Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 www.gamesdomain.com/gdr.cgi?zones/previews/nov99/cmdp.html A good review, however note this point: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet all is not completely rosy in this 3D garden. My main gripe is that moving around the battlefield is sometimes a chore. Maybe there's a "jump" button I've yet to find, but a minimap or other means to get from A to B quickly (rather than a slow panning scroll) would really help. Equally frustrating is the lack of any summary information, which would both help me assess my situation better and also jump to a unit quickly. The designers could look at Close Combat 3's sub-windows for examples of what could be done. . I hope some thought is given to map navigation and summary screens, but otherwise the game looks to be nicely on course.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Also read 'strategy camp' at GD-Bruce G. has some penetrating comments of his own which Tim sets down.His pluses and minuses pretty much echo what a lot of folks here have been saying.I couldn't agree more with his summation,though,in that CM is a leap forward for wargaming. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MERC Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Its easy to jump around the battlefield. Here is my technique. 1) Get a good Overview of the battlefield 2) Select your unit you want to look at 3) Hit [TAB] - track view, this immediately moves you to that unit no matter how far away. Then you can change your view as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Here is another tip: - select unit - hit tab - then click + or - This makes you jump from one unit to the next while maintaining the camera lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 As Mike said, Bruce G's comments are at : www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/ (under strategy camp) note his reaction to unit control; <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This game has some problems (I don't like the lack of targeting control where my units sort of decide when to start and stop firing because I sometimes feel like I don't have enough decisions to make; I also have a hard time believing the LOS is really being calculated right at times) but it's really a major leap, "quantum" if you'll let me use such a cliched word. We're really at the next "energy level" of wargaming, an "excited state" as it were Where it goes from here is what matters. If it turns into a "give your guys some orders and let them go fight it out themselves" then wargaming will have taken a wrong turn. This is a real danger because as the game becomes more realistic-LOOKING, people will clamo(u)r for it to be more realistic-PLAYING. Thus, you'll start getting limited command & control taking over the game until it's no longer a game. After all, you couldn't REALLY control those guys over there from over here, could you? People have to realize that being an actual battlefield commander involves so much less control than being a wargame player that playing a game that simulates being a commander would be very boring. Those kinds of simulators are best left for training officers, not entertaining gamers." However, if the game can keep to its new paradigm, improve the "look," yet still keep the gamer fully involved via complex decisionmaking, then I'm happy to cede tactical wargaming to the Combat Missions of the world without any tears. After all, if I get itchy for some traditional turn-based, counter-pushing action, I can always play an operational game. Can't really fit the entire Eastern Front into Combat Mission, can you?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Ok, here we have another two people, one of whom obviously have only very limited experience with the game and another whom expresses a mild concern, saying something about CM. When expressing their personal views they follow in the footsteps of tens, dozens, even hundreds of individuals expressing their views before them. So, why have you posted these quotes John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>these quotes<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>two people<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These reviewers have seen many many games and thier views are respected. Thier review was not perfect. For instance, one reviewer said he didn't see any weapon break downs while I have seen jamming. However they are echoing points that have been pointed out by 5? or so people regarding the interface and unit info avalability. This is a beta demo. It is here to be criticised. CM will not be sold in stores. When the final CM is ready, I would like to see reviews that are almost flawless. So, to answer your question, I have posted this info to increase awareness to the reaction that the beta demo is having. [This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 11-02-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Actually,Bruce's evaluation(on what sounds like just a couple of playings of the demo)is amazingly astute(no surprise to me-I've always found him so)-he sums up the game's pluses and minuses,as well as much of BTS aim with the game in just a few paragraphs,and all without ever reading this board(at least as far as I know). His comment about winning a scenario by just pressing 'Go' was probably a fluke,and he somewhat unfairly disparages the AI because of it. On the other hand,I agree with him that games of this type sometimes make you wonder 'am *I* really necessary to the game?'-I felt the same way with Sid Meier's Gettysburg. His look at the game was certainly favorable,he is merely saying that it,in his opinion,is not perfect. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Mmm.. Yes John.. Looking at it now I think it was a gut reaction to the preview that I felt lacked somehow. Sure Tim Chown did a good job considering how little time he must have spent playing CM. But, and this is probably the reason for my winding up, by spending so little time with the demo he got caught up in and never got out of what I genuinely believe is something most CM players will have to face, bewilderment when faced with a rather unique environment. My feeling when you posted the quotes however, mainly that that from the preview, was that you were presenting them as being some kind of authoritative statement with regards to the issues that have been debated so very heatedly in this chat. Something I would have objected strongly to, had it been the case. In the end I think we just want the same thing, fair and thorough reviews. No offence intended John. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>being some kind of authoritative statement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By the nature of thier source they do hold more weight than the average player. They remark on a beta demo not the final game. They praised the game of course. However when you start hearing the same remarks coming from seasened reviewers as you hear in this forum then it should be seriously noted as I'm sure all serious examinations of the game are. I do not see the remarks as a final conclusive statement on the game. That's why I included the links, so that you can go check out the whole review yourself. I think this game is great and I'm having fun getting used to it. That doesn't mean I think it can't be 'tweaked'. No offense taken. I'm feeling too good after finding out that a measily little hellcat can crack open a tger tank. Go fast, manouver and take chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Well, I agree that a reviewer, by the very nature of a public platform, is heard by more people, that doesn't make him more right or more of an authority. There were several serious boo-boos in the preview, including things that were mentioned word for word in the HTML doc we enclosed (I know he didn't read it, so that is part of the problem). The bottom line is that if someone thinks they can sit down and play one or two games of CM and be able to disect it into neat little pros and cons, they are wrong. The game is FAR too different than others for this to work. Tim admittedly didn't spend much time with the game (and didn't read the documentation!), wrote up some stuff, and posted it. Should I be impressed with that enough to start taking notes about his opinions and ask Charles to stop everything and make changes to address his concerns? Not on your life Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Mike, I have had this "sit and hit GO!" think happen to me too. First time it happened to me I was a bit worried. Then I thought about it some more, and no longer was. Here is why... 1. It only ever happened to me on the defense. 2. It most often happened during the last phase of the battle. 3. Situations could have changed at any second that would require me to make major changes the next turn. And the most important reason... 4. Tactically, and strategically, this happens in every wargame that I have ever played. The only difference in #4 is that with other game systems, especially IGOUGO, there is a lot of clicking and waiting for stuff to move each turn. In other words, most games you can't just hit "GO!", you are forced to interact with the interface to end the turn. Since CM removes this to a large degree, there is "less" to do But a direct comparison can be made to Close Combat. How many games have you guys played on the defensive where you have just sat around waiting for either the AI to overrun you, declair a truce, or have the last of your guys exit the map? Dunno about you, but it happens to me all the time. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Should I be impressed with that enough to start taking notes about his opinions and ask Charles to stop everything and make changes to address his concerns?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not if you don't respect the way he conducted his review, (and I understand why). I said that the review should be seriously noted, not that you should follow it's advice. It has been and you guys believe he has not played the game enough to get the true feel nor read the documentaion. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Steve- I see your point about being able to win in other games by doing 'nothing'-e.g.,in a turn based tactical game you could simply have units fire when possible and do little else,and have a decent shot at winning.And you certainly have a point by citing CC,but that was also one of the bigger criticisms of that game when it was released-people mocked it precisely because they were winning by doing absolutely nothing,just letting the units play for themselves.I am hopeful that CM's scenarios will have relatively few static attack situations,and emphasize situations where both sides have to act. It is clear that both Tim and Bruce either didn't read the docs,or skipped over much of them-Tim mentions that it is unclear if there will be a campaign system with the game,when it is spelled out in the docs,etc.To be fair to Bruce,his comments weren't really a preview,but just his first impressions solicited from Tim.I can understand how knocks at the game rankle when they are the product of a facile look at the game. Still,the preview is very favorable,and good publicity is always a good thing.Perhaps an email to Tim setting him straight on some of the misconceptions would be a good idea-I have always found him to be completely fair in his reviews. Mike [This message has been edited by Mike Oberly (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I ran into the "GO" situation when i was in defence in the Resiburg scenario but even then i noticed there was a few tweaks i could to to make my defence better. To me it makes perfect sense, I laid out my battle plan, it was working why change a good thing? I see the turns as just pauses in the action (which I like a lot) I dont have to be constantly issuing orders. I havent noticed any glaring problems with the AI, sure the yanks kept trying to force through my line rather than flanking but by this time they were already badly mauled I would have been hesitant to try a huge flanking move through un reconed forests as well, just becuase I knew they were empty doesnt mean the AI did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I'm sorry but I don't see how any one can take an opinion such as this seriously. If he didn't even take the time to read the docs enclosed with the demo - which he can't have as the campaign issue is fully and ably explained therein - then why should I take any notice of his opinion? This kind of half hearted opinion casting really annoys me. People such as these speak from a position of some power - I generally read gamesdomain reviews as part of making my decision as to whether to buy a game...if you're going to write for such a site I think you have a responsibility to do it right. Based on the Demo I would buy CM right now...it is a quantum leap forward...if I were reading this preview I might already be beginning to dismiss it as another over hyped dawn of a new era...honestly what some games describe themselves as on the back of the box must be breaking some laws...empires Napoleon 1813 for example - this was barely playable as a game let alone the ground breaker the box touted it as...my point being that to a certain extent I have to rely on those seeing the game for free before I buy...if they put themselves up there as some kind of authority then they should make the required effort.You can't play CM without reading the documentation and I don't want a WWII game that is so simplistic that I don't HAVE to read a manual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Actually, to a surprising extent you can play CM without reading the manual. You'll just miss out on a lot of the cool bits. In fairness to Mr Chown, this is a preview, not a review. And some of his comments he does qualify, like "I've not seen any weapon malfunctions, or AFV immobilisations yet, though I have heard they are implemented" (although he does err in the next sentence: "I'd also reckon that not every destroyed tank does brew up"; they don't). I disagree with some of his comments (eg map navigation is a breeze for me now), but I found it a reasonable preview. Of course I expect the *review* to be fastidious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 I thought it was interesting that he pointed out that his 88s killed '5' Shermans. That told me a lot about the time he spent with the demo. I like Chown, et al. I hope he posts an updated preview after digging a little deeper into the game. Preacher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 If you want REAL previews/reviews on the net go to www.cdmag.com They will not review a game until the have FINISHED it. A preview is just a preview and I would hope the read the docs (as long as Bob is not doing it ) And they WILL trash a big name title from a big time sponsor when it sucks. Just a quickly they will heap laurals on a small company game when it deserves it. I think CM will get quite good press from them. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 The thing in the strategy camp was written after less than an evening's play. I think that says a lot. I'm writing a preview and being VERY careful about how I say things. Presenting evidence to back up my points etc. As with most of my writing I've spent a good 6 hours on just the article. It pays to be precise. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Scott, CDMag ratings: Panzer General 3D Assault 4 Stars Close Combat III 3.5 Stars East Front 2 Stars Hidden & Dangerous 3 Stars Ardennes Offensive 4.5 Stars Battleground Bulge 4 Stars Operational Art of War 4.5 Stars Operational Art of War II 3 Stars It will be interesting to see the preview from CD Mag. Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Okay I am going to "pimp" my magazine now . www.wargamer.com I can guarantee you that you will get the straight story with us. We have had advertisers pull money from us because of reviews in the past. However it may be a little later than some of the other reviews since we actually like to analyze the game versus a quick HEY DOODZ THIS GAME RULEZZ!!! . As far as the Tim Chown thing I have seen that he has apologized for being a bit unfair to CM. However when they do have time to sit down and look at it I will say that I do HEAVILY respect Bruce's and Tim's opinions. These guys and Alan Dunkin, Jason Levine, Tom Chick, Scott Udell, and Bob Mayer (and before he retied from CGW Terry Coleman) are probably the guys I listen to the most. ------------------ Richard Arnesen The Wargamer http://www.wargamer.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 Richard, Yep, but it is important to READ the reviews and not just the 'stars'. "Panzer General 3D" for example is not held up to the same requirements as "East Front" or CM will be. It is intended to be a 'lighter' game and thus it was reviewed that way. I have only seen about 3 reviews in the last three years that I disagree with on that site by more than a 1/2 star or so... ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted November 3, 1999 Share Posted November 3, 1999 BTS, I think it would be a good idea to link to reviews when the full game comes out. If somebody reads a review on one website and then comes here to check the game out, it would be good if they could then link to other reviews (especially if they are positive). This is what I did when I bought my computer speakers. I read one glowing review and went to the website that had links to a dozen other glowing reviews. The website also had links to websites that sold the speakers (which is, of course, something you won't need) Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 4, 1999 Share Posted November 4, 1999 I've got to side with Steve here on the "opinion" thing. An opinion that is illinformed, or down right incorrect, is not only of questionable value, but is can also be harmful. Journalists have a professional responsibility to make sure their opinions are fair and factually correct, even if they are quick and not too deep. I've said as much in two emails to Tim. NOTE that I think there was some good stuff in there, but the errors were a little too obvious to overlook. Scott, absolutely correct. I read the review of PanzerGeneral 3D and agreed with it for the most part. Even agreed with the rating. The game was targeted towards a different audience, and from what I can see it did a very good job hitting its mark. The original Panzer General was the same way. Gorg review would have given it a 0.5 star rating, but the target customer would have given it 5 stars. All a matter of perspective. Obviously I don't agree with all reviews , but I do try and keep in mind who the game is targeted for and what claims the company made "on the box". Jason, we will be tossing up links as we find 'em. I haven't had the time to do this yet Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-03-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts