Theatre of War AAR at SimHQ...

[Moon]

I must have missed it, Lars. Obviously the big explosions don't know friend from foe so if you are too close to arty or air or have a missed HE shell land close to your own guys, that can hurt. But I don't know if small arms friendly fire is modelled, although I suspect it isn't. Since there are no night engagements and the ranges are usually around 500 meters, probably not.

Martin

[Lars]

Ok, thanks. The big ones should be good enough.

Although, a Mexican firing squad situation might be interesting...

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Moon:

RS_Colonel, the list you have made of omissions is pretty much complete (and the jury is in fact still out on the engagement ranges at least). You make it sound like dozens and dozens of must-have features have been removed from the game, but we're talking about those 3 really and nothing else.

These three are big ones for me. One concerns infantry and their usage, one concerns tanks and their usage, and one concerns the "scissoirs paper rock" system of combined arms. So basically every element of the game that is important for me has one major realism omission.

There are more, like infantry not riding on tanks or no smoke grenade cover (last I heard) - which are minor complaints but still reduce the amount of realistic tactics possible.

And then look what we have at the other side of the equation - individual soldiers, recrewable equipment, realistic damage models, individual penetration holes, animated air power, a campaign system with a full RPG element and and and... in summing up: a WW2 real-time game much more realistic than anything else comparable out there. I think that warrants the "freaking big news" indeed.

Sorry Moon, but more and more I must question if you're still interested in "graphics over realism" or now the other way round.

Individual soldiers is a realism bonus, I give you that. Recrewable equipment may or may not be...if untrained soldiers can crew tanks that's less realism, not more. Realistic damage models are important but CM Players expect that as a given.

Individual penetration holes, animated air power is VISUAL stuff...how you count that as a plus for realism I don't understand. It may be a plus for immersion, but not for realism.

Campaign System with RPG Elements isn't necessarily a realism feature either.

So out of your list, "much more realistic than anything else comparable out there" are only two things - detailed damage model and individual soldiers. But that depends with what you compare...Sudden Strike RTS or Combat Mission.

Disappointement: One of the mistakes you make IMO is that you focus on individual features missing but lose the big picture out of sight. TOW is not the kind of sandbox game like CM was (I am borrowing this phrase from Matt who used it recently in an internal discussion, similar to what is going on here actually). It focuses on a limited scope of things and does what it provides extremely well.

Sorry, but no. You can't sell me that. The game is certain not "limited in scope" as far as campaigns are concerned. If you mean "limited in scope" by focusing in platoon-sized engagements, then you are correct - but doing them "extremely well", for me, would mean giving the infantry and tanks their historical tactics, advantages and disadvantages. Doing stuff well, for me, doesn't mean doing it with pretty animation but omitting major parts, like standard german infantry equipment from the list (50mm Mortar integral to every platoon etc.).

You're actually misquoting us if you say that we try to rationalize why something isn't important and that makes it sound ridiculous. Nobody is saying that mortars aren't important. Or that entering buildings wasn't a part of WW2 tactics.

I said the exact opposite several times now, and I will keep repeating it as long as people will keep misquoting us. But their omission doesn't make the missions that the game provides any less enjoyable, nor, inherently, any less realistic *for that given mission*.

If the given mission is to attack a village, as per your AAR, then historically the germans would have brought mortars, and the russians would have fortified a few houses to defend from. This is what happens in CMBB, and I expect that to be realistic. Otherwise why did you code your TacAI to behave like that?

Of course, you can also construct tank missions that do not go much beyond 500 meters - that happened in some circumstances. But that wasn't the norm. So you're saying your game is realistic, as long as it only portrays some very weird unusual engagements.

Or did *every single battle* feature mortars? Or people fighting from buildings?

Again, this is a question vs Majority vs. Minority "situations".

No, not every single battle featured mortars. Not every battle had people fight from buildings. Not every battle had more than 500m engagement ranges for the tank guns, or used a smoke screen to cover advances.

But since the 50mm mortar and similar sized units were integral parts of infantry platoons, since many battles evolved around attack and defense of villages, and since the russian steppes are ideal tank terrain for long range shots, your game doesn't portray well what really happened in a realistic way. The only way you can claim "realism" is if you reduce the avalable missions to all be some kind of "goofy, unusual" engagements where the germans forgot their mortars in the base.

As for those people that want a game realistic "down to every detail" - that's ok, I want that, too, but don't forget in the meantime to be happy about the 90% of things that you get while you whine about the 10% that you don't. It took us three games to refine the CM engine and move from, say, 80% to 90%. It now takes us several more years to make a new engine which will allow us to add a few more %. You're expecting TOW to deliver 110% right out of the box.

No, I'm expecting TOW to deliver a 80% realistic tank/infantry tactics game out of the box, but currently it seems to be at 60% realism and 110% graphics.

As for the add-on, nobody has answered because nobody knows at this point. There will be free patches for the game without a doubt, and I bet some of those will be adding free content. But there will also be paid add-ons and expansions, and don't be surprised if we're going to stick the bigger improvements in there. At the same time, you should also not be surprised if there won't be any add-ons and improvements at all when TOW doesn't sell well because people complain that you cannot hide behind some interior furniture in the game...

Well, that's not at all encouraging. If you push major improvements ("realism fixes") back for a possible addon, don't expect people to buy the game beforehand without even knowing if it will ever reach a similar level of realism as CC or CM. Of course that's a catch22 because if people don't buy the game there won't be an addon.

Again, look, I can't blame you for going where the money is - but stop selling the CM crowd this game as the next coming. For a CM Wargamer, it isn't, and the continous "really, it doesn't matter what we had to leave out because the game plays well without" makes you guys sound uncredible.

I guess I'll remove myself from this particular board. Wake me when CMx2 WW2 is around the door. And next time, do me a favor and spare us the hype.

[Battlefront.com]

RSColonel,

Again, look, I can't blame you for going where the money is - but stop selling the CM crowd this game as the next coming.

We are not doing that. A few of you are trying to make it that way and then are getting pissed off when the answers aren't to your liking.

For a CM Wargamer, it isn't, and the continous "really, it doesn't matter what we had to leave out because the game plays well without" makes you guys sound uncredible.

Only if you insist on putting words in our mouths. We are NOT saying that ToW is everything to all people. We are NOT saying that it is a "CM killer" in terms of realism. We are NOT saying that Grog's will love the game as if it is CM. We are NOT saying that once you buy ToW you won't care if CM:WW2 ever comes out. You are pretending as if we are saying these things, yet we are not.

Look, it is very simple. Take the game for what it is supposed to be or walk away. It is as simple as that. All we can tell you is that a room full of HARDCORE CM GROGS, some of whom flew from 1/2 way around the world to (unknowingly) see the game, LOVED IT. Does that mean they loved it because it is the same as CM? Couldn't be, because ToW isn't. Yet they loved it anyway. Why is that so impossible for you to believe? Because 50mm mortars aren't in the game?

C'mon... can you small handful of party pooper guys give it a rest already? ToW is a fantastic game, it is probably the 2nd most realistic 3D tactical game out there, and the handful of CM'ers who have seen the game think it's great. Why oh WHY can't this be good enough?

Steve

[syaped]

Personally I think it's currently impossible technology wise to create a game as realistic, especiialy scale wise, everyone seems to want, while maintaining the level of detail and quality they have with ToW.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

ToW is a fantastic game, it is probably the 2nd most realistic 3D tactical game out there,...

I'll be giving it a rest after this post, but this is clearly where the contradiction lies.

On one hand you are not modelling features that are crucial to realistic tactics of the period (smoke, tank-riding, houses, long range armor duels), or part of the period equipment every unit had (mortars), on the other hand you're claiming you are making the "second most realistic 3d tactical game out there".

So which one is it then? You can't claim you're making a very realistic 3d tactical wargame but make key omissions and allow unrealistic stuff (infantry crews tanks) to happen.

It may be realistic compared to other RTS, but compared to other 3d wargames like Full Spectrum Warrior for example? They at least have the proper equipment and tactics included.

It may be a fun game, it may be an immersive game, but it has true gaps in it's "realism" so selling it as the next best thing to CM in realism is just incredible.

I'm outta here, don't bother replying. But you guys would do well to take my sentiments serious because I've heard a lot of other internet discussion about this game and the very same points I'm making here (complete with the loss of belief in what Battlefront stands for, which was "gameplay over graphics").

[RMC]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

On one hand you are not modelling features that are crucial to realistic tactics of the period (smoke, tank-riding, houses, long range armor duels), or part of the period equipment every unit had (mortars), on the other hand you're claiming you are making the "second most realistic 3d tactical game out there".

I don't get it. Since when did riding on tanks become a make or break feature? I couldn't do it in Close Combat and while it would have been nice, I understood why it was done and the limits of the game engine at the time.

CM has it but the squad icon magically appears on top of the tank, neatly bypassing the ToW problem with its scale. Given a game this massive and complex it's obvious that tradeoffs have to be made. They've got crew bailing out of tanks. I think that is a little more important than the tank riding bit since as discussed in other threads tank riding wasn't done in contact with the enemy.

I don't have heartburn about the mortars either. It is perfectly plausible to have platoon mortars reserved at company level or higher for some purpose. It is not necessary to actually have them present on the map for them to play a role in the battle. Should they only let you use airpower on maps with airfields?

They've already stated that they are testing with extended tank ranges due to demand from all these people who aren't going to get the game anyway because it doesn't have the correct soviet belt buckles.

I didn't see where they said no smoke. And even if they did, it wouldn't bother me because smoke was not always available. In Close Combat was nearly worthless and so you got used to fighting without it.

So which one is it then? You can't claim you're making a very realistic 3d tactical wargame but make key omissions and allow unrealistic stuff (infantry crews tanks) to happen.

You can't see the forest for the trees for some reason. The infantry model is very detailed. Individual soldiers, ammo tracked to the round. Ballistics for big guns and small. Detailed morale model. WYSIWYG terrain in the 3d maps. This is a huge step from clumps of representative trees.

It may be realistic compared to other RTS, but compared to other 3d wargames like Full Spectrum Warrior for example? They at least have the proper equipment and tactics included.

Full Spectrum Warrior? You're comparing this to a squad-level puzzle game?

It may be a fun game, it may be an immersive game, but it has true gaps in it's "realism" so selling it as the next best thing to CM in realism is just incredible.

What else is there that covers WWII in this detail? ToW fits in between CC and CM in my book at that makes it light years away from those run-of-the-mill RTS games.

I'm outta here, don't bother replying. But you guys would do well to take my sentiments serious because I've heard a lot of other internet discussion about this game and the very same points I'm making here (complete with the loss of belief in what Battlefront stands for, which was "gameplay over graphics").

Buh bye.

All you prophets of doom act like BFC have spent the last five years developing this game and it is some huge betrayal. They didn't and it's not. I don't recall everybody getting their knickers in a twist when they published the T-72 sim or any of the other games they publish now. Why is that?

All they did is ink a publishing agreement and are now in the process of polishing the game for release. The major design decisions were made years ago when nearly everyone on this board was panning the game. I don't see it as anything other than a win win. We get BFC to buff up the game, which I wouldn't expect Ubisoft or anyone else to have bothered to do, and BFC gets revenues that can then be put into developing the various CMx2 titles down the road.

Maybe if they said that CMx2 is being delayed X months because of this I could understand the rancor, but to my knowledge development continues apace and ToW is just another unique offering from BFC.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

It may be realistic compared to other RTS, but compared to other 3d wargames like Full Spectrum Warrior for example? They at least have the proper equipment and tactics included.

LOL, FSW, are you kidding me? Tons of buildings to enter aren't there. Sorry, try again.

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

(complete with the loss of belief in what Battlefront stands for, which was "gameplay over graphics").

Actually, I think the gameplay is what sold them on this game. What you're arguing for seems to be all realism, and gameplay and graphics mean nothing. It seems like you've set up a binary scale of game realism with CM at 1 and everything else at 0 which is just silly.

Why not just try out the demo and see how it feels when you're in the game? That's how I'll evaluate it. If FSW sold you on its "realism" your standards can't be all that high and you might actually enjoy ToW.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

ToW is a fantastic game, it is probably the 2nd most realistic 3D tactical game out there, and the handful of CM'ers who have seen the game think it's great. Why oh WHY can't this be good enough?

Because everybody wants CM's level of detail with this level of graphics.

Tis your own fault, really.

[ComradeP]

Hi guys,

I decided to join in on the discussion, as I've been eagerly anticipating the game since the day it was announced.

Concering RS_Colonel's realism debate, he must've skipped the part of the armchairgeneral interview stating the following (as a reply to a question).

Not really missing, but our main task (and have been asked to do it by 1C) will be to make sure that the game keeps the proper balance between a fun game and a realistic simulation.

In my personal opinion, the tendency to create a "fun" game limits the amount of realism that is included in a game. Granted, there are exceptions, but I use that as my personal rule.

To me, the gripes RS_Colonel notes are important, but I trust that those and other possible errors will be adressed in updates or patches.

This game can't be compared to CM, CC, Blitzkrieg or Sudden Strike, as it offers a truly different experience and a mix between realism and smooth gameplay (the statement that the AI "creates" its own orders based on the situation indicates one of the things that will smoothen gameplay, even though I will probably hit the "pause" button as often as the rest of you).

In reply to crews: I think Sudden Strike II's system of crews wasn't necessarily bad (vehicles were crewed by units) with the problem being that officers could use the vehicles too, it just wasn't all that realistic. Crews bailing out of their vehicles (or at least attempting to do so) is realistic, and a good addition.

To whoever can answer, I have two questions:

1#: When infantry reinforcements show up, do they always show up on foot or is there a possibility to alocate trucks/halftracks for transportation? The question is thus: is transport represented on the map, as I saw trucks and other transport vehicles in some screenshots but not in the AAR.

2#: Are there FO's, or can anyone with a good LOS and a visible target call in airstrikes and artillery? I noticed that in an earlier reply (and the AAR itself) Moon stated that an officer called in airstrikes. I don't know if that was "role playing" or whether the German army's officers of any kind (with a distinctive lack of radio's, as only the US could basically afford to "give everyone a radio") can call in airstrikes. Field telephones should at least show some delay (although command delay is apparantly included, but uses an abstract formula). Forward observer units, if they are not in, should be a very good addition too, as the "RPG" portion of the game would enable them to become better at spotting throughout the battles they fight.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Lars:

Because everybody wants CM's level of detail with this level of graphics.

But that is, forgive me, a totally unrealistic expectation. CMx2 isn't even going to be that. In order to bring more detail and fidelity, they're reducing the scale and also the scope of the game. CMx2 is not going to be CMBO done up with more polys and shiny pixel shaders.

BFC have already indicated how they would approach the tradeoff question. They've already talked about a much narrower focus for CMx2 than ToW and "payware" serialized content.

Are Polish tankettes worth not having 50mm mortars? I guess that's for each person to figure out for themselves. The simple solution is to bypass that issue to make the game east front only in 1944 when those mortars were already withdrawn from service. Then all the mortars are company level and higher and can be rationalized off the map. Would that make it a better product?

[Lars]

Originally posted by RMC:

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

Because everybody wants CM's level of detail with this level of graphics.

But that is, forgive me, a totally unrealistic expectation. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry to see RSColonel has such a black and white view of the world. Apparently a game is either CM or it is Warcraft, with nothing inbetween. Rubbish, of course, but it looks to be very hard held rubish Unfortunately, the Full Spectrum Warrior comment (one of the least realistic games I have ever palyed, and boring as well) seems out of place with his belief structure.

Anyway, the main point is what RMC brought up. Battlefront did not develop this game, it is only publishing it. VERY enthusiastically too. Unlike RSColonel, the hardcore CMers who have actually played the game in person love it. RSColonel, who has not played the game, already hates it. But that is getting of another another tangent. Now, where was I? Oh yes...

Battlefront has a long history of publishing games that do not put realism as the first and foremost design feature. In fact, a game we sold for a while BEFORE CMBO's Beta Demo was even out was anything but realistic. Strategic Command - European Theater was a "wargame light", which although quite detailed emphasized fun over groggy details (like Hearts of Iron). DropTeam has a lot of realisitic features, but it is all made up so can one really call it "realistic"?

So I don't know what the problem supposedly is with us these days since we aren't doing anything differently than we have ever done. Too bad "An Inconvienent Truth" is already trademarked, otherwise I might name a marketing campaign aimed at hardheaded grogs after it

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, by the way, this was written by us in 1999 when we officially launched Battlefront.com. I wonder if the good Colonel would be so kind as to read it and point out how we have swerved off our path:

Battlefront.com's mission is to provide the challenging military minded computer gaming experience that has all but disappeared from the face of corporate gaming today. Our goal is to serve gamers, rebuild our community, and breathe some life back into a hobby whose followers are still here in sizable numbers but have been tossed aside by the Industry.

