Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dizee

patched... what du you think?

Recommended Posts

I'm going to deinstall it now finally. I think the support for the game is really great, but maybe the game is just not what I was looking for. I play it but it's no fun.

I'am going to reinstall cc3 or 5 and complain about the ugly graphics and that I can't select weapons :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the game when it first came out and the level of micromanagement required to get your troops to do anything worthwhile killed the fun factor for me...much more than any of the LOS and other issues.

I downloaded the new patch, hoping to find an improvement in gameplay. I'm disappointed to say that the game is not fun to play; it's work. Sure, they fixed a lot of the LOS issues, etc, but the core problem of the game remains: you have to act as the frontal lobe of every single soldier if you want them to survive and accomplish their mission. I should be able to act as their commander, ordering them towards their objective without too much micromanagement.

For example, I shouldn't have to tell an AT team to switch from their submachinegun to their bazooka to assault a halftrack. Or order soldiers to use grenades when assaulting a strong point. That level of micromanagement is pointless and detracts from the fun of the game.

As I pointed out on another gaming forum, this game should have been called Combat Mission: 28 Days Later due to the way that your soldiers exhibit minimal intelligence and aimlessly wander the battlefield with little regard for their own mortality (when an enemy MG is spraying fire in their direction they should have the good sense to go to ground!). Even the enemy AI exhibits useless behavior like this. When I'm attacking their strongpoint (e.g. the first US mission) the enemy should not come charging out of their positions into an open field to oppose me.

Sorry, but while this game is pretty and on the right track, the AI is utterly broken and such makes the game nearly unplayable (in a sense that you'll get any enjoyment out of it). If I want to micromanage some software I can work with some spreadsheets at work. redface.gif As antiquated as the original Combat Mission games were, including abstracted infantry, they were far more fun to play because your troops reacted realistically when presented with situations that called for actions other than precisely following your orders (e.g. go to ground when under heavy fire).

edit: The problems of ToW go way beyond this game. Like me, I know of many other players (from discussions on other sites) that got burned by buying ToW sight unseen based on the formerly good reputation of BFC. This experience squandered any good will they had with many long-time BFC customers. CMSF solidified that problem IMO. After buying ToW and seeing all of the problems, I did not leap into buying CMSF, and I'm glad I didn't given the problems that came out of CMSF. Yeah, I know they're different development teams, but they have the same label, and the BFC label can no longer be automatically associated with quality development.

That's really unfortunate IMO, because I'm always a strong supporter of the 'little guy'/independent business operator...but they do need to produce a quality product if they want my support. I have a limited amount of free time for games, and I want that time to be fun, not spent pausing the game every 3 seconds to micromanage every single soldiers moves. What the hell were the developers thinking!?

[ February 06, 2008, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Or order soldiers to use grenades when assaulting a strong point.

When i order them to asasult, they launch grenades by their own. Thats my experience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess you're right about the grenades. I was thinking more along the lines of the bazooka thing where you always seem to have to order the weapon change. It just seemed to me that the infantry use grenades very sparingly so I mentioned them as well.

Either way, you have to really micromanage infantry movements to get anything out of them, and that's the point I was getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT guys automatically switch to AT weapons for me. I dont have to order them to do so. ¿?

But i understand what you say, I find specially annoying to have to put each and every one of my soldiers behind cover, since they don't seem to be able to position themselves... it seems that the AI isn't capable to identify covered positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My AT guys must just be an extra kind of special then, because I watched two bazooka men open up on a halftrack with their Thompsons from 50 meters away. Their only saving grace was that the enemy HT's gunner was too stupid to return fire as he was more intent on the infantry I had running to cover more than 300 meters away. Somehow he thought they were the greater threat.

Similarly, I cannot fathom why the enemy infantry insists on charging me from their defensive positions, only to have me hammer them in the open with artillery. I'm the one that's supposed to be attacking. Poor scenario design?

