RE: First Impressions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Order of Battle : World War II



Message

gunnergoz -> RE: First Impressions (5/4/2015 5:53:31 PM)

This engine, cleaned up and with a few UI improvements, would be dynamite for a WW2 Mediterranean naval/air campaign game. PG/PC did not do it right but this one probably can.



Vic -> RE: First Impressions (5/4/2015 7:24:13 PM)

-deleted- *wrong forum post*

But congrats on the great game. It looks and feels positively gorgeous!

Best wishes, Vic



Texican -> RE: First Impressions (5/4/2015 9:46:14 PM)

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.



Dr. Foo -> RE: First Impressions (5/4/2015 10:34:44 PM)

My first impressions. Well, it's fun! I don't really like that the campaign is not a true campaign it's a collections of small scenarios. I should have researched more before buying. I do not like this sort of liner play. I thought the campaign meant that I would control the Allied or Japanese forces and fight it out.

I thought (incorrectly on my part) it would be more like Strategic Command or Storm Over the Pacific (only way better). So far I think it is a fun beer and pretzel game. I just wish I could fight the war on my own terms.

Oh, BTW, who designed the Oahu map and completely left out the Ko'olau Mountains! [:-]



t001001001 -> RE: First Impressions (5/5/2015 1:30:40 AM)

I've done well through bootcamp an the allied campaign until Midway. I sunk 4 jap carriers, lost no ships of my own, sunk the whole invasion force. Then was informed I'd done so badly that the war is lost and the campaign is over [:o] That's a bit harsh isn't it? [:D]

I don't mind losing, I'm used to it. What happened there?



Lukas -> RE: First Impressions (5/5/2015 12:31:31 PM)

That sounds wrong. Can you send the final turn savegame to info@the-artistocrats.com?



lionel1957 -> RE: First Impressions (5/5/2015 1:11:57 PM)

I will tell you how good this game is. It is on my laptop at work!!!!



Erik2 -> RE: First Impressions (5/5/2015 2:15:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tulsaexec

I will tell you how good this game is. It is on my laptop at work!!!!



Shhhh, got it installed on two work PCs as well [8D]



t001001001 -> RE: First Impressions (5/5/2015 4:30:52 PM)

Lukas, I restarted the campaign, probably autosaved over it. I might have misread something anyway, don't worry about it. If it happens again I'll save it.

Thanks for your quick support [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/micons/m6.gif[/img]




lionel1957 -> RE: First Impressions (5/5/2015 8:12:23 PM)

Erik,

I've been modding the units.txt file for some interesting combat variations!



parusski -> RE: First Impressions (5/5/2015 8:37:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VegasOZ

Looks GOOD...
Plays GOOD...
Price is GOOD...

YUP... All is GOOD...

Very entertaining, GREAT JOB by the Devs...

Highly recommended.


As Meatloaf would say "You took the words right out of my mouth...). Love the game.



Erik2 -> RE: First Impressions (5/6/2015 8:06:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tulsaexec

Erik,

I've been modding the units.txt file for some interesting combat variations!


Such as...[&:]



Templer_12 -> RE: First Impressions (5/6/2015 12:03:32 PM)

My first, of course, subjective, impressions and comments to Order of Battle: Pacific