Keep this in mind: Battlefront.com is not your father's wargame company. One of our goals is to keep the wargaming hobby in step with new technology. We are committed to producing first-class military minded software without becoming obsessed with "glitz over substance", like the other 99% of the game industry. We care about the game FIRST and foremost. Sure, we know everyone says that, but check out our games and the reputations of our Developers and you'll see that we're for real. It's not just a plan - we're doing it right now.

Interesting read, eh? I've read through this a few times and I don't see anything about us focusing on über realistic games only. Nor has our track record shown that to be the case. So I guess the only fair conclusion to arrive at is that we're still pursuing the same path we set out on 7 years ago.

Steve

[Hensworth]

My conclusion after reading Moon's AAR is that the tactical model of ToW is not the same as the tactical model of CM.

If you let your infantry spend all their time in the merry wide open with no cover at all and charge them across the full length of a field at an enemy trench, you'd be toast in CM, pretty much regardless of what's in the trench. Likewise for artillery pieces deployed in the middle of a field without any form of protection.

I don't have any military background or experience, military service was fortunately abolished here before my turn came up. So most of my ideas of what works and what doesn't on a tactical battlefield come from what BTS have tried to teach me through CM over the past 6 years.

As a result, a battle that features half a dozen air strikes and a company of tanks to support the actions of one infantry platoon, said infantry platoon spending virtually all their time without a shred of cover and the whole battle seemingly revolving around the takeover of enemy weapons does strike me as... peculiar.

My own impression is that ToW will be good for a quick game when you're not in the mood for the epic hour-long struggle that is a game of CM. I'd put it closer to games like BoB than to CM.

[syaped]

I thought the airstrikes were the same group making multiple passes on the target. Not necessarily seperate squadrons coming from an airbase.....But I don't know...

[TuuSaR]

If they are same group it would make things very interesting as there are AA units in the game.

[ August 05, 2006, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: TuuSaR ]

[ComradeP]

Support of at least 3 He111 B's is a lot for such a minor engagement. If they are from the same gruppe within a KG, it might be possible but otherwise it is a tad odd. A Stuka B would be a more logical support unit, as the Heinkels are not very effective against tanks anyway. I wonder if one can purchase air support like in Steel Panthers (which is a truly excellent game).

My previous questions have not been answered, so I can't really elaborate on how the Heinkels deliver their loads on target within moments after a call either (are they circling the battlezone?).

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

Support of at least 3 He111 B's is a lot for such a minor engagement. If they are from the same gruppe within a KG, it might be possible but otherwise it is a tad odd. A Stuka B would be a more logical support unit, as the Heinkels are not very effective against tanks anyway. I wonder if one can purchase air support like in Steel Panthers (which is a truly excellent game).

My previous questions have not been answered, so I can't really elaborate on how the Heinkels deliver their loads on target within moments after a call either (are they circling the battlezone?).

whats irking me about the He-111 air strike is that they seem to fly terribly low.

Not sure what bombs they used as a loadout.

My other computer is toast so I cant just try that out, but if I remember anything correctly from playing IL2, if I would try to pull such a stunt there with regular larger bombs, SC250, SC500 and such, then I would surely have been affected by my own bombs.

[ComradeP]

whats irking me about the He-111 air strike is that they seem to fly terribly low.

Not sure what bombs they used as a loadout.

My other computer is toast so I cant just try that out, but if I remember anything correctly from playing IL2, if I would try to pull such a stunt there with regular larger bombs, SC250, SC500 and such, then I would surely have been affected by my own bombs.

That's the same point I was wondering about. If you try to do that with heavy bombers, the bombers will go down together with their bombs.

Perhaps bombers fly in at a fixed altitude, or perhaps the "maximum altitude"/the "ceiling" a map supports is low (although I wonder where the artillery shells would go, as they would definately end up higher than those bombers).

Aside from the bomb argument, do you think He 111 B's are suitable support weapons for such a minor engagement (especially as they're not effective against small groups of entrenched units or guns, both in real life and as the AAR has shown)?

Edit: also note the speed/altitude of the planes in the "funny video."

[ August 05, 2006, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: ComradeP ]

[Moon]

RSColonel, sorry, I went to bed yesterday already and didn't have time to reply, so I wanted to do it now.

Sorry, I fail to see how 3 features add up to a loss of 40% of realism, especially if one of the features is not even confirmed or decided (engagement ranges), one is abstracted (off-map mortars instead of on-map), and one is blown out of proportion because there are no deep urban battles. And while you nicely dissected the list of features that I posted off the top of my head as being on the other side of the equation, you treat them as if those 5 fully describe what the game is offering. But you know well that there is a whole lot more than just those five. But even in those five I listed, you admit that one is a clear bonus in the realism department and admit that 1 or 2 are maybe's. If you add up the dozens of features which I have not listed in this list and contrast it with the 3 you're harping on about, we're coming off MUCH better than 60% in the realism department.

Of course the whole discussion is skewed somewhat though, because while you focus exclusively on realism and nothing else, TOW is offering a lot more than that.

One general comment before I take off for the rest of the weekend re: realism vs. visuals - as you go down in scale (and TOW is a few notches lower than CM even in its detailed treatment of individual soldiers incl. skills etc), visuals do become more and more important to the overall realism of a game. You cannot get away with simple abstractions as easily as we could in CM if you simulate everything with the level of detail that TOW does. The correct visual representation of combat plays an important role at that level to correctly interface with the player and convey information to the player. Especially in a real-time environment. Think about it.

Martin

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> whats irking me about the He-111 air strike is that they seem to fly terribly low.

Not sure what bombs they used as a loadout.

My other computer is toast so I cant just try that out, but if I remember anything correctly from playing IL2, if I would try to pull such a stunt there with regular larger bombs, SC250, SC500 and such, then I would surely have been affected by my own bombs.

That's the same point I was wondering about. If you try to do that with heavy bombers, the bombers will go down together with their bombs.

Perhaps bombers fly in at a fixed altitude, or perhaps the "maximum altitude"/the "ceiling" a map supports is low (although I wonder where the artillery shells would go, as they would definately end up higher than those bombers).</font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Moon:

The correct visual representation of combat plays an important role at that level to correctly interface with the player and convey information to the player. Especially in a real-time environment.

I think it is especially important w/r/t the kind of audience you're selling it too.

I could do with abstraction.

But >90% of the intended customer base cant, they would harp about that more than they have killed units in SuddenStrike in their short life- and attention-span....

visuals are only that. AgeOfEmpres never got to me because the gameplay lacked. the unit animations were great. they were praised in every game magazine.

but if it only hollow eyecandy where a set looped animation shows one guy beating the other with his sword and the health bar going down at a fixed rate with no regard to the animation that ccompanies it, well, it just doesnt cut it for me.

buit I am wandering off, because it is already apparent and Im confident that ToW will not go down that route, even though it *does* emphasize graphics over gameplay (lacking a word for it, more precise would be tactical flexibility, options, tactical realism etc.- "lets call it visual realism over tactical realism.") issues in the above case, as you admitted.

all the best,

M.Hofbauer

[ComradeP]

if anything in that particular battle they would use the smaller Do-17Z, but not the He-111, if they would use air support THAT CLOSE to friendly lines at all, which they by all likeliness wouldnt, and the least they would use would be tactical medium bombers.

A Stuka B strike on the howitzers in the rear might've happened in real life, but I don't think the targets were important enough to waste/spend multiple He 111 B's or Do17Z's (luckily they weren't Ju88's, as that would've been ridiculous) on.

even though it *does* emphasize graphics over gameplay

Which is unfortunately the trend in the last few years, as the developers seem to think that pretty graphics sell more games than good gameplay. That assessment is correct for almost every genre, but not for wargames. SP might be 2d but it rocks, same goes for CM and CC, both lacking the "newest graphics" but both providing good and entertaining gameplay.

The "wannabe" wargame/RTS like Blitzkrieg have suffered from a serious "failure" namely Blitzkrieg 2, and people that like such a genre "need" a replacement. That replacement will probably be ToW.

I am a pretty hardcore wargamer by heart, even though I spend most of my time during the week on Panzer General games, as I don't have the time for AGW or the like. I can live with the current ToW, but it seems there are definately some things that could be improved to "lure" the hardcore wargamers into buying it.

[ASHBERY76]

A short new AAR on Wargamer.

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/theatreofwar_aar/