civdiv -> RE: Not seen this game..... (2/3/2006 9:31:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Temple Yes, the games did have some problems that needed patches, but pretty much every PC wargame out there needed patches of some sort. However the games were in reasonably decent shape out of the box, certainly not broken. I will acknowledge the exception of Divided Ground, it wasn't in very good shape when released. Also I own pretty much every game Talonsoft put out and rarely had a problem getting one to run. Did you read the review? It's not just my opinion. EF was just plain buggy when released, and WF was even worse. With WF they monkeyed around with the copy protection, which resulted in a large percentage of the purchasers not even being able to start the program. EF was pitiful when it first came out, just check out the reviews when it was first released, they averaged about a 6 out of 10. In regards to Talonsoft's reputation, it was as a Beta build releaser. Look at Hidden and Dangerous, or this series, or Age of Sail II, etc. Talonsoft had a reputation for releasing buggy games, period. Read the reviews of just about any Talonsoft release. quote:
The Campaign Series was more simplistic than, say, Steel Panthers because the unit attributes didn't go down to the level of individual weapons and headcounts. Units had attributes of strength steps, attack and defence factors, morale and action points. Yes, they are more like older board games and in some ways that's the appeal. Something like the current winSPMBT from the Camo Workshop (based on the old Steel Panthers 2 game, but using the Steel Panthers 3 code base) have more detail, but still it's all based on subjective assignment of values to represent firepower and protection. What the Campaign Series does is abstract these values so you can look at a unit and figure out if it's more powerful or better protected or faster than the next guy without having to drill down into a submenu. I'm just letting people know its simplistic, especially by todays standards. quote:
The AI wasn't brilliant, but there are few games out there with brilliant AI. It was good enough to give a challenge to most casual players. Unlike Norm Kogers TOAW series or John Tillers games over at HPS Sims, the AI isn't a "programmed opponent" (Koger's term). A PO has pre-scripted movements for it's formations from objective point to objective point. These could give a better battle the first time around since unusual moves and flanking attacks could be scripted, but had limited replay value. The Campaign Series (and Steel Panthers as well) AI would assess where the objectives are on the map and determine what to move where. This would sometimes result in some goofy moves, but it did mean that you could replay the battle and see something different out of the AI. As is almost always the case in computer wargames, the AI in CS is much better on defense than offense. We aren't talking about TOAW, perhaps the best thing Talonsoft ever produced. We are talking about the campaign series. The AI was particularly lousy, with units sometimes just moving randomly, for no reason. quote:
I don't know the situation where a 200 page rule book was promised and wasn't included, except for Divided Ground did have a small printed manual and the much bigger one on PDF. I don't remember if the box promised it or not. I do know I was disappointed with the smaller printed manual, but then Divided Ground was a pretty sloppy product overall. But don't judge the Campaign Series on DG, it was put out when the company was facing serious financial problems and was rushed out the door. The manual issue was for EF when it was first released. Anyone who bought the game for the first few months got screwed on the manual. Initially Talonsoft said 'tough shiite', and then a bunch of people demanded refunds, as it said right on the box that the manual was like 200 pages. Eventually Talonsoft backed down, and we had to rip the front page off of our manauls and mail them in, and then we got the real manual. quote:
And civdiv's comments on EFII are just plain nonsense. After the first East Front, Talonsoft expanded the scope of the Campaign Series with West Front which greatly retooled the game engine. They put out East Front II as a new product and charged a new product price. It wasn't a "fix" for the first EF, so Talonsoft certainly wasn't obligated to give it away free. I do remember some kind of rebate for previous EF owners, but the details are hazy. Certainly many things were improved in EF2, but that doesn't mean that those features in EF were "broken". My comments were on EF and WF, not EFII, except EFII is just the version of EF that finally was worth a dang. Look at the reviews, my views are not a minority. There's your opinion, and there's mine, and then there is the community. There seem to be a lot of people in love with the series here. Go look at the reviews for WF and EF out there. Or Age of Sail, or Hidden and Dangerous, or that Battle of Britain game. That's why they had financial troubles. So forgive me for sneering at EFII, which I haven't played. I got to play BETA tester for EF abd WF. And I'm not trying to flame you, just disagreeing.
|
|
|
|