very disappointed - RTS yuck

[KiloAlpha4]

yes me too. I had 3 atg's hidden behind a hill and rather then the tanks remaining going dumbly over the bridge they circled around. If you take the game for what it is then you will have fun simple as that.

[ April 22, 2007, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: KiloAlpha4 ]

[AnoMecha]

Originally posted by MajorPrivate:

I have seen some really neat stuff from the AI

Let me clarify what i mean by there being a marginal AI. When playing an SP mission the strategic conditions are for the most part set in stone, i.e. through triggers connected to rect zones and points for the enemy to act accordingly. Now what it does while you fire at it in the process is left to a tactical AI of sorts but it still makes every effort to follow the letter of the law governed by the mission makers strategic layout because it has no strategic AI.

CM has both layers of AI a Strategic and Tactical.

So yes ToW has an AI but it's a shallow one.

Blaine

[Thomm]

I will try to keep my 'fanboy posts' to a minimum, but, honestly, you think that this game is worse than CC?!?!!??!?!? Are you kidding me?!

Here, we have:

* cool AI attacks (maybe scripted, so what?!)

* for my taste a perfect 3D world

* incredible possibilities to interact with the soldiers

* a much better penetration model than CC (or not?)

My only critisims at this time is that the missions appear to be a little bit unfair.

I just think that you need to put the negative thoughts aside and play the demo for 2 hours to get used to everything. I did, and I think this is the best WW II game I played so far!

Now our input is important to make it even better, get us maps with more cover, city fighting, etc.

Remember, the alternative is a dozen more 'Panzers' clones.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Captain Pies]

Like most things that receive a lot of hype this game is a big disappointment. I'm very glad I didn't buy it. What makes me laugh is reading the other threads, the things people are requesting for a patch are all in CMBB and CMAK already. Certainly they are not as pretty but they do deliver the gameplay.

I think BFC have been quite canny. This game will sell well to the twitch crowd and be a nice little earner for not a lot of work on their part. Those twitchers that have a real yearning for a decent WWII sim but have been living in a cave for the last 6 years will be steered towards CMBB, I reckon the sales will jump a bit on that one. Both of which mean they have more cash flow to put into CMSF and Charles' jar juice. When the WWII module comes out for CMSF there will also be a ready made bunch of bored TOWers wanting the next best thing. So there is a positive side

[seppDieter]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I will try to keep my 'fanboy posts' to a minimum, but, honestly, you think that this game is worse than CC?!?!!??!?!? Are you kidding me?!

Here, we have:

* cool AI attacks (maybe scripted, so what?!)

* for my taste a perfect 3D world

* incredible possibilities to interact with the soldiers

* a much better penetration model than CC (or not?)

The stock CC (by example CC5) i admit were not perfect and had flaws. but at least it worked well and was a complete game.

the AI was pretty dumb. CC was the perfect base to create fantastic mods, wich happened.

i doubt there is talent enough here to make a decent game mod out of TOW. sure anyone can make a sound mod, but try making enterable houses, smoke, mortars... who wil do it? a good mod team would need at least 20 months to make the game decent.

back to CC, in CC we had:

-enterable buildings

-smoke grenades

-dynamic campaigns

-dynamic operations

-mortars

-possibility to ask a truce or surrender

-real visible close combat action, bayonettes

-easyer interface

-high quality grafix

-realistic behaviour of soldiers

-when nobody wins the battle, you start again where you ended

-greater immersion

-more weapons( flamethrower, bayo,...)

-more cover for infantry

-...

[Vergeltung]

definately a fun game. some people are just nuts with their tedious complaints.

[FinnN]

...This game will sell well to the twitch crowd...

I doubt it - there are much better games out there for that category and I don't think BF have aimed to make a game for that crowd. It appears to be more for strategy players who want a more immediate experience than a turn-based game can provide, or rts players looking for something with a bit more thought and realism than is currently available elsewhere.

To get the most out of the game I find the best thing is not to rush anything, and to work out routes carefully and be patient with attacks and so on. When I do this I get something along the lines of a real-time Combat Mission style game - which is what I guess most people here want. Unfortunately I think the mission design works aaginst that.

