O/T: 1944 Across the Rhine??

[Lt Bull]

I remembering being hyped for this game many years ago. I had read several ng posts about the game and it sounded promising (if not ambitious). I remember getting a friend to do a "massive" download for me (probably on a 14.4k modem taking several hrs)so as I could try it out (it was a beta build or something like it).

When I finally got it going, the game was like mollases and I wasnt sure if it was due to bugs or a slow system. It seemed to really push the PC that was running it anyhow (probably a 486?? 16mb RAM).

The fact that I didnt have a super pc system to run it and that many ng posts were negative towards the game (most people probably were expecting a game like Panzer Elite/Panzer Commander) and that it ws full of bugs, made me give up on the game.

Strangely I never heard much else about it. What was going to be major contribution to pc military games just seemed to fade into irrelevancy.

I happened to see it on the shelf in a shop today for A$17 (I have heard it was advertised for sale at A$5 or A$10 once!) and was thinking about getting it.

What I want to know is what happened to this game? Was it sooo bad that it just disappeared from HDD and discussion? Did anyone actually PLAY it and get a good chance to evaluate it? Is it as bad as I seem to think it may be?

(This may not be too much O/T as the anticipation back then is kinda like what I have right now with CM...but I don't think I will be suffering any disappointment this time!)

Lt. Bull

[This message has been edited by Lt Bull (edited 05-17-2000).]

[gaffertape]

I never really had too much chance to play the game, but let me tell you:

It was enough time to know that it was pretty awful. I, like you, had been anticipating Across the Rhine for months. I'd read the previews and bought the game even before I had a CD-ROM in my PC (which the game needed).

I did play it on a friend's PC, and from that day forward it has sat on a shelf.

Things I remember:

Horrible map interface.

Terrible abstraction in terms of number of vehicles, ie: In the binocular view if you see a single smoking halftrack, that means four of them are wiped out, etc.

Thankfully, I don't remember much. My overall feeling is that it could have been great. It seemed that the designers were going for a CM feel, but for whatever reason (processor speed / graphical limitations) they had to 'dumb down' the game until it was unplayable.

Luckily we now live in a CM world.

There's no going back, man.

GAFF

[Joe Shaw]

Hey if you're into throwing money away, just send the $17 to me, it will do just about as much good Seriously, I also was very hyped for the game and bought it the minute it came out. I have never been so disappointed in a game in my life. The interface was horrible, to the extent that you really couldn't do anything you wanted to do. The enemy could shoot THROUGH hills and all the terrain was that awful 2D wall crap that looked okay till you went past it. It was a very bad game. Trust me, after seeing and playing the beta and gold demos of CM, you've got nothing to worry about, it's not another Across the Rhine {shudder}.

Joe

------------------

"Son," says I to him, "you're a Dragon. And a Dragon ACTS like a Dragon or he doesn't act at all."

Smrgol, Dragon

[Stoffel]

I have the game and played it for some months.

The idea behind the game was good.

It only has some disadvantages.

A very bad graphics.

Tanks and vehicles look good but seem to ride in a strange way.

Rivers are hard to cross.

Mortars cannot give indirect fire to, fire on something they actually have to see it.

Infantryunits are shown in little groups and look like the miniature soldiers from a toystore.Static figures.

aaa crews only fire on a aircraft when they spot one (it has to fly rigth over it you cannot give orders to shoot at an aircraft yourself)

German vehicles are superior to us,skilled commanders can takeout a panzer but not in 1944.For instance one platoon of kingtigers can kill 2 companys of shermans without getting hurt.

And most important the game give s a lot of errors when you play in Windows.

Still I like to play it sometimes.

the maps were displayed very small you needed a binocular to see what is going on.

One advantage was no turn system you can give orders to every unit at every time.

[Doug Beman]

My disappointment with this game was so great that I can't write about it while I'm at work; it would take so much time that I'd be caught goofing off.

DjB

[Lt Bull]

Well, it looks like I better keep my $17. Thanks for the posts. It seems AtR was the abortion I thought it had become. RIP.

Lt. Bull

[Fenris]

Best thing about ATR were the manuals that came with the game.

IMO don't waste your money.

reg's

Fen

[Guest ChrisC1009]

The history CD was pretty decent.

The game itself was a debacle. You couldn't see enemy beyond 300 meters. That in itself made it darn tough to do anything other than issue orders via the map.

It was the beginning of the drawn out demise of Microprose.

[This message has been edited by ChrisC1009 (edited 05-17-2000).]

[Mike Zeares]

I am one of about 5 people worldwide who not only played AtR extensively but also liked it. This was because I was able to make the mental adjustment to accept the game for what it was, instead of getting upset about what it wasn't. Also, I have a fairly high tolerance for quirks, if there are elements that are enjoyable. Well, I don't know if enjoyable is the right word. "Obsessive" is more like it. I can't say I actually had much fun playing it, but I played it obsessively for several years. I would occasionally put it aside, swearing that this was it, I couldn't take its flaws any more. But then after a few weeks I'd be back at it.

I think it was the campaign system that drew me in. I would agonize over my battalion, wondering if I would get enough fuel and ammo, or if I would *ever* get any replacements (this was much more nerve-wracking when playing the Germans, of course). I would curse Division when I needed a company and they gave me a damn StuG platoon (once my American div. gave me a jeep recon plt. Gee, thanks). Then, after finally building my units up to full strength again, I would be ordered into a sensless and hopeless attack that would devastate my poor battalion... or we would waltz over the demoralized enemy to a complete victory. The outcome was never predictable. And every now and then, a battle would play out in a way that was truely satisfying on all levels.

Was it the game it was supposed to be? Not even close. Did it have serious flaws? Absolutely. Was it the total piece of crap most people say it is? Not in my humble opinion. Some of my proudest gaming moments came against that "piece of crap." Also some of my most heartbreaking. I only hope that CM will suck me in as totally as AtR did. And that's all I've got to say about that.

-- Mike Zeares

P.S. I don't play it anymore. Every now and then I start it up, but quickly remember why I finally stopped playing it (namely the fact that better wargames came along. Why play AtR when you have Steel Panthers?)

[Hundminen]

I remember begging the store clerk to take it back -the only time I ever returned a game.

I had a 486-66 with 4 MB RAM at the time which was middle of the road, and this machine definitely wasn't up to the task.

Who knows, maybe a PIII/600 with 128MG RAM would have run it. I don't know. And I'll definitely not find out.

[risc]

ATR worked well with my 486DX100 16MB ram. It worked great with my Pentium 133 32MB ram.

The game was OK when you figured out what the designers did. I think it was worth it to buy the game since with the game came Another CD with 45 minutes of WW2 history for tankers an excellent documentary the money were worth it just for that. I don't have the game anymore but the Manuals I still have and are the best in a wargame/tank sim that I have ever seen. I have yet to see something come close to it. Perhaps CM manual will be as good as ATR manuals.

Peter