Review @ AceGamez

[JaguarUSF]

http://www.acegamez.co.uk/reviews_pc/Combat_Mission_Shock_Force_PC.htm

I think he realistically states some of the problems that new players will have (lack of a tutorial and no tool-tips) with the game, stuff that I didn't really have an issue with because I am familiar with previous titles.

He also comments about the AI, and I think the issues lies with the fact that the computer player is less aggressive than in most RTS games. It does take some time for the AI to get going at the beginning of a scenario. The strategic AI is all hard-coded, so it's as good as the scenario designer wants it to be. I guess he never ran into (or didn't play enough) to experience multiple AI plans that vary their strategy. Most of the scenario missions have the AI on the defensive, so they are stationary as he mentions, although it's by design rather than poor AI.

An inaccuracy: there is deformation, although you can't really see it unless you are up close.

[Fugazzi]

Now I'm worried. I thought there was going to be some kind of tutorial.

[Steiner14]

A strange review.

On one hand a tutorial is missing, because the game is so hard to learn, the first missions in the campaign are hard, too - and on the other hand the AI is way to passive?

Could it be, it is the reviewer, that just expects usual gamey and stupid behaviour of the AI and is confused, since CM acts differently?

Unfortunately, I have never seen the AI push forward and try to do things other than kill all my units or wait for a draw (which happens after a set number of turns).

Hell, what a stupid enemy! He kills my troops but doesn't move out of his cover?

Enemy units just lie in wait for my men to get close enough, then open fire. The AI never does anything to take me by surprise, such as sending troops round behind mine and flanking my position.

But my troops die anyway. Phew!

It's not just the enemy AI that's the problem though; units don't react as they should. If you issue a move order, the unit moves approximately to where you told it to go, but if the unit then spots enemy units or comes under fire, it doesn't change course, return fire or dash to the first bit of cover it can find - it just continues on its merry way, as ordered.

Sounds strange indeed. I thought there are orders to move cautiously that lead to search cover under incoming fire?

And the part about the arty barrage, where the reviewer expects the pixeltruppen starting to run around like startled chicken is also quite funny.

Funny that he criticizes that no plates are falling off the vehicles, when hit - but doesn't mention the wonderful CM-penetration and damage system? If you have never played CM, would you tell about this, or about the important aspects of realism?

And he doesn't even mention, that the real CM-fun is, to play against human oponents. He obviously only played the AI.

IMO the priorities of the reviewer are very strange and seem to fit more into the playstation-category.

[Salkin]

To be fair MANY players play mostly vs AI (that includes me) and ,being a somewhat below average armchair general, that's fine with me. I enjoys playing vs AI immensly (especially on the old CM random maps).

As for the moving troops that wont take cover when they come under fire, that sounds very strange. I thought they did this even in the old Combat Mission series.

On the bright side it seems that Madmatt, Dan and crew has done some great work with sounds and graphics (the units especially).

He gave it a 10(!) in the sound department .

//Salkin

[ParaBellum]

I think his comments regarding the lack of a proper ingame tutorial are understandable and will, if indeed true, IMO be a major source of criticism from other reviewers and gamers, too.

[ July 20, 2007, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Fugazzi]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

A strange review.

On one hand a tutorial is missing, because the game is so hard to learn, the first missions in the campaign are hard, too - and on the other hand the AI is way to passive?

A mission could be hard without an agressive AI. What if a has you deep into an city facing lots of enemies. The AI could be passive(ie he sticks to defensive positions) and yet the mission really difficult.

I think that his disappointment with the AI is that it isn't as agressive as other RTS's. Although traditionally those AIs aren't very smart about their attacks.

I'm surprised there aren't any tooltips. Or a simple tutorial.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

I thought they were including that campaign what with the training centre? Can't recall the name of it, but I kind of assumed that would serve as a tutorial.

[Fugazzi]

I remember reading about that too... Here is the link from the Paradox Interactive news here

The main addition is a brand new second tutorial campaign, which will take the player through some base camp training for his Stryker Brigade Combat Team. Accurate details and maps from the Yakima Training Center at Fort Lewis in central Washington have been used for its creation.

[Capt. Toleran]

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that this guy is self-admittedly not a mil-gamer, at least not to the level we expect. CMxanything is going to be a complex beast for someone without that interest to drive their participation in the game, and they likely won't appreciate (or even want) the kind of complexity we demand. I know, because I've tried to get perfectly intelligent and game-oriented people into our little hobby here, but to no avail. Not one permanent (or even semi-permanent) convert out of 8, and I'm not too bad at selling ideas

It's like your salesperson talking to your IT guy or gal about what they like to do on the computer. There's a world of difference in tastes. For most

[Capt. Toleran]

Oh, and some parts of his review seem just wrong -- Like the part about there not being deformable terrain, just a "scorched circle?" If he got that wrong, what else did he miss? Kinda makes me wonder if this is like the book reviewer who just reads the first chapter

EDIT -- LOL, he even says there is a random battle generator!!!! Did anyone else even read this whole thing? Maybe he just stole his info from Wikipedia or something. Credibility lost!

[molotov_billy]

Toleran, as far as I know there is a random battle generator - there just isn't a random map generator.

Insofar as his review goes, it actually sounds exactly how I felt when first playing cmak/cmbb. I know you guys love the game system and have no problems with it, but there ARE issues for a lot of people, and sometimes it takes a pair of fresh eyes to spot them for you. I do hope that the developer learns from these issues in the future, as they seem to always be the same with each game.

