very disappointed - RTS yuck

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by Hertston:

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

certainly more like CC but deeper

'Deeper' than CC in what way? OK, I'm only judging from the demo so far, but as a combat simulation (tactics, morale effects, etc) I'd put ToW well behind CC. It's a fun WW2 RTS that's a little more 'realistic' than 'RTS' usually suggests, but no more than that. That's not a criticism; ToW was clearly never intended to be the new CC any more than it was the new CM. </font>

[BFCElvis]

maniac_mat, I tested for GI COmbat and I can tell you that after playing ToW a bit it is light years beyonf GIC. Not even close.

When taking golf lesson and good instructor will give you only one or two things to think about rather than trying to completely change your swing in one lesson. Here is my ToW version of two "swing" thoughts that led to my relaxation.

1) Each of your units represents one person not one squad as in CMxx.

2) The massive amount of enemy units thatappear on the screen when contact is made probably only amount to a sqaud or two and can be fought off with proper tactics NOT panicy full frontal assault tactics.

(That one was for free folks)

[KiloAlpha4]

#2 is not 100 % accurate or correct. You can't fight off 6 to 1 odds no matter what tactics you are using when they have superior armor numbers and your atg's get taken out within the first minute or so. In the mission for the demo I won BUT their 155's and 100 su's killed my tanks and atg's no matter where or how I hid them.It's not a matter of proper tactics it's a matter of proper game mechanics.No one can honestly say the game doesn't need some tweaking.

^^ that was also for free

I had my Tiger refusing to shoot at SU-122 at 800 metres (!!!!!!!)

lol yep and 800 meters is about what the tiger gunners use to set their sights to when going into combat. I do like the ability to shoot long ranges ( realistic ) in this game but the ability of them to fire through trees etc and see you behind hills and buildings etc takes away from that.

[ April 21, 2007, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: KiloAlpha4 ]

[BFCElvis]

KiloAlpha4, you are, of course, correct. I was not speaking of specific situations but the game in general. If you are outnumber 6:1 you are toast. WHat I meant was sometimes, especially when you are new to the game, And you see 15 enemy units appear at once because you finally make contact, don't panic. Those 15 units represent a squad and half not a company. If it is first contact you probably have enough to fight them so relax and fight them. A person new to the games first reaction is "OH MY GOD!!!!I"M BEING OVER RUN" when in fact they may not be.

[ April 21, 2007, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Elvis ]

[KiloAlpha4]

^^ ah np my bad. I thought ya meant what you thought I thought you meant lol. You are correct.

On a added note as he stated also try for pinch points, ambushed and crossfires. Works great for suppressing advancing infantry, killing those heavy russian tanks ( side shots ) etc. Increases your survivability. Also keep your units low as the saying goes " he who walks tall on the battlefield falls on the battlefield".

[Hertston]

Originally posted by Bloodstar44:

Hertson, Close Combat is maybe realistic but is also in many ways unrealistic

For instance in Close Combat 3 I had my Tiger refusing to shoot at SU-122 at 800 metres (!!!!!!!)

saying "Das panzer is too stark". What too stark you monkey gunner, you have Zeiss optic there and 800 metres is good enough to turn that SU-122 into a can full of holes but nothing.

So Hertson you call that REALISTIC???

I've no intention of getting into a pissing contest, as it's pretty much an apples and oranges scenario.

I don't recall saying CC was perfect, or even perfectly realistic. Even its die-hard fanboys (of which I am not one) will happily admit that armour is not exactly its strongest point. I would argue it is more realistic game than ToW, particularly in the use of authentic infantry tactics, including the use of infantry to support armour. In doing so I would point out that ToW never intended, as far as I can see, to be a 'realism' game in the same way that CC, or CM come to that, were. It is not a pre-requisite for an entertaining, exciting game, which I actually rather like.

If you believe that ToW offers the more authentic WW2 experience then go to it. The question I asked the other poster was why he believed Tow to be a deeper game than CC. Do you? If so, why?

[maniac_mat]

Originally posted by Elvis:

maniac_mat, I tested for GI COmbat and I can tell you that after playing ToW a bit it is light years beyonf GIC. Not even close.

When taking golf lesson and good instructor will give you only one or two things to think about rather than trying to completely change your swing in one lesson. Here is my ToW version of two "swing" thoughts that led to my relaxation.

1) Each of your units represents one person not one squad as in CMxx.

2) The massive amount of enemy units thatappear on the screen when contact is made probably only amount to a sqaud or two and can be fought off with proper tactics NOT panicy full frontal assault tactics.

(That one was for free folks)

ok this is the thing i hate about these forums, and ive been following them since before CMBO was released, people talk to you like your a moron and dont know whats going on. read what i posted. i posted that i got the same "feeling". not that the game was the same. i agree, it is light years beyond GIC, and is definatly a better game by far, but i still got the empty feeling that i got with GIC.

