my units, but ALL my units were in its visual range. All the units involved were in open terrain, BTW.


Any chance you could post a screenshot or a save? I don't recall running into a situation like this when playing through the game.



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Frustration (4/5/2008 9:55:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Any chance you could post a screenshot or a save? I don't recall running into a situation like this when playing through the game.



Nope, but I could replay it (the Munda scenario).

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Oh and one more thing I'm noticing and maybe this is where you're not seeing why. Go back into that scenario and check the ELEVATIONS between you and your opponents "missle" firing units.


It doesn't matter what the elevations are. Hand-held weapons of the of the era couldn't shoot farther than people could see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhoodWhat are the elevation numbers from where your archer are and these socalled magical missle units that can fire at you from the FOW and you can't fire at them?


At no point have I made reference to "magical missle units." Those words are your own.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Frustration (4/5/2008 11:30:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I don't recall running into a situation like this when playing through the game.



I ran the scenario again, and got two SAV for you, one at the end of an command phase in which my units are about to get pila'd by the unseen line of AI legions, and the other at the beginning of the next command phase, one which illustrates the effect of the pila attack on my forces by the as yet, unseen AI legions.

I also made a screen shot depicting the status of my line at the beginning of the latter command phase. I'll attach it to this post, but I never know where these things are gonna show up, so y'all may have to look for it:

And I can tell anyone who's interested why what I described happened...

The line of invisible legions that I made reference to in my post(s) above were indeed one elevation higher than my advancing infantry and missile units. My legions could only see two spaces, so there was nothing on the radar screen excepting pilas, raining down on my archers and slingers situated in the rear rank of stands.

And what I've described isn't a bug, it's feature of the game, one which allows ranged-fire to extend well beyond the visual range of the units that are being shot at. I understand how it works, and I believe that I understand what the developer was trying to achieve. I just think it's a bad idea. It undermines the substance of the game.

Ranged fire shouldn't by hand-held weapons shouldn't extend beyond the visual and march ranges in a game about Ancients. That's just my opinion on the matter.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)




[image]local://upfiles/21246/0761096E5D694BA2A9A0EFD72DD61D26.jpg[/image]



Prince of Eckmühl -> RE: Frustration (4/5/2008 11:37:14 PM)

I don't want to edit the post above for fear of deleting the image, so let me describe the significance of what's shown...

The screenshot was taken at the beginning of the second command phase following one full turn of my units being shot at by AI legions which my units can't see. Note that there are four missile units in varying states of disarray. At the beginning of the previous command phase all four were at full strength and were located directly behind my line of (now depleted) legions. My missile units didn't fare as badly as they did in the previous game, BTW. That's just the variability built into the game, I suppose.

And, for clarification's sake, I'd like to amend a comment that I made in my post above to read as follows: "Ranged fire by hand-held weapons shouldn't extend beyond visual and fifteen-minute march ranges in a game about Ancients."

PoE (aka ivanmoe)



ravinhood -> RE: Frustration (4/6/2008 10:52:55 AM)

You are emphasizing 15 minute MARCH ranges waaaay too much. There are 15 minute INCREMENTS not ALWAYS MARCHES although marches are just one part of the 15 minute intervals at times. I've had 15 minute increments where there was no MARCHING at all just total combat in all three 5 minute phases. By elevation you moved into range of the spear chunkers.

Also from the manual and I quote
quote:

Only enemy units in the general proximity of a friendly
unit appear on the map. Areas of the map that your
forces do not have direct visibility are marked by a
blue dotted line. Note that cavalry and units on high
elevation have an increased visibility.
 


It appears the game is working correctly. The spear chunkers are on higher ground and can see you, but, you cannot see them. I could see a plateau of this type where this is possible in my minds eye. I'm going to use something I saw in the Lord of the Rings the Twin Towers. During the battle scene there were archers in the back ground of the ramparts and Strider called for them to fire a folley as he could see the approaching orcs, the archers fired though they were not visible to the orcs and of course killed quite a few of them. In practice of TS:JC I could see this happening from a plateau where a commander that could see your approaching units called for a pilum launch from that plataeu. Same principle just different weapons.



Deride -> RE: Frustration (4/7/2008 5:04:08 AM)

Higher ground and being in a defensive stance provide for higher visibility. I would imagine that an advancing army of legions / cav would kick up some dust and/or make noise.