• Complete in German.
• The way sea battles are managed, is good. Not realistic, but make a lot more fun than Panzer Corps and Commander - The Great War in which the naval engagements is performed with simple left and right clicks . This then causes the most powerful ship ever the most damage on the enemy. In all few Beer & Pretzels Games that I know, Order of Battle found the best solution so far!
• Don’t like the music much. But the sound effects but are great and crisp.
• The game is not finished yet. It will still pached and, I hope, expanded. But it is already playable without frustration.
• Even the dogfights are more fun then with Panzer Corps, especially Commander - The Great War.
• If anything (great Beer & Pretzels Games) Order of Battle: Pacific to compare, then with the great Germany at War: Barbarossa in 1941 by the talented R. Wendt who changed/extended, the Panzer General principles.
I also find a comparison with the great Strategic Command series of Fury Software which also served the Pacific warriors admissible.
• After initial skepticism the game is, after we have become accustomed to the Pacific, a lot of fun. Especially the successful expansion of the individual branches of the armed forces (army, air force and navy) and their homogeneous interaction presents Order of Battle: Pacific in front of Panzer Corps and Commander - The Great War.
• The AI seems to be good.
• A very good solution: for longer distances you use, Ctrl '+ left-click, so you don’t have to order your unit each single round again and again. Great for routes with the slow submarines.
• Speaking submarine. There is something like a submarine hunt!

• I sometimes find it stressful to find our infantry on the land.
• While I ponder over the situation and the way forward on land we feel the animations on land as an annoying distraction. Imagine you brood over a chessboard and figures hopping, rocking and waving constantly.
• I miss a ingame description for best use of the units.
• I find the color intensity of the landmass almost too luminous.
• I miss the opportunity to quickly center a selected unit on the screen.



Templer_12 -> RE: First Impressions (5/9/2015 11:09:13 AM)

After a few hours of play, these are no more first impressions, but I had long gone so much joy in a new release as I have now now with Order of Battle: Pacific.



terje439 -> RE: First Impressions (5/9/2015 6:29:18 PM)

My impressions;

+
1. I am having fun playing it
2. The AI is doing rather well, atleast in terms of sneaking units behind your own to cut off supply.
3. I like the way you need to utilize all three branches at times.
4. I like the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary goals concept.
5. The decreased damage infliction on depleted aerial units is nice.

-
A. Some of your own units are really really hard to spot.
B. Not sure about the ammount of rivers in this game, as they are more of an obstacle here than in PC.
C. EXP gain seems rather low.
D. Cohesion loss for passing certain terrain types is rather harsh at times imo.

Other
Is the naval attack value of the Betty as it should be? Seems low to me.
Movement ranges might need a bit of a tweak. Seems weird when my infantry walks longer in a turn than the Yammy can sail in the same time. Also AC range seems low.

Rating as it stands for me is probably around 75-80/100, fix negative marked A, and it will be around 85/100 for me.



Erik2 -> RE: First Impressions (5/9/2015 10:22:03 PM)

A) You can select unit glow in the options, might help a bit.
Also do a page up or down to move through your units before you hit end turn.



terje439 -> RE: First Impressions (5/10/2015 2:16:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Nygaard

A) You can select unit glow in the options, might help a bit.
Also do a page up or down to move through your units before you hit end turn.


Yeah, still find them hard to spot, and the PgUp/Dn is a rather timeconsuming way to do things, but guess I am too used to PC.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: First Impressions (5/10/2015 3:22:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.


Thanks for that I was almost ready to pull the plug on buying this game but if it's one thing I hate it linear war. Guess I'll have to wait for the next latest and greatest thing.



Erik2 -> RE: First Impressions (5/10/2015 3:45:05 PM)

I also check the mini-map for bright red/green dots [;)]



R35 -> RE: First Impressions (5/10/2015 4:08:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Templer
• I find the color intensity of the landmass almost too luminous.

It might be a bit bright. My guess is the choice of colour and luminosity of the terrain textures are meant to make the units stand out by comparison. I`ve never had problems finding my units on a map, but clearly some gamers need a strong differentiation. That said, I think that currently the vegetation in the game is overall too yellowish and desaturated for the area that is depicted, making it more appropriate for the Mediterranean. It kinda contradicts my impression that the tropical rainforest and, generally, the vegetation of these parts ought to be a painfully crude green. :D In the same note, I think the ocean texture is also too desaturated for the idyllic, holiday going area it depicts. I think a more saturated/greenish colour for the deep ocean and a more transparent clear(ish) feel for the shallow water would have made for a more visually appealing scenery. Anyway, it`s artistic representation combined with practicability so hard to please everyone of course. :D



Texican -> RE: First Impressions (5/11/2015 6:13:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore


quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.


