Review @ AceGamez

[NoxSpartana]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

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

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by NoxSpartana:

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

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

[whaco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

I actually enjoy reading your posts Michael but you are correct in that without the game in hand I did not have too much interest at the time in your tactics thread. Give me a month or so after release and that will probably change.

[NoxSpartana]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

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

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

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

[Cpl Steiner]

It is true that practically every other game out there has a tutorial mode, because players don't like having to wade through the manual in order to get into the game. That's just a sad reality, and something BFC should have realised if they wanted to expand their audience.

As for the reviewer expecting the enemy to shift position and try to flank you, this is clearly due to expectations raised by games such as Ubisoft's "Brothers In Arms" franchise, which sold this as a realism feature. In some ways I think the reviewer has a point - but games like these have very small highly scripted levels. The enemy flanks you due to clever scripting based on where you put your men, not clever AI.

I suppose all this only goes to show how hard it is to persuade non-wargamers that they might actually enjoy a wargame.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

It is true that practically every other game out there has a tutorial mode, because players don't like having to wade through the manual in order to get into the game. That's just a sad reality, and something BFC should have realised if they wanted to expand their audience.

I think there's a difference, though, when it comes to a game like CM. I think there would be great value in a series of missions that introduce concepts that a new player may not have. Unless the manual has a "basic tactics" section, just knowing that the commands do and what units are available won't point you in a successful direction, really.

As for the reviewer expecting the enemy to shift position and try to flank you, this is clearly due to expectations raised by games such as Ubisoft's "Brothers In Arms" franchise, which sold this as a realism feature. In some ways I think the reviewer has a point - but games like these have very small highly scripted levels. The enemy flanks you due to clever scripting based on where you put your men, not clever AI.

I suppose all this only goes to show how hard it is to persuade non-wargamers that they might actually enjoy a wargame.

The heavily scripted nature is both a great strength and a great weakness. It does allow for providing the appearance of a smart opponent, unfortunately that means that you only have so many ways to approach the situation. Until someone can develop a competent, freeform AI opponent (and, uh, then hello Skynet) there's a place for both I think. It always amazes me how many people think that most gamers play online when it's exactly the opposite. Most people play against - and prefer to play against - the AI opponents, so there's definitely value in having an opponent who can provide heavily scripted, but intense challenges as well as those that don't feel as "creative" but can handle more situations.

I think it'd be easier to convince "other" gamers that a wargame can be fun if there were some scenarios that let them get acclimated without being overloaded. Basic training for wargaming. And not just "Do this and you win" type of scenarios, but also short scenarios that illustrate being on the receiving end.

Anyway, guess I've rambled in this thread long enough. Time to go to sleep

[Steiner14]

@USF Jaguar

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

Thank'S a lot, mister. That was the only point in the review, that confused me. And to write such a sentence in a review, while not writing about the behaviour of the pixeltruppen, that is dependent on the orders they receive, but instead trying to create at the reader the impression, the tac-AI were simply to stupid to react to incoming fire, IMO is - at best - stupid.

Now i also don't understand why BFC gives a preview out to such idiots. Yes idiots. In germnan we have the saying "Perlen vor die Säue werfen" (thrwoing pearls into a mass of pigs).

And it just fits. Where on earth are we living, that a company, that produces a manual that has the right to be called a manual, is being criziced for that?

Or that the reviewer complains about jeeps without passengers - while not mentioning the highly sophisiticated spotting system? In CMx1 it was a problem, that the passengers of vehicles were identified, when the vehicle was identified. Maybe this is something that has been even improved - and this reviewer is capable to turn it into an negative aspect?

Reading this "review" again and with all the good and valid aspects of CM-players here, i find this review extremely ignorant.

A reviewer should have the possibility to differentiate between his very personal tastes and the objective judgement about realism or modelling realism.

@Cameroon

You wouldn't want your units to retreat from their position because of incoming artillery on their own because, damnit, they should be following orders! Your orders may suck, but hey, those are the orders

Very true and because there is hot iron flying through the air. So jumping up and running around is something a RTS-player may expect, but nevertheless it's wrong. This reviewer once again turns a obviously correct behaviour into a negative aspect...

The more i think about it, the more incredible this "review" gets.

[Panzer76]

It could be that the reviwer has not done the best of work, but keep in mind, that unlike 99% of you, he HAS played the game, and you havent.

So just perhaps, he has a bit more background to comment on the game, than you guys. I see this all over the place, fanboys that get all upset because theur fav game does not get great reviews. Sometime its the reviwer, but more often than not, its the game.

[panzermartin]

Madmatt's sounds scored a nice 10/10! This guy has talent

How can a CM game score the lowest in gameplay? Doesnt make sense, I think he didnt put much effort to understand the mechanics of the game.

[Sirocco]

I think the fanboy comment has some validity, but you also have to take into account with any review what the reviewers tastes are. Aside from bugs and other technical issues the review is his personal opinion. In that sense it's a useful review for BFC because it gives an insight into a different gaming mindset.

[Sequoia]

RE: Lack of a tutorial; is the "Training Center" in game or not? It seems all those talking about a lack of a tutorial are missing this point.

[Steiner14]

@Panzer76

A fanboyish behaviour would be based on feelings, not on facts.

In contrast to the "reviewer" i named certain hard facts where CMx1 already shines - not one of these important aspects was mentioned by the reviewer.

So either they disappeared in the new engine, which would turn the beta-testers into liars, inventing things that are not there, or the reviewer simply has no clue, what are important aspects for a realistic tactical wargame.