I categorize all of these problems under 'Stupid AI'. I'm not asking for too much; Combat Mission handled all of these things properly eight years ago. The reason I sound so peeved is that they're thinking of including the improved AI in the add-on...as another poster said, this should have been part of the core game, not an add-on. Better AI would make this game rock; without it, it's nearly unplayable (if you want to enjoy the experience anyway). The developers are on the right track, but they're still missing the key piece that needs fixing before this game is ready for market. My opinion, of course (echoed my many on some of the gaming boards I've been reading).

[ February 06, 2008, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Mannheim Tanker ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After having conducted some tests, I have come to the conclusion that friendly AI has a preference to use small arms fire against A)Halftracks and unarmored vehicles (cars) and B)Armored cars or anything classified as such in the game.

They will only target light tank or greater assets with AT weapons automatically. Even if you arm them with the AT asset when confronted with an armored car, they tend to switch back to their rifle or SMG unless you specifically have them target and fire on the armored car.

Thus, the friendly AI can't really be trusted to take care of business without micromanagement.

And the whole example above is so needlessly stupid, because it seems like something that should be easy enough to correct.

Unfortunately, the ongoing development of this game has just been GLACIAL. My concern is that by the time the infantry model finally gets proper treatment, CMSF:Normandy will already be out and will easily over-shadow TOW and it's engine capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I downloaded the patch with great anticipation.

I was really happy to know that the Line Of Sight had been worked on......but....

I'm still confused as to why my Tanks give me the message "no line of sight" and then get knocked out by the enemy they are aiming at !!! If I cant see them to get a clear shot, then how do they see me & hit me ? I take into consideration about ground elevation etc etc.

On the last mission I just played, my Tanks missed more or less all the time, while the enemy knocked out my tanks with one hit. So much for super German Panzers ! Load/Die,Load/Die etc etc....not fun. Why do my Tanks miss so much ?

It just seems like the AI for the enemy has different rules to the player.

I wish sometimes I could actually control the Tanks and infantry (like you can in Heroes of WWII) because sometimes seconds are vital. Sometimes I tell a tank to fire..... I wait.... tell it again..... then it fires !!! Too late....!

I love the game but I find it VERY frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with the game is that suppression doesn't seem to be modelled very well for either Opponent or Friendly AI.

I also own CMSF and if your troops are under heavy fire it will decrease their inclination to fire back and they will cower. There are suppression states, but it seems to be harder than it should be to pin down an enemy. This could probably be fixed in the AI variables if we knew where to look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The uber patch has certainly improved the game, especially with the introduction of the QBG, which I think has huge potential. However, I still think that TOW is failing because it doesn't seem to know what sort of game it is. The fact that you can micro-manage individuals suggests a squad-level game - which is fine - but as has been pointed out above and elsewhere, the AI is simply not up to this; too many 'silly' situations arise which requires baby-sitting for each individual.

On the other hand, it is clearly possible play company + engagements, but once again, because of the short comings of the AI, adopting a commanders overview is frequently impossible for the same AI short comings.

When I play what is my favourite wargame - TC2M - I can play as a brigage commander and micro-manage the regiments in my brigage, or as a divisional, corp or army commander, where I can rely, with reasonable confidence, that the AI will do a pretty good job in carrying out my orders True, you do need/want to sometimes 'dip in', but not that often. With TOW it is almost exactly the opposite; I cannot rely upon the AI at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that TOW's tactical AI is mainly built around the scripting engine, and that something like a QBG mission would only contain a minimal amount of coding to set up a game - this side attacks rect 1, the other defends rect 1, with just the basic default AI actions associated within that sort of scenario.

Some quite complexed tactical AI decisions can be simulated through the use of triggers and conditional statements. Things like:

Group 1, faint a move towards point x, then switch to full assault towards point y, while Group 2 defends point z.

Unit 1, attack point x, but withdraw to point y, defend and hold, if casualties > 50%.

Unit 1, defend Unit 2, whilst Unit 2 moves to point x.

the possiblities are limitless really.

The Unit AI, other other hand, would (i imagine) have set game engine coding and the data files defining how they act and behave under certain conditions:

how they react to coming under fire,

how they respond to the enemy and the threats around them,

how they pick up LOS/LOF and what they do when they get it, etc. etc.

and so there is little we can do i guess, other than maybe change a few things within the files. I hope 1C will continue to work on Unit AI for some time.

At this point i have made these conclusions - any mission will only be as good as the thought that has gone into it, how the author wants to portray the battle, and having the right scripting behind it to make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, and probably last, post.

I'm a bit dissapointed. ToW was my first Battlefront game and I was pretty excited given the pedigree of combat mission, which for some reason passed me by.

I pre-ordered, but never really got into it for a variety of issues which I won't go into as nobody likes to hear it and it's mostly been said before.

Re-installed for this patch though but after persisting it just isn't going to happen for me. There are far too many immersion killers and simple basic "what the hell??" moments. In my own opinion the game simply doesn't come anywhere near being realistic enough, I cannot get past the issues that are causing this to even begin to enjoy any kind of tactical challenge.

But thankyou, I appreciate a lot of work has gone into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dissapointed I am sorry to say.

I have still to micromanage the "pickupp" of stuff thats been drop by kia soldiers, COMPLETE bore!

Only played the addon russian campaign sofar, but its still way way too much micromanagement.

The balancing of scenarious is still laughable. 20-25 geman tanks against 3 antitankable russian tank and 4 AT-guns that cant hit **** and gets wiped out real quick.

Theyr building an addon I read, yeah....I wont buy it.

Gonna correct myself;

I have been playing the game some more with the "Uber patch" and apart the "equipment pick up" workings, it is a good game. The game is much more enjoyable than before the patch.

I WILL buy the addon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only purchased this game recently and went straight to patch, although i had intended to buy it on original release I was turned off by all the bad reviews. So the patch for me is the game "out of the box".

1. Micromanagment.

This has been mentioned before, but i see little talk of micromanagement need after or before battles, i have spent hours ensuring the best soldiers are in my teams, with the best "position" for them, ensuring that the best gunners and drivers are in my armour etc.

After battles i find handing each soldier awards and experience rather tedious.

I discovered quickly that adding those points yourself ensures high 'scout' skills (which seems to be THE most important skill in regards of staying hidden/spotting enemy's) while doing it atomatically seems to throw those points away.

2. Enterable buildings.

I mean really..how could you not include this? As a old CC and CM fan i found it utterly unreal that this most basic feature of rts is missing.

3. Still LOS issue's.

How is it possible that my infantryman who is standing behind a wall 4 feet high, cannot fire or even see over that wall? I have actually zoomed to unit view and lo and behold its a clear view over the top, yet in battle he just stands there like a zombie.Apparantly he's deaf too cus that armour is only spotted after it rolls right over him. Add to this the fact that lobbing a grenade over that same wall is a sure act of suicide makes putting a squad behind a brick wall just plain dumb.. now that cant be right can it?

4.Enviroment damage.

Sorry but it peev's me that arty craters, fallen/crushed tree's and "weapons scarring" fade over time.. (or in the case of tree's sink into the ground)

The soldiers and tanks all look great but the enviroment needs work in regard to "destrucable enviroments"

That said I must give kudo's as well. Being at ground level on the receiving end of a arty barrage is a awesome thing, the ripping linnen screams of the shells falling in, far off whistles and hum's followed by a pounding... very impressive.

Modeling of Units for alive damaged and dead is excellent as are some of the combat animations.

Modeling of shell flight etc pretty good too imo, seen some wild miss's, and even had some ff due to stray shells.

With good crews it is a joy to watch a armoured group cut and flank an enemy position, and with good crews your micromangement of armour is cut considerably.

Lastly the battle generator and mission editor are nice to play with.

( I have one question tho, how on heck do i deleted quick battles that i generated from my battle-list? )

All in all a reasonble rts game 7/10(with patch) that could use some extra work, but I will stand by what Mannheim Tanker said in his original post with regards to BFC losing goodwill.

Well thats my say, I think any purchase of a add-on will be dependant on the reviews i read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...