WillyPete2171
-
Posts
78 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by WillyPete2171
-
-
It will be available soon (today or tomorrow) and alter initial unit scounting skills, AI delays and improve AI in general. Older save games won't be compatible with it so you may wait for it to begin the campaign. You can use this time to practice in generated scenarios or in skirmish against AI bots (create an MP game with AIs).
Sneaksie - my biggest worry before was about the infantry not being responsive, but it looks like you guys really fixed it!!! I love how they move, fire, and work together.
My question now, is it possible to aim tank or anti-tank fire at buildings to destroy them? It seems that I can not get tanks to fire at buildings. I can destroy them by rolling over them, but I would like to take aimed shots at them and destroy they by fire...
Thanks for an awsome game!
-
I think with a strat layer T2K would become a Cult Game and capture the whole CC community.
I cannot play the CC games anymore after playing the TOW games as the 2D CC experience just does not compare to the realism of TOW 3D, but I do miss that strategic element and sheer variety of maps, units and non linear game play.
Alan
We share the same point of view. I often wondered why nobody simply outright copied CC, but of course update it to modern standards. Now that its 2010, its pretty amazing to think how far ahead of its time CC was in military gaming. Future TOW games could easily capture the CC community if done right. A good single&multiplayer game based on the old CC games couldn't possibly fail. With that said, I'm still very much looking forward to Kursk. Hopefully they are adding some last minute touches to straighten out how infantry is modeled in game...
-
Seems like quite a while since the demo was released. Very quiet on this forum. Sorry.
if it is a delay or not i dont know, but i hope they are using the extra time to touch up on the infantry...
-
Well, as for the units - seems fair.
The Ruskis did have ALOT more tanks than the germans.
And there were large numbers of Panzer IIIs at Kursk. Not so many Panthers and Tigers.
I can't understand why they felt they needed to include the Pz.BefWg. III, it seems redundant when the game doesn't need it.
German uniforms had me disappointed. Looks like crap! Skins for the models are just... silly. The shoulderboards, the helmets.. silly.
I hope someone makes new graphics for them.
But I rather like it anyways. It's Kursk, dammit!
This thread did get a little off-topic, but I'll add what I know about Kursk anyway. There were more Panzer 4s and Panzer 3s during Kursk without question. Ironically, the Panther tank helped to hurt Germanys chances to win at Kursk. Hitler kept delaying the jump off date for Kursk over and over again, just so he could get the Panther out of the factories and put into the field. This delay only gave the Soviets more time to add to their considerable defenses. In the end the Panther really didn't perform well as it didn't have time to get past its "teething" problems. I believe this was also the case with the Ferdinand's too - these beasts were even fielded without any secondary armament - machine guns... Hitler's wonder weapons only hurt them in the end.
-
If you select a squad, left-clicking on any of these (attack/storm/move) and right-click on the ground, what exactly are differences between these three, how the soldiers are approaching? and...does the different stances you can choose influence the tanks in any way?
I really cant tell what difference any of these options have, except for the crawling. They way infantry is modeled is my biggest gripe. I like to move tank out in front and click my infantry on a tank while its moving. by doing this the infantry follows the tanks - that's my favorite tactic. otherwise, using infantry in any other way is almost a pain as they either die quickly or they fall far behind my armor and have no real impact on the battle...
-
I agree that Atomic had the formula nailed 99%, but note that making 3D versions of CC (GI combat and another one), transferring all gameplay elements exactly and, AFAIK, having access to CC infantry AI coding resulted in epic fail compared to original games so it's not that easy for some reason. This is an interesting question why.
My opinion is that in CC you're really restricted - you can't order individual soldiers around, and you could only guess what's happening in the house where two hostile squads meet. Your imagination portrays what's happening there for you, and no future CPU, AI code or super videocard would be able to compete with your imagination:) On the other hand, in ToW, where you can zoom to any soldier's face you see all the AI quirks clearly. Some people reported that playing Kursk in top-down (tactical map mode) they felt that their soldiers act smarter:)
Hey Sneaksie, thanks for the reply. Its rare and nice to hear directly back from the developers! I have always been a big fan of wargames, and when CC came out it floored me. The Theatre of War series brought that feeling back! Its nice to know that there are companies out there like yours that are dedicated to this niche market. I also realize that its a monster to program these games in 3D.
