|
mine_field -> Intro, reflections, and concerns (3/11/2004 12:09:36 AM)
|
Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum. If you forgive the length, I would like to say hello, post my initial reflections on the game, and mention some concerns with hope of getting some insight as to why the game mechanics are so.
You can call me Kirk or use my handle. I won't bother with anything too personal. Just wanted to poke my head into the forum. For background purposes, I have version 8.0. I have only played against the AI so far, on about 15 scenarios and the greater portion of a campaign (Long Road to Victory I believe) and completed the Tulagi campaign. C&C is off.
Reflections> I first picked up the game about a year ago. I found the learning curve too steep and quit out of frustration. I especially didn't like having something like twice the victory points and it being called a 'draw'. I now understand the victory naming system. I picked up the game again several weeks ago and I'm doing much better. I still think the game has a very steep learning curve. Many of the scenarios and some of the campaign battles seem rushed. I often find myself resorting to suicidal runs to the last objective hex with a half track. In the campaign, I don't see how anything other than a mechanized army could cover enough ground. Infantry movement just doesn't permit enough ground to be covered (my complaint is with length, not infantry speed). I find myself going into concerns so I'll do that formally.
Concerns>
I) The little details > I believe I have the latest version, so I can only imagine that my following statements are not unique to just me. When browsing through the scenarios, I often find important information lacking like game length. I noticed via the forum someone has done work to improve this, and I'll do a follow up post to see if he can email me the changes. Also, I noticed some of the scenarios have no text whatsoever, i.e. 066 Bushmasters(WBW) and 067 Cut Off! (WBW). I imagine such a consistent and respected designer intended for text to be present. Also, I started playing one campaign (Preparing the way) and restarted with a new campaign (Long Road to Victory) and they were the same maps! Only difference seemed to be the build points. Also while playing the campaign, there is often no lead in to the next map. How do I prepare my forces for an unknown mission? I usually just do a dry run to see what map is ahead of me and whether I'm assaulting, advancing, defending, etc. I think it not too unreasonable to know how one's forces are going to be deployed before having to make choices as to how to repair and augment the combat group.
II) Learning Curve > The game certainly can be tough for someone not familiar with these games already. Without any indications of whether the scenario is hard or easy, I often found myself trying to figure out how I was supposed to uproot the dug in enemy infantry, only to have unit after unit cut up. Also, it would be nice to know a bit more about the units. The unit descriptions are a great addition to the game (in the encyclopedia). However, these are often lacking on a lot of units, and I know this is something the designers have mentioned they would like to complete. Another thought would to have some way to know what a unit is on the battlefield. I only recently learned how to read the German abbreviations (PzKpw, etc.) and had to somewhat guess the unit's role by its picture. Maybe a way to directly link to the unit's entry in the encyclopedia from the battlefield. If the unit just had a more descriptive class or role such as ‘Tank Destroyer’ or ‘Medium Battle Tank’ when I right click on it, I would have some idea of what I was dealing with.
III) Assault > Certainly a very needed part of the game, I find issues with the mechanics. I have noticed similar complaints in the forums. Firstly, the lone sniper assaulting a moving tank is the height of crazy. I understand armor is vulnerable to infantry attacks, but I doubt a fast moving armored fighting vehicle has much to worry from a sniper beside the road. The percentages for success seem to be off in many cases. As many have noticed, a sniper can have 20% success rate with a moving AFV while an engineer with satchel charges and flamethrower can only have the base percentage (number of men * 1%). Engineers seem to have no inherent advantages in assaulting emplacements. Sometimes the percentages don’t take into account the flamethrower or satchel (fails to state that the assault is using it and percentage is way too low). I get frustrated with having two tanks, 5-6 engineers, and maybe a crewman all pounding on the back door of a AT Pillbox (10-15 assaults with some selected weapon fire ‘c key’) only to end with 7 pinned infantry units and two exhausted tanks. Surely after two rounds of surrounding the rear of an emplacement, that many engineers would just cover it up with dirt or something. As others have stated, it seems best just to smoke and bypass these pesky emplacements. My suggestion: take into account some more variables. Infantry should have low chance of assaulting a fast moving vehicle. Infantry should have a good chance of assaulting a stationary emplacement that they have been working on for 2 turns.