Thanks for that I was almost ready to pull the plug on buying this game but if it's one thing I hate it linear war. Guess I'll have to wait for the next latest and greatest thing.


Please understand, I strongly recommended the game. Also, the linearity is nowhere near to the micromanaged gameplay of Blitzkrieg (if you ever played that). There is some, but not extreme.

The game plays most similarly to the Afrika Korps expansion pack of Panzer Corps. Not quite as free in strategic approach as Panzer Corps itself, but has a few pop-ups when events occur mid-scenario. I guess, different flavors of play between the two.

I do think most will get months of enjoyment out of this game.



Dr. Foo -> RE: First Impressions (5/11/2015 8:39:16 PM)

Well all I can say is I wish I did more research before buying. I thought this was going to be War in the Pacific (light). I wanted a game that plays out anyway I want it to play. Not, go here, fight here, now go here. It's fun for many but just not for me. I'm not a fan of PC so that should have been my first clue. I play War in the East, War in the West, TOAW III. I gave up on War in the Pacific as it just took forever to resolve a turn. [:)]




Richie61 -> RE: First Impressions (5/14/2015 1:31:03 AM)

Man, what a fun game! I liked PC, but this title is light years ahead of PC[:D]

Well done team!!!



Myrddraal -> RE: First Impressions (5/14/2015 7:17:08 AM)

Thanks for the feedback, both positive and constructive :) If you bought the game through Steam, please consider writing a brief Steam review, they really help :)

http://steamcommunity.com/app/312450/reviews/



aaatoysandmore -> RE: First Impressions (5/15/2015 3:56:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican


quote:

ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore


quote:

ORIGINAL: Texican

While I still favor this game as a purchase, there is a trend I am seeing (and have seen in other operational strategy games in the past decade that I find disturbing. Some scenarios are designed to where they have to play out in a certain linear order. I'm not talking in relation to other scenarios, but rather within the single scenario itself.

Ex. You are supposed to fight and win the offshore naval battle FIRST. THEN escort the supply ships off the map next. THEN repel an eastern attack. THEN repel a southern attack. THEN ... etc....

See, the whole thing as if the battle is orchestrated for you and you MUST follow it in the sequence it was intended to play out. How, can I best describe this? Take the Battle of El Alamein as an example (not related to Pacific stuff, but a good example for what I'm trying to describe). There was the bombardment phase, then the mineclearing, then the initial northern assaults, then the southern feint, then the northern breakthrough, then the pursuit.

That's all fine in how it historically happened, but why not let the player design the strategy? Plop the player into the scenario, give the player some goals, then allow the player to exercise his own ingenuity in coming up with a strategy. There is no need to micromanage strategy for the player. See what I'm getting at?

This Pacific game is a fine addition to the Panzer Corps line, but I think it forces strategy on the player. The game is playing overall commander and you're just carrying out tasks.


Thanks for that I was almost ready to pull the plug on buying this game but if it's one thing I hate it linear war. Guess I'll have to wait for the next latest and greatest thing.


Please understand, I strongly recommended the game. Also, the linearity is nowhere near to the micromanaged gameplay of Blitzkrieg (if you ever played that). There is some, but not extreme.

The game plays most similarly to the Afrika Korps expansion pack of Panzer Corps. Not quite as free in strategic approach as Panzer Corps itself, but has a few pop-ups when events occur mid-scenario. I guess, different flavors of play between the two.

I do think most will get months of enjoyment out of this game.


No, I have to be able to do what I want when I want at any time I want. Static or linear scenarios or campaigns just don't do it for me anymore like a good ole Steel Panthers W@W game will.



Notorious Bob -> RE: First Impressions (5/15/2015 4:24:33 PM)

First impressions eh?...