Additionally, I would be surprised if you find the pila do substantial damage to your legion units. While they do help to soften you up a bit, you should be able to quickly engage the enemy -- especially since the pila are a dead give-away about what's going on and where the enemy is located. I think this also shows the nice effect of 'reaction orders' since you can now react to uncovering enemy and/or being hit to readjust your forward movement.

One of the major design goals of this game was to make sure that bull rush and attrition strategies would not work against the game. (We've been 'beaten up' on a number of occasions for having turn limits to avoid attrition... c'est la vie.) The effect you are seing is one of the ways that the bull-rush is countered by the defending barbarians.

Deride



ravinhood -> RE: Frustration (4/7/2008 7:38:46 AM)

And a very good one Deride I might add. Even though I still try a bull rush strategy from time to time when I don't feel like stratagizing or tacticalizing haha the AI takes no time in showing me that strategy don't work. ;) Good job for sure. It's one of the other main reasons I don't like rts ?? clickfest games because of the grunt rushes so many of them allow. I don't see any strategy or fun in that. Never have never will. Really wished this game had got more exposure because it offers so much more than many other strategy/tactical games. ;)



Mraah -> RE: Frustration (4/7/2008 7:45:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

And a very good one Deride I might add. Even though I still try a bull rush strategy from time to time when I don't feel like stratagizing or tacticalizing haha the AI takes no time in showing me that strategy don't work. ;) Good job for sure. It's one of the other main reasons I don't like rts ?? clickfest games because of the grunt rushes so many of them allow. I don't see any strategy or fun in that. Never have never will. Really wished this game had got more exposure because it offers so much more than many other strategy/tactical games. ;)


Ravinhood,

You know, the exposure you gave this game over in the Karkov forum thread about Stridor's AAR got me to purchase TS:JC ... I'm downloading it now.
I've grown to hate rts games, perhaps age has something to do with it. Seems you have to have fast hand/eye coordiantion more than strategy. The only rts game I like, and I say ONLY, is Company of Heroes ... mostly because I like to drop paratroopers behind enemy lines!!

On that note, seems we have similiar tastes ... you like Guinness? [sm=00000436.gif]
If they ever have a convention I'll buy the first round ... hmm, I'll buy several rounds if you and Erik promise to go at each other about pila's!! I'll bring the popcorn too ...

[sm=duel.gif]

Rob



ravinhood -> RE: Frustration (4/7/2008 10:17:07 PM)

Erik is just a young whipper snapper, he'll come around someday....I hope. [:D]

I think you'll like TS:JC if you like strategy and tactics at all. I'm really enjoying it the 2nd time around and even get mad at it sometimes cause I go "How the hell can the AI do that" lol, then I realize it just doesn't sit there and let you play "whack a mole" against it. The way it runs its cavalry behind your rear and then reappears out of the FOW to stomp on your routed or depleted units is quite a surprise. Man if only the total war series RTW/M2TW had an ai like this.

Erik should thank me, I think counting you makes 3 people who hadn't had this game before who have bought it on my recommendation and lord knows how many LURKERS up there decided to buy it since I gave my review. ;)
It's a good ancient minatureslike playing game. It's one of a kind really, quite unique and it should have got more exposure than it did. I still can't believe or understand why wargamer and armchair general didn't review it.



Mraah -> RE: Frustration (4/7/2008 10:41:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I still can't believe or understand why wargamer and armchair general didn't review it.


Perhaps it's like those famous actors we see when they win an Oscar. They made one great movie and then people go out and buy/rent the older movies that didn't do so well but have their favorite actor in it. When Karkov hits the shelves and players love it they might back peddle and get the old stuff just to get a good A/I. Who knows.

Rob



Deride -> RE: Frustration (4/8/2008 4:20:02 PM)

I think that perhaps the lack of reviews / spot-light on TS:JC was because many folks thought it was merely a sequel to TS:Alexander.

In fact, we did quite a bit of work on TS:JC including moving the 2D graphics engine to 3D, replacing the AI with a genetic algorithm (which has been used in not only our games but a few industrial situations as well) and supporting new scenario types. We dropped the cut-scenes -- which we really liked -- since they didn't add much to the gameplay, and we didn't have the budget to do them with the highest production value.

Thanks, RH for focusing some new folks onto the game. And, I do hope that folks will start to realize that TS:Alexander, TS:JC, PCOWS and PCK are all games that stand out completely on their own. (Of course, if you get PCOWS, adding in PCK is an incredible deal and upgrades you existing game -- but PCOWS is still a great game completely on its own.)

Deride



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625