Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Ardennes Offensive



Message

Octavian -> Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/6/2022 9:36:22 AM)

I really tried hard to like this game, since I own all other DC titles and play them a lot.
After playing a couple of smaller and medium sized scenarios and reading all the posts here, I end up giving up on this game. Here is why:
1: This game suffers heavily from trying to achieve too much. Combat calculations are simply not reasonably reproducible. Very often you have no idea why for example the pre-battle-calculator produces his odds the way he does. Let alone recon. I am not saying that with 10 minutes pondering and an exam in mathematics you couldnīt try to make a certain reasoning out of the figures, but can you do that 10 times in each turn? No, you canīt. And this is no small criticism. Since, as a commander I want to make an informed decision, i want to know the risks and benefits of sending in this or that trooptype and so on. Obviously there must be some dice rolling and surprise, that is not the point. The point is: I want to be aware AND be able to make sense of the different factors, that fall into place in a certain battle decision. Before calling me to shallow or stupid to understand the game, let me tell you that I mastered all three former DCīs with great pleasure and some solid succes against the AI, and they always gave me the feeling I knew, what is the reason behind a failure or success in a given situation. This game is overconvoluted! It is beyond even an over-averaged players abilities to find out what simply happens down there.
2. The map: It may be somehow more picturesque than in former DC titles, yes. But in the end the whole Ardennes region looks absolutely uniform and you have a really hard time to decipher f.e. height differences or other important features that help you make a plan. So it fails in what a wargame needs most: clarity.

So, I just ended up out of frustration to installing and playing DC Barbarosa again. Started it and felt immediate peace of mind, when i saw the clean map and interface and all the information on hand that i need to have a pleasant wargaming evening. Just so sad about Vicīs general development path that I write this, since I still consider him a genius. But one, who goes more and more astray and letīs himself galoop away into a realm where less and less people will follow him. Which is really sad since there are few design people on earth who are filling our niche hobby like he did in former years for me and my personal interest.
Feel invited to comment on this..



ernieschwitz -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/6/2022 10:42:35 AM)

Your main point seems to be this:

quote:

Since, as a commander I want to make an informed decision, i want to know the risks and benefits of sending in this or that trooptype and so on.


I have to say, that in war there was no way to make such a decision. Sure at higher levels of command, things would even out, and you'd be able to predict more. Chances of 1 man taking down 2 is higher than 100 men taking down 200 men. In other words, the more you go down in scale, the more random it gets. In a sense what you don't like is that the game is becoming more realistics and less like a boardgame.

This is an ok critism, but, won't be the view every one takes. As another gaming company I know of says, when someone complains about this or that: Maybe this game is just not for you.




Octavian -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/7/2022 9:42:10 AM)

Well, dear ernieschwitz, thank you very much for rating my comment an "ok criticism" and telling me, that my personal view might not be the view every one else in the world takes...:)

Since you seem to be a friend of nice sayings, let me post another wisdom of the gaming community:
For everyone who makes a statement in a forum, count 100 more, that feel the same, but just donīt bother to mention.

That this game might not be for me, as you have sharply pointed out is exactly what I was describing in my post, wasnīt it? But also, that I felt, it might be helpful to tell WHY exactly it fails for me, since, as I said, I have a strong bias for the former titles of DC and Vics work in general and just felt, that my comment might make a small contribution or give a hint to what might be a hindrance for some (not all, thatīs for sure) players to stay away from Vicīs newer installments.
And by the way: If I read some of the posts in this forum I canīt neglect the fact, that players struggle very hard to make a sense out of the presented data and come up with long and very complicate descriptions of how recon or vigor or whatelse really work. Obviously heaps of players like to play a wargame (and especialla a wargame!) with a transparent and reproducible system under the hood. If there is randomness (as in every good game) they want to know what randomness and how it comes into play. All this was driven to a point in this game (and also in shadow empires for my taste) that throws the player into a system where he just has to accept that he canīt understand or make at least a good guess about a whole lot of fundamental gameplay mechanics anymore - even if he is very eager to understand. Indeed, and I am saying this with some regret, not my cup of tea as a strategy gamer anymore.



ernieschwitz -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/7/2022 10:45:41 AM)

The DC-series and ATG has the same combat model (almost).

You roll a dice with the attack rating (a number) of one element, and then roll another dice with the hitpoint rating (another number), and compare them. A third random percentage determines the effect on the damage table, if the result of the attack rating roll was higher than the hitpoint rating roll.

Tell me how that is predictable. Sure you may have an idea that the higher the number of the attack rating is, the higher the chance of causing a hit on the damage table. But comparing dice rolls of that kind to each other is not simple. You do that for EACH element times the number of ATTACKs. This might mean 100s of rolls. Now don't tell me you calculate that. There has always been the uncertainty you are saying you don't like.

I agree that Vics latest titles have tended towards being more and more complex. That to some degree makes them less playable at a relaxing pace. Which I agree is not ideal. It means less of a beers-and-pretzels approach and more of a grognard approach. That is bound to alienate some of the crowd, but also attract a new group of customers.

Finally I think you need to revise your use of the words "under the hood". Under the hood refers to something not being accessible for players at all, while not under the hood, are things that are visible. Things that are visible may be complex, and require study to understand, but that does not make them under the hood.



James Taylor -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/8/2022 5:37:14 AM)

This is my first "Vic" game and it is very intriguing. While I agree that some of the formulas are over complex it does not take away from the randomness of combat as I'm sure it was in real life.

I don't really need to know exactly the mechanics of the algorithms; the basic feel of warfare(on a table) is there and that makes this a great game.

In my eyes, the best Bulge game ever, and I've played a lot of them, starting with Avalon Hill's first edition.




Octavian -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/8/2022 9:37:50 AM)

Well, James, thanks for your comment of how much you enjoy the game. Thatīs what itīs all about, isnīt it?
Me personally canīt find that same joy, although I waited for this game for nearly a year and was very much on the fence for it.

Ernieschwitz, I am sorry, but I feel you completely miss my point and the core thought. Thanks anyway for correcting me on "under the hood" - I am a german native speaker, so it isnīt always easy to have such a special discussion in a foreign language for me. Still trying to improve. But back to the problem:
I try to make my point a bit clearer by making it more concrete: I choose the system of recon points in this game for that purpose, but alas I could find many other points (supply, vigor, readiness...) to do so.
As a commander in the field - speaking of realism - I hope you would agree to me, that I - given some experience or simply by nature - would be able to tell on a glance, if I WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE an enemy or not and also if I would be able to see him only partially or all of him. Starring at an open field and seeing nothing, I wouldnīt think: well, do I have enough manpower here, to really see the enemy if he would be there? And starring into a deep forest I wouldnīt think if I see some movement, I can see all the enemies, but would be cautious and so on. Given the scale of the game (1km per Hex) I think it is pretty sure assumption, that a commander would have a certain awareness of how much or if at all he can see something and to which extend. In DC Ardennes you must instead use a dozen or so factors in order to even get a feeling of how possible it might be to see something, a bit or nothing at all AND it is simply impossible to figure that out on a glance. Instead you have green, yellow, red eyes on the map (but be careful: they just tell you, that you MIGHT see something, if there WOULD BE a unit present of yours with enough recon points, experience, weather conditions...and and and. You simply canīt be sure of anything, because now the size of the enemy unit, their experience and the colour of their underwear come into play. So you end up by guessing (which is to some extend ok and "normal", but you DONīT EVEN KNOW ON WHICH BASIS YOU ARE GUESSING and that is exactly my point, that seems so hard for you to understand. I have no problem with hundreds of dice rolling and randomnes in a wargame. But I want a sort of transparency to understand at least the main factors of what is the basis of my judging and deciding, otherwise I prefer to go out and play a bit with my bucket and spade, you see? I could go on with supply f.e. Can you see how many people struggle to make any sense out of what they are presented in the game? Or readiness, or vigor or combat odds strangely jumping around if I add this or that unit. I (let that be a personal wish) want to be able to make at least an informed guess of what is going on there on my screen.
I was also referring to Shadow Empire (Vics last game before DC Ardennes). So just let me add this example from there: There you have like 30 or so character traits for each important person you roleplay and they all interfere with each other and all this is so much over the top of your head, that you simply choose some guy, click and hope for the best. I feel very much the same in many of the decisions that I have to make in DC Ardennes and that is the reason why I feel, that this development of Vicīs games is - for me and only me personally - not going to lead me into something enjoyable in the near future. Which I regret. Still, lots of people, obviously enjoy these games very much (thinking of you James) and that may be as it is. I still think, Vics playerbase on the long run could be bigger, if he would decide to stop himself from having more and more complex, intertwined systems that the player canīt comprehend any longer due to a normal turn-based playing routine.



