|
CapAndGown -> (2/19/2003 2:32:56 PM)
|
Probably like everything else out there, there are pluses and minuses. I used to be very much into PzC but have become discouraged as of late.
The research into these games is trully extraodinary. If you are interested in the terrain of a specific campaign, or the OOB, then these are the games to get. Normandy 44 is not a game I would want to play, but I have been tempted to buy it just for the map and OOB data. So that aspect is very nice. Plus, if you disagree with a designer's numbers, the editor is very powerful and easy to use. I have made a number of scenarios that are available at the blitzkrieg wargaming site, as have other users.
Some of the designers produce games with lots of tiny units and some tend to favor larger units. Korusun, for instance, was done by the same people who did Normandy, so you get tons of tiny "ants". Rather annoying. Bulge 44, Smolensk 41, and Kharkov 42, on the other hand, have a more readibly manageble OOB. I would still say that Korosun is a good game, however, because the selection of scenarios is very nice indeed. From posts I have seen, HPS will not have the "micro-units" in future games because players do not like them.
As far as graphics are concerned, I have no problem with them. I come out of a board gaming background, so that may explain my stance. They are certainly better than UV. But they are not Close Combat. But then they couldn't be, now could they? I have never understood why a game at this scale would have 3D graphics. It adds nothing to the game and none of the players ever use that mode anyway. Actually, I find the maps quite pretty.
Despite these comments, I do have problems with the game and HPS itself.
Because almost all players insist on using the default movement mode, there are several problems that crop up. Defensive fire is controlled by the AI and it makes VERY poor choices about when and at what to fire. Many units never fire. Thus, the defense is phenomonally weak in this game when using the default movement mode. The alternate movement mode would seem to be a better reflection of defensive strengths. My guess is that our modern age is too influenced by arcade games and instant feedback to accept a phased game sequence. Fans of the default movement mode will insist that it is an accurate reflection of fluid situations, but this is a load of crap. Why? Because you can "break" and enemy unit through intensive artillery, air, and land combats and then stream entire divisions throught the break in the enemy lines you just created with no accounting for the time it took for all this fire power to be brought to bear. There are nothing like "breakthrough" markers, such as in the Ardennes Offensive system to slow down units moving through such artificial holes.
This brings up another point: many players have suggested such "breakthrough" markers, but HPS and John Tiller have been totally unresponsive. They do come into to the forums and explain why some things are the way they are. But they are almost hostile when it comes to player criticisms of the game system. They are nothing like Matrix which has bent over backwards to adopt user suggestions. This is not to say the HPS is totally unresponsive. There have been many changes to the system in response to user requests. But there have also been a chorus of requests to change particular aspects of the game (the way AT guns are handled, for instance) that Tiller and company have refused to address. Users have ended up going into the editor to make the changes themselves to get the behavior they want.
I guess my biggest problem was the differing response I saw here at Matrix versus what I saw coming out of HPS. At Matrix I saw an engaged development crew that listened to its players and made changes based on what they wanted. When I suggested changes to the PzC system, on the other hand, I felt like I was being snubbed and on occassion almost insulted for making such blasphemous requests that somehow brought into question the godhood of John Tiller (PhD Mathmatics!). I know that I am not the only one who felt this way: another gamer that I PBEMed with also made the same comment.
I would also say that Tiller does not press the technology very far. This actually has its good points. PzC games are almost sure to be bug free. They are very polished and you can be assured that you will have no problems playing the game. HPS is VERY responsive about squashing bugs, though if you mention them in a public forum they get very defensive. On the other hand, there seems to be little advance over what we have seen in board games because of this conservative approach. Sure you don't have to constantly consult the rule book because the computer remembers the rules, but that is about it. Games by Norm Koger and Gary Grisby, on the other hand, push the technology for all it is worth. Sure there are more bugs, but the games take the possibilities of the technology are really exploit them. For instance, I find Koger's supply system, with its accounting for air, sea, rail, and organic unit transport use points to be an excelent representation of supply realities: i.e. rail points used for moving units cannot be used to move supply.
One final comment I would make is that I do not think that the direct fire routines used by the system are appropriate for a game using 1 Km hexes. In part this leads to the poor AI op-fire routines. But it also just seems a poor choice for a game of this scale where an odds attack system would seem to be more appropriate.
All ths said, I would say that some of the PzC games are good buys. I would steer away from Tobruk and Normandy. They seem to be low on everyone's list. Smolensk is no doubt the most popular. I personally like Korosun, even if the Germans have to deal with all these micro-units. Kharkov 42 is also very nice. Many people find Bulge 44 to be the best, but this is where I found the problems of defense in the game system to be at their worst.
To sum it up, I would say try either Smolensk or Kharkov. Korosun is fairly nice because of the large selection of scenarios, though you do have a lot of micro-units. Many like Bulge 44, but beware as the Germans since you cannot defend your self once you have made your breakthrough.
Also, keep in mind that what you are paying for is the map and OOB research. This is why HPS will not release a map editor. And I will not begrudge them that at all. If they can stay in business producing such high quality maps and OOBs, then I say "more power to them!"
|
|
|
|
