Guest John Pender Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Guys it dont look good, a real challenger for the best WWII 3D game of all times. I guess the boys at Battlefront should just give it up, they can't compete against this awsome powerhouse of a game: http://www.panzergeneraliii.com/ LOL who would possibly waste any money on this tired, weak game? Keep up the great work guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 John, LOL. I was wondering what this thread would turn out to be about . Had people finally realised why Steve and Charles continually drop out of sight or was it something even more sinister ? In answer to your question: LOTS and LOTS of people will buy PG III. It's a nice simple wargame which (thankfully) doesn't try to sell itself as ultra-realistic. Certain recent games which tried that with the box blurb and advertising AND were the third game in their series and focussed on the Eastern front (don't want anyone thinking I'm slagging off the wrong game here) REALLY make me mad. Everyone embellishes a little in ads but that damn box was a carpet of lies. That's why I go soft on games like PGIII since I haven't ever heard them try to defend themselves with the old "we're number 1 for realism" cry ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Hey Fionn, you're not happen talk about about the game that has this on their CD cover? "Command a fire brigade of soldiers on the Russian Front in this real-time strategy game set in World War II featuring unequalled detail, realism, and scope."? I found the cd cover in the trash bin coincidentally, unfortunately I have no idea what the game name's is since the cd is sheddered to pieces... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 I can neither confirm nor deny that I am referring to that piece of trash (BTW if the head of that game company comes by I am ONLY referring to that game as trash since as Martin has said the CD cover is in his BIN and the CD is presumably thrown out and as such is trash.) Seriously though its a good fun game with WW2 FIGURES but its not realistic. Enemy soldiers in trenches being machinegunned to death from 400 metres and losing 10 men in 20 seconds and the myriad other things is just laughable. I'd love to have a look at the fourth iteration in that series but I'm quite sure the company founder wouldn't send a copy to TGN if he found out I was going to review it and I don't think I'll be wasting a load of money on that encrypted game. Hell RealRed and RealPara were the only things which made it even somewhat realistic. Now its being encrypted purely to stop it being "improved". Another victory for the stupid leading the blind I fear. Anyways, I've had enough run-ins with the wonderfully calm, logical, attentive and unabusive (YES I'm being sarcastic) owner of that company so I'll stop it here. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest titan Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 In defence of Panzer general 3d not all games are made for people like us,i for one dont think i could stomach it,but it is a very good type of introduction to a war game for alot of people just getting into the swing of things as far as war gaming goes or perhaps those with a lower level of ....... ill leave that bit up to you. However it does serve as a good breeding ground for those that want to develop to the next level Titan out! P.S Notice an improvement in the grammar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morte Rouge Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 While I hope I've graduated beyond it -- I credit PG I with getting me interested in wargames. There's a place for such games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 I second that. I cut my eyeteeth on Avalon Hill's "Tactics II" and "War at Sea", which are about the cardboard equivalents of PG. Jumping into Advanced Squad Leader right away would have made my head explode! If the PG genre helps introduce more computergamers into wargaming, so much the better! Dar Steckelberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 My first was Panzer Leader...I was only six years old.. Needless to say, after a few unsuccessful trys at the rules (un-assisted) I was able to obtain a copy of War At Sea. That one I was able to grasp! Ohhhh and big handfulls of six-siders are great for a seven-year old (give me 6's!) ...it was a couple of years before I was able to get into Panzer Leader and by then I had worn out the counters and board just messing around with them! :-0 We as a group sorely need MORE games like Panzer General (IMO of course). ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixman Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 I agree about there being a place for PG type games. Avalon Hill had the same approach. Some games were more complex and realistic than others and they made this very clear in their ads and on their boxes. For example, take the 1944 campaign in France from D-Day on. You could play the classic "D-Day" which was very simple and easy to learn, or you could play "Fortress Europa" which introduced rail movement, air interdiction and many other elements of realism. "Fortress Europa" or, God forbid, the SL series of games could really intimidate a first time gamer. That's why I NEVER tried to get someone to play those first, nor "Third Reich" for that matter. No, we would start with "D-Day" or "Waterloo". If that grabbed their interest, then we would progress through "Panzer Armee Afrika" (great primer on supply management!) and onto the high complexity games. Conversely, if somebody did not like the intro games, I knew not to even bother with the more advanced stuff. Allied General is the first of the PG series I ever tried. I very much enjoyed it and got many fun hours of play out of it. I just got PGII at a rock bottom price to kill time until CM comes out. It's okay. Personally, I think that type of game plays better in 2D than 3D. But, anyway, I can whip off a scenario in an hour, have a couple of beers, respond to