seppDieter

i was part of those that were really disappointed by TOW when the demo came out. i found the game to be uncontrollable, and feeling like a spectator of dumb AI combats. that was when i had my old pc, on wich TOW did nt run verry well and was verry laggy, even at minimum settings. now that i have a new pc that can run about any new game, i decided to give the demo another try. and i must say it is completely different now, with the max settings and verry smooth camera movement. i can now enjoy the nice graphics and give orders. and basically have fun. now i was wondering, because i have been away from this site since several months, has the game changed or improved? especially the infantry part of the game still bothers me, it deserves a bigger role in the gameplay. right now i can do all the demo battles without really using infantry... this time i am really thinking of buying the game.

doesnt work ether for me, i get an error message when i go to the dl link. whats with that .xml thing??

about the campaign, its not like in CC unfortunately. its more a series of fights throughout the war. not a series of successive fights in the same battle as in CC. and there seems to be no dynamics in the TOW campaigns, you fight until you win, if you lose then you just start again until you win so you can go on. its a ok game, but you seem to come from CC. so you will find that TOW works differently, and for now it is in quite a few points inferior to CC, and that is kinda hard to take. until the game eventually improves im still playing CC online...

i must say for the first time i am impressed, when this patch comes out i wll be hearing from the players who, like me have to many issues with the current game, so that they aren't playing/buying it. this is the best: * Trees and Bushes will provide better cover and concealment. (Note, due to the nature of this change, it could dramatically change overall scenario balance!) * LOS/LOF Tool (1c is currently looking at how best to incorporate some type of LOS/LOF tool) * AI are now 'smarter' about autotargeting enemy turrets when target is hulldown. * AT Guns are now harder to spot

ok, what factors affect the soldiers morale? is it possible to use suppression as a tactic? because the soldiers morale doesn't seem to be affected by suppresion fire.(they dont hide, or get scared it seems)

you should maybe replay the same scenario, but with PZIV G's instead? the problem is that they haye the right gun for the job, but they wont be able to take many hits in return. to really test the AI you need to place exactly the same tanks aganst each other. because the PZiv G is slightly inferior to T-34, but the panther is superior. so you need to place T-34's against other t-34's if possible. then it should turn in favor of the the ambushers(if the AI is realistic) to those who critisised his tactics: if he would have placed his PZiv C's bunched together at longer range in the open, with a hit-n-run tactic. then you would probably told him that it was better to hide them in the village and ambush...

It is a about half an hour job for the tank crew to put the track on depending on the design. Track is not lifted on, but pulled by the engine. -jippo [/QB]

lol you have any idea how many tons each set of tracks weights? you need two persons to carry only one link of a tiger or panther tank. and mostly its the front of the track that breaks, so before the driver realises whats happened, he has probably already thrown the entire track in front of the tank. even a maintenence crew needs several hours to fix tracks. a new cool option might be to order the fleeing tank crew to set the tank on fire, or blowing it up. so the enemy cant re-use it. that was a common practice

yes this is one of the most apparent easy to fix problems of the game. the role of the infantry is al the way back, behind almost every other type of unit, while it should be the other way around. when someone posts about having trouble with a particular battle his thread mostly starts with "ok, i have 5 tanks and 3 infantry squads..." needless to say more

Ever consider not every customer that purchases ToW posts on these forums? Moreover, those that do may not even bother to post in that thread (I didn't). For all you know, that 40% may equate to less than 1% of total customers. </font>

thanks for making that clear moon, maybe i and others had the wrong expectations in this game. and if basically the game is now, how it was meanth to be, then i think those like me who are not happy with it should move on then.

ok, i need to get an admin set things straight once and for all. i noticed through various late posted answers (of people who are involved with the game) regarding posts of mine and others that had to do with realism. and after reading some of the answers on those posts a bell begins to rinkle in my head. keep in mind that i am part of the roughly 40% of forum visitors (see the "in what player category are you" thead)that think this game has great potential, but that it need drastic improvements to become a truly enjoyable realistic RTS. that being said, im a getting the impression from the people that worked on the game and by there answers that their intention was never to create a truly realistic game. and their intention is NOT to make it truly realistic with the patches and updates they are working on. now i would estimate that about 60% of the people on these forums (estimation only involves my personal experience) are staying here believing that the game DEV's will fix what they think should be fixed, or add the features they think should be added. now can someone (moon?) tell those (arguably) 60% of forum visitors (including me) if we are wasting our time here, waiting for big changes improving the realism of the game, who will never come from the official side? because i have never yet seen a DEV agreeing with requested changes, that would change the way the game is now to improve realism. i have only seen DEV's agree with changes regarding obvious mistakes or bug fixes. so basically if you are not 85% satisfied with how the game is now, you are wasting your time because you bought the wrong game. am i right?

im really having trouble understanding the logic behind all this, the game seems to be full of contradictions. while tanks will completely start driving on their own initiative toward the enemy to engage him without being ordered to, they don't take the initiative to shoot at the visible part of the enemy tank unless specifically ordered to by the battlegroup commander. IMO it should be the other way around, that would be logic

in close combat you cant pause the game either during a human vs human battle. and the LOS tool is verry handy, and it doesn't cause any division of the attention given to each unit. as a matter it even enables you to know what units are not exposed and thus leaving them alone. giving more time to spend on the exposed units. but in real time the LOS tool is used to decide wether a unit should shoot or not, because the LOS tool gives you the probability of succes. when the odds are favorable and the LOS tool turns green, you order to fire and mostly with succes. this cant work yet in TOW, since even with a LOS tool, all units in the Field Of Vision are targetable. so theres no way of hiding soldiers in ambush. as long as there is no AMBUSH mode in the game, the LOS tool is USELESS

i think they would have lost alot of money if they had released the demo earlier. as i think the demo is particularely badly chosen. as one of the training missions is impossible to win, and the SP mission is a defensive "sit and watch how you get bashed" mission, not giving a good image of the game at all. it would have been alot smarter to add a attacking mission that was more relaxed and positive for the game image. if this demo was released long before the game, then you would only hear mainly bad comments, without the better comments of those who had the real game.