I remember reading that ToW was intended to simulate back and forth battles - and I guess it does this. Unfortunately it does it with scripted events - so if I rush a position so that I can prepare for the counter-attack in time or if I work my way up there slowly it makes no difference - the moment (it seems) I take an objective I get swamped by enemy reinforcements. Just as my troops are on the verge of destruction the enemy gets swamped by *my* reinforcements. Sure it's a back-and-forth battle but it comes across as forced and artificial not as a result of my actions or clever AI. For my tastes at least, it detracts from the strategy side of the game and turns what could be a really nicely paced rts into something else. I'm certainly enjoying the game so far, but longer term I'm hoping for less gamey scenarios.

Have fun

Finn

[Lochar]

At first , after playing the demo, I thought bleh, not what I expected.

But I kept going back to try to beat it and decided wth , I bought the GI combat and squad leader ones.

Its actually not that bad once you get used to the controls. I enjoy the fact that unlike some of the other type games, you can raid bodies for ammo and not just run out and be SOL.

I started the US campaign, and watched my troops get mowed down cross open terrain, but on 2nd time around stuck to the flanks of the shrubs and cut my casualties down a ton.

There are a few things that do stick out tho.

1. Buildings of course (cant enter)

2. Need a Squad sheet so when have casualties you know offhand who bought farm (IE; LMG or Bazooka person so you know to raid his weapons). Right now I usually have to send a man to the body to check what weapon he was using.

3. Walls need to be climbable - lost 3 men just because my troops had to walk around a wall surrounding a courtyard rather than vaulting over it.

4. Portable HMG crews. One of the things I loved about CoH was their HMG units.

5. Buttoned, unbottoned status for vehicles - Surprised this was left out seeing all the animations for vehicle entrance/exits.

6. Better LOF indicator, if I cant shoot at the enemy from where I am at , let me know when trying to target for first time instead of moving my troops out of cover to get a better shot.

7. Give me some time to setup defenses, first mission of US campaign has you taking over a city, but soon as the last german drops you move to a defense mission and have no time to even setup a perimeter and wind up losing units just trying to get them in a position of defense.

Overall I played worse and its not that bad of a game, but I would have loved to see some more dynamic missions rather than a static flow.

I would have loved for this to be a mix of CoH's type of find cover system with ToW's level of realism but hopefully will make enough money to be able to support it and future works.

[Bloodstar44]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I will try to keep my 'fanboy posts' to a minimum, but, honestly, you think that this game is worse than CC?!?!!??!?!? Are you kidding me?!

Here, we have:

* cool AI attacks (maybe scripted, so what?!)

* for my taste a perfect 3D world

* incredible possibilities to interact with the soldiers

* a much better penetration model than CC (or not?)

My only critisims at this time is that the missions appear to be a little bit unfair.

I just think that you need to put the negative thoughts aside and play the demo for 2 hours to get used to everything. I did, and I think this is the best WW II game I played so far!

Now our input is important to make it even better, get us maps with more cover, city fighting, etc.

Remember, the alternative is a dozen more 'Panzers' clones.

Best regards,

Thomm

I have seen nice feature in Dunkirk mission which suggests that AI is not so dumb.

French tank H35 come over the hill and crushed my pawn under it's tracks that I sent to recce mission.

I ordered 3 tanks (or more) to attack it's turret but I couldn't penetrate it. And guess what? H35 fet that situation got tricky and he withdrew back...

Yes, maybe that is not novelty and maybe in some other games AI could react like that but anyway it was cool seeing that that bastard choose to withdraw.

Mario

[JagdAlex]

Personally I should have wait for the demo before buying the game. CoH will remain my main game and when I will get frustrated (because of online play)....I will switch on ToW for a couple of games. But there is too much stuff that are lacking in this game to make it a great game. They have something...but it is really only the beginning.

Stuff like:

-Multiple way points missing

-Unable to garisonned troops inside of buildings

-No possibility of camoing your units or building defense with your units.

-No mortars

-Poor vehicle pathfinding.

-Awfull sound effect and music

-Ok Graphics

What is the point of having 56 different tanks in a game when you do not even have Mortars crew

Honestly there is simply too much stuff that is wrong to make this a great game. Other than if they patch it like crazy!

The funny thing is that it is almost resulting in a bigger click fest than in CoH. Something that I would say...I am really disapointed about!