[Dr. Zoidberg]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

RE: Lack of a tutorial; is the "Training Center" in game or not? It seems all those talking about a lack of a tutorial are missing this point.

Yeah, have not had a response about that since it was posted on the first page here..

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

It could be that the reviwer has not done the best of work, but keep in mind, that unlike 99% of you, he HAS played the game, and you havent.

So just perhaps, he has a bit more background to comment on the game, than you guys. I see this all over the place, fanboys that get all upset because theur fav game does not get great reviews. Sometime its the reviwer, but more often than not, its the game.

Oh please, I'm no fanboy :-p I wouldn't listen to a reviewer who gave bad marks to a manual transmission automobile if he didn't know how to drive a manual, either! That doesn't make me a "fanboy" of manual transmission cars any more than weighting a game review by how much the reviewer knows about the subject matter does.

[dan/california]

My God they need to get the game out before various forum inhabitants go completely around the bend. Far too late in my case of course, just ask my wife.

Just think though this time next week we will have the game in hand to argue over! YEAH

Then the inevitable the Syrians are too strong, no you just stink threads can start.

[MikoyanPT]

The reviewers this days give high ratings for RTS games like Company of Heroes or C&C Tiberium Wars, and judge every other starategy games in comparison.

Has i don´t like point and click eye candy RTS, their opinion doesn´t mean crap to me.

I don´t see a worthy reference to the ballistic and damage sistem in CM:SF. So i dont care if the "Protoss", the insectoid aliens, "NOD" or "GDI" don´t make a horde of bots in they "soldier factories" and try to flank you, and i am kind of fed up of seeing a tiger blow up every 10 hand grenades trown whith clockwise precision. I miss the protoss knights in starcraft with their shield cloaks and titanium blades tough.

So the reviewers don´t like ToW or CM series and love Company of Heroes ?

Fine by me, the demo of CoH almost made me puke (yes i killed the bad guys on first try but so what), and i can´t tell how many hours i played custom battles in CM:BB and CM:AK.

Has the reviewer honestly said, he didn´t play any CM series title. So for a point and click RTS specialist he gave a very good review to CM:SF.

Company of Heroes received many game of the year nominations and i still don´t like the game.

People who play CM are diferent, a small minority, maybe CM:SF will attract new people but it will not became mainstream.

So wath, i like being part of a minority !

[MarkEzra]

Since the reviewer states he is not into military games his comments are a bit like the guy who only eats hot dogs review of a 5 star French restaurant. Good if you like hot dogs.

[NoxSpartana]

Originally posted by MikoyanPT:

The reviewers this days give high ratings for RTS games like Company of Heroes or C&C Tiberium Wars, and judge every other starategy games in comparison.

Has i don´t like point and click eye candy RTS, their opinion doesn´t mean crap to me.

I don´t see a worthy reference to the ballistic and damage sistem in CM:SF. So i dont care if the "Protoss", the insectoid aliens, "NOD" or "GDI" don´t make a horde of bots in they "soldier factories" and try to flank you, and i am kind of fed up of seeing a tiger blow up every 10 hand grenades trown whith clockwise precision. I miss the protoss knights in starcraft with their shield cloaks and titanium blades tough.

So the reviewers don´t like ToW or CM series and love Company of Heroes ?

Fine by me, the demo of CoH almost made me puke (yes i killed the bad guys on first try but so what), and i can´t tell how many hours i played custom battles in CM:BB and CM:AK.

Has the reviewer honestly said, he didn´t play any CM series title. So for a point and click RTS specialist he gave a very good review to CM:SF.

Company of Heroes received many game of the year nominations and i still don´t like the game.

People who play CM are diferent, a small minority, maybe CM:SF will attract new people but it will not became mainstream.

So wath, i like being part of a minority !

Stop bashing Starcraft and CoH, both are fantastic games, but of an entirely different mold.

CnC Tiberium Wars though, is however, a piece of garbage.

[ChrisND]

[George MC]

Originally posted by dan/california:

Just think though this time next week we will have the game in hand to argue over! YEAH

Then the inevitable the Syrians are too strong, no you just stink threads can start.

You must be a visionary

I'm currently having my arse wiped across the battlefield by a load of milita mech riflemen! They just won't lay down and let my high tech weapons systems drive over em!!!

What CMSF does illustrate is that the modern battlefield for infantry is one helluva more lethal place compared to sixty odd years ago. Top tip - don't rush

Cheers fur noo

george

[George MC]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

RE: Lack of a tutorial; is the "Training Center" in game or not? It seems all those talking about a lack of a tutorial are missing this point.

I know some training scenarios were done - not sure due to time pressures etc whether they have/will make the game. I assume they will do. Everyone is pretty busy doing last minute stuff hence the lack of response to your question.

Guess you'll find out for sure, if not before on the 27th

Cheers fur noo

George

[Mace]

Originally posted by pad152:

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.

Well real life tactical combat doesn't come with tool tips so once again we can applaud Battlefront's attention to detail by not providing them.

[ChrisND]

Actually CMBO had a tutorial scenario, and that was how I learned to play. It was pretty good too.

[molotov_billy]

Originally posted by Mace:

Well real life tactical combat doesn't come with tool tips so once again we can applaud Battlefront's attention to detail by not providing them.

Though it doesn't come with tool tips, it DOES come with three or so months of something called "basic training." Unfortunately, I haven't had that.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by molotov_billy:

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

Well real life tactical combat doesn't come with tool tips so once again we can applaud Battlefront's attention to detail by not providing them.

Though it doesn't come with tool tips, it DOES come with three or so months of something called "basic training." Unfortunately, I haven't had that. </font>