One man's take (for all it's worth)

[Galatine]

My 2 dozen or so games tell me this game went beta _way_ before it's time. I really wonder how for long and by how many it wasplaytested by.

I will admit that at first blush I enjoyed the game but on looking deeper and with more play, there have been _numerous_ problems that leave me feeling frustrated and disappointed with the gameplay.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it honestly seems that a very poor AI has been girded up with battle outcomes whose chances of success change depend not on situation, but on how badly the AI plays.

And the AI plays VERY badly.

That's not even the tip of iceberg with my problems but I won't even try to list them all here.

Then again, if the makers aren't even open to the possibilty this game needs a _drastic_ overhaul, I have a feeling you're going to hear about them from many others very soon.

The beta game is too short to enjoy but too long to hide it's flaws.

Back to Loch with you Nessy...

[ May 25, 2002, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Galatine ]

[Wolfpack]

I haven't really noticed a "bad" AI. It does a good job of shielding it's units from being destroyed, and masses it's attacks pretty well. It's not as aggressive as I'd like as the Germans and Italians, but that may change. It also has problems with using it's navy at all. Those things can and probably will be corrected before it gets out of the beta stage. On the plus side, I've had the AI flank my lines and move to take cities in my rear when playing as the Allies in France, where most games AI would just mindlessly throw units at my fortified cities.

Besides, this game was set up I believe Hubert has said, to be balanced from a PBEM perspective, so obviously, it is going to be better played that way.

[PrivateSlovik]

I haven't found the AI to be noticeably bad. What are some examples of games with good AI you are measuring SC against?

[Cortes]

Playing as the Axis, I think the AI handles decently on land. They prevented my invasion of England when I clearly has them outnumbered and outgunned, did incredibly well in delaying me in France, etc. They do need to be tuned in the naval aspect, but otherwise, I think it'll do.

[willgamer]

I give up, are your assertions valid, mistaken, right, wrong, solid, vapid or just plain trolling? :eek:

How about some facts to work with along with the rhetoric? What level were you playing; would you care to share an AAR; what specifically did the AI do that concerns you?

Perhaps, just for context, you could tell us what other wargames you like.

[rleete]

Your post is extremely (purposely?) vague. You state "numerous problems", yet fail to list even one. You mention bad AI, but once again fail to give any specific examples. You characteristically state it has flaws, but never outline a single case. All earmarks of trolling.

I, for one, like this game. Many others have expressed similar or even more glowing praises. Sure, there are some problems. Yes, there have been a few (admittedly minor) bugs found. Remember, this is a BETA release, and Hubert is working hard to correct any discrepancies. He has been very open to suggestions, concerns and possible coding errors.

Now, that said, I am not a beta tester, nor am I employed by Hubert, Fury Software or BTS. This is a simple observation, based on playing the demo, and posting on and reading this forum. BTW, this is also true of CM, and is not an isolated incident. It is the way they do business.

So, my question is this: Do you want to be more specific, and give concrete examples, or are you just another troll? Have you played with the default settings, or are you trying to win it all with no real effort on your part? Have you tried using the higher difficulty levels, and given any bonus to the AI?

As it has been previously stated, this game was designed primarily for PBEM play. But as an experienced wargamer, of both computer and board games, I have yet to beat the AI on the harder settings.

So, once again, state your case. Give us some real examples. Play the demo and tell us what exactly you think needs changed, tweaked, or outright overhauled. Otherwise, go away, don't buy the game, and ignore this forum. Trolls, we neither need, want, nor enjoy.

[Straha]

What R_Leete said. Also, it seems to me that Galatine has no notion of what a beta is. For what is the complaint that "the game went beta way before its time" even supposed to mean?

Straha

[ May 26, 2002, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[SuperTed]

Originally posted by Galatine:

Then again, if the makers aren't even open to the possibilty this game needs a _drastic_ overhaul, I have a feeling you're going to hear about them from many others very soon.

Galatine,

I have no problem with you expressing your opinion here. As a matter of fact, I applaud it and hope you will share more.

However, I do have a question for you. The comment I quoted above seems to run counter to what you said only four days ago. On May 22, you said, "Thanks for the word Hubert! It's good to know right off the bat that you guys are open and active regarding input." To refresh your memory, that quote is from this thread. Am I to assume your opinion about Hubert's responsiveness to input has changed? If so, could you please elaborate?

I am not asking this to be confrontational. Rather, I am hoping you can share some useful information that could improve the game and the community.

Thank you.

[BloodyBucket]

I agree with a couple of things from the original post, that the AI seems to get better combat results than I do and that many gamers won't like this game.

That said, I don't mind if the computer gets better results if it balances the game (and it is possible this observation is simply sour grapes on my part). As others have pointed out, there is no substitute for a human player, but I have played countless games of Combat Mission against the AI and enjoyed it, despite the fact that a good human player is a more capable opponent. The SC difficulty settings seem to be up to the task of providing a challenge, and that is what I want the AI to do. I don't expect human play from the AI, and I am pleasantly surprised at the variety of moves the AI seems to take in the demo.

SC is not going to be every gamer's cup of tea. The fact that it is designed to be playable rather than detailed is going to rub a lot of gamers the wrong way, and the lack of spectacular graphic whiz-bangery is going to put off others. That doesn't bother me at all, since I am happily in the category that enjoys the level of detail and playing time that SC delivers.

