Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 1/26/2003 2:46:54 AM

SLAAKATTAK

Posts: 42
Joined: 1/8/2003
From: EARTH
Status: offline

OH SARGE I CANT WAIT TO GET YOU INTO MY FLAMETHROWERS ROASTRANGE TO FRY YOU LIKE A BARBQ!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3003071877&category=11047Q!!!

MAKE HASTE MY SON. TARRY NOT AND ACQUIRE THE TREASURE!! :D

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)

Post #: 31

- 1/26/2003 5:37:39 AM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

In the area of what for me is relevant, GI Combat is in the same field of amusement as Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, Battlefield 1942, and I know there are a few other titles out there that fit this bill, but I have not played them specifically yet I know then, such as Medal of Honour.

To me, running around in a tank, or running around with a rifle or running around with small groupings of same, are all essentially the same aspect of wargaming to me.

Well this shows a complete lack of understanding of gi combat. I honestly question whether or not you actually played gi combat. GI Combat is no where near the sim games you mentioned and compare it to. I wonder how you came to such a conclusion.

I think you probably looked at some screen shots and assumed it was another sim game. When in reality it is pretty much like close combat series in 3d. Same orders interface, same scale, etc.

Reiryc

_____________________________

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)

Post #: 32

- 1/28/2003 7:20:58 AM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

A bit more background on the Avalon Hill � Atomic relationship.

Avalon Hill and Atomic had previously worked together to produce the V for Victory series.

The game system was improved and produced the World at War series.

For those who don�t know, this was a computer game, hex based and turn based. Each unit was about battalion in size.

It had the feel of a board game except that they added about 1,000 features to take advantage of computing power.

As for the look, again they used computing power to make nice graphics.

As for game play, I rarely beat the AI on a medium difficulty setting. I did not have email so I never played a PBEM game.

If you read the manuals, circa 1992, it is clear the manuals are directed at board gamers who are playing their first computer game and need to control every detail of the game.

In the manual, every detail is spelled out just the same as if the manual were written by Avalon Hill for a board game.

Matirx�s Battlefields is meant to be the successor to World at War. I expect Battlefields to be a great game.

Before Close Combat, Avalon Hill and Atomic had worked together.

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)

Post #: 33

- 1/28/2003 10:30:21 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

GI combat is much worse than an inadequate re-hash of the 'same old thing' (btw, there are an awful lot of cliches and generalizations going on around). GI combat was done by the same people who did the close combat series. It plays VERY similar. It is in no way a sim style of game, and is nothing like Panzer Commander, Panzer Elite, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts, and Battlefield 1942 (which, aside from the tank sims are about as different a set of games about war as you can muster). GI combat's real problem is that it isn't a very good game in the classical sense. It has a serious imbalance between its features and its interface. The way that the game was meant to be played is very poorly supported by its control scheme. They did what many games in the past have done poorly, and that's the transition to a 3d environment. Combat Mission succeeds here because it's turn based. Combat Mission has somewhat cumbersome controls and it doesn't have most intuitive or clear interface. In the end that's no big deal, the game is great and with a little effort you can play it the way it was intended (the way it was designed and tested). GI Combat doesn't have the same luxuries as Combat Mission. Since it's real-time the player is forced to interact with the controls and the interface under a lot of pressure. That's frustrating, and it becomes the most significant challenge of the game. Once mastered, it plays just like the Close Combat series (with the same old problems with vehicular pathfinding).

BTW Steel Beasts is an excellent tank sim, and it plays well. Panzer Commander sucked beans. Panzer Elite, although not as good at Steel Beast (IMHO), is still an excellent WW2 tank sim.

Tomo

(in reply to Greywolf2001ca)

Post #: 34