I give it a C-

[snakeeyes]

Okay. I've been playing for a while and I'm ready to give my evaluation.

Interfaces: Poor. The controls of your troops on the battlefield are simplified but difficult to control on the move. A keyboard overlay would have been nice. AI can be adjusted along with a tremendous amount of options however (a real plus).

Why they did not integrate the start up menu with the stupid diary and actual gameplay is beyond me. You wait to load... you wait to start... you wait to load again. I know, I know... get a faster system... well the damn wait would not be as long if all the components of the game were integrated. Looks and acts cheap.

Graphics: Beautiful... if you want frame-rates of zero. Here is my system.

Pentium 4

1 GIG RAM

GeForce 5700 128sdram

Soundblaster Audigy

2x250 HD

Win XP SP2, all updated

1024x768x32@75 Desktop and games

100% updated drivers.

I have spent hours and hours trying to get good framerates. I’m not looking for 30s and 40s a second but I do want the game to actually flow better than a 1920’s silent film. I recently cranked down my settings to ZERO grass, sky level of 2, low level video, 1800 horizon distance, low, low, low…. Frame rates around 3 at times and I’m not even fighting yet! How is a person supposed to enjoy the game? The action only flows in campaign missions with fewer objects (I know… it SHOULD move faster with fewer objects but the slow downs get so bad that the game becomes unplayable at times).

The possible graphics that can be played on a SUPER system sound great in the promos and the screenshots but for us mortals with systems like mine… ugh… not worth the $35. Despite the ability to adjust EVERYTHING the game simply did not run with fluidity. A previous writer asked about how fight sims with high frame-rates smoke T-72 and someone responded by saying that the distance from the ground definitely makes such frame-rates possible. While true to an extent… how come Operation Flashpoint flows fast and easy? Why not take that engine, pump it up, add grass and creatively find a way to increase map size?

Vehicle list:

T-34s? Huh? I know that some were left behind in the Balkans War… I know that they are realistic for the theater but come on… IT’S 2005!

Shermans?!!! I really laughed at this one. Okay… I read Zaloga’s work and I know that they were out there somewhere in the world (Israel is it) but come on… The game is called T-72 so why not take the time to get rid of the ancients and make realistic versions of the T-72? I could have easily been done with a few mods to the 3d model. The realism settings are so good for the ammunition and ballistics… why the hell couldn’t they simulate different armor modifications on the Ural? Don’t tell me that they are still classified… Zaloga’s work has them all right there.

Shturm-S?!!!! Where the hell did THESE come from? I am not an expert in the Yugoslavian Wars so I don’t know how prevalent they were. All I know is that these vehicles and their armaments are some of the most expensive weapon systems to buy for export and are few and far between. A game with a Sherman and a Shturm-S? Ummm… weird? Sounds like a bad science fiction movie if you ask me. A BRDM with ATGMs would be more realistic than those beasts roaming around.

Where are the infantry ATGMs? RPG-7s aside… handheld missiles and longer ranges were VERY prevalent in the Yugoslavian conflict.

Ummm… BMPs? WHERE ARE THEY? MTLBs in their place? Huh? Ok. Weird. You can’t tell me that there weren’t any in that theater. Hell! European governments use converted versions of the BMP-1 as FIRE EQUIPMENT now! No BMPs at all in the game? That’s like having a crapless dog.

To be MOST harsh (sorry) KA-52 Team Alligator had a better variety of armor and better gameplay ( I know… crappy graphics but it was more fun than T-72).

Realism:

The best part of the game is its realistic ammunition and it’s effects on the terrain and targets. Digging the ground, GREAT! Way cool! Realism was why I bought it and kept on trying to play it with all the low graphics settings after the 4th day. Thumbs up for this one. You guys got it right on the money. Thrown tracks… guys on fire… way cool. High learning curve is what wargames are all about!