Pros

Very slick and polished presentation
Good gameplay
Scale seems to be effective - i.e. unit size, level of control
Combat system
Absorbing
Tech development track

Cons
It's not Uncommon Valor (or a successor to it)
It's not War in the Pacific (or a successor to it)
I'd prefer to see more historical accuracy e.g. Pearl Harbour's battleship row
Some scenario initial force deployments are "odd" e.g. in the Coral Sea, Port Moresby would never be undefended
That you have to win every scenario to progress - why?
Unrealistic ammunition - Dive bombers with unlimited bombs, subs with unlimited torpedoes etc.


Conclusion
Going to be sticking with it and see how the game develops with future updates. Sadly it hasn't filled the niche that I was expecting - 10 years on I was hoping for a refresh of Uncommon Valor and this isn't it. Is OoB:P trying just a little too hard to appeal to a different demographic by being more "game" than "strategy"?



gunnergoz -> RE: First Impressions (5/15/2015 6:46:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Notorious Bob

First impressions eh?...

Pros

Very slick and polished presentation
Good gameplay
Scale seems to be effective - i.e. unit size, level of control
Combat system
Absorbing
Tech development track

Cons
It's not Uncommon Valor (or a successor to it)
It's not War in the Pacific (or a successor to it)
I'd prefer to see more historical accuracy e.g. Pearl Harbour's battleship row
Some scenario initial force deployments are "odd" e.g. in the Coral Sea, Port Moresby would never be undefended
That you have to win every scenario to progress - why?
Unrealistic ammunition - Dive bombers with unlimited bombs, subs with unlimited torpedoes etc.


Conclusion
Going to be sticking with it and see how the game develops with future updates. Sadly it hasn't filled the niche that I was expecting - 10 years on I was hoping for a refresh of Uncommon Valor and this isn't it. Is OoB:P trying just a little too hard to appeal to a different demographic by being more "game" than "strategy"?


I find it curious to fault OOB:P for being something it never intended or pretended to be, but each to his own.




HobbesACW -> RE: First Impressions (5/16/2015 11:12:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

My first impressions. Well, it's fun! I don't really like that the campaign is not a true campaign it's a collections of small scenarios. I should have researched more before buying. I do not like this sort of liner play. I thought the campaign meant that I would control the Allied or Japanese forces and fight it out.

I thought (incorrectly on my part) it would be more like Strategic Command or Storm Over the Pacific (only way better). So far I think it is a fun beer and pretzel game. I just wish I could fight the war on my own terms.

Oh, BTW, who designed the Oahu map and completely left out the Ko'olau Mountains! [:-]


I agree entirely. Glad I bought the game but I wish there were just a few objectives that I could take however I wanted to. I thought about playing on one level easier but not reading all the secondary objectives - but it's not easy to avoid reading them :)

Cheers,
Chris





JosemiArias -> RE: First Impressions (5/17/2015 11:28:43 AM)

I'm an old Pacific General player (old in age, still playing an old game [:D]) and I can say I'm absolutely enjoying this game. It has a lot of nice features, it's graphically updated to modern computers and I am already waiting for further expansion of the game. To add something as a 'wishlist', I could say the game it's somewhat... short in same features. I think we start campaigns with few units, units got experience rather slowly (I'm reading this feature have been somewhat fixed) and campaign ends too soon for my taste [:D]
Anyway, I'm truly happy to have bought this great game!!
[:'(][:'(][:'(]



Johnus -> RE: First Impressions (5/18/2015 2:58:41 PM)

Anyone who wants to play a "WITP" light, should try WAR PLAN PACIFIC from Shrapnel Games. It's a strategic treatment of the pacific campaign, playable to completion in a few hours. Combat resolution is somewhat like Carriers at War, quick and fun. By and large, historical outcomes. Very elegant game. I don't know why it isn't more popular.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.734375