Jump to content

God TOW is awful


sandy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Moon:

LOL! Wasn't there one with the middle finger extended, too? smile.gif

Martin

the one that states? "this is what I think of your opinion".

:D :eek:

[ May 10, 2007, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Wolfseven ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think so Moon.

I can't help it. no matter what crappy mood I am in I laugh my ass off at those. I'm torn between "Oh shit, I think he was on our side" and "Jesus Christ theyre shooting at us" as my favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to have been accused here of being a "teenie wannabee general" - well actually, and perhaps sadly, I am in my 6th decade, and 5 of those have been spent playing serious wargames.

I had played TOW many times before my last go the other night - I preordered and downloaded on day 1.

Please believe me I really wanted to like and enjoy this game - I did not buy it to criticize it!

I have played several tutorials, and also started two campaigns (2-3 battles each) before the pain and disgust overwhelmed me and I stopped playing TOW. It was no fun and historical rubbish from the tactics and gameplay perspective.

It was everything CM was not.

After a week or so away from the game, the other night, I tried another battle and it was still as bad as I had remembered - hence my posting. My last posting was made after a few drinks and I agree it was not useful - but I had previously expressed more clear and explicit criticisms.

I am not a beta tester or reviewer.

My position is one who feels he has been VERY badly let down by an old and trusted friend (ie Battlefront, and also, to a very limited extent 1c)

The game has a clunky interface and a terrible view system - the units do not act historically and IT IS NO FUN and NOT INTERESTING /HISTORICALLY SATISFYING TO PLAY.

Yes, I was expecting something in the heritage of CM.

Yes, I am aware that Battlefront did not design it - but they did "develop" it to be "more historically accurate and realistic".

Here are some other comments (not mine) from another thread

#1 Ability of Tank Crew when buttoned up, or even when opened up, to spot Infantry in prone positions needs to be reduced considerably. AI intel needs to be toned down. Fire by buttoned tanks should be most often limited to area fire.

#2 Infantry needs to go to ground when fired on. No more of this continual getting up and walking into fire again, till everyone is dead. If fired on, Infantry should go prone, then remain prone and crawl to a position where they can engage if ordered to attack. And prone infantry should have considerable negatives applied to the ability of weapons to hit them, even in open ground. As anyone who has studied small unit tactics knows, most ground has dead spots, where the folds of the earth provide cover.

#3 Infantry needs to have a better chance of taking out tanks with hand portable infantry weapons like Panzerfausts and Bazookas. In reality, a tank was very vulnerable to such weapons if it was maneuvering in close circumstances to infantry. Even infantry which is not equipped with these weapons had a chance to do damage with grenades and such like if they were close enough.

#4 The effects of Camoflauge and Cover needs to be added to the AI routine. Yes I know most of the maps don't have heavily enclosed terrain, but a force on the defence did what it could with the available materials, and often was able to conceal things like AT Guns or even Tanks. Look at the battlefield of Kurst. Flat open terrain for the most part, with a some agricultural development. Yet the Soviets were able to conceal most of their AT Guns pretty well.

At the beginning of a scenario, units should have a higher level of concealment, and less chance of being spotted until they move.

#5 The limited numbers of trees on the maps need to have more of an effect on line of sight. Right now, they have little or no effect. Not only is this wrong, it detracts once again from the ability of players to maneuver and use cover. Even an orchard, with its regular rows of trees had a negative effect on the ability to spot the enemy.

What are my conclusions?

I was suckered and Battlefront have my money...

(lesson is now learnt, my mistake, I won't preorder a Battlefront game ever again)

..and I have a game I will never play (still no DVD or manual)

But if my money goes towards a WW2 CM2 game, that's OK...

[ May 11, 2007, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: sandy ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Battlefront is not responsible for your impatience! They put out a big, nice demo for everybody to check out before buying. So, please do not say you had no choice.

Furthermore, I think you should simply read the manual carefully and invest more time into the game! There are some things that I do not like (troops should 'hold position' as a default), but nevertheless I think the game is beyond awesome.

