GriffinCheng+ Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Hello, I visited Game Rankings for some “mainstream” reviews of ToW. First off, I am very seriously considering my purchase, so I spend time reading posts here and other reviews. Unfortunately, just some strange issues with the demo hinders me from putting down my cash and the good news, as far as I can tell, 1C is working on that now. My experience with the demo is long enough, along with all your posts here, to see the good things about ToW, so I would like to skip here (sorry). The general comments I gather from the reviews generally sum up in the following areas: Terrain and game play are repetitive Reviews mention that the landscape looks, despite very grand, are very similar to each other; you cannot really tell whether you are in France, Poland or Russia. Well, I have not been to Europe myself so I am not an expert in this regard. However, as a player of all Combat Missions (CM) titles, I think it is fair to say “My dear, I don’t give a damn”. Yes, in CMBB, you can clearly tell the difference between the Great Russian steppe and a French farmland and it would more immersing. As a wargamer, I see not real impact on this. I have not played Company of Heroes (CoH), so I cannot really tell if CoH provides more variety of gameplay than ToH (CoH has one-man fire team perhaps?). As a wargamer myself, I clearly see this is not a RTS (or I preferring calling those RTC “real-time click”) and ToW fits exactly my expectations. I guess once you figure out how to manage your troops (more on that later); the rest lays in how you achieve your mission objectives. If the player wishes to find a “story” within the series of campaign, I am afraid it is not what it is designed for. And not to say bad things about the computer opponent, I think the next level of fun comes in when matching against another human player, which is more unpredictable and challenging. Management (or the micro of it) Some mentioned that you have to tell your unit which weapon to fire, e.g. grenade. It is a bit concern to me. I have yet to check if it is real or not but since I can tell my PaK (oh, the AT gun) to fire upon various parts of an AFV, it may be a bit over tedious and, so far, I cannot see any real tactical advantage in using this feature. I would expect my troops to fight in the most effective manner under circumstances just like in Close Combat and CM. “Solid” building This one has been covered in many other posts, and I fully understand the technical difficulties in implementing. Personally, I would say I am not exactly happy about this, since there are trenches and walls working very well here. I would really like to see this product to evolve. I am not asking a 100% reproduction of “complex town” like Caen and Red October Factory, I just want my troops to get into house-to-house fighting. Strange LOS rules This is another feature which one review actually finds missing when compares with the CM series. I personally would like to see there would be a LOS tool included too. So much for now, I guess I need to dig out more when I have my demo “fixed”. But the game is very promising and constantly improving (a major patch is released at the time of typing). I really want to spend more time on it. Your feedbacks are welcomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 Terrain and game play are repetitive Reviews mention that the landscape looks, despite very grand, are very similar to each other; you cannot really tell whether you are in France, Poland or Russia. Well, I have not been to Europe myself so I am not an expert in this regard. However, as a player of all Combat Missions (CM) titles, I think it is fair to say “My dear, I don’t give a damn”. Yes, in CMBB, you can clearly tell the difference between the Great Russian steppe and a French farmland and it would more immersing. As a wargamer, I see not real impact on this. the "optical" touch of the landscape is in fact really a bit "monoton"(dunno if its valid in english ). nothing other to say about that, even from the most fanboyant perspective of view. about the repetativenes; well thats in fact up to the singel person. the reviewers wich think its repitative obviously didnt had mucht to like with TOW. as example i could say here that race games are repitative, after you drove every track once its basicly all the same, lap for lap for lap... that however wont keep racers from racing 1000th of laps on the same tracks....so its up to the individual at wich point he feels the game is repitative. the more you LIKE and WANT go for the "perfect lap" or "perfect battle" the less suspect you are to feel the game as repitative becouse you like the system and what you are doing in-game. so if there is something about repitativenes in a review i skip that part at once. I have not played Company of Heroes (CoH), so I cannot really tell if CoH provides more variety of gameplay than ToH (CoH has one-man fire team perhaps?). As a wargamer myself, I clearly see this is not a RTS (or I preferring calling those RTC “real-time click”) and ToW fits exactly my expectations. I guess once you figure out how to manage your troops (more on that later); the rest lays in how you achieve your mission objectives. If the player wishes to find a “story” within the series of campaign, I am afraid it is not what it is designed for. And not to say bad things about the computer opponent, I think the next level of fun comes in when matching