AAR continued...

[BigCat]

I noticed a few things in the AAR, which troubled an old grognard like me:

1) Markings: vehicles seemed to be marked in a very strange way. No white cross, as used in the Polish camp. and numbers which should represent company and platoon position, but obviously were not. Polish tanks had nothing I could see.

2) Back packs. Let me say only that soldiers for assault missions leave their backpack at the assembly area. They move faster that way...

3) no support fire. A German Squad (in German "Gruppe") but not a "Group" in English (that's something else), is constituted of a leader, a LMG team and a number of Riflemen headed by the second in command. Normal tactics would be to have a tactical movement consisting in having the LMG providing fire support, then the riflemen stop while the LMG catch up, and so on. This seems to have happened only on order from the player. So much for actual AI tactics used by each Army. I dread to think how the 1940 French are going to be depicted!!!

4) I am joining here others who have already noted the un-historical nature of the formations and the fact that prepared positions are just a couple of trenches.

Sorry guys, when making a wargame you have to watch this details if you going to try to convince people like me.

[M Hofbauer]

title of this thread is misleading.

no feather in your cap.

black eye for you.

[TuuSaR]

But people like you are rare, extremely rare. There is no business sense to make certain micro details that public wont never ever notice.

Game looks good at the moment from my non-insider view point and most likely will be fantastic once money starts to make effect.

[RMC]

The tactical marking are a skinning issue, if you absolutely need them, I'm sure some folks will make them. It doesn't effect gameplay in the slightest. It does effect development time cost.

Having invasion markings on my Pz Is and

IIs is the least of my concerns with this game.

Same thing with the infantry models. No effect on gameplay.

Your only complaint of substance is the tactics employed by the squad in action. Sure it would be nice if the infantry would automatically conform to national doctrine, but as long as you have the ability to direct the use of specific tactics, I don't see a major problem.

[Moon]

1) One nice thing about the markings which will please modders eventually and help in making this game extremely detailed is that each and every vehicle in the game has its own. Not sure if you noticed it but all of the tanks under my command were marked individually with their own number. It might not have been historical, but still kind of cool to see.

2) There is actually a switch to show backpacks or not. It doesn't have any impact on gameplay though, just visual.

3) You're thinking too CM-like (or if CM is not your drug of choice, then perhaps SL or ASL). The "unit" in this game is one soldier, not a squad. You, as the player, are supposed to give commands like these manually. While you can fast-select a squad by doubleclicking on the squad leader, that function is actually lost when the squad leader dies, which only emphasizes that you are not really commanding squads, but individual solders. If you want the guy with the LMG to hang back and provide covering fire you can do this by ordering him to do it.

4) Prepared positions were just a couple of trenches in this one mission. There are other types of fortifications in other missions.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Moon:

While you can fast-select a squad by doubleclicking on the squad leader, that function is actually lost when the squad leader dies,

ooooooooooooooo

Gonna hafta take care of them there squad leaders then.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by BigCat:

1) Markings: vehicles seemed to be marked in a very strange way. No white cross, as used in the Polish camp. and numbers which should represent company and platoon position, but obviously were not.

for many yellow, actually.

Originally posted by RMC:

Having invasion markings on my Pz Is and

IIs is the least of my concerns with this game.

it doesnt surprise me the least bit that such a heretic comment is made by someone who lists "HL2" as the climax of his interests...

the characteristic WH markings are as much are as much a symbol, naw, hallmark of the polish invasion as is chewing gum for the US forces ending the war in germany.

the affair reminds me of "V"'s MP40s in 1939's invasion of Poland.

over to you, Mr RMC.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Moon:

1) One nice thing about the markings which will please modders eventually and help in making this game extremely detailed is that each and every vehicle in the game has its own. Not sure if you noticed it but all of the tanks under my command were marked individually with their own number. It might not have been historical, but still kind of cool to see.

no ****.

what was it? 982?

9th Company, 8th platoon, second vehicle...

I am currently torn a bit between the advantage of individually numbered vehicles over those mirrored numbers and all those 808's etc of CMBB,

and the weirdness of results that a totally arbitrary selection of numbers can potentially create.

I think I still like the new system better.

here's to individual yet weird tank numbers !

nasdrovje !

edit: oh, and I agree -with RMC- that it is a skinning issue meaning it can be dealt with (you can replace 5, 6, 7 ,8 ,9 with reiterations of the icons for 1,2,3,4 for example).

Originally posted by Moon:

2) There is actually a switch to show backpacks or not.

as in, when they get hit soldiers are shedding blue sparks and transform into backpacks?

[RMC]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

it doesnt surprise me the least bit that such a heretic comment is made by someone who lists "HL2" as the climax of his interests...

What is this climax of which you speak? Is that like what Merkel did when Georgie touched her?

the characteristic WH markings are as much are as much a symbol, naw, hallmark of the polish invasion as is chewing gum for the US forces ending the war in germany.

Wait, are you hinting that this game doesn't model US bubble and chewing gum? What about chocolate? How can they account for American resiliency without the chocolate and gum factor? They can't do it alone. If there are not sweets in this game, well, I hate to say it, but I can't buy this game. It's harsh, but I'm sure BFC would want to know.

[Moon]

Hofbauer, or the easier solution might be for us to doublecheck those numbers and fix them up before the game is released You guys are still looking at work in progress.

Martin

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by RMC:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

it doesnt surprise me the least bit that such a heretic comment is made by someone who lists "HL2" as the climax of his interests...

What is this climax of which you speak? Is that like what Merkel did when Georgie touched her?</font>

[RMC]

Nacht.

PS. I thought this gum tasted funny.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by RMC:

Nacht.