[Mastiff]

Originally posted by Jaws:

I am not a complainer. But I am not getting the warm feeling I hoped for. This is more a puzzle game then a tactical game.

It's funny how you say this is more of as puzzle game for you, as with CMBB that game seems more of a puzzle game for me. I get real bored real fast having to set up my equipment and units and then click on multiple units to issue micro management orders to the same then click on go but to have sat there for 30 minutes setting up to only play out a min of the game than 30 minutes more of clicking around then click go 60 seconds of play than 30 minutes more click go 60 seconds of game play you see where CMBB looses me there. I like action RTS where I can direct the engagment as it unfolds and

If I have to pause the game I pause but that’s me.

I really don't like to have to micro manage sure there’s a few minor issues with game play like the whole dam tank turning to engage a unit somewhere else when it should just turn its turret. But I hope they fix it.

Well good games, ya'll just remember CC series this is not.

[aleader]

I don't like it. Wish I would have spent my $67 CDN on CC X of Iron instead. At least that game's fun. I can't stand mission after mission of 'assault trench frontally, get reinforcements, repeat'. Is this WW1 or WW2? I figured a BF game was a safe bet to pre-order based on the CM games. Lesson learned. The sound stinks compared to many other games out there, including the original CM. AT guns and infantry are WAY too easy to spot, and are just cannon fodder for tanks. Camera control is terrible. No waypoints or mortars, and the 'hold position' command is broken. Tanks expose their rears when retreating backwards, and on and on.

Honestly, Company of Heroes may not have the realistic penetrations, etc, but it's a much more fun and varied game to play, and crushes this game visually and aurally. Here's hoping Shock Force sets things right...

[WooTzu]

I wonder what the developers are thinking right now.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Originally posted by WooTzu:

I wonder what the developers are thinking right now.

I doubt that the developers can understand most of this because they are not native English speakers.

With translation, I assume that they're sophisticated enough to realize that they're caught in a crossfire between CoH-style players and folks from the CoCM.

The unfortunate blending of the two produces an air of perennial rant by posters that are unhappy because they didn't get an upgrade or remake of their favorite game.

ToW has a lot of potential, and not as a new title down the road or an expansion pack, but now, pretty much as-is.

I think that anyone who's played the Steel Torrent scenario ought to be able to discern this.

Sure it's clumsy at moments, but it shines as a tanker's vignette.

With time, folks will develop scenarios that emphasize tank and anti-tank play, and the game should fluorish.

And if you're really interested in infantry play, let me suggest the Close Combat series of games.

CMx and ToW for armour, and CCx for infantry.

Life is good.

PoE

[ April 23, 2007, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Prince of Eckmühl ]

[Emar]

The demo has not been my cup of tea either. Not because it does not seem like a quality game but rather I just don't care for RTS games. I just don't find it fun to constantly scour the battlefield clicking on everything and everyone nonstop to make sure all is well.

Coming from a panzerleader and squadleader background I like turn based gameplay and CM's wego system is perfect for me. I like to relax with some beer n pretzels, pick my moves, hit go and get down at ground level and watch it play out.

I am looking forward to CM shock force and it's WWII offspring but I have to say that I am a little worried on that end as well because of Battlefront's statement that CM:SF is desigened from the ground up to play as a RTS game as well. I know that the game is supposed to be able to be played either way but I can't help wondering if RTS is the priority and if 2 very different styles of gameplay can succesfully come out of one game ( Bruce Geryk, a longtime CM supporter and game reviewer at "Games For Windows" magazine expressed a simular view of CM:SF in the May issue). I will just have to cross my fingers and see with the rest of you

:cool:

[aleader]

With translation, I assume that they're sophisticated enough to realize that they're caught in a crossfire between CoH-style players and folks from the CoCM.

I'm a hardcore CM gamer. I also love LOMAC, Rome Total War, CoH, Civ 3, and Steel Beasts Pro PE. Those games know what they want to be and they do it with aplomb, something that cannot be said for ToW.

[General Jay]

Big disappointment, editor is junk, game is pretty but not fun. I'll never pre-order again. Costly lesson.

[Vergeltung]

would a diaper change and a nap help? how about a nice warm bah-bah?

[Chazman]

"would a diaper change and a nap help? how about a nice warm bah-bah?"

Are you a stock holder in BattleFront, or a shill?

This game is a stinker and just because people honestly express their opinion of that, doesn't make them cry babies.

[Vegeorite]

.

[ April 26, 2007, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Vegeorite ]

[Cornfleek]

Originally posted by Bloodstar44:

I have seen nice feature in Dunkirk mission which suggests that AI is not so dumb.

Problem with this game is that for every "smart move" there's quite a few silly ones. Take the ridiculous french infantry charge that happens every friggin time. The come charging through open fields towards parked tanks... wtf?

Did anyone ever have those infantry protecting the atg's? (since general consensus is that you should kamikaze charge the atg's with inf after you've taken out the "ai" kamikaze charge). A puzzle game that looks incredibly well, that's what this is.

[Capt. Toleran]

I had an epiphany moment last night with the game, when I finally beat the first mission in the Russian campaign.

On one hand, there are a lot of great things about this game, esp. the penetration model and the wonderful balistics modeling. The tank models are beautiful. The missions are too damn hard, scripted, and gamey.

Once some user campaigns come out, I think I'll be happier. We still need smoke, true cover, and inf/tanks that don't go charging off on their own (though the hold position command seems to manage this pretty well), but the missions are just puzzles, not true military situations like we love in CM.

Example -- I never play a scenario in CM twice. There's no reason to, and it's cheating, because then you know far more about the situation the next time around than you should. While it is nice to marvel at the bells and whistles while setting up for the inf charge or whatever scripted event that you know is going to happen, at that point, you've lost a lot of the CM fan base here who want a realistic replication of the battle experience. Attacking 8 interlocking guns, 4 platoons of inf., and 2 platoons of tanks with 1 platoon of tanks and 3 platoons of inf. is a puzzle, not a realistic military simulation of a planned assault.

Less puzzle, more history please.

Oh, and fun. Impossible missions that require multiple attempts at gaming the system or figuring out the puzzle might be fun to some folks, but probably not to most serious mil gamers. Give us good missions, the fun will come. I got a taste of that last night, and it is only the frustration of getting utterly destroyed once again at St. Lo or Dunkirk that is really giving me a serious disincentive to playing this game. My time is limited, if I can't get fun out of a game, it hits the pile.

[MajorPrivate]

Originally posted by Chazman:

"would a diaper change and a nap help? how about a nice warm bah-bah?"

Are you a stock holder in BattleFront, or a shill?

This game is a stinker and just because people honestly express their opinion of that, doesn't make them cry babies.

You are right, people should be able to express their opinions.

HOWEVER, when ALL someone does, is cry like Nancy Kerrigan about this game in every post like YOU do, well junior what DO you think you will be percieved as.

I mean WHAT are you hoping to accomplish with your constant sniveling rock throwing at this game.

Newsflash. We know you don't like TOW.

So unless you have something constructive to add, please try and keep your whining to yourself.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

On one hand, there are a lot of great things about this game, esp. the penetration model and the wonderful balistics modeling. The tank models are beautiful. The missions are too damn hard, scripted, and gamey.

Attacking 8 interlocking guns, 4 platoons of inf., and 2 platoons of tanks with 1 platoon of tanks and 3 platoons of inf. is a puzzle, not a realistic military simulation of a planned assault.

Oh, and fun. Impossible missions that require multiple attempts at gaming the system or figuring out the puzzle might be fun to some folks, but probably not to most serious mil gamers. Give us good missions, the fun will come.

I totally agree with you!

I am still busy with the demo and the "Command and Control" mission was soooo beautiful in the beginning, with individual control and one-on-one combat between 'us' and the enemy. I loved how I could lob a grenade over the bushes to take out the MG. Incredible how much fun the game is at this level!

Then I am supposed to set up a defense; I man the armored car and start to move my inf into position, when suddenly ... you know what ... pops up ... with clear view at my AC.

I hope user missions will take care of this!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Andreas]

There once was a post from someone who had bought CMBB, and started playing the CD Scenarios. The first one he played was 'Cemetary Hill'. He got so frustrated he did not play CMBB again, ever.

Taught me a lesson.

All the best

Andreas