With regard to infantry AT weapons: last night I put three Panzerschreck missiles through the top of a ISU 152 (see screenshot thread) and the assault gun was still shown as active: that is the 'death clock' for you: nobody knows what is going on inside. After some time, the icon went grey and I finally knew I killed the vehicle. But until then, the suspense was great: should I stop firing to conserve ammo, or blast away till out of ammo!

Also, I have great success with ambushes and infantry AT attacks ... it all boils down to practice and learning to handle to use the hold fire, prone and hold position buttons (which is awkward, but no deal breaker)!

Bottom line: I would gladly buy the game from you, but I want my money to go directly to BFC and 1C for this awesome war game!

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Sandy, we did not develop or design it. All that was done by 1C. We pubblished it. Development started by 1c over 5 years ago under different people. We announced we would work with 1c to get it out all of 9 months ago.

Rune

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have played several tutorials, and also started two campaigns (2-3 battles each) before the pain and disgust overwhelmed me and I stopped playing TOW."

That is probably a widely held sentiment after a really very brief 'attempt' at playing the game by peeps with 'expections' based on other games.

Persever!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Directive#21:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Just tried to play a battle on TOW

It IS rubbish!

I was completely overwelmed when I tried the demo and thought I wouldn't like the game. I even uninstalled the demo the following day.

But after spending a few hours with the full version, I couldn't stop playing.

I only play veteran difficulty and there is a steep learning curve. But after a few missions, everything clicked for me....

-Zach </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of us had the same experience with Combat Mission when the first one came out. I hated the demo, couldn't figure out the controls, and deleted the demo. Came back several months later and gave it another try. I went on to buy multiple copies of the sequels, and have had scenarios published on the special edition discs. Sometimes it just takes getting used to.

Of course, abandoning a video game for other more important real life pursuits is not an unwise move either.

Hey MD, have you given ToW a try? I'm curious what your take is?

-Zach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sandy:

I was suckered and Battlefront have my money...

This is what I don't understand,,come on,,,their out to get our money????what about the free addon,,,the soon to released patch,the fact that they are active on the forums listening and answering our problems???? That doesn't sound like a company trying to sucker anyone out of money...Either u like it or not,,,u like it??? ,,amen ..u don't??? tough luck,,but please no accusations of suckering cause that doesn't fit battlefront.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say that I like it a lot, although the campaigns are a little disjointed and don't really immerse.

Visibility from buttoned-up AFVs is getting on my wick, however.

Infantry seem to have little chance against tanks, even when the latter are moving slowly through a village and the former are 'hidden' around (obviously not 'in') buildings and are armed with AT weapons. The tanks always spot them and kill them.

I had one guy with a faust crawling along a tree line towards two buttoned-up US tanks with their rears to him (approx. 100m away). They were happily killing some other infantry, but, as soon as the faust guy moved, they turned round and MGed him.

How on earth was that possible?!

Unless I've got it horribly wrong, it seems useful only to hide infantry somewhere until the AFVs and AT guns have sorted eachother out.

R

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Russkly:

Infantry seem to have little chance against tanks, even when the latter are moving slowly through a village and the former are 'hidden' around (obviously not 'in') buildings and are armed with AT weapons. The tanks always spot them and kill them.

I'd go even further and say that in the vast majority of scenarios, infantry is unneeded. Go ahead and try this in any scenario where you get some armor: park your infantry in the rear and order them to 'Hold Position'. Finish the scenario without your infantry, only using your armor. You can nearly always manage just fine without the infantry, even when assaulting hamlets and villages. Your uberpanzerinfanterielazer can handle any enemy grunts that venture into LOS.

Seriously. At least this solution does away with having to micromanage infantry (one of my pet peeves). And before someone gripes and says that I need to spend more time with the game, I have spent many hours playing it, trying out differenct tactics, hoping that I'm missing something here. The learning curve really isn't that steep once you realize that rapid pausing and micromanagement of orders can get you the results you are seeking. The game really isn't that difficult, guys. The fact that you can beat many of the scenarios with a few tanks shows the flaws in the game balance.

IMO, reducing the spotting ability of tanks and the ability of infantry to take advantage of cover and concealment would go a long way towards fixing the imbalance - and restore a lot of the fun that I can see lurking beneath the surface of this game. This game is so close to actually being fun that it's frustrating. So much potential squandered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Directive#21:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> A lot of us had the same experience with Combat Mission when the first one came out. I hated the demo, couldn't figure out the controls, and deleted the demo. Came back several months later and gave it another try. I went on to buy multiple copies of the sequels, and have had scenarios published on the special edition discs. Sometimes it just takes getting used to.

Of course, abandoning a video game for other more important real life pursuits is not an unwise move either.

Hey MD, have you given ToW a try? I'm curious what your take is?

-Zach </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game really isn't that difficult, guys. The fact that you can beat many of the scenarios with a few tanks shows the flaws in the game balance.
Gotta agree with MT's comments. Infantry are almost completely fodder. If I try to position them in the provided trenches I can count on arty eliminating them before they're ever in range of enemy infantry. Even telling them to not fire and lay prone doesn't stop the arty from annihilating them. I've learned to position my infantry near the back end of the deployment zone with one or two 'magnets' in the trenches to try and attract the incoming rounds while the rest of the squad runs to hide in the trees on a reverse slope. If I don't use the magnets I am assured that rounds are incoming on my infantry wherever I'm placed them at the start of the scenario. I know to immediately pause the game after starting and scamper them to the rear.

The scenarios are hard because you're usually put in a situation of serious imbalance that is only addressed by scenario triggered reinforcements that don't appear until enough of your starting units have been killed. I feel sometimes like I'm being punished because I manage to keep my troops alive.

IMO, reducing the spotting ability of tanks and the ability of infantry to take advantage of cover and concealment would go a long way towards fixing the imbalance - and restore a lot of the fun that I can see lurking beneath the surface of this game. This game is so close to actually being fun that it's frustrating. So much potential squandered...
I would concur that beefing up the infantry role would help this game be more enjoyable.

A problem I just had in the soviet scenario (Moscow is behind us). I achieved a hull down position with my T-34 and was trying to engage the swarm of German tanks. I know I was hull down because most of their shots would hit the dirt, but some would bounce off the turret or front hull. For some reason they could see through the foilage and strike me, but I couldn't get a LOS on any of them. My crew would complain they didn't have a clear shot at the three AFVs that were on the front slope of a hill in clear terrain. If anything, I'd hoped the tree on the hill I was hiding behind might cover me, not them. So I ordered my crew to run it over, and then resumed my hull down position. Still couldn't get off a shot while the enemy was peppering my tank and the ground around me. The gun wasn't damaged, and it was a while before they started getting wounded. They just kept reporting they couldn't see (icons for the three tanks shooting at them weren't faded out).

I look forward to scenarios the user community puts out (having problems running the editor myself), and would like to try the game multiplayer (to hopefully get away from the Godly Spotter directing AI arty).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i agree. The game sucks on so many levels. 45 bucks for what? To have silly game play. Say what you want about the cm versions. But at least you had ranges to diagnose from. In CM The infantry could hide almost 2 feet away from a fast moving tank. When you had a range icon, you would know if it was BS or not if a tank got a gay shot in. With this game, they dont' want you to know ranges cause then you could look up a chart and KNOW this game is BS. And dont' tell me it's more realistic without ranges. Gonna tell me the gunners and tank commanders couldn't guestimate ranges to the nearest 20 meters. Thier lives depended on it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, still , warts and all this is a fun game.

Ranges are EASY, on the left any unit that is the "current" unit, the point of the curser in the map tells the range, simply place cursor on the targeted unit and the range is there in mtrs. When some minor tweeks are in, this game will shine in ways CM never did, CM was a brilliant game without a good decision ia for the actions of your troops, but a TERRIBLE ia for hte enemy. I can see if folks where only playing CM pbem or some other two person way, but CM ass a solo game, VS TOW? come on, Tow kicks ASS,

I am no sycophant, this game needs tweeking and much of the above mentioned points have some valididty, but I trust this already fun game will be a great game as infantry disapears when not moving or firing and tanks see less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guilty of thinking this game sucked initially also as someone with vast wargaming experience and coming from the previous CM classics. I played the tutorials and loved moving the units around individually or in small groups but had difficulty with the cameras. When I played the first battle I was quickly overwhelmed by the amount of units to control and the speed of the action and figured, this is rubbish. Now however, I am coming around to how it should be played. Not as a CM game in real time and definately not as your classic C&C type RTS. The key difference I found is in using the terrain to maximum effect and make micro moves rather than large sweeping advances. This is a great game and the rewards will come to those who persevere I feel. Remember too that this is effectively software version 1 and generally there will be bugs and minor issues. Once the patches address those issues, the game will be even better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly feel that the people interested in playing this game dont want to micro manage everything. I find unless I am telling armour which rounds to fire or infantry to grab grenades when close to other infantry it just doesnt happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Russkly:

Infantry seem to have little chance against tanks, even when the latter are moving slowly through a village and the former are 'hidden' around (obviously not 'in') buildings and are armed with AT weapons....etc

I have to agree with most of this post. While I think the tank vs tank battles can be a lot of fun in the game, Infantry is pretty much cannon fodder. It seems to have either limited or little practical use in the game. Infantry has to be able to gain advantage from cover and concealment. Woods, brush, subtle folds in the ground. The inability of Infantry to enter buildings is a major oversight and a questionable design decision, particularly for a game that is supposed to portray squad level combat in Europe during WWII.

The basic infantry unit a player has to manuver in the game should really be either a squad or a fire team. Perhaps give the player the ability to break down squads into individual men if the player is so inclined. Having to command individual men as a default game play setting is too distracting for the typical scenario sizes. I know one can control entire squads via a double click on the squad leader. However, it is not typically practical to find the squad leader during real time game play. When things get fast and furious one losses track of the squad leader, particularly if the scenario has any number of tanks\panzers. You end up playing infantry like a game of Command and Conquer, where by you have to grab arbitrary groups of men using a mouse box. I could live with the individual soldier thing, if I felt like spending some time with my infantry was going to pay some dividends. But Infantry survivability in the game is pretty much nil as a result of the games cover and concealment issues.

One final bitch, individual units and the AI initiative thingie is rather over-blown in the game. The general effect of having the AI continually grab hold of a players men and tanks and propel them along in random directions is distracting, and adds little to “realism”. It does suceed in limiting replay value -- at least for me. Units and tanks seem to be continually picking and moving on their own and invariably being slaughtered when a player’s attention is focused elsewhere. Is there a way for a player to turn this feature off such that his squads and tanks are not inclined toward moving on their own?

By the way, I bought the full blown version. I have played the game a number of times. I like the tank battles. Graphics and art are remarkable -- editor is a great add and such. I can work with the controls and camera and the like -- if I felt like it was worth the effort. There are a lot of good design ideas and great concepts in the game. But I personally am looking for a bit more balance between infantry and tank capabilities. To that end I think the design team needs to take a hard look at terrain effects – cover and concealment. Otherwise the game has limited replay value for me. I’ll prolly pick it up again and kick it around after the first patch.

[ May 16, 2007, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy -

When you post an inflamatory and childesh topic header, you are going to be treated like a child. I don't care how old or experienced at wargames you may be. First of all, the game is absolutely not awful. So no matter how valid your criticisms may be, you have lost all credibility. If you had simply posted something along the lines of "reasons why I am not enjoying this game" with a coherent list of what you perceive as problems, you probably would have been treated respectfully. Not sure what your problem is, but is certainly is not this game.

- Hobo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...