Inside the tank:

Huh? Whoops! Sorry players… there aren’t any insides to our T-72s. Ugh… this was the ONLY downside to the realism factor. No drop down menus and not a single hands-on switch to flick? Sucked. I wasn’t asking for 100% authentic internal views of the tank, a simple model will do just fine… but come on make an attempt at it! I was hoping for something like Operation Flashpoint with better graphics and a few switches I could manipulate.

Sound:

Great! ‘Nuff said.

Replay value:

The Campaign is limited. You can make missions harder or easier by adjusting enemy AI but from what I have heard it is not the easiest thing in the world to make one’s own missions. I replayed Armored Fist more than T-72 and its graphics blew chunks.

Drivers included:

I had to mention this… what the hell were these drivers they included on the CDs?! They appear to be ANCIENT! They were step-downs for my graphics card and its not like I have something powerful you know?

Overall: The slow frame-rates together with the awkward interfaces and goofy structure between the menus took the fun out of the realism. Maybe when I get a more powerful computer in the future I’ll take T-72 off the shelf but until then I’ll be playing Dangerous Waters, flying Falcon 4.0, Flanker 2.5, and roaming the countryside in Operation Flashpoint. Maybe they’ll mod the hell out of it but I don’t see any amount of modding that could increase frame-rates.

C-

Sorry guys. I Really wish I could say better. I had high hopes. Like I said… maybe after I buy a faster CPU in the future. Sorry to pee on your BBQ. If I find the reason why the frame-rates are so slow on system and can fix it I will completely admit my error in my evaluation of T-72. Until then… my ruling stands.

[Blackmuzzle]

I agree with you on pretty much every point. The separated menu program reminds me of BF42's "after-map-restart".

My system is quite capable of running games like BF2, VBS1 and LOMAC with the highest possible graphics settings, AAx4 and anisotropic filtering set to max. T72 has to be at medium settings for decent framerates. Sometimes I suspect someone accidentally released a debug instead of a release build...

Alas, I have to say that T72, despite it's shortcomings, IMHO is still the best tank sim you can buy to date. Maybe SteelBeasts2 will take the throne when it finally comes out, but until then I rather live with T72's shortcomings than having to play M1TP2 over and over again

[Jester_159th]

Just out of interest, what's the speed of your CPU? Just saying P4 doesn't tell us much.

As far as the frame rates go, I certainly get playable framerates, I have reduced a couple of settings slightly, but certainly not to minimum settings (P4 2.4gig CPU, ATI 9800Pro, 1024MB RAM, AC97 on board sound chip). It strikes me that if your framerates are that bad, you've got something wrong with your system configuration.

I do agree with some of your other points. Giving orders to AI units via the map interface is very difficult for example, and yes the vehicle list could have been longer, but to be fair, what's the difference between blowing away a BMP-1 and blowing away an MTLB? Not much really. And I agree that a tank interior would have been "nice," but after playing the game for a few days, I'm not missing it as much as I thought I would.

The one bad point I'm suprised you missed is the very poor driver AI. I mean, it can't even follow a roadway....

On the good side. Personally I like the graphics. I just finished the 2nd campaign mission that takes place at sunset (or sunrise...whichever) and the lighting and shadows were as good or better than any other sim I've seen. The enemy AI generally seems pretty good. Certainly better than I expected.

There are definately things that need tweaking in the gameplay, and a couple of issues (such as the freezing) that need fixing ASAP. But C- is IMHO a bit on the harsh side. As it stands I think it's a lot better than that, and has vast ammounts of potential to get better still.

[Magnum MGG]

Thats weird about your framerate problems... because I do got a great system, but so do you, Snakeeyes, and I have no framerate problem at all, average is around 35, and even with fraps running in the background and capturing the footage, it's still very playable. (the 2 movies I have made are posted here)...

I have everything on the highest settings and run my machine just like your settings Snakeeyes.

P4-2.75

2 gig RAM

Raedon 850 XT w/256

Soundblaster

2x250 hd

Win XP all updated

1024x768x32@75

My biggest complaints, and I've been playing it every day since release...

Battlefield Immersion sucks (stuck on mission 2 of campaign, so can't report that it gets better later)

Friendly unit controls suck... can't set up a series of waypoints or timing... want to use proper ambush, flanking, and bounding overwatch commands with my troops and fellow units, but not happening.

and camera controls... more views would of been nice, like a tactical view, aerial view, missile/round view etc etc

other then those major problems... I'm loving it.

Just my 2 cents also.

I give it a honest B-

(lets hope the add-on can bring it up to A material, because I don't see them adding/fixing those in a patch.)

[snakeeyes]

Hey Jester. I think that the problem lies in my speed... 1.6 gig.

STILL... I still think that I should be able to MOVE this game with LOW settings ya know?

Hey Magnum! I'm downloading your SB2 movies right now. I'm in LOVE! Still any idea when Steel Beasts 2 will be out?

[Bonxa]

I'm gettin' a lot of them negative vibes in here. I too must say that framerate is quite acceptable on my A64 3000, 512 RAM, Radeon 9600. I also thought the menu system was a bit clunky at first but you get used to it, a lot of games with these kinds of graphics have even worse loading times. And I do think we are gaining performance from not having a menu in the background while playing the game. Maybe they could release a light menu with the same functions but no 3D so as to be much faster?

The vehicle list can be improved but all the elements are there to make an interesting fight. This is also an area that will most likely improve.

My biggest gripe is as above the interface to your own troops. It took me a while to figure out even the basic things and then there isn't much more than the basics after that.

What about being able to give individual orders to individual vehicles, multiple waypoints, commanding from 'in the game' (not map) etc?

The real pluses are the great realism and the vast possibilties with configs and editors. I'm right now playing around with making a true night mission and I can say that the editor is very complex but also powerfull and rather easy to use (at least if you're into the basics of programming). In this part you also appreciate the separate game engine (which is apart from the menu).

Battlefield immersion is ok for me. There can be quite a lot happening around you and it's great with those missions when you limp to the victory with damaged tracks, a malfunctioning reloader and /or rangefinder.

What I most want to see is true multiplayer and a better interface to own troops. (Then more WWII era vehicles so we can get some hardcore action without them lasers and missiles )

[Dennis50]

Ok ..desert01 mission ..I take off at high speed and stop and hide behind the BIG rock ..go to external cam and watch enemy kill me in about 30 seconds ..look to me like they were shooting right through that big rock. ??

[snakeeyes]

Originally posted by GunzAbeam:

Ok ..desert01 mission ..I take off at high speed and stop and hide behind the BIG rock ..go to external cam and watch enemy kill me in about 30 seconds ..look to me like they were shooting right through that big rock. ??

Ok... Um.. how does this relate to the topic?

[Dennis50]

Just tried the same mission again ...my gunner is shooting at enemy targets through that Big rock and I'm taking big hits also through the rock. Interest fading quick here. Lots of rough edges on this little gem. Maybe needs to go back to the diamond cutter for more cutting and polishing. It is a gallant attempt ...lots of potential ...but ..

Regards,

Gunz

[Dennis50]

It relates to your grading of this game.

I'm not going to give it a grade. As compared to what ?? Lets just say I'm almost ready to move on to something else.

Regards,

Gunz

[Bonxa]

I've been fiddling around in the editor to solve the problem of the ghost rock but with no succes. Remember that this is Moons attempt at a scenario, it's not official stuff. He specifically mentioned that it might not work to 100%.

[Dennis50]

Just want to add that I don't have a problem with FPS ..runs fine on my machine. The game does hang every once in awhile. I can cntl alt del and it says the game is running. My computer is not locked up ..the game will just hang up. I don't see any pattern to the hangs. Sometime it hangs, sometimes it don't. The graphics are fine as far as I'm concerned. Tactics such as shoot and scoot over the crest of a hill from the reverse side is cool. I'm not trying to trash this game ...it is a pretty cool game ..just needs some more work.