some email and head to bed -- no biggie. CM, on the other hand, I suspect will keep me up all hours of the night. Fionn, congrats on not bashing SSI for PG. They are what they are, and all that they claim to be. ------------------ The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Pixman, Exactly. At least they don't claim PGIII is going to be ultra-realistic... unlike A**mic ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Pender Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 I couldent resist:) sory. I started with AH Tobruk 8yrs old, hours of fun. Loved War at sea, Tactics, Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader, Pattons Best, SL, ASL. I just think that even a newbie would gain more by starting with CM. They certanly would learn more and save some money also. When PG originaly came out CM wasnt around so sure it was a good place to start, but now with CM why start anywhere else? I think someone who has never played a war game would still be able to enjoy CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 *applauds Titan* hehehehehehehehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 I am a total Squad Leader Fan I had about 20 different boards as well as Cross of Iron and GI Anvil that I ordered from AH and loveeeeeeeed it! In my opinion and many others by far the best board wargame Ever done! About PG3d looking at the screen shots...well I find it a little un-realistic if a tank can cover three 2 story buildings in one move...hehehe just a little out of perspective 3d and then some... Never did like the battalian combat...just me though.. ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 In defense of PG II, and maybe PG-3D. Let me tell a Winter 98 tale. Twas some time before christmas late one night in 98, all the processors were overclocked and the cable modem was smoking hot. I was online playing PG2 and someone suggested OAKRIDGE. I will never forget the feeling as the scenario loaded and I saw my forces. I had overstrengthed highly-experienced Tigers, JagdPanthers and a MAUS. It was my first attempt at OakRidge so I played cautiously. I still remember to this day the havoc I wreaked with my Panthers, tigers, JagdPanthers and Mr. MAUS. I absolutely drilled the poor guy trying an end run on me. it was pure havoc. Let me add before I close that I have never experienced a similar thrill in West Front. Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 24, 1999 Share Posted September 24, 1999 Hey, Fionn. I wouldn't want you to review a game when you already announced your bias to the world. This applies if I was the editor of the pub, if I was the publisher of the game or if I was someone counting on a fair evaluation to influence my purchase decision. And for the record none of the CC series boxes I own make any claims about being "ultra realistic." The CC3 box does talk about "unequalled detail, realism and scope." Unequalled doesn't mean ultra realistic. Unequalled is a clever marketing tool and I'm willing to bet it was penned by MS flacks and not Ätömik. It merely states that no other game has the same level of detail, realism and scope that CC3 has. Some may have more, many have less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 I havnt seen them claim it to be 'ultra realistic', but I have seen them state it is highly detailed. Hard call that one, on one hand Id agree it is detailed, I mean there are a lot of varibles in there. Pitty they arent all that accurate though. I quite enjoyed CC2 personally, but I think they rather lost the plot on CC3. I would have much prefered a single detailed campaign than being shot around to the whos who of major battles of the Eastern Front. It just didnt feel right for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 R Cunningham: It's sad you seem to be wanting to pick a fight with me in a couple of threads particularly at a time like this however I'll respond a little. 1. I'm NOT biased. I have conducted a very detailed appraisal of CC3 and would be willing to do the same for CC4. Knowing the faults in CC3, as released, and expecting to see the same in CC4 is NOT bias its a realistic stance based on past experience and an objective appraisal of the system. 2. I can have my own ideas about the head of that company and the intrinsic value of those games but that does NOT impinge on my objectivity when reviewing them. Maybe you wouldn't be able to establish that same degree of objectivity and so can't imagine that but I can. I've been trained to be a doctor which implies a lot of training on things which require FAR greater objectivity than simply looking at games . I always find it funny when someone starts throwing such aspersions around without knowing really whom they are talking to and the kind of important decisions I am trained to make objectively about human beings. To say I can't be objective about a simple little game is absolutely laughable given my training. 3. I can be a fan of CM but if I reviewed it you bet I'd have been sure to examine it carefully looking for faults etc. Liking or disliking a company or the people involved can't be allowed to come in between you and a methodological examination of the game. That's why I use a PROCEDURE when reviewing games. I use it so that every game undergoes the same types of examinations as every other game I review and all are written up on the basis of what their marketting CLAIMS they are because it would be unfair to evaluate them on "expectation" so I evaluate them on what they CLAIM to be. Hence Z needn't have ANY fear of sending me a copy of CCIV for review if it has fixed the flaws which I pointed out in CCIII. The fact that I hold a firm belief that this won't be so doesn't mean that I'd trash it if Atomic surprised me and fixed the glaring holes in the game data. In fact, I'd probably give it a very good review (if some other areas were tightened up also). *Sigh* and now I'm going to deal with the last refuge of the pedantic provoker, namely, the camouflage that I was writing that CC3 used the word "ultra-realistic" on the box and that since it did NOT use that word but instead used "unequalled realism" my statements regarding its accuracy are invalid. The last refuge of someone trying to pick a fight on the net or trying to find SOMETHING to complain about is usually either spelling or the inexactness of the language used in another post. Well R Cunningham, you're free to hold your opinions but please try not to cast aspersions on others, namely me, when you don't know me and don't know what you're talking about as regards my work. Oh, and if you're going to try to defend CC try to find a sounder basis for it than the difference between "ultra-realistic" and "unequalled". It's a rather thin defence for a game which whose unequalled realism is unequalled because other companies realise that it is impossible for a single man to carry TEN panzerfaust weighing a sum total of 70 Kg (155 lbs) PLUS personal weapons. If my game was unequalled in having such faults and glaring errors I surely wouldn't be shouting about word differentiation from the rooftops. Then again, perhaps you can't defend the game itself so you chose to be superficial and pedantic and nit-pick the meaning of a single word. Welcome to my "avoiding the issue by launching a petty argument" list. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 Oh dear me, have I offended his lordship? Ultra- realistic is a term you have applied to the CC series, not the designers. You have found it wanting in this regard. You can call it pedantic, but the fact remains CC has never tried to be a simulation that is ultra-realistic. The armor model for starters is abstracted, apart from the actual errors contained in the data. It does not have the resolution that CM is trying to provide. So why denigrate it for that? On the other hand no other game has the detailed psych model that CC has for individual soldiers and their personal atributes. CM is doesn't try to go there so and you would not accept that CM is inferior as a game because it doesn't match CC in that regard. I still say, despite your protests, that the large amount of negative remarks you have posted here and elsewhere rob you of your objectivity. Your personal squabbles with KZ put you in a tainted category. If you have studied to be a doctor (of medicine) then perhaps you have also learned about the doctor-patient relationship and why a doctor has to be objective in treating his patient. If the patient is either his friend or his enemy that can cloud his objective reasoning and affect diagnosis and treatment. Here are some of your objective statements. "At least they don't claim PGIII is going to be ultra-realistic... unlike A**mic" "I'd love to have a look at the fourth iteration in that series but I'm quite sure the company founder wouldn't send a copy to TGN if he found out I was going to review it and I don't think I'll be wasting a load of money on that encrypted game. Hell RealRed and RealPara were the only things which made it even somewhat realistic. Now its being encrypted purely to stop it being 'improved'." Data is going to be binary. Binary data formats and encryption are not the same. "Everyone embellishes a little in ads but that damn box was a carpet of lies. That's why I go soft on games like PGIII since I haven't ever heard them try to defend themselves with the old 'we're number 1 for realism' cry" Here's another of your invented phrases that didn't originate with Ätömik. "Certain recent games which tried that with the box blurb and advertising AND were the third game in their series and focussed on the Eastern front (don't want anyone thinking I'm slagging off the wrong game here) REALLY make me mad." Mad? You can't be objective if you're mad. "Hell, there are a few games, which I won’t name, in which tanks are infamous for having such poor pathfinding and threat assessment that they continually turn their weak flank and rear armour towards the enemy or ignore potent targets in favour of distant and unthreatening targets. I think that this example is illustrative of how much more 'real' and correct the AIs actions are in CM." Ah, here we are again. CM is the holy grail. All else pales in comparison. Come to think of it I wouldn't trust your review of CM either. I don't know you. I don't care to know you. The statements you post indicate a bias. If you can convince yourself that you can overcome that bias that's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to buy it. [This message has been edited by R Cunningham (edited 09-25-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marko Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 I wish Steve or Charles were here so we could close this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 *Sigh* "Have I offended his lordship" Grow up, you're supposed to be an adult. Act like one. I don't act like that and you're rapidly beginning to sicken me with all the snide remarks and evasions of valid points I raise. To everyone else, Well, I could go on and try to disprove Mr Cunningham's statements and point out that I only got to know KZ AFTER writing a review about CC3 (and so sure wasn't biased about that) etc etc but, well, I feel Cunningham simply isn't going to listen but is just going to take the opportunity to take more cheap shots at me and make more snide comments about my abilities etc. I'm getting more experienced with dealing with this type of thing and person and my experience of his ilk leads me to decide not to waste my time talking with him since nothing is going to be gained by doing that. No amount of reasoned argument is going to change his mind and I don't need the aggravation. I just wanted to post this here so that no-one would misinterpret any future ignoring of Cunningham's posts (if they continue in this vein.) I could disprove his points if I wanted but he'd just continue needling away like a bully at particular words and being a pedantic little petty man even whilst attempting to prove he wasn't etc and quite frankly the old maxim about not arguing with a fool lest