Octavian -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/8/2022 9:53:54 AM)

(Just look at the last dozen posts on this forum and you will unmistakebly see, what I mean, when I talk about people trying to feverishly making sense out of all they can (not) see. And the explanations or answers are an even better example, I am afraid.)



altipueri -> Feeling more and more comfortable with the game (2/8/2022 10:13:59 AM)

I'm feeling more and more comfortable with the game.

I played the Dinant scenario yesterday, and later the Dinant scenario from Command Operations : Battles from the Bulge

These games are fantastic and cost so little for the hours of interest they give me.

In both cases it is easy to change the victory points in a scenario with only a few clicks - so if you want more emphasis on a particular town or bridge give an extra 50 points to them.
---
On the other hand - my 500 page manual of WITE2 still remains unread despite propping the door open for 9 months.









James Taylor -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/8/2022 2:35:13 PM)

I agree with you Octavian, and btw your English is excellent!

There should be a function to scout hexes you suspect contain an enemy, maybe at a cost of an AP or two, not foolproof but still, in keeping with real life, a manner to unveil the enemy deployment, especially a large one.

As far as supply, especially fuel, there should be a mechanism that a commander could prioritize fuel deliveries to certain units like replacements.

Just select the HQ and designate fuel supplies to that unit in a similar function as replacement priorities.



ernieschwitz -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/8/2022 3:49:24 PM)

quote:

Thanks anyway for correcting me on "under the hood" - I am a german native speaker, so it isnīt always easy to have such a special discussion in a foreign language for me. Still trying to improve


I am a Danish native speaker, and I think you are doing very well. Sometimes I find it hard to phrase the exact way I want to say something, and have to go about doing it in another way. Anyway, thanks for responding, and talking about the issues at hand.



FlyingEagle -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/8/2022 5:24:15 PM)

From my own experience in this game, I understand your opinions and the reasons for disliking the game engine. But I get a totally different feeling from it.

Those reasons (among others) you mentioned are the cause why I like the game. It's the first in the series I bought. And the first Bulge game since the HPS Panzer Campaigns title (from 2001 I think). I'm kind of bored of static and calculable systems in wargames (they are not wrong, it's my personal taste, which changed over time). For example, in the other "corner" of the genre, the approach of the above mentioned Command Ops series is too indirect for me. It didn't clicked.

The recon, combat, supply and weather systems in this game are dynamic. It's a fresh and immersive take on the subject, the results are plausible. I don't want to know exactly each underlying formula. You are encouraged to learn and try things out with each scenario. Because of this, the replayability value is high, even in single player mode.
I just finished my first pbem match. The outcome was fine for me at the end, but in the meantime I never thought it would be so. You never know exactly what happens when. That's war, isn't it?

The real commanders never knew exactly how many tanks, soldiers and guns stood on the other side, let alone their readiness, supply, fuel and experience levels... I bet they didn't even know it exactly for their own units at any given time. Even this game is still gamey and boardgame-like in that regard. But for me, it's the long-awaited evolution of its kind, a step forward big enough to buy another Bulge game.