Regards,

Gunz

[Dennis50]

Bonxa ...ok ..That sounds good. If it's just a problem with how the mission was made ..that's acceptable. Everyone is still trying to get a feel for it.

Regards,

Gunz

[Blackmuzzle]

I'm running an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2GHz), 1GB RAM, and a GeForce FX6800 Ultra with 256Meg. Latest drivers and driver settings to "performance" of course.

Having all game settings to High results in unplayable 5-20 FPS, mostly depending on the zoom level (high magnifications = slideshow)

At medium details I get fair framerates of 40fps max, with the occasional dropdowns to 20fps. Game resolution is 1280x1024. I don't want to sound like an ass, but I'm a game developer and am working on stuff involving high terrain visibility (5km+), realtime lighting and shader 2.0 and for the graphics that T72 delivers, it's performance is less-than-optimal. Especially the increasing fps when zooming in leads me to believe that there are indeed a few oddities in the program that lead to unneccessary slowdowns.

I might be mistaken of course. I haven't seen the code so I cannot make much more than educated guesses.

As it is now, the game is very enjoyable, if rough around the edges. I can only imagine how things looked like back when you first got to see the original game (I mean the russian version without multiplayer mode)

I do not think that buying T72 was a mistake, quite the opposite. I just hope that there will be some patches to improve performance and to fix some of the bugs - and maybe even get internet play working.

Everything else (internal views, more vehicles and weapons) is beyond the scope of a patch and best done in a sequel, which I certainly hope will happen one day

[ July 25, 2005, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Blackmuzzle ]

[Dennis50]

I agree with Blackmuzzle ..I'm not very good at expressing my feelings on forums ..I hope I didn't give the wrong impression ..I don't feel that I wasted my money, not at all. I am having some fun with the game. And there is a lot of potential there. It's just a little rough around the edges is all I can say.

I said up above that I was about ready to move on to something else ...Maybe not the right choice of words on my part. I'm certainly not ready to give up on this yet. Anyway, Enough said need to go put some stuff on the grill.

Best Regards,

Gunz

[snakeeyes]

Originally posted by GunzAbeam:

It relates to your grading of this game.

I'm not going to give it a grade. As compared to what ?? Lets just say I'm almost ready to move on to something else.

Regards,

Gunz

Ahh! I gotcha!

[BlAin]

_snakeeyes_ ,

I think the point of this game was actually to play in an environment where no top-of-line armors were deployed, to know what is old school and recent tactics alike in somewhat of refreshing setting: the Balkans. I cannot emphasize too much on the importance it has on my choosing this game. First off, it's challenging not to be backed up by satellite imaging and all the techno-gimmickry e.g. American Forces can deploy on the battlefield. Secondly, an interesting locale that is not WWII-based and that is similar to Italy, making for interesting dogfights. Never would a fight between Russia and Nato happen, so I think that is where the developers reasoned about their game, yes it would be fun to see it come to life but hey, why bother? Furthermore, if a prolonged armed conflict was to happen, those older tank design ought to be deployed so...

About your specs, one common mistake people do is to install crappy Service pack 2 on their machines... D O N' T!!! It slows it down and make a lot of things run in the background. So, I strongly suggest when installing any big time sim like T72, to install it on a just formatted hard drive (like a did with Doom 3 and Silent Hunter 3) Also, type in "RUN" msconfig to get rid of everything default XP installs after the clean install but the anti-virus. Please, shut down the anti-virus before playing any demanding game. The worst thing in your specifications is, and not the least, your graphic card. By far the worst on the market by any standard. My grand-mother would run faster with her legs broken than the GE 5700. So, you cannot blame it on the game, that video card is so badly rated that I think people bundle them up to make improvised snowboards.