against another human player, which is more unpredictable and challenging. well, i did play CoH, it came free with my graphix card well, lets say i was impressed by the fact they give you "pretty much" micro managing options AND let all that play out in PURE realtime. i am too much into turn based or real time with pause. other than that, i thought ppl wich like such RTS chaos shall play it, i dont. Management (or the micro of it) Some mentioned that you have to tell your unit which weapon to fire, e.g. grenade. It is a bit concern to me. I have yet to check if it is real or not but since I can tell my PaK (oh, the AT gun) to fire upon various parts of an AFV, it may be a bit over tedious and, so far, I cannot see any real tactical advantage in using this feature. I would expect my troops to fight in the most effective manner under circumstances just like in Close Combat and CM. again its up to the single person. you dont have to but you can do it. its not like the tac ai is ALL that stupid, you have to tell it when to use throwing mines or handgranades at exactly the right moment to get exactly the result you want(or as close as possible)BUT they would use this stuff also by themseff but to reduced effectiveness the schreck and faust soldiers for example are best put a way a bit in hold fire command. so the dont waste valuable "schrecken" or "fäuste" by themselfs ;)as it is in CM where the schreck start to shoot at 120-130 meters but wont hit a barn at that distance. EDIT: hm, the feature to let you choos where to hit a tank is rather nice. it has many advantages but no disatvanteges you have tiny 50/L60 or less and there comes KV1!? no prob(in rethorical sense), shoot its tracks or damage its gun by aiming at the coresponding vehicles location. high, mid and low. opposed to CM you can dod that stuff on purpouse here not just by bad or good luck. or give you vehicle "maximum" hit chance by aiming mid so you have a little room above and below when the shot goes not into the bullseye directly. and last but not least oyu can "ignore" sloped armor by not shooting on it i aim all close and mid range side shots low becouse there is generally a 0° plate behind the running gear for example. ovcoures, the better build the tanks the harder it gets to ignor its sloped armor in such a way but you get what i mean... cant say anything about the buildings, its not in right now, so...well. Strange LOS rules This is another feature which one review actually finds missing when compares with the CM series. I personally would like to see there would be a LOS tool included too. well, iam rather puzzled if this patch has a los tool now or not. it would rally help big time and was said to be added but its not noted in patchlog. i DLed patch, but didnt installed so far. i try it out tomorrow. the LOS issue istn THAT big for me as some are saying. YES, basicly you feel like everything is penetratable by sight and you are on a silver plate all the time but in fact its not exactly like that. sometimes in the same thread you can read that someone is unable to hide his troops and someone else chased 1 houer around the map to find the frigging prone bailed enemy tank crew wich sneked around in the map, in order to finish the scenario. so, when you develope a feeling for when your troops are hidden and when not it gets a bit easier. playing bigger inf battles gives you soone a rather "solid" feeling about this, not tooo solid but still. thats it... [ June 25, 2007, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Pandur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted June 26, 2007 Share Posted June 26, 2007 sorry, the forum is pretty laggy for me right now. unfortunate double post... [ June 25, 2007, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Pandur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted June 26, 2007 Author Share Posted June 26, 2007 I would say I may have been playing too much CM myself to pull out of it. You can say I am really pre-occupied. Nonetheless, I have to clarify myself that I can live with that (w.r.t. the "sharpshooter" tutorial). A LOS tool can comes into handy. I have to add also one review seems to have problem with relative spotting, which is a great improvement over original CM series. I guess either the readers should have digression by themselves or some body should straighten this person up... I am not saying the computer does not handle things right, but I don't want to babysit everyone most of the time and some high "management" functions are always welcomed. I have seen infantry men clawing towards my AFV, but I have yet to see them taking the "assault". Well, I think I would put this in another thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 i wonder why noone else posts in here...:???: I am not saying the computer does not handle things right, but I don't want to babysit everyone most of the time and some high "management" functions are always welcomed. well thats the problem you get with 1:1 representation wich lets you manage every single soldier(as oposed to CM:SF´s 1:1 representation of groups as far as i understood). programming an AI is rather hard i think and so, just for example, trie to tell the an AI soldier with a Panzerwurfmine(you like these words ) to go and attack an tank by himself when he is prone and there are 2 tanks around and a bit going around in the back. in the worst case you AI man will stand up by himself a ran off and get killed, than someone comes "wtf, why my units dont hold ground". in the best case he does the job and you feel like he played the game not you. to say it in my bad english as best i can, the AI can read battle information like tank positions and where infantry groups are better than you but its verry hard to get it to interprete it right so it can do a desicion by itself. however you have total plan of whats going on becouse your mind has the battle plan and you know basicly when there is a good moment and a soldier can make it to an tank or not. so its up to you to micromanage this, a bit zombielike man to take them to their best JAWOHL! and we march away... [ June 28, 2007, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Pandur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drumin Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Hi, I published a review in one of those general game sites not a long while ago. The review itself is in hebrew review so I am attaching a copy of it in English (Took some liberty in the translation - Also please excuse me for the level of English grammer ) I kinda go with most of what you gathered. I do like wargames and played some of them (Including CM series) a lot. I found TOW quite hard-core and the micro-management is balking at times... ================================================= TOW review A couple of months ago I labored over a review for Neverwinter Nights 2. My conclusion was that the game is a “diamond in the rough”. A couple of months and several patches later – The game (At least its stability and performance) improved to no end, what brings it very close to that coveted “benchmark game” status in its genre. A common thing to games that turn into benchmark games are fan expectations. Rare are the games that appear out of nowhere and achieve that lofty status (Roughly, I can point to “Space Rangers II” and maybe “Far cry” (Though that is not exactly the case there)). When the development drag on over a span of a few years and the game start to switch publishers, like passing a kidney stone, till it lands on the store shelves, Fan expectations can turn it to an instant classic or a resounding failure (Daikatana or MOO3, anyone?) TOW is one of those uneasy cases. It seems like it is ages in development at 1C (Of IL-2 fame), going through uncountable delays, switching publishers like socks till it managed to rest on the laurels of Battlefront, the online wargaming publisher. Fans of the genre were nothing short of ecstatic and waited patiently for the release day. There is much that can be said of TOW (We will say, no need to wait long). With your permission, I will deliver the bottom line first: “A diamond, in the rough (And also not to everyone’s liking)”. Its one hell of a game, but it is problematic in some levels (Whether we are talking about bugs or some glaringly missing features). It must be said – And that is highly important to anyone who is contemplating the purchase of TOW (Or any other game which still seems to require work after its release) – that the developers/publishers already announced a fix-laden, bursting-at-the-seams patch, which will include some comprehensive additions in features and content (A complete 10 mission campaign). Previous experience shows that the highly demanding wargaming community won’t rest till it will get its “pound of flesh”. Since the online distributed games have a much longer life span, the developer/publisher has it in his best interest to improve and patch his games. The community is aware of that, so even though it is bombarding the forums (And the developers) with issues and requests – It shows an impressive amount of restraint so far. As that is the case – We certainly have what to look for. TOW is a tactical simulation of WWII that looks and feels like an RTS. What does that mean? Every battle/mission we will have to resolve our goal with a limited amount of units and vehicles. None of that resource harvesting and base building mumbo-jumbo – Pure tactics. The control scheme is in the 3D RTS style, with everything that is implied from that. What differs it from RTS? Almost everything else. The installation breezes through, leaving a 2GB footprint on the HD. The game is using an eLicense mechanism, which allows the game to be installed on 2 machines (Not counting re-installations). The mechanism requires a one-time registration in the company server (Even though we are dealing with a veteran company, failures of services such as GameTap and the likes make such mechanism a usual suspect). Both download and boxed versions are available (A combined option is always recommended), where the later includes a hefty 74 page booklet, which will reward the browser with much needed information (Worth doing so before the training/tutorial completion). The game’s graphic is top notch (Well, at least in the genre standards, but not exclusive). It’s a little hard to imagine that the game is using a highly revised graphic engine of a flight sim, especially since it looks that good and works well. The vehicles level of detail is exquisite (When was the last time you could actually see the loading mechanism of an AT tank doing lock & load in a computer game?). Given that, the soldiers models are a little disappointing, and seem a little cardboard-like (Maybe due to lack of textures). The maps are huge and cover enormous lots of terrain, but are somewhat sparingly populated (Simulator graphical engine??) with tress, hills and the exemplar settlement (Which always look the same, both in eastern Russia and in the lush hills of Alsace). The graphical options are in abundance (As expected from a simulator ), and the game works well on quite acceptable rigs. On the other hand, we MUST point out that maps load times can give a watching paint dry a good run for its money (Hopefully that would be addressed in a future patch). The camera is very usable and is controlled a way reminiscent to a 3D RTS. The zoom ranges from low orbit satellite to ant farm level, including a nifty 1st person unit view. The sound effects and music are done with a good taste and get the job done, but they are mostly functional and won’t bring in any award. The game toils along the European theatre of WWII, and contains 5 campaigns (Allies, Russians, Germans, and the token resistance offered by the Polish and French armies) that depict over 40 real-life battles. In addition, there are single missions (A quick battle of sorts), A comprehensive set of training mission (Tutorial), A mission editor and a multiplayer game mode, which was unfortunately quite desolate at the time of writing. On top of all that the game includes a amazingly comprehensive encyclopedia of WWII vehicles and weapons, delivered in a professional production level. The campaigns are somewhat skeletal and not completely dynamic – Each unit has a non-monetary value, which counts towards a battle unit value limit. You can go with a 100 points tank, several half-trucks or 2 companies of the same value. The level of variation is almost staggering. The choices you make can support you when using varied strategic tactics, but you must make them wisely and consider the goals and expected enemies (No use on loading heavily on infantry, when the opponent has a panther platoon). The units gain experience after each battle through which they survived. That experience will upgrade their abilities. Experience in driving will allow a soldier to operate an enemy captured vehicle with ease. Leadership had a great impact on moral, and the option to motivate our soldiers to do our bidding, and continue doing so under enemy fire. The vehicle themselves are depicted realistically – A tank can lose it’s treads but maintain operation by supplying cover fire. In dire situations the team can depart from the tank and continue to fight on foot. The main difference between TOW and other RTS games is the realism. The maps are huge, and still artillery barrage can hit all over the map. The fire range corresponds to the weapons, as is line-of-sight. We cannot see the infamous infantry squads obliterating a tank on their own, as per C&C and its clonies. Terrain is deformable, so placement of foxholes, mines and bunkers will nip a mass infantry charge in the bud. Realism also affects the level of difficulty and challenge in the game. Players who will have a hard time might be able to round some corners, but there is no setting to turn TOW to a walk in the park. One should use proven tactics (Such as flanking and cover), and if that doesn’t help, not to be ashamed to summon air support or artillery. The realism somewhat suffers from some of the game bugs, which give the AI almost supernatural powers in targeting my forces, while some of my troops should have been arrested for J-walking, roaming aimlessly into areas with enemy fire suppression. While I do not expect the game to be completely balanced (Sometimes one side has much superior weaponary) at all times, that was somewhat over-the-top. Since we started wandering to the cons area, here’s some more: Control is an imperative factor. The units are singled out, and require an amount of micro-management, which might make the control somewhat chaotic. The inability of the units to take cover in (or just enter) buildings is nagging. It was a major feature of the Combat mission series (But then again – This is no Combat Mission). The training/tutorial missions are arranged in a irrational order (Which might make them hard on beginners and push them towards a bad game experience). There are a plethora of other bugs and freezes, Some severe enough to require a complete hard boot of the system (Tip: disable shadows (It helps)). When taking all these into consideration in a game that was in development for so long – It is both disappointing and annoying. TOW have a lot of interesting features, some taking RTS realism to new heights. The level of presentation is high, and it gives its crowd exactly what it craved for - Challenge with candy coating. On the other hand, the level of difficulty and the steep learning curve can be daunting, making this game not accessible to all crowds. The wargaming community received the game with reserved enthusiasm (With all its issues). I am certain that a lot of extra content (Official and fan-based) will be released for the game in the coming months. That, with the expected patches would make it just what it is meant to be – A theatre of war. Final score 82 Cons Steep learning curve Buggy (Playable but often annoying) Houses are un-enterable Pros Realism – Different, hard and challenging Impressive graphical presentation High replay value – Extra content expected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapaho Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Thanks for translating Drumin - an excellent review, by far the most accurate (imo) I have read. MP and community mods are the future !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts