ComradeP

I'm not drawing conclusions only comparing how planes are depicted in the video and in the game. The fact that the infantry animations were not in the game doesn't mean that none of it is in-gane footage per se.

All right, allow me to give you a screenshot tour of the few moments where planes are visible. The plane you see in the top left of the second shot just passed overhead in the next shot. [ August 05, 2006, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: ComradeP ]

A Stuka B strike on the howitzers in the rear might've happened in real life, but I don't think the targets were important enough to waste/spend multiple He 111 B's or Do17Z's (luckily they weren't Ju88's, as that would've been ridiculous) on. Which is unfortunately the trend in the last few years, as the developers seem to think that pretty graphics sell more games than good gameplay. That assessment is correct for almost every genre, but not for wargames. SP might be 2d but it rocks, same goes for CM and CC, both lacking the "newest graphics" but both providing good and entertaining gameplay. The "wannabe" wargame/RTS like Blitzkrieg have suffered from a serious "failure" namely Blitzkrieg 2, and people that like such a genre "need" a replacement. That replacement will probably be ToW. I am a pretty hardcore wargamer by heart, even though I spend most of my time during the week on Panzer General games, as I don't have the time for AGW or the like. I can live with the current ToW, but it seems there are definately some things that could be improved to "lure" the hardcore wargamers into buying it.

As I stated: that depends on the nature of the maps. If 95% doesn't include more than a dozen random farm buildings, I don't think it's a big deal to reviewers. The buildings can always be used as cover, even though one can't enter them. Reviewers might note that "buildings can't be entered currently, but modders and the development team are trying to solve that" or a similar statement. In the example AAR battle, there were no buildings that could've provided a significant advantage, as almost everything on the "German" side of the map was in the line of fire of Polish AT/ATY.

Sirocco: that battle has been lost before it has begun. It seems most of us just want the game to be released, as they've been eagerly anticipating it. Modders/future additions to the game might "cure" some of the "ailments" that some see, and until that time we'll have to hold on to what we've got. As a side note: if there are no/few urban combat maps (which wouldn't surprise me if buildings can't be entered in the initial release) I don't think the lack of "usable" buildings will matter much. Besides: you can always hide units behind buildings, whether you can enter them with infantry or not. Buildings can usually soak up a few rounds of direct fire projectiles that would otherwise have eliminated the vehicle behind the building. Concerning mortars: the peculiarity is that we do get airstrikes (and quite a lot of them) but not mortars, which might seem odd, but remember that other artillery was present in older screenshots. Personally, I prefer artillery over airpower, but that is just a matter of preference and I think most battles will include some sort of artillery and airpower at the same time. I can live without mortars until some modder (re)implents them, if they're not in the initial release.

@wargamers. Every wargame-related forum needs a thread like this (Wargamer forum) apparantly.

Judging by the "linked missions" comment, one can't decide whether he will fight in the west or the east, or is that possible?

The last part is what should trouble developers: when wargamers don't like the realism (or lack thereof) in a game, they might never buy it. The problem with a game like ToW (basically one of a kind) is that it's probably too complicated for the general RTS crowd, whilst it might not be good enough for the hardcore wargamers (not the might). Personally, I've been waiting for this game for too long and have been hyping the game to myself since day one, so I'll buy the game no matter what. [ August 05, 2006, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: ComradeP ]

Cool video. I guess it won't be able to climb into objects(/place snipers in trees), but it looked cool. By the way: why was there a..Panzer IV H? at the end, at the mission complete screen (the vehicle has Schuerzen and looks like a Panzer IV, so it's either a modified G, H or J).

That reminds me, if troops can pick up weapons which they can keep until they die, one might end up with elite squads of German PTRD/PTRS users, for example. That should create interesting battles in Russia.

It was a joke, I've been moaning and listening to moaning about wargames for most of my lifetime:) You can either love or hate the constant moaning of "the L/70 could penetrate thicker armour in real life than is this game!", "ZOMG my people can't enter buildings kekekekeke", "my Sherman sucks (reply: it sucked in real life) no it didn't (reply: yes it did) *topic goes on for 20 pages and doesn't end with any sort of conclusion, but with bitching*" Yes..wargaming is one hell of a lot of fun.

That's the same point I was wondering about. If you try to do that with heavy bombers, the bombers will go down together with their bombs. Perhaps bombers fly in at a fixed altitude, or perhaps the "maximum altitude"/the "ceiling" a map supports is low (although I wonder where the artillery shells would go, as they would definately end up higher than those bombers). Aside from the bomb argument, do you think He 111 B's are suitable support weapons for such a minor engagement (especially as they're not effective against small groups of entrenched units or guns, both in real life and as the AAR has shown)? Edit: also note the speed/altitude of the planes in the "funny video." [ August 05, 2006, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: ComradeP ]

Southern Europe shouldn't be difficult to implent, as the textures are there and elevation can apparantly be set. The lack of desert textures/maps would be the problem for Africa, but that can be fixed in a cheap way (giving the surface texture a different colour scheme) or with hard labour by modders (coding new textures). If the game is mod-friendly or if there's a mapping utility for the game, one could be fighting in Africa/Southern Europe in no time.

Mace: the point is not that the game doesn't have it currently, the point is a concern that the game might not ever include the things mentioned by the topic starter, amongst other things. Personally, I play wargames for realism and I don't care what they look like as long as they have good gameplay CM,CC, and SP:WAW don't need flashy graphics to be excellent wargames. If a designers makes the choice to take the "graphics are important too" route, it would be wise not to forget about the things those graphics will actually depict. If all the trees in the game would look exactly the same, nobody would moan probably, but if the markings/equipment of a unit is wrong, there will be moaning wargames. Grognards doesn't translate to "those who complain" for nothing. In fact: I'm surprised people that want more realism are actually mocked on these forums. It's like all the people that claim to have played and to love CM or CC actually on like "wargame light" games. Why do you moan about CM or CC not including something, when you're OK with major ommissions in other games, such as this one?

kabex: the question wasn't about pivoting only, it was about turning and a turning radius. As the topic starter noted, it should be possible for German tanks (say a Panzer IVH) to turn a lot faster than a Sherman (any model, the slow turning problem was never fixed). For a Tiger, it might actually be wiser to turn the tank rather than the turret, as it takes ages to turn the turret further than 45 degrees. I guess Moon or others will have to enlighten us how the Panzer IV C/Panzer II's/Panzer I's and the Polish 7TP's turned. By the way Moon: I noticed you stated a Panzer IV C arrived, but in the end game screenshot, there are 2, did the other arrive later or did you upgrade something (if that's possible)?

Support of at least 3 He111 B's is a lot for such a minor engagement. If they are from the same gruppe within a KG, it might be possible but otherwise it is a tad odd. A Stuka B would be a more logical support unit, as the Heinkels are not very effective against tanks anyway. I wonder if one can purchase air support like in Steel Panthers (which is a truly excellent game). My previous questions have not been answered, so I can't really elaborate on how the Heinkels deliver their loads on target within moments after a call either (are they circling the battlezone?).

Hi guys, I decided to join in on the discussion, as I've been eagerly anticipating the game since the day it was announced. Concering RS_Colonel's realism debate, he must've skipped the part of the armchairgeneral interview stating the following (as a reply to a question). In my personal opinion, the tendency to create a "fun" game limits the amount of realism that is included in a game. Granted, there are exceptions, but I use that as my personal rule. To me, the gripes RS_Colonel notes are important, but I trust that those and other possible errors will be adressed in updates or patches. This game can't be compared to CM, CC, Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike, as it offers a truly different experience and a mix between realism and smooth gameplay (the statement that the AI "creates" its own orders based on the situation indicates one of the things that will smoothen gameplay, even though I will probably hit the "pause" button as often as the rest of you). In reply to crews: I think Sudden Strike II's system of crews wasn't necessarily bad (vehicles were crewed by units) with the problem being that officers could use the vehicles too, it just wasn't all that realistic. Crews bailing out of their vehicles (or at least attempting to do so) is realistic, and a good addition. To whoever can answer, I have two questions: 1#: When infantry reinforcements show up, do they always show up on foot or is there a possibility to alocate trucks/halftracks for transportation? The question is thus: is transport represented on the map, as I saw trucks and other transport vehicles in some screenshots but not in the AAR. 2#: Are there FO's, or can anyone with a good LOS and a visible target call in airstrikes and artillery? I noticed that in an earlier reply (and the AAR itself) Moon stated that an officer called in airstrikes. I don't know if that was "role playing" or whether the German army's officers of any kind (with a distinctive lack of radio's, as only the US could basically afford to "give everyone a radio") can call in airstrikes. Field telephones should at least show some delay (although command delay is apparantly included, but uses an abstract formula). Forward observer units, if they are not in, should be a very good addition too, as the "RPG" portion of the game would enable them to become better at spotting throughout the battles they fight.