Anyhow, I must say the game has many shortcomings, but nothing that deserves this misjudged trashing. I am getting an ATI Radeon X700 next week, so I will try it up with that one, in the mean time with my Radeon 9700 pro, it runs decently. I expect better in the days to come, stay tuned!

[snakeeyes]

Originally posted by Blackmuzzle:

I'm running an AMD Athlon 64 3200+ (2GHz), 1GB RAM, and a GeForce FX6800 Ultra with 256Meg. Latest drivers and driver settings to "performance" of course.

Having all game settings to High results in unplayable 5-20 FPS, mostly depending on the zoom level (high magnifications = slideshow)

At medium details I get fair framerates of 40fps max, with the occasional dropdowns to 20fps. Game resolution is 1280x1024. I don't want to sound like an ass, but I'm a game developer and am working on stuff involving high terrain visibility (5km+), realtime lighting and shader 2.0 and for the graphics that T72 delivers, it's performance is less-than-optimal. Especially the increasing fps when zooming in leads me to believe that there are indeed a few oddities in the program that lead to unneccessary slowdowns.

I might be mistaken of course. I haven't seen the code so I cannot make much more than educated guesses.

As it is now, the game is very enjoyable, if rough around the edges. I can only imagine how things looked like back when you first got to see the original game (I mean the russian version without multiplayer mode)

I do not think that buying T72 was a mistake, quite the opposite. I just hope that there will be some patches to improve performance and to fix some of the bugs - and maybe even get internet play working.

Everything else (internal views, more vehicles and weapons) is beyond the scope of a patch and best done in a sequel, which I certainly hope will happen one day

Thanks man. I thought that the framerate problem might be something that was unusual. Maybe they can improve it... maybe I need to buy a faster processor.

[snakeeyes]

Originally posted by BlAin:

_snakeeyes_ ,

I think the point of this game was actually to play in an environment where no top-of-line armors were deployed, to know what is old school and recent tactics alike in somewhat of refreshing setting: the Balkans. I cannot emphasize too much on the importance it has on my choosing this game. First off, it's challenging not to be backed up by satellite imaging and all the techno-gimmickry e.g. American Forces can deploy on the battlefield. Secondly, an interesting locale that is not WWII-based and that is similar to Italy, making for interesting dogfights. Never would a fight between Russia and Nato happen, so I think that is where the developers reasoned about their game, yes it would be fun to see it come to life but hey, why bother? Furthermore, if a prolonged armed conflict was to happen, those older tank design ought to be deployed so...

About your specs, one common mistake people do is to install crappy Service pack 2 on their machines... D O N' T!!! It slows it down and make a lot of things run in the background. So, I strongly suggest when installing any big time sim like T72, to install it on a just formatted hard drive (like a did with Doom 3 and Silent Hunter 3) Also, type in "RUN" msconfig to get rid of everything default XP installs after the clean install but the anti-virus. Please, shut down the anti-virus before playing any demanding game. The worst thing in your specifications is, and not the least, your graphic card. By far the worst on the market by any standard. My grand-mother would run faster with her legs broken than the GE 5700. So, you cannot blame it on the game, that video card is so badly rated that I think people bundle them up to make improvised snowboards.

Anyhow, I must say the game has many shortcomings, but nothing that deserves this misjudged trashing. I am getting an ATI Radeon X700 next week, so I will try it up with that one, in the mean time with my Radeon 9700 pro, it runs decently. I expect better in the days to come, stay tuned!

Thanks for the advice about how to speed it up. I'll give it a try.

Give me a chance and try to see it from my perspective ok? If my critique "trashed" the game I'm sorry but I was being objective and honest.

Believe me... I know that my graphics card is not something from NASA but some of us have families and can't buy alienware. Sometimes we can only afford certain hardware.

[JohnCalvin]

I love the game. My problem is that I stink at it . Graphics are great. I am having lock-ups, but not enough to annoy me. What annoys me most is getting killed all the time .

[snakeeyes]

Your ideas regarding sp2 had no effect.