IV) Artillery > It seems to me that artillery's role in this game is mostly suppression. I have only seen 2-3 AFV's ever hit by artillery. Infantry certainly can be killed, but you need large ordnance to have any chance. I have seen the ~80 mm's kill a total of 2-3 over the course of my experience, while 105's are a bit better, and 155's / 8" have killed up to 10 men in one blast. According to a documentary I recently saw, "Hell's Battlefield" the 105's were actually very useful in taking out armor. Perhaps this was direct fire with the Priest's in a Tank Destroyer role, and not the indirect fire I have been attempting. I remember one example in game, where two PzKpw IV's were sitting facing the opposite direction at the beginning of the scenario (covering an assault route I choose not to use) so I placed a FO so it had LOS of both of them. He called in two priest's on each of them. No hits whatsoever. This was at a range for the priests of about 7 hexes. As I said, the tanks were close enough in that I was able to deploy within LOS. I have adapted my tactics so that I don't bother with trying to get LOS or killing anything with armor, and I just drop heavy rounds to suppress units and kill infantry. I imagine the 60 mm mortars are good for smoke and pinning the enemy, but I wonder how many kills they really get. I have heard it stated that 50% or so of actual battle casualties were due to artillery / explosive attacks.
V) Path finding > More than once I have cursed at my computer upon seeing a halftrack choose the dumbest route possible, only to get predictably blown up. I am having to learn great patience to just move units one hex at a time. The game should have some way to display what route a unit will take before you move it (a line drawn through the hexes for example -- notice I am playing with C&C off). There should be some intelligence in the path finding, so that the vehicle hesitates before driving straight into a swamp or taking the same route that just last turn proved to be the demise of another half track. I remember one example where I was trying to take out 3 PzKpw IV h's that were placed at the top border of the map (how lame right). I had units stacked up on the top row of hexes advancing slowly trying to remove the threat. In moving more units up, the halftrack saw the traffic jam and decided it was best to take a route that went down two hexes to a road and then back up two hexes to get to a hex that originally was only 3 hexes to the right. When it dipped down it was quickly blown up. Some way of seeing the predicted move path would also avoid mis-clicks. One wouldn't accidentally move a unit when trying to select another unit if the predicted driving line were removed when a valid unit was hovered over with the mouse. The cancel move feature is useful, but it is disabled if you do any small action such as left-clicking to check the LOS of the unit (not quite sure about this one). I understand these troops are taught to follow orders, but one would think they would ask, "Hey Sarge, you sure you want me to take my 0 armor jeep in front of that 75 mm Pak gun?" You could then say, "Yes, You deserve to die." The game mechanics could be more like a ctrl click to force a hazardous move (one that is greatly more hazardous than a similar route that takes just a few more movement points).
VI) Design / Design rules > While playing this 'Long Road to Victory', I have developed an inhuman fear of units appearing out of thin air. I understand the value of reinforcement, but it shouldn't be the same as infiltration. I was on one map where three Germany Reinforcement hexes were well inside my victory frontage (the green line). What is that there for? I thought it meant I didn't have to worry about hordes of PzKpw's and half tracks appearing in the very next hex as my ammo dump and encircling artillery (not a big worry since not playing human players). IMHO, reinforcement should have some rules. First of all, it is ridiculous for enemy units to appear behind the front of the battle and inside the guards at the rear to strike at the soft pieces sitting there for support. Also, any reinforcements that are adjacent to existing units is unreasonable. To be in fear of having a tank spawn right behind your Wolverines, who could have easily eaten up the armor if seen at a distance, is just not accurate. If reinforcement is going to occur within LOS, or by some arbitrary distance say 5 hexes, there should be some check by the other player to attempt to stave off this new threat. Maybe the pieces should show up on the map with no available shots to simulate the 'defensive' advantage of enemy units already being there. One last concern, why is it possible to use build points on any nationality? In campaign mode, it looks possible to fight an assault on Germany completely with German units. I understand ‘what if scenarios’, but it shouldn’t be a temptation in a designer’s campaign to buy Japanese caves and arbitrarily use them to guard your forces or to buy a ship for that matter and stick it in a field. I know some valuable Allied units are stuck in off the wall nationality’s OOB, but some situations such as the Americans using hordes of German tanks in a D-Day invasion suggest a need to restrict which nations you can buy from.
Well forgive me for the long post. I would be interested to hear your comments. I am intelligent and know a bit about the game, but I am humble as well. I know most of the features and have perused the manual so please don't unreasonably attack my thoughts, but I do warmly welcome constructive criticism, support, or disapproval. Also if any of you could recommend similar ' I go, you go' war games, I would be glad to hear it because this is really my first foray into the genre.
|
|
|
|