Like I said in my comment above, in my opinion you guys have the vehicles nailed. I hope you can contine working on infanty AI though. Maybe somehow script certain actions like "assult" better will help. I also feel that infantry would "play" better if they would moved in tighter squad formations. They just seem too spread out and dont seem responsive enough. Maybe you can add a "squad mode" where they operate as one entity. They could enter squad mode like they would enter/exit a truck...
These are just observations and opinions of a loyal fan. Overall, I think your game is great and I have already pre-ordered Kursk. Thanks for listening!
-
As someone who has been playing the multiplayer LAN games in both TOW1 and TOW2, I have a few comments and suggestions. Please take these as a true constructive feedback from a user who has been advocating this game to everyone I know who is interested in WW2 strategy games.
I believe the success of Kursk will not depend on how well the campaigns are put together. Rather, it will depend on how the multiplayer aspect of the game has improved. Of course a mission generator will help a lot but the true longevity of this game will depend on how robust and deep the multiplayer part will be. Without farther ado, the following are my feedback:
1) Very few maps. Need many more maps to expand the replay factor of this game.
2) Very few units. On a 2 player map, only a few tanks are available. At least 10-12 tanks and 6-8 AT guns need to be available to each player to conduct a meaningful battle.
3) Ability to choose your own units. Instead of a pre-determined bundle of infantry and tanks, let the players choose their weapons. Perhaps a simple point/cost system where each player can decide to spend more on armor or infantry depending on defensive or offensive plans. This is a MUST. It is as enjoyable to select your platoon as it is to lead them in battle.
4) Mortar units and mines. These units should be available to any commander defending a position and should be a challenge to any attacker wishing to infiltrate. It was the reality of war in WW2.
5) Optional reinforcement. Perhaps can be selected prior to each game. If selected, by accomplishing an objective, say capturing the village in the middle of the map, the player will receive the bounty there or certain points that can go toward choosing a unit type adding from the rear or HQ.
The current form of the multiplayer in both TOW1 and TOW2 is ubber simplistic with very few units and options. The replay factor is not much and the battles are very static due to lack of unit selection and lack of maps.
I will buy Kursk but I will only advocate to my clan if there are major improvements in multiplayer. Please do not lose focus of multiplayer. Players may forgive a weak campaign but not a lame multiplayer mode.
I truly hope Battlefront and developers pay attention to Mulltiplayer.
Over and out.
again, I can't help but to think about the old Close Combat games. I don't mean to advertise CC, just using the title as a comparison. CC was way ahead of its time in so many aspects, especially multiplayer, that I'm surprised war gaming companies don't just outright make a modernized copy of it. Atomic had the formula nailed, everything was there such as multiple maps, a stratgic layer, responsive infantry, ect.
With that said, I agree with you on all points except that its not necessary for a battle to have 10-12 tanks and anti-tank guns to be meaningful. CC proved that over and over again! I feel Theatre of War Kursk is with out question the best TOW title yet, but my biggest gripe is with how the infantry are modeled. The tanks and vehicles in general are spot on in my opinion, but its the infantry that is keeping the game back from greatness. Infantry are still somewhat unresponsive, difficult to work with, and take too accurate of fire that wipes them out down to the man at long ranges.
Once infantry gets better modeled, then you will see awesome multiplayer battles. I feel that infantry should get as much attention as the vehicles do. Done properly, multiplayer is what gives games a long life. To this day there still is a very active CC multiplayer community. Again, I just don't understand why companies don't outright make a modern CC, it would be a best seller!
PS - I still would like to see a Strategic Layer/Map built into the game. Something similiar to what CC Invasion Normandy & The Battle of the Bulge used!
-
I am a very big fan of the Theatre of War series. I'm glad there is a company out there like 1C that is dedicated to this type of war game! To me the ToW games are a more modern version of the Close Combat series, they basically picked up where Atomic left off.
With that said I'm now thinking about what I would like to see in future Theatre of War games. Kursk 43 shows us that graphics and game play are now top notch, but what next for the series? The last two Close Combat games used a strategic map layer, portraying the "bigger" picture of what was going on beyond one particular battle. I do like how it is currently in campaign games with each battle being linked by scenarios, but I think issuing orders to your units on a strategic map is better and more immersive than from playing scenario to scenario.
Instead of following say just one company level unit from scenario to scenario, with a strategic map each unit can portray a platoon to company sized battle group. A full battalion or more can be portrayed & controlled via a strategic map! It adds another dimension to the game.
Of course I wouldn't mind having the option of playing scenario driven campaigns, but I would like the series to adopt the startegic map. I believe its a great way to improve the game and keep the series fresh.
What do you guys think?
Im surprised nobody has a reply to my comment... I thought it was a good idea. Anyway, for a perfect example of what I am talking about, and I just found out about this game today, is "Achtung Panzer: Kharkov 1943." I think its an amazing coincidence that I found a game with the feature I was talking about in the comment I made above. Kharkov 1943 has a "Strategic Layer" allowing you to move your battlgroups around on a strategic map, then you fight it out on game maps similiar to Theatre of War...
With that said, I still hope Theatre of War adds this in future games.
-
OK, my current Alienware P4 3ghz PC is 6.5 years old, but someone has to explain to me why game developers insist on developing software for the highest end machines. I'd love to buy Kursk 1943. But I don't have a Core 2 Duo. Do the developers expect me to buy a new PC just to play this game? Don't tell me it's time to upgrade. I'm questioning the business model of the developer. Certainly, I'm not the only one who would need to upgrade. The point is that the developer narrows its own market for its product by developing only for the high end. This is already a niche market. I'm done ranting.
your trolling, right? 6.5 years old is considered ancient...
-
But, TOW is a good series. Many say that CC is superior, etc. but I think TOW and CC can coexist! They are not the same game, and nor do they claim to be. I have had my rants against TOW and BFC, but truth be told BFC has given me good games since I first bought CMBO when it came out. I wouldn't worry.
ToW2:Kursk will be just as good as the others, perhaps better since we get mortars and Marders!
-
I am a very big fan of the Theatre of War series. I'm glad there is a company out there like 1C that is dedicated to this type of war game! To me the ToW games are a more modern version of the Close Combat series, they basically picked up where Atomic left off.
With that said I'm now thinking about what I would like to see in future Theatre of War games. Kursk 43 shows us that graphics and game play are now top notch, but what next for the series? The last two Close Combat games used a strategic map layer, portraying the "bigger" picture of what was going on beyond one particular battle. I do like how it is currently in campaign games with each battle being linked by scenarios, but I think issuing orders to your units on a strategic map is better and more immersive than from playing scenario to scenario.
Instead of following say just one company level unit from scenario to scenario, with a strategic map each unit can portray a platoon to company sized battle group. A full battalion or more can be portrayed & controlled via a strategic map! It adds another dimension to the game.
Of course I wouldn't mind having the option of playing scenario driven campaigns, but I would like the series to adopt the startegic map. I believe its a great way to improve the game and keep the series fresh.
What do you guys think?
-
I must say I'm a bit disappointed to hear that the infantry combat hasn't improved. 1C must understand who this game is being marketed to and listen to their views. The demographic for this game wants realism. For them not to correct this issue on this new release is not a good sign, the game has a lot of potential but Ill have to wait to see if they fix this in an update. I hope they do because the rest of the game seems superb. Certainly a job well done despite the omission, but plz listen to your audience on this key issue in order to drive sells. Thx
I feel that same as you. They are very close in having an outstanding game, but are missing something. I think if they decided to rework the game engine and make a modern version of Close Combat, then they would have a real winner. Think about it, there is still a very large and active Close Combat community for a game that came out over 12 years ago...
-
I confess that my experience with the game stopped at TOW1, and my reason for bringing this up was to see if things were different in TOW2.
Knokke, from your post I gather that the "little details" are being handled by the AI in TOW2, because this was not the case in TOW1.
It feels like to me that there could be more work done in terms how a squade works/moves/fights as a unit, compared to as a group of individuals.
in regards to infantry, in my opinion the game has improved from TOW1, but infantry gameplay still needs work. its still focused on the individual soldier as if it were a tank or another vehicle. The scale of the game makes control of an individual soldier tidious. Of course you can double click to gain control of the full squad, but like I wrote in my other post, the currrent squad system is sloppy. They dont stay in formation together, ect. The game still treats infantry as a group of individuals instead of cohesive squads...
But dont take my psot as putting the game down, because this is my favorite war game. Ive played the Kursk demo and think its great. Infantry AI has improved a little, but as far as the demo is concerned its still the same as ToW2Africa
-
I really don't understand the problem you have with this "squad mode". As it is now, the game has the same way of handling squads like in Close Combat (double click on one of the squad members, and the whole squad will be selected and ready to follow your orders). Only there is the possibility that was lacking from CC, to give specific orders to individuals in the squad (you can order some of the soldiers to give supporting fire while some others are ordered to flank an enemy squad for example).
If you don't like to micromanage every single soldier, just give a move/assault/ambush/fire order to the squad as a whole. The AI will take care of the "liitle details" like scavenging weapons and ammo from dead bodies.
The only grief I could have about infantry, is the high rate of casualties due to friendly fire (it seems that once a soldier has started it's "shooting sequence", he won't stop even if a squad mate moves in front of him). This is especially annoying when some members of the squad are moving forward to assault an ennemy position, and one of their mates decided to throw a grenade at the same time.
the issue is that the system is sloppy. Id rather have the game focus more on the squad instead of each individual soldier. The scale of the game doesnt really need for control of each soldier. They seem to float around instead of staying together in a tighter formation, and they seem to forget their orders, which calls for even more micromanagement. Im simply asking for a tighter squad system with better AI and pathing, one click to bring up the whole squad and then issue orders to them.
infantry survivability is another issue. I really havent noticed friendly fire though. What I have noticed is long range and accurate enemy fire that takes out all infantry before you can bring them up and close with the enemy.
-
I'm not exactly for having micro managing features removed. I just want to have my infantry squads doing their jobs without me having manage every aspect of every soldier to complete a mission.
A good example from TOW1 was you have a bazooka man who runs out of rockets, the man 10 feet to his left has a satchel with 5 more rockets, yet the two will never interact to exchange the needed ammo to the bazooka man. I have to make one of them move close to the other, then look through their bags, tell one to give the rockets to the other, say yes its 'ok', now go back to the bazooka man to tell him to start firing again. All the while I have Panthers rolling down on the position. Even slowing it down to 1/4 speed won't make that any less tedious.
I just think that some of these functions need to be modeled and not left up to the commander to handle in the middle of a battle.
we are thinking the same. I feel at this point the weakest link, as far as game mechanics, is the infantry. I even have a good idea on how to handle it & I hope the game designers are listening.
Besdies better AI and pathing, there should be an option to put infantry into a "squad mode." just like how infantry enter a vehcile or building, they can enter a mode similiar to Close Combat where all 10-12 squad members move as one entity/unit. As of now, they stray from each other and seem to "float" around the screen. Think of "squad mode" like entering an invisible vehicle to keep them together, and if you wanted to split them up or control each individual soldier then you have the option to let them "exit" or "bail out" of squad mode.
Not only would this make it easier to control infantry as a whole, but you would be able to control more of them andf have larger operations since you would be controling full squads instead of each individual soldier.
-
aree there any values that we can change to further improve graphics & textures quality in th game. I noticed there are quite a few file that have a value = 0. if i changed it to =1 woud it improve the graphics, ect?
-
Sometimes Paul timing is everything. My comp is 7 years old and I've been holding off getting a new PC waiting for the right game to come along. For TOW Kursk I'm definitely getting a gaming rig now prior to purchasing the game.
Only the really old games become obsolete. I know dual processors can present a problem for some.
really looking forward to playing this game.
Im running a Dell with a i7 2.67GHz, 9GB RAM and a NVIDIAGTX260 1.8
WHen playing the demo I maxed everything out and it runs smoothly except when I zoom all the way in on the ground and notice the frame rate dropped and "stuttered." I went to "normal" on the grass and then the whole game runs smooth. So, if you want to run the game smoothly with everything maxed, then youll need to match what I have or do better. Its a hardware demanding game... good luck with your purchase!
-
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here but wasn't Kursk the scene of the largest tank battle in history? I wouldn't want to be involved in frontline service as an infantrymen in that particular moment.
I couldnt imagine either. Im a former US Marine and my service was a joke compared to what both the German and Russians experienced. The Eastern Front was a war of extremes. The 6th army that was lost at Stalingrad was bigger than the army the west built up to inavde Iraq... amazing.
Keep in mind that besides the two thousand or so tanks each side had at Kursk, they also each had over 1 million soldiers fighting. It was very much an infantry fight as well. Tanks need support and thats why I was hoping to see just a little bit better control over infantry in the game. I find the control over infantry to be a little sloppy regarding assulting trenches or houses, issuing and following orders, and overall AI. They just seem to float around... The old Close Combat series seemed to have a better system in this regard. I know the demo is just a demo, but I hope we will see a "tighter" AI system for the infantry.
Im very excited about the Kursk edition. I think they have done a fantastic job, the game really looks amazing! It has so much potential...
-
do I hear 33? Is there any info on this new game? This is supposed to be a completely new game, right? Combat Mission: Normandy? Please correct me if im wrong
-
Balance mod was made for multiplayer in the first place, so campaign missions may be not changed at all. AFAIK tank tracks are strengtened.
Please, please, balance out and polish up the Theatre of War:Kursk game before releaseing the English version. The game is screaming with potential, but there are a few issues that need to be addressed before release. I tried the Russian demo and it looks great, but infantry cant be used at all. They get wiped out as soon as they are in the field of view of the enemy at long ranges. I dont know if its realsitic or not, but it sure isnt playable or even fun.
If you can give infantry a bigger role in the game and more suvivability, then you will have a real winner here. Tighter control of the infantry and what they can do seem to be a problem at this point.
Thanks for listening
A big fan
-
I had high hopes for TOW2. The game promised to have improved AI behavior, improved damage modeling, new campaigns, etc. After several days of playing, my initial impression is that the game hasn't changed all that much from TOW1. It seems like the exact same problems that ruined the first game are still here......
Well, I just downloaded the Russian version demo of the new Kursk game and it looks like everthing you just described has been carried over. Like the other ToW games, it is simply screaming with potential, but looks like it might falls short once again. Now I know its just a demo, but im getting a bad feeling about it.
Try doing anything with infantry is simply a joke. They get cut down and the auto-pause keeps bringing you back to where the soldier died. Im trying to move forward wuith my tanks, but keep getting shot backswards... very frustrating.
There has been a delay, so maybe some of these points may be addressed.
-
ok, its now 1/8/10. any news about a downloadable full game in English?
-
So are you saying by chance that there is a pause feature during MP games?
Or an adjustable speed during the game?
Im only speculating, but yes it seems like there will be a pause feature during multiplayer combat.
I just took a look at the video posted in ToWKursks website and I am very impressed with the looks of this game.
Have you heard any news about when the release date is? Im reading thats its eaither in a few weeks or the end of March...
-
Yes, the mode of game play did not change from TOW2 : Africa to TOW2: Kursk. As the title implies, it's largely the same base engine at work, albeit with many new features and a whole bunch of improvements, too. So you can play RT (with auto-pauses etc.) as with the previous title, but not turn-based in the classic sense.
What preference someone has obviously is a matter of taste. I am not fond of RT myself, but I find that TOW gives a fairly good balance between real-time action and the ability to pause (or to adjust the game speed) for myself.
Martin
by the way, have you ever play John Tillers West & East Front games? Although the graphics are a bit out-dated now, they game is turn based and about the same scal as Theatre of War 2...
Strategic Layer in future games
in Theatre of War 2 : Kursk 1943
Posted
I believ it was CC2 Holland that had a very interesting link of maps. One map even had a timer where you could blow the bridge... Its little things like that plus a strategic layer that would make future TOW games playable over and over agaoin.