Like always, it's presumably not for everyone's taste. The sale figures will tell. And developer and publisher will draw their conclusions. Depending how succesfull DC:AO is/was, I bet the next game in the series will either be a DLC, with another theatre of operations (please!), or a new game. We will see.



altipueri -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/8/2022 7:18:21 PM)

"The real commanders never knew exactly how many tanks, soldiers and guns stood on the other side, let alone their readiness, supply, fuel and experience levels... I bet they didn't even know it exactly for their own units at any given time. Even this game is still gamey and boardgame-like in that regard. But for me, it's the long-awaited evolution of its kind, a step forward big enough to buy another Bulge game."
--

Agreed, which is why I like random scenarios so much. I bet most "meeting engagements" were not nicely arranged evenly matched occurrences - one lot or the other suddenly thought, rightly or wrongly they were out-numbered or out-gunned.



Octavian -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/9/2022 10:46:21 AM)

Hey guys,
thanks for all your nice and friendly reactions and comments on this topic. I like fundamental discussions like this! And it isnīt my desire to convince someone to dislike the game or such.
Itīs just my dissapointment about the beforementioned intransparency of some fundamental game mechanics that makes me write all this. And that in turn surely comes from my high expectations I had in especially this game. I can see that some players like to play more say intuitive than others and that is exactly what Vic answered me in an earlier post about that same topic as a design direction he wants to go to.
So, I hope anyone of you enjoys the game and there maybe enough supporters for an expansion or a new game in the series.




SLASKWITA -> RE: Feeling more and more uncomfortable with the game (2/9/2022 10:56:26 PM)



I think the greatest divergence in 'Ardennes' from other DC titles (of which I only played Barbarossa at length) is as its name implies: SCALE
As much Militarily as it is Geographically. The other divergence is a lack of any cohesive battle line. It took me a long time to adjust from the grand thrusts of Barbarossa
to a game of 'hide and seek' in the woods while racing to secure crossroads and more importantly racing against time in 6hr intervals rather than 4d cycles. It has profoundly changed my gameplay since. I feel a sense of uncertainty with every move and spend the majority of my time planning and reducing the level of that uncertainty as much as possible.

Gone are the days of strolling into forests picking mushrooms to benefit from armour attack reductions. However, now you get to hide in forests. (Or get caught out unintended in a field at the forest's edge with no support, only a perceived enemy that will punish your decision) Yes, getting ambushed is never pleasant. Its possible to avoid with a lot of preplanned caution (though never certain). However, when was it possible to lay a calculated trap, maneuver into position under the cover of darkness and surprise the enemy in the morning. Like I imagine all of you, I too am still learning, trying to decipher. There is a lot in the UI (including HEX Height) that I constantly discover to develop and improve a methodology to my gameplay (most often I simply forget to look at my new discovery, lacking the reflex). There is a lot of information to take in, and alot of unexpected results that sometimes don't make sense. There are also far more tools at one's disposal to make informed decisions that with Uncertainty turned on, sometimes feel like Deus ex machina. The consequences and uncertainty of every decision are palpable, almost perverse with this game. At the same time, in my experience at least, the Risk Reward factor is exhilarating in comparison to the feats from previous titles. In my experience, recon is King in this game. I managed to seriously dent 3 fresh INF BTNS using Skorzeny's KGs after investing in more recon (for identifying another unit) after already having 78 and discovering that they were in march mode. That felt satisfying especially since I was going to initially bombard and withdrawal.

I have also spent a great deal of time studying maps, watching documentary footage, and reading up on this offensive since I started playing. In my opinion and with my limited knowledge, this game really captures the fluid and often chaotic jockeying for position, near misses, blind chance, and what sometimes seems like divine intervention. The new mechanics seem part and parcel to the events. With more gameplay, I use the odds calculator more as a guide, unless I have fully identified the unit, then I trust it more. I think with more time, more patches, more patience, we will all develop the instinct and intuition we were previously accustomed to. My only peeve at the moment is that after laboriously developing and executing my plan of attack, a lone truck that survived the onslaught maintains control of a 1km hex I just spent 30mins pondering over; or having neutralized the entire staff of an HQ, a surviving jeep remains in command (although this second point may not be accurate since the introduction of staff to troop ratios). I have also made some catastrophic decisions on my first playthrough which I did not finish as i underestimated vigor, which makes replayability something to look forward to as one learns. The game (Wach am Rhein) feels to me as though it is at once overwhelmingly large and incredibly claustrophobic. A playground for caged animals passing in the night.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125