[KiloAlpha4]

My AMD64 works TOW with no problems or lag.

that's good news but I'm not about to purchase a new processor and mobo just to play a game that should be working properly with my processor

Still going to wait before I purchase and see what is fixed.

[Bloodstar44]

If you believe that ToW offers the more authentic WW2 experience then go to it. The question I asked the other poster was why he believed Tow to be a deeper game than CC. Do you? If so, why?

It's too early to say which one is more realistic, but already ToW have some nice touches here and there. The use of 3D although with this mess out of LOS and LOF (which to be fair I still didn't studied well) is done pretty well. It certanly is more "living battlefields" than Panzer General 2

Certanly it may be found out that Close Combat is more realistic but ToW did try to shine graphically and in most part of it succeeded but on the other hand that maybe have come off at the expense of realism or some other features.

Developing games it's not cheap or easy sport.

Mario

[BFCElvis]

maniac_mat, the written word is a one dimensional form of communication and I am no Hemingway or King. I meant no offense by my post and I sorry you took it that. I was only trying to be helpful and I am sorry if I offended in doing so.

[Guest Panzer Boxb]

Originally posted by franz:

...so, very disapointed after almost 1 year of waiting, I am now having to turn my hopes towards Shock Force. My copy of TOW will go to Ebay for sale.

but I do acknowledge the work BF put into it. They did warn me TOW was far from a new version of CM, and by God, they were right.

I guess I will wait for yours to sell before I list mine.

[Smoke]

So far I'm quite impressed though there's some things that could be improved. I don't see a deal killer. For the record, I loved CC and didn't care for GI Combat. In this game unit path finding needs some help and default orders could use some tweaking. That said, I think Battlefront has a proven track record of supporting their products and I'm fine being in on the ground floor on this project. I haven't found many games this complex that I love from the start. Enduring the learning curve isn't the most enjoyable part of these games. I feel this one deserves a little patience.

[Lord_Simmox]

i said deeper than CC,yes,as far more thought is needed to sucessfully win a mission,without getting wiped off the map.

ive yet to find a mission i cant win with the correct thought and planning

as far as realistic is concerened,neither of them are,they are just games not sims.

as i said before,if you seen or played any of 1Cs games you should see the similarities

some issues i can see that need attention

have already been posted in other threads

[wolf66]

Talking of ANY kind of realism is a joke when your troops cannot enter buildings

I'm repeating myself there but what the heck ....

[seppDieter]

if you would take a TOW map, and make the same map in 2d for CC. and play them with the same units then i believe they would play almost the same way (maybe with a little advantage for CC in matter of LOS) the reason for this is that the TOW maps are entirely flattened. and if you would play a flat map, with no small LOS-breaking obstacles in CC. then the outcome would be the same: infantry:useless and tanks:rule.

you dont have to look any further then that, the reason why CC is more realistic is that anything from a hedge, to a crater wil block LOS. and there are alot more small terrain elevations that allow infantry to hide or take cover.

in CC it was entirely possible to stop an armored regiment with a handfull of 2nd choice soldiers.

you just placed them in ambush positions, and ordered them to ambush the tanks and infantry. its not even possible to do that in TOW, as soon as your units are in his LOS (no matter how far, or if they are behind some bushes, or if they are not shooting) the enemy will see them. its closer to WW1 tactics: everybody attacks head on, hiding for ambush is not permitted.

[KiloAlpha4]

all in all even with the probs the game is fun.

[Elmo]

Have to agree with the OP. Played the training mission in the demo where we have to take a series of trench lines. Whle I was still trying to get my infantry to the first hill in front of the enemy trench I got a message that the mission was accomplished! WTF?! Seems one of my tank crews took it upon themselves to rush the trench line and wipe out the defenders without any orders to do so. So I gave them each a medal and then shot them all for disobeying orders. This game is not for me I guess.

[Hpt. Lisse]

KiloAlpha4, I don't see any post by you in the Tech Forum - give us your machine specs and they'll help you.

I, too, am having some teething issues with the control and camera placement in battles. But the more I play, the less out of hand it seems. It does, at times, come off as overwhelming. The only real CC advantage I can think of is being able to view the entire battlefield at once. It had, among other problems, terrible LOS errors (from trying to overlay a 3-D system over a 2-D graphic engine.) There's a learning curve to the commands (I would never have thought to use "Retreat," for example, as "Reverse," or how often I'd be commanding a squad to "Hold Postition.") I'm playing the Polish campaign and getting my ass kicked regularly (at the hardest setting.) I'm only on the 3rd battle, and still suffering. But not in the same way that GIC or EYSA made me suffer (played the demos, wouldn't buy the game.)

[WooTzu]

Originally posted by franz:

...so, very disapointed after almost 1 year of waiting, I am now having to turn my hopes towards Shock Force. My copy of TOW will go to Ebay for sale.

but I do acknowledge the work BF put into it. They did warn me TOW was far from a new version of CM, and by God, they were right.

I'm gonna sell my copy on ebay too, it's gonna be fun because you'll have to give bullet points on what's so great about the game, when typing the page, but most of what I type will be exactly the opposite of how I feel. The game is just too boring.