PS. I thought this gum tasted funny.

thats because couple of years ago in the early stages of the programme there was only one of them issued per company, since it was antibacterial it was to be passed on from one to another...and the company CO got to have it last and keep it.

[BigCat]

Rare? No not rare. It's people like me who keep alive games like SP, ASL and CM. I know most of the players are just in to have fun. But next year they'll play something else with the latest pixel shader. Me, and my bretheren, would like to see a war simulator, with as many "realist" details as possible within a computer sim. We always hope at the announcement of a new title. SP was the best 2D and CM the best 3D, so far. They are still played by thousands because of the OOB tweaks and graphics mods (even partial rewrite of the source!) given freely by the communauty. Will TOW be played in 10 years time? it's up to you...

[Mace]

Originally posted by BigCat:

Me, and my bretheren, would like to see a war simulator, with as many "realist" details as possible within a computer sim.

I'm also a hardcore wargamer I guess, but I know the only way I'll ever get 100% realism is to join up and serve Overseas.

Hence I guess I and the majority of us here can be quite forgiving when a new tactical wargame is released that doesn't include ALL the detail as long as it has the IMPORTANT details (like the correct vehicles for the period simulated, effects of C&C and morale etc)

So please don't speak on my behalf, just say YOU have issues with ToW and leave it at that.

[ComradeP]

Mace: the point is not that the game doesn't have it currently, the point is a concern that the game might not ever include the things mentioned by the topic starter, amongst other things.

Personally, I play wargames for realism and I don't care what they look like as long as they have good gameplay CM,CC, and SP:WAW don't need flashy graphics to be excellent wargames.

If a designers makes the choice to take the "graphics are important too" route, it would be wise not to forget about the things those graphics will actually depict.

If all the trees in the game would look exactly the same, nobody would moan probably, but if the markings/equipment of a unit is wrong, there will be moaning wargames. Grognards doesn't translate to "those who complain" for nothing.

In fact: I'm surprised people that want more realism are actually mocked on these forums. It's like all the people that claim to have played and to love CM or CC actually on like "wargame light" games. Why do you moan about CM or CC not including something, when you're OK with major ommissions in other games, such as this one?

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

If all the trees in the game would look exactly the same, nobody would moan probably...

You must be new to these forums

[ComradeP]

It was a joke, I've been moaning and listening to moaning about wargames for most of my lifetime:)

You can either love or hate the constant moaning of "the L/70 could penetrate thicker armour in real life than is this game!", "ZOMG my people can't enter buildings kekekekeke", "my Sherman sucks (reply: it sucked in real life) no it didn't (reply: yes it did) *topic goes on for 20 pages and doesn't end with any sort of conclusion, but with bitching*"

Yes..wargaming is one hell of a lot of fun.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

In fact: I'm surprised people that want more realism are actually mocked on these forums. It's like all the people that claim to have played and to love CM or CC actually on like "wargame light" games. Why do you moan about CM or CC not including something, when you're OK with major ommissions in other games, such as this one?

1. They deserve to be mocked if they go and on about the same point. Especially when they make swweping generalisations like...well like you

2. They do moan about CC and CM. The difference being those games have been released and they have actually played them.

3. Nobody is "OK" with omissions. But see 2. If having played the demo the omissions are too severe I will not buy the game. Life will go on.

[Sirocco]

I think buildings will be a major issue if not included. It has to be quite jarring if you find you can't put a squad into one when it's an obvious strongpoint. But overall let's allow them to get it out of the door after such a long drawn out development process.

[ComradeP]

2. They do moan about CC and CM. The difference being those games have been released and they have actually played them.

3. Nobody is "OK" with omissions. But see 2. If having played the demo the omissions are too severe I will not buy the game. Life will go on.

The last part is what should trouble developers: when wargamers don't like the realism (or lack thereof) in a game, they might never buy it. The problem with a game like ToW (basically one of a kind) is that it's probably too complicated for the general RTS crowd, whilst it might not be good enough for the hardcore wargamers (not the might).

Personally, I've been waiting for this game for too long and have been hyping the game to myself since day one, so I'll buy the game no matter what.

[ August 05, 2006, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: ComradeP ]

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by ComradeP:

The problem with a game like ToW (basically one of a kind) is that it's probably to complicated for the general RTS crowd, whilst it might not be good enough for the hardcore wargamers (not the might).

The first point is a good one. As for the hardcore - well it seems a number of CM players have already seen\played it and liked it. What comes across in the comments from BFC - is that despite some of the omissions - it's still a great game. I'm quite prepared to believe them for now unti I get my hands on it.

[BigCat]

There are always people prepared to accept anything. I am not one of them. Thank you ComradeP for your understanding.

I'll wait till the demo is released and make my own judgement. CMC,CM2,TOW and a couple more Demos from other publishers. That will occupy me awhile, I expect, whenever they come out, that is The winner(s) will be the one(s) with most of what I want.

[norman888]

Originally posted by BigCat:

1) Markings: vehicles seemed to be marked in a very strange way. No white cross, as used in the Polish camp. and numbers which should represent company and platoon position, but obviously were not. Polish tanks had nothing I could see.

The white German crosses were a great aiming point and after taking some losses most of the white crosses were covered with paint, mud etc.-even yellow to try to reduce the visibility. Tank numbers were usually on a small plate on the side of the vehicle early in the war.

The Poles were security conscience and removed their markings during mobilisation.

[Yeknodathon]

Originally posted by 1Cowboy8:

Your precious CMx2 hasn't been impacted by this game development. Please go to that forum and bitch that its not done yet and that the realism isn't perfect on it yet either. Otherwise step off Bozos and let these men work.

Well, there's a thought... this game and future development between 1C and BFC would be very appetizing.