Wargamer REVIEW

[Monkeys Brain]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: David Heath
Mario how old are you.

[:D] LOL!! [:D] I missed the fun again.

He's over 35, am I right Mario? [:D]

However, in his defence, I think it was Hertston who "hijacked the thread". He went back to "high price vs low price" flamewar with his sarcastic post, and after that it's open season, free for all again. It takes a man of great self control and restraint (points to self) not to jump into that again [8D]

Anyhow congrats on a good review though I for one cannot stand Trotter's baroque and self-obsessed style.

I will turn 35 this month. But I am young in my soul like little kid lol so more 3,5 hehe

You are right Hertson hijacked the thread and thanks for defense [:)] but I didn't had to react like that and I apologized for that , that was not nice.

In fact partly I wrote this as a ploy to attract you into thread. [;)]
I know how flamboyant you could be (whatever that means LOLZ)

As you also write for Wargamer I thought that I would say something bad about Trotter so that you also open fire lolz. My ploy misfired...

In fact Trotter is good read but I agree with you that he is somewhat self obsessed.

But again I am not trying to open this discussion again. Or on price, that discussion for me is over.

Hristos vaskrs! lolz


Mario

[Uncle_Joe]

Welll Trotters review is the reason I stopped back. He said that the one thing that killed CC3 (the tank heavy russian AI) is fixed. So wanted to see if that is true. I cant tell you how much I hated that with a passion.

 
In my experience, the AI is still extremely tank-heavy in the campaigns. By the 4th-5th Op or so I'm routinely facing large numbers of armor. I think it has a lot to do with the handicapping points that are handed out if the force levels are unbalanced. And the AI tends to get the bulk of its force killed off every battle so the forces are usually unbalanced. So, it gets a ton of points, proceeds to spend them on generally a mass of armor again, loses them all and the cycle repeats. I've totally given up on the campaign game for that reason. Its just not fun doing the tank orgies game after game after game.
 
I'm holding out some hope for the 1940 Mod. The armor in that one should be a little less common and a little weaker. If that doesnt pan out, then I'll just continue to ignore the campaign altogether.
 
Note that if you want to pick the AI's forces, it is possible to do that for individual battles by creating a scenario yourself. That's basically what I've been doing since giving up on the tank orgies and it works pretty well. The only real downside is that the fog of war of the enemy forces is gone since you picked 'em yourself.
 
I would take that review with a large grain of salt. Its obvious that the reviewer enjoys the game and is excited about it and that seems to cloud his experience with some of the details. He has the fundamentals right and it IS a good game, but vs the AI it still seems to be the same old same old I remember from CC3 with the RR mod...ie, tanks, tanks, and more tanks.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

About the armour in CC3...

This pretty much ruins the first eighteen months of the war for the Germans. Not in the sense that it's a challenge, but rather because it's just so hokey. And it's not just tanks, but the flock of KV1 that camps out on the VP. Later in the war, the nazees get upgraded weapons that allow them to compete. Until then, CC3\CoI game is a pain in the butt!!!

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[LitFuel]

You can never please everyone...not enough tanks in CC2 so they added tanks...then they say too many tanks in CC3 so what are they to do. CC3/COI was not my favorite of the bunch...CC2 is,  but I do find enjoyment in it as a change of pace to the infantry heavy CC2. I just look at it as a different. There are always mods to change things up a bit as well.

[GS_Schimpf]

The amount of tanks is specific to the scenario. CC2 is mainly airborne troops, so no tanks normally. CC3 is set on the Eastern Front where the biggest tank battles ever took place, hence there are a lot of tanks to be found. It's not just a developer decision but the dev is somewhat bound to  the historical setting he wants to employ, at least if historical accuracy is a goal of development.

[Uncle_Joe]

Whether the Eastern Front had more tanks is immaterial IMO. At this scale, it shouldnt always about the armor. And that aside, the AI does a TERRIBLE job with its armor. Its obvious that the AI's ability to use armor effectively is quite limited, often resulting in 'kill zones' utterly littered with knocked-out AFVs.
 
So why the game engine continually makes sure that the AI buys AFV after AFV to misuse is totally beyond me. Its not a question of what do people enjoy per se (maybe there are those who like the tank orgies, but my guess is that they are in the minority here). The real problem is that since the AI is so inept with armor that it ruins the game experience IMO. Unless it has the well-nigh unkillable stuff, it will lose them, often to little gain. After a dozen or so such massacres, the game becomes boring as hell IMO.
 
On the other hand, it doesnt do a terrible job if it has a well balanced or infantry-heavy force. Its not some super tactical wizard but it puts up a decent fight in many cases, unlike when it (mis)uses AFVs. So if it was infantry heavy with a little armor support it would be a far better opponent than the current opposite approach of max'ed out armor with a bit of infantry support.

[Jeffrey H.]

I recall trying to find CCIV and CCV opponents on MSGZ and was a little dismayed to see all the players on CCIII. I think CCIII was, in terms of played hours the most popular of the bunch.

There were vocal dissenters about the AFV centric nature of it, but many players liked that part of it too.

I agree that somehow the wires got crossed - the game AI clearly handles infantry much better than AFV's and yet CCIII became AFV centric. Seems like an unforseen oversight or something that maybe was not thoroughly playtested out. But, OTOH, it was the most popoular of the bunch.

[mooxe]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

I recall trying to find CCIV and CCV opponents on MSGZ and was a little dismayed to see all the players on CCIII. I think CCIII was, in terms of played hours the most popular of the bunch.

There were vocal dissenters about the AFV centric nature of it, but many players liked that part of it too.

I agree that somehow the wires got crossed - the game AI clearly handles infantry much better than AFV's and yet CCIII became AFV centric. Seems like an unforseen oversight or something that maybe was not thoroughly playtested out. But, OTOH, it was the most popoular of the bunch.

I agree with you that at the time, back in those days it was definetly the most played. However, with my experience with CC5, it is the longest lasting and most played of any CC version. Its still going strong on GameSpy right now. The 2nd most played version would be a tossup between CC2 and CC3. 4 and 1 coming in last.

I believe the non-linear style of the CC5 Campaign made it last through the years. People got tired with linear campaigns and 1vs1 head to head games I believe.

[Jeffrey H.]

Well yeah CCV had a great campaign game for the Carentan Peninsula that added a layer, but CCIV had the same sort of strat layer IIRC. It's the Winter terrain that made CCIV unpopular IMHO.

Nice site BTW, you certainly are a fan of the series.

[helblazer]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

Well yeah CCV had a great campaign game for the Carentan Peninsula that added a layer, but CCIV had the same sort of strat layer IIRC. It's the Winter terrain that made CCIV unpopular IMHO.

I remember getting tired of the snow white maps pretty early in the game. Everything looks too similar. In fact, I don't believe I have ever finished a campaign of CC4. I also don't like the force pool arrangement and prefer the point buy method. Its kind of funny because in real life I dislike shopping