As to SC needing a drastic overhaul, I would agree if you want to change the design philosophy of the game. I hope that it only gets tweaked and remains a clean, playable and relatively simple game. Hubert has been extremely responsive to input, even if the answer is sometimes an honest "It ain't gonna happen".

The beta demo is too short. It is probably intended to be too short to be satisfying. I would guess that one reason to put out a beta demo is to expose the flaws in the design and seek constructive input. To pretend that a beta product is flawless would be silly.

There has been a dearth of strategic level WWII games, and now it looks like there will be several coming out soon. Some will likely have greater scope and detail than SC, and that is a good thing, because there will be more choices for individual tastes. Even if I didn't enjoy the idea of a short, playable WWII European theater game, I would hope that SC sells like hotcakes and other designers revisit the theme rather than bash the game because there were things in it I want changed.

[windstarz]

People will always complain no matter what. I think the game plays well considering what Hubert was trying to accomplish. It is a simple game but against human opponents it will be fun imo.

The Ai isnt that bad from what I have seen. I have given the Ai the best settings and it was very tough. If one tries to attack Russia with the highest difficulty settings the Allies collapse quickly.

A beta is for finding flaws and getting feedback. I think that is what it is accomplishing. I have had no crashes and have played numerous games.

[Boozer]

Concerning AI combat results seeming to be better than yours, I think we can chalk that up to the AI being clever enough to keep units under HQ attachment

The AI plays pretty solid in all my 30? 40? tries at the game (man it's addicting!).

As far as the sub issue goes (I know, another thread), they do get spotted & sunk very easily without FOW turned on, but with fog of war on they wreak havoc in the Atlantic. It's easy to draw the royal navy into the channel & kill it with 4 or 5 air units and the navy on station, then the kreigsmarine can have a field day. Sub research then becomes real scary for the allies.

Try it with fog of war turned on, it's great.

Attacking Russia eary gives a glimpse of combat on the steppes, I love it, racing to resources before Russia can put the HQs & air into play. I get the feel of a perfect mix of tension, grabbing land, worrying about raising tech, crippling the enemy hard in one aspect and taking advantage of it. This will be a great HTH game. Plenty of strategy required.

Congratulations on a fine, fine game Hubert. I cant imagine what you had to go through to get this completed, we're all envious .

There is only 1 real issue that needs addressed, ADD ONE MORE YEAR TO THE BETA!!

[Ron]

Regards the original poster, if you feel you have constructive criticism after your playings then why not contribute? If you are only sour grapes because SC isn't the "game" you wanted it to be then your post can only be viewed as a trolling rant.

There is a distinct line here. I recently designed my first real scenario for CMBO and offered it up for testing and feedback. After taking into consideration all the comments given, if I tried to apply them all then it wouldn't be the scenario I tried to design anymore!

I had a few issues and concerns with the Demo also, but to be honest the more I played and 'learned' the game the less those concerns became and the more I enjoyed it. Not saying you should throw critical thinking out the window but try instead to see the game as a whole and what the designer has tried to accomplish then work from there. No question the AI isn't up to human standards, but in what game is it? Does it do a credible job most of the time? I think one of the important things to be learned from the Beta feedback is trying to tighten up 'loopholes' in the system, ie gamers, sneaky buggers that they are, invading America successfully early on or romping through Europe 'scot-free' without having significant penalties in place to compensate for those actions.

From a 'realistic' POV I thought initially subs in SC were woefully weak also but after several playings the interaction of MPPs as a whole and the role subs play in that seems 'OK'. There could be room for improvement still, but taken in light of what is in place already and not breaking it. I think that responsibility lays with the designer and testers, and I hope they take the feedback with that in mind and made SC a stronger SC and not what everyone wants it to be.

I think the Demo gives us a good taste of what is in store in the complete game without 'giving it away'. Enough for us to decide whether it is our cup of tea or not anyways, and if not then move on, it isn't the end of the world. Another man's take, for what it's worth....

Ron

[Agua]

Um ... its a beta. I'm not going to attack you the way a lot of folks in here have, but I'm sure Hubert would genuinely appreciate your pointing out specific problems you've noted. After all, that's what an open beta is for: it allows the developer to improve the game.

[Herr Kruger]

Originally posted by Galatine:

My 2 dozen or so games tell me this game went beta _way_ before it's time. I really wonder how for long and by how many it wasplaytested by.

I will admit that at first blush I enjoyed the game but on looking deeper and with more play, there have been _numerous_ problems that leave me feeling frustrated and disappointed with the gameplay.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it honestly seems that a very poor AI has been girded up with battle outcomes whose chances of success change depend not on situation, but on how badly the AI plays.

And the AI plays VERY badly.

That's not even the tip of iceberg with my problems but I won't even try to list them all here.

Then again, if the makers aren't even open to the possibilty this game needs a _drastic_ overhaul, I have a feeling you're going to hear about them from many others very soon.

The beta game is too short to enjoy but too long to hide it's flaws.

Back to Loch with you Nessy...

An incredibly vague and general post. You mention problems but speak of no specifics. You won't take the time to list any of them specifically, beyond saying the AI plays badly, and you also offer no suggestions for improvement. Perhaps you should make more of an effort in a post before you even post... say, like a few minutes thought. It's not hard... perhaps for you it is though...

[FuChu]

Galatine, You went off about problems to do with the SC beta and the developers. For such a long winded post I do not see any information! So is your post a beta version? Hmmm I think your post needs a drastic overhaul .