you look like one is foremost in my mind. It just beggars belief that he tries to represent a statement of fact i.e. that the CC series has a HUGE problem with tanks turning their flanks and rears to enemy fire constantly due to poor pathfinding AI which, in my experience of playing CM, CM doesn't have, as a proof of bias. So, I suppose if I state that a PIII-500 is a more powerful CPU than a Pentium I-200 that's a statement of bias too? UHOH Cunningham. Stating FACTS and showing that ONE item is superior to another (when backed up by these facts) isn't proof of bias. Perhaps he can't understand the distinction between stating facts and bias but I think everyone else can. Anyways, he doesn't have CM so how the hell can he even comment on my assertion of its AI pathfinding? Sometimes people who offer comments on things they know nothing about (and can't possibly know anything about)WHILE casting snide remarks at others whom they admit they know nothing about BUT also admit having a bias towards just annoy me. He's done all of those things and whats worse for his argument can be publicly demonstrated to have done so. At least if he is going to try to attack me he should cover his own bases so that his own questionable motivations for doing so (which I know well and which I can state have nothing to do with what I wrote on the CM message forum. In fact I've even got a few emails from others who know him elsewhere on the net who "discussed" his reasons for starting this with me . It's funny when other people reach the exact same conclusions as quickly as I do. We can't all be wrong ) can't be so readily called into question. FWIW to Cunningham and others I have it on VERY good sources (quite unimpeachable sources actually and a hell of a lot more knowledgeable about the Close Combat Series than Cunningham) that the data won't be in simple binary. You're being sold a line and are swallowing it hook line and sinker. And FWIW I have emails from Keith in which he claims it is the "most realistic" simulation of land combat on a computer. I won't quote them here since that is bad form but I have been told that the CC series is the "most realistic" simulation of land warfare on the computer by its designer. I'm merely following what KZ said Cunningham. Take it up with him, not me . Well I went into a bit more detail than I expected over a few of his most objectionably points but his sort of unjustified lashing out just annoys me, especially since I know there's no reasoning with him. Hence, I won't continue discussing this with him. BTW Cunningham.. Make points, argue issues but stop misrepresenting me. Your representation of my posts as "invented phrases" which you insinuate purported to represent Atomic's position is wholly incorrect and deceitful. I have no problems with people who take issue with stuff I write and have on the forum and in private posts tried to clarify anything left unclear but I won't sit idly by and let someone with an agenda unknown to most of the posters and lurkers come on here and cast slurs at me with impunity. I don't do it on other forums and I won't do it here. Cunningham, if you choose to rein the snide remarks and unjustified slurs against me we can talk. Until that time I won't be responding to your posts. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 I said it once I'll quote it again, Cunningham, Fionn "Relax, man. Have a smoke!" Playing God. ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 Sorry Rock, I don't smoke. I'm gonna needle Fionn until he loses control of his bladder. R Cunningham Director of External Harassment www.nervensäge.com -- "Irritation for the Irritating" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Maragoudakis Posted September 25, 1999 Share Posted September 25, 1999 Gee and to think I thought it was cool when the blue smarties were introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted September 26, 1999 Share Posted September 26, 1999 "Irritation for the Irritating" - Maybe you should take a look in the mirror.... I’m not normally one to enter in discussions such as these, but I find it ironic that Fionn states his opinions on a GAME, you disagree with these which is fine and your right, but then you feel totally free to come on here and state your personal opinions on Fionn, a human being. You make it sound like a schoolyard tiff. Fionn doesn’t like the car you own, so you don’t like him. You go and write all over the toilet wall that Fionn sucks. Me, I didn’t mind the CC series, I played cc3 on and off with the real red patch. My mate on the other hand hates it, the first time he saw a tank shoot through a hill he thought it was a joke and told me so every time I played it. Each to their own opinions, I didn’t right him off for his because it would be puerile and I would sound like a child. If I did, I would want to take a good look in the mirror and GROW UP. Fionn should be allowed to his own opinions. I know he is a reviewer, and if he states his opinions in his reviews and his reasons why he believes those opinions then I see nothing wrong with this. I have read reviews on SFB that say its crud and others that say its awesome. I read betweens the lines, made an objective opinion and decided to buy the game. If you have a problem with Fionn that you feel is important enough to talk to him about, you should e-mail him and discuss it, not come here and spurt it out for all to see. We don’t care! I’m not knocking you for your opinions, each is entitled to their own, I just think you delivery method leaves a lot to be desired.... Sorry to all for continuing the discussion much further than it should be, I agree with you totally Marko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGTRock Posted September 26, 1999 Share Posted September 26, 1999 Even if you guys don't smoke. (I don't either) stay off the coffee. You guys can settle it on the battlefield not the bulletin board. ------------------ Sgt. Rock Says " War is Hell, but games are fun " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts