|
hondo1375 -> Some early impressions after 3 games (10/19/2013 2:16:43 PM)
|
Overall, after three plays (the tutorial and Time to Dance from both sides), my impressions are generally positive. There has been a TacOps-shaped hole in my gaming life for some years, and this looks like it might be its successor.
Pros
- Looks very much like Boots and Saddles, which is a great improvement aesthetically over Tac-Ops.
- UI is generally clean, intuitive, and tells you what you need to know.
- The battles have a nice combined arms feel to them. I was coordinating the timing of different tank units so they would crest different hills overlooking the same enemy position at the same time, while infantry stacked up a little behind, also coordinated with deliveries of smoke screens and airstrikes.
- Responsiveness of the devs. All the concerns I've listed below have been answered by the devs and they seem on the case to address them.
Undecided
- The AI. As WP in Time to Dance I saw the AI perform counter attacks and effectively defend positions, and reform defensive lines. Not sure if this is programmed into the scenario, or AI adaptive behaviour. It wasn't a brilliant defence, but it made a fun game. I used FOW and limited orders, and I'd say they were pretty essential to assist the AI.
As NATO in Time to Dance, the AI kept charging into kill zones and took horrendous casualties, where a regroup and new axis of attack would have been a much better option. I understand the devs are looking at this. I hope the AI gets some love, as I'm unlikely to be doing much MP. It could just be, as with many AIs, that this one is better on defence than attack. I definitely enjoyed this battle less than when I played WP.
Cons
All the cons seem to be being addressed by the devs, although it sounds like it may be a while before they are done. My biggest issue is with the waypoint system. I want to be able to set different orders for different waypoints (both move and stance orders), and currently I can't do that. The issue seemed to be a much bigger problem for me playing NATO than WP, probably because NATO requires a bit more finesse to play.
Another issues I have relates to victory determination, but that's being addressed and covered in another thread, so no need to rehash that here. Also, I'm having some issues concerning font size of the right panel, but that's also on the dev's to do list.
One really minor thing about the interface is that while it shows who shots at whom in the log, I'd also like to know with what, at least for the kills. You can usually infer it from the unit type and audio (which is closer to passable that hi fidelity), but it is more geeky interest than anything (are the T-80s firing their Kobras or just regular shells?) and would probably overburden any sane user in an already busy log.
Bottom line, if you were a TacOps fan (or Boots and Saddles, for that matter), I'd say pile in now as even if nothing improves as promised (although no reason to believe it won't), this will still scratch the itch.
|
|
|
|