I uninstalled it tonight.

It's been real guys.

See you when Steel Beasts 2 comes out.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys.... when you have a system that is closer to Minimum than it is Recommended, expect FPS issues especially with features turned up. Also keep in mind that it is extremely difficult for us to tell you guys how your video card will respond. Some are absolute junk, or their drivers crap, yet their specs look decent enough. This has been a beef of ours since the days when 2D card were all the rage In fact, if there was any one thing I could wave a magic wand at to fix it would be the video card. Argh... now I've gone and to myself ranting... I'll stop now

I also never like to see a game that is currently out compared to a game that is not yet out. If a game is out today it generally means the graphics engine was written 1-2 years earlier. So comparing something that isn't out yet with something that is apples and oranges. Don't believe me? Pick a game that isn't out yet, tell me how much better it is than T-72, then in 2 years I'll remind of this as your're trashing the very same game just after it's release. Gamers are so predictable Either that or entirely different types of games are compared against each other. Like the deformable terrain feature of T-72 vs. the static terrain of something like BF2. But then again, end users always want everything

One of the things that sucks most about being a game developer is looking at your 3D engine and knowing that its best PR value is 6-12 months before it is released.

Steve

[ July 25, 2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Gian]

I would agree with the rating.

It is unfortunate, it feels almost unfinished as if this might be a test for something better in the future.

There is just so much missing. The 3d models lack so much detail escpecially the T-72 and the game is about that tank right?

Aslo Battlefront is synonymous with one of the best mission editors I have ever seen in a game in their Combat Mission games. Easy to use but advanced features as well. Why not have something like that in the game? I am not a game developer and I don't want a degree to develope a simple mission. Why do so many developers get it wrong? I know we have to be clued up with computers but cmon'!!!

Oh well, unless we see mods soon, which it is very quite at the moment, then I don't know how long this flame will keep burning.

I want this game to work, I am a big tank fan, but we need more in this day and age.

The game is simply too skinny.

My five cents.

Gian

[Bonxa]

Hey, comparing CMs editor to this one is not fair. Compare it to some similar game instead like OFP. I tried using the editor of OFP and it's slightly better looking perhaps but the interfaces are really very similar and so is the complexity.

What could use some improvement is the core editor which should have some kind of wrapper around it where you can adjust basic settings that affect a lot of small details in all the subsystems. There is information overload in that department right now.

[BlAin]

Originally posted by snakeeyes:

Your ideas regarding sp2 had no effect.

I uninstalled it tonight.

It's been real guys.

See you when Steel Beasts 2 comes out.

For Uninstalling SP2, you "can't" really do it through your configurations. You always have to reformat in order to really switch back to your previous version. SP2 leaves a lot of bullcrap when uninstalled. As for helping you out, I don't normally recommend to people to go on eBay, but for this case, you can get decent brand-new card in original packaging for less than $80USD (and then you pay for shipping). So for around $100USD (with shipping), you can get enough for a satisfying experience. Also, defragmenting helps a great deal, I should have mentioned it earlier; always do defrag in SAFE MODE. Another thing that could happen with your video card (although it's already very bad, but it could be a reason), it's entering in conflict with other peripherals inside your machine, namely being IRQ in your BIOS which in return slows down your machine. If you're not an expert, I would not play with those if I were you, but if you feel comfortable enough, I would try to find the best fitting IRQ for your video card and your sound card, which often get in conflict.

That's about everything of what I can think for now... So a common and efficient procedure would be to format your hard drive, install SP1 and all its components, install all the programs you want and the drivers of your peripherals (one important program I recommend is AVG anti-virus *FREE*, no Norton, no McAffee, they slow down your machine), then defrag your hard drive in SAFE MODE. In the case you have a drive you can spare, please do an image of your drive to store it on your spare one, so you don't have to do it again in 6 months. I can recommend you a program for the image, but it's complex, so a friend advanced in computer would be a good thing for this.