When SF comes out, I'll be sure to test the demo before I buy, and If they try and trick me again by saying there won't be a demo, I won't get the game.

[WooTzu]

Originally posted by Elmo:

Have to agree with the OP. Played the training mission in the demo where we have to take a series of trench lines. Whle I was still trying to get my infantry to the first hill in front of the enemy trench I got a message that the mission was accomplished! WTF?! Seems one of my tank crews took it upon themselves to rush the trench line and wipe out the defenders without any orders to do so. So I gave them each a medal and then shot them all for disobeying orders. This game is not for me I guess.

The mission where you have to defend against a tank rush to your bunker, my AT crew die's all the time and I lose the mission. I tried placing them in every position before the match started and that makes no difference.

It's funny, when that mission starts, I run everybody to the back bunker that seperates the two AT guns and after they get de-crewed, I have more troops to recrew the guns. But the only people with high gun skills are the original men that are on the gun.

With a game this complex and where your entire mission is riding on one or two units. If there's any gameplay issues that cause you to lose, or makes those units ineffective for any reason, I just start cursing at the screen and bang my fists on the desk.

[Cornfleek]

I've did my ranting a bit random so far, but this seems to be the right place. Dissapointed in the game as well, and I don't believe that the essentials will get fixed. BF tried to fix a broken game, and they didn't pull it off. I've bought it without thinking, and no regrets, I'll probably play it a bit (allthough the call of Close Combat Cross of Iron is tempting), since it looks nice, and there will be some "hehe, nice" moments, but this is not what I hoped it was (close combat 3d).

I don't mind paying for the game since I hope BF will use their money wisely and invest in CMSF & CMC. Please don't put too much effort in this game, I feel it will never be great.

[lcm1947]

God I hope you guys are all just a bunch of cry babies but I'm afraid there are too many complaining for that to be the case. Bummer with a capital B! What a terrible let down after all these years waiting.

[AnoMecha]

I don't post here much but i have been around the battlefront forums since CMBO and on till now. I followed TOW through its evolution, de-evolution and said rebirth through battlefronts guiding hand.

Now as it has been said I think the biggest problem here lies in the A.I.

If one takes the time as to review the Triggers and Rect Doc to begin understanding the mission editor the AI flaws become hugely apparent, i.e. there is barely any A.I. to begin with. The Missions are almost entirely scripted with trigger points and rect zones leaving the individual units marginally thinking for themselves making every play of a mission 98% the same. Therefor, making each mission a puzzle solving task not a dynamic strategy test.

So that leaves MP as this games only saving grace but wait MP is a farce in its own right with a laundry list of game breaking issues.

So to Battlefront I say if you invest any time into this lump of code it better be in the MP facet because the SP is short lived by design and there will be only a few who will be able to make missions that are up to par, considering the ones shipped barely are.

Now i know that all sounds harsh but i will also add that i will surely continue to follow the progress of ToW as it still has potential and that potential will only happen if 1C, Battlefront, and the community work together to bring it to light.

And to do my part i will continue to rip apart the mission editor to understand it until i can attempt to be one of those few who can make a really good mission.

Blaine

[WooTzu]

Originally posted by AnoMecha:

I don't post here much but i have been around the battlefront forums since CMBO and on till now. I followed TOW through its evolution, de-evolution and said rebirth through battlefronts guiding hand.

Now as it has been said I think the biggest problem here lies in the A.I.

If one takes the time as to review the Triggers and Rect Doc to begin understanding the mission editor the AI flaws become hugely apparent, i.e. there is barely any A.I. to begin with. The Missions are almost entirely scripted with trigger points and rect zones leaving the individual units marginally thinking for themselves making every play of a mission 98% the same. Therefor, making each mission a puzzle solving task not a dynamic strategy test.

So that leaves MP as this games only saving grace but wait MP is a farce in its own right with a laundry list of game breaking issues.

So to Battlefront I say if you invest any time into this lump of code it better be in the MP facet because the SP is short lived by design and there will be only a few who will be able to make missions that are up to par, considering the ones shipped barely are.

Now i know that all sounds harsh but i will also add that i will surely continue to follow the progress of ToW as it still has potential and that potential will only happen if 1C, Battlefront, and the community work together to bring it to light.

And to do my part i will continue to rip apart the mission editor to understand it until i can attempt to be one of those few who can make a really good mission.

Blaine

Wow Blaine you are a godsend. This game is lame out of the box, I'm fighting to want to love it, but some things just don't work the way they should.

If you think the AI is BS, then you are 100% that they need to focus on MP.

I touched on some ideas to make the MP interface more easily accessable, but I can't make any suggestions for behind the scenes code that I have no clue about. I think my ideas were more work then BF intended to do for a simple patch, but I would like to see what BF roadmap and patch fixes list look like...

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=63;t=000762

[MajorPrivate]

I have seen some really neat stuff from the AI