[JaguarUSF]

Troops do actively search for cover in CMSF, unless they are given a "fast" or "quick" order...maybe he was trying to be quick about it

[dan/california]

He talks about the big manual like it is a bad thing. The whole point of this game is that it is deep and detailed enough that it needs a manual that size. It strikes as a case of just not getting it. He obviously did not read said manual to start with, not even the first thirty pages. CMSF does not appear to reward that approach.

But anyone who want to follow the toss the manual and play approach plese email me about an online game on August 5th or so.

[dima]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

IMO the priorities of the reviewer are very strange and seem to fit more into the playstation-category.

Very True.

And then here comes the question - why does Battlefront give preview copies to every Joe Sixpack reviewer out there? Why not do some filtering to make sure reviewers understand the concept of the gender and are thorough with their review. IMHO 5 credible reviews published in the press are a lot better than 50 reviews done by anyone and their grandma - because it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the whole thing.

You don't see Mazda Protege being reviewed in "Best Retirement Homes Magazine" and you don't see Lincoln Towncar reviewed in "Today's Ricer Magazine".

[ July 20, 2007, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: dima ]

[Severin]

So, assuming that there is no tutorial, how long till someone makes one? Or more to the point, how long until a group of people make a really good one?

[Sirocco]

I think the game would benefit - if it doesn't already have it - with a commented tutorial that doesn't just explain how things work, but why they work like that. You have to shake some players free from concepts of combat picked up from RTS and FPS games, where the defenders, for example, are much more mobile. The idea that the defender sits in place and, well, defends, is an anathema to these people.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I think the game would benefit - if it doesn't already have it - with a commented tutorial that doesn't just explain how things work, but why they work like that. You have to shake some players free from concepts of combat picked up from RTS and FPS games, where the defenders, for example, are much more mobile. The idea that the defender sits in place and, well, defends, is an anathema to these people.

The new AI plans allow for a defender to be more mobile than in previous CM incarnations.

I'd be more interested in a tactical manual that deals with how two humans might best deal with each other in an attack-defend situation, though. I started a thread on tactics a couple of weeks ago and it drew little attention. I don't think many people are all that interested, honestly, in deep analysis, at least not without the game in hand at any rate.

There is a danger to knowing too much about what goes on under the hood too, at least from a suspension of disbelief perspective.

[Sirocco]

Well, what I meant was that on a general basis RTS and FPS games have had a more mobile defender. I think as wargamers we don't appreciate mainstream gamers view on tactics, which is more undisciplined. If you're coming to CMSF from that background the idea that the defender would sit and wait in ambush rather than maneuver is alien. You start blaming the AI, as in this review.

[Capt. Toleran]

I think it's just that we don't know what to expect. The changes in tactics were extreme in some ways from CMBO to CMBB, we just don't know what to expect from human opponents yet in this unknown scenario.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

I think the game would benefit - if it doesn't already have it - with a commented tutorial that doesn't just explain how things work, but why they work like that. You have to shake some players free from concepts of combat picked up from RTS and FPS games, where the defenders, for example, are much more mobile. The idea that the defender sits in place and, well, defends, is an anathema to these people.

The new AI plans allow for a defender to be more mobile than in previous CM incarnations.

I'd be more interested in a tactical manual that deals with how two humans might best deal with each other in an attack-defend situation, though. I started a thread on tactics a couple of weeks ago and it drew little attention. I don't think many people are all that interested, honestly, in deep analysis, at least not without the game in hand at any rate.

There is a danger to knowing too much about what goes on under the hood too, at least from a suspension of disbelief perspective. </font>

[NoxSpartana]

The lack of a tutorial bothers me, but it's hardly the end of the world, it'll just make the game harder to learn. It will however, limit the size to which this community can grow, which is BAD!

The enemy AI issue however, is very worrying. Thankfully there will always be online play

Even more worrying is the tactical AI... I thought out-of-eight said it was good???

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by NoxSpartana:

The lack of a tutorial bothers me, but it's hardly the end of the world, it'll just make the game harder to learn. It will however, limit the size to which this community can grow, which is BAD!

The enemy AI issue however, is very worrying. Thankfully there will always be online play

Even more worrying is the tactical AI... I thought out-of-eight said it was good???

Don't confuse Tactical AI with Strategic AI. The tac AI carries out your orders AND the OPFOR orders, the Strat AI figures out what those orders should be (go here, go there, etc.)

And, as has been brought up, it can actually a good thing if the AI on the defense doesn't simply abandon it's defensive positions. If you played the CMx1 titles then you know how stupid the strat AI could be on the defense, abandoning strong positions to try and take back one small flag that wasn't worth the cost.

CM isn't a game of annihilation, which most RTS games are. If the reviewer is more of an RTS player (which it sounds like might be the case, note the lead in comment "I've never played any of the Combat Mission games before"), then the Strat AI's restraint (remember, it can't replace those troops that it loses after all) is quite likely a good thing.

Even though I'm not worried about the AI - it will NEVER be as strong an opponent as even mediocre human opponent can be, just the nature of the beast - I expect it to hand me quite a few losses until I improve my tactics.

[benpark]

Spelling games with a "z" is gamey.

[pad152]

Huh?

There are a few oddities though - enemy jeeps seem to have no drivers or other men inside, yet they can still shoot and drive around the map.

Strange don't you think :confused:

Was this an issue of not being zoomed in enough?

As well as no tutorial, the game's interface has no tool tips

None of the earlier CM games had a tutorial or tool tips. But does this one need one? Modern warfare and weapon systems are more complex along with the new interface, so does this one need one? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by pad152:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

As well as no tutorial, the game's interface has no tool tips

None of the earlier CM games had a tutorial or tool tips. But does this one need one? Modern warfare and weapon systems are more complex along with the new interface, so does this one need one? I guess we'll find out soon enough. </font>