Wargamer review. Too harsh?

[Eisen]

Just read the review of TOW on Wargamer. They were pretty harsh in the final wrap up. I find the game hard but seem to learn more each time I play. I like it more as I get the hang of it. What do you guys think of the reviewers comments?

I'm looking forward to Shock Force.

[PFMM]

I think a reviewer has to be aware of the readers' expectations. In that regard, I think his comments were fair enough.

As a product, I think it's okay, but the intention inherent in it always seems greater than the realisation on show.

[FinnN]

Broadly I think it's accurate, although the closing bit about stationary signposts seems to me to be both speculative and (probably) incorrect as a patch has in fact been announced and imminent. The only bit which is factually incorrect in the rest of the review is the bit about buildings and entrenchments not showing any damage - they do eventually.

The bit which says "Gamers either must indulge in a click fest or simply look on and try to intervene at key points" is going to be mostly opinion, but I can say that trying to play it either way is a sure way to lose. The game requires a lot of micromanagement, but if you think that a flurry of clicking is going to win you're dead wrong - even if it seems that way initially (it did to me). Sit back and watch the AI do it all and you'll even more certainly get obliterated by the typically overwhelming AI forces (not AI intelligence in the stock campaign). To win you need a sure strategy and you need to keep cool - each time you swap targets your men take a few shots to get on target again.

The review also misses all the good parts of the game and is a more than a bit dismissive of some things - such as the multiple languages. Sneaking small groups of infantry around the map, setting up ambush positions for SPGs and so on, coordinating various actions and types of units are all really fun and challenging and despite being key to gameplay don't seem to get much of a mention.

Personally I think the bulk of the basic mechanics are there, and having had a look inside the game files they do indeed seem to be implemented - but the game needs some radical rebalancing, which results in confusion over LOS as indicated in the review. There are also some glaring ommissions - waypoints (fixed in the first patch apparently) and smoke (much bigger gap than enterable buildings IMHO, no smoke or grenade cannisters on tanks for defense against infantry and AT guns, no smoke shells for infantry assaults across open ground where you suspect (but don't know) the enemy are in broad daylight, etc).

Have fun

Finn

[Jeff Duquette]

I agree with the above posts from Finn and PFMM...lots of nice design aspects are already in this package.

Regarding the stagnation bit: The game also requires an easy and reliable multiplayer capability. I know this has already been said, but I don’t think this aspect of gaming and the entertainment value associated with it can be emphasized enough. Without an easy means of hooking up for online play, I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb in saying the game will stagnate in popularity and sales. Put an easy and reliable online game playing capability into the existing package and I think you are potentially looking at a very entertaining and popular game.

[Oudy]

Buildings can be set as partially destroyed with scripts. You can also light them on fire...Looks pretty cool. However, apparently, you can't destroy bridges...Maybe with the Map editor.

Oudy

[Richtschuetze]

Hi guys!

I bought the download version right after playing through the demo twice (both times victorious, yippie!). In case nobody else has said it so far I would like to commend the makers of this game: Great job!

I've been waiting for a game like this ever since the Close Combat series came to an end. Even though the game needs improvements in various aspects I have enjoyed playing several scenarios without any of the technical issues mentioned elsewhere in this forum.

As to the game features, I agree that the following issues should be addressed:

1. LOS-Tool needed

2. Giving orders and formations during setup

3. Option to buy air, recon and artillery support

4. Okay, those buildings...but PLEASE: make them enterable from ALL sides. Not like Codename Panzers or Company of Heroes!

5. SMOKE (very important)

6. Waypoints

7. Random (but intelligent!) order of battle and placement of AI-units during setup. Will make replays much more fun!

8. Cooperative multiplay vs. AI.

Even without these features, however, the game is great fun. I agree that it is not the right pick for the usual RTS-gamer. But then again, Codename Panzers and Company of Heroes were quite boring to me despite their high quality. ToW just seems a whole lot more realistic to me.

Okay, enough said!

Greetings,

Richtschuetze

[monkeezgob]

Thought the review was very fair and pretty much summed up where the game is right now.

[Xerxes the Great]

Honestly, I think the review was fair. I felt it was overall positive. However, the reviewer was obviously affected by LOS issues (like many of us who play the game). The most criticism you can make on this game at its current state (without any patches) is the inability to hide and inability to save infantry and tanks from easy detection and destruction.

It is far too easy to detect armour and infantry 1000 meter away and not being able to hide or take cover or use camaflaouge.

The reviewer also for some reason doesn't believe Battlefront will step forward and deliver the necessary patches to address current gameplay issues which I disagree with. I have confidence that they will judging by their involvement with the community and actually listening to players comments and suggestions.

This game has immense potential.

Over and out.