It now sounds interesting

[JudgeDredd]

...but given my history with SSG games, I'll still be holding off on a purchase.

I've read in depth writings of the AoOs and MVs and satisifed to some point that it will result in a better game rather than hindering the user...but there are several things I'll be looking out for on release before I buy...

• Reports on how the AoOs and MVs work out
• Reports on how the AI operates and fights without the use of the AoOs and MVs
• Replayability

I'm still very concerned at the length of the scenario...16 days (16 turns) seems very, very skimpy...and my history with SSG would not do anything to alleviate that concern to be completely honest.

I was disappointed with KP and I was sorely disappointed with the content and lack of options in CaW.

However, more than before, I am keeping an open mind to the game. It's not a definite buy for me. However, less than a week ago, it wasn't even a consideration, but the introduction of AoOs and MVs seem like innovations worthy of a glance.

If the price is right and the content/longevity are there, then it's now in the possible category.

I will most definitely be reading up on it on release.

[Noakesy]

If the price is right and the content/longevity are there, then it's now in the possible category.

I will most definitely be reading up on it on release.

Entirely reasonable comments, and I agree, but do you see decent games these days for <$50 (probably cue a plethora of notes on 100s of games under $50, but none of mine ever seem to be)?

[Howard7x]

Even the biggest budget computer games have no real length in them. GTA4 has 40ish hours, look how many copies its sold. Dark sector 7hrs/ gears of war 6hrs/ call of duty 4 6hrs etc etc. Look at the price of those games.&nbsp;Wargamers get more bang for their buck than any other genre, i dont see the argument over "its not woth the money cos its only got 1 scenario". I got way over 40 hours worth of gaming from BIN, BII (in the 100s) and even Battlefront so ive never considered any of them a waste of money, BF was a dissapointment.
&nbsp;
DotD is going to be a great game, one worthy of a purchase and anyone that thinks 10 viarants and the new mystery and AO systems + support (thats right, support) from SSG and scenario designers is a waste of money must be mad. Comparing it to other wargames is probably the sole reason for argument and i completely understand it and the points you have made above. As a stand alone game however, what we are getting here is worth every penny, so long as the new systems work well of course.
&nbsp;
I followed Battlefront very closely from the initial announcement right through to the release of the second patch and then&nbsp;the lack of support/scenarios thereafter. I get the feeling&nbsp;from SSG that this version of the engine is back to what weve seen in the past and hence support and scenarios after release will not be an issue.&nbsp;Fingers crossed eh?
&nbsp;

[JudgeDredd]

call of duty 4 6hrs

Wait a cotton pickin minute!!! 6 hours for Call of Duty 4???

On easy, it took 6. Played it through on medium for another 8 hours and still on the hardest setting some 14 hours in.

Plus all the online gaming I can get. The story itself keeps making me go back to play it...AND it's one of the few games I play that require a disk in the drive!

Sorry...but CoD4 has way more than 6 hours play time in it...if you're into that kind of thing.

[TheHellPatrol]

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

Even the biggest budget computer games have no real length in them. GTA4 has 40ish hours, look how many copies its sold. ?

Oh come on[8|], i know you love SSG and all but that comment is 100% false. Where is Jarhead when you need him?[:'(]. The "Main story line" has more than 40 hours alone and added with all the side quests it is almost 100 hours. Do you own GTA4? Have you played it to completion?
@JudgeDredd: I agree with your points and remember this new "system" since BF's release also left us with a lacking AI. Very, very, very skimpy + no replayability and an AI that doesn't compare to the Decisive Battles series....[>:]

[JudgeDredd]

And if I was to take their latest outing at face value, it would cost me around £35 which is in the region of $70.

If the game is indeed $50, then I'm still looking at $60 with VAT. So it isn't really $50 we're talking about here...not for everyone.

And bear in mind, I picked up EU:Rome for £17.99 ($36) shipped and taxed! And I had EUIII for around the same price and have been playing that for at least a year.

I know...different companies...different budgets. But my point is, if you go waving prices around, there are plenty of examples of where I could get more for my money.

As I said in the previous post, if I get reports that it's got replayability and if I see some scenarios cropping up, then I may well make the purchase. But due to CaW, I'm afraid my fingers have already been nurnt with this company.

Like I said, I'll wait and see.

[Adam Parker]

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

I followed Battlefront very closely from the initial announcement right through to the release of the second patch and then the lack of support/scenarios thereafter. I get the feeling from SSG that this version of the engine is back to what weve seen in the past ...

What it suggests to me is that the Battalion Level experiment with Battlefront may have failed in terms of AI (as I predicted it would) and that SSG has gone back to its roots of Regimental Level play.

However, unless Kharkov can produce a situation of closely packed front lines with gaps for the AI to exploit (like Normandy and Ardennes) it will remain lost (as in Italy and Sicily) where the open lines showed up its inability to maneuver and defend.

SSG has a definite gem in its now old AI engine (if it ain't broken don't fix it) - and it remains as heralded in the original designer's notes to Ardennes Offensive 1 - the AI needs continuous front lines to defend and exploit.

[sol_invictus]

Maybe SSG shoyld make a WWI title; seriously.

[Howard7x]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

call of duty 4 6hrs

Wait a cotton pickin minute!!! 6 hours for Call of Duty 4???

On easy, it took 6. Played it through on medium for another 8 hours and still on the hardest setting some 14 hours in.

Plus all the online gaming I can get. The story itself keeps making me go back to play it...AND it's one of the few games I play that require a disk in the drive!

Sorry...but CoD4 has way more than 6 hours play time in it...if you're into that kind of thing.

I was waiting for someone to pick up on that. And the reasons that you just gave for replaying the single player campaign + multiplayer does not hold true for a wargame/boardgame?

I own COD4 by the way and have played it for many hours, mainly online.

Im fighting a loosing battle here If people are so intent on flaming it before any real details are released then fair enough. Go ahead...

[Howard7x]

ORIGINAL: TheHellPatrol

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

Even the biggest budget computer games have no real length in them. GTA4 has 40ish hours, look how many copies its sold. ?

and an AI that doesn't compare to the Decisive Battles series....[>:]

The AI in DotD doesnt compare to DB? And that could be 100% false as well. Do you own the game? Have you played through it to completion? Surely the jury is still out on that one... i hope your not right, but you seem to be making alot of assumptions based on what exactly? Battlefront? Im not repeating my other comments, just give the game a damn chance.

As for the fact that im a fan of SSG, yeah i am and one bad game in 5 from KP is not exactly bad going.
What really winds me up about this forum is people that seem intent on destroying a games credibility before its even reached a beta stage. The same thing has happened over in another section of this friendly forum just recently.

As for GTA4, yes i do own it. No i havent completed it, its bloody brilliant. And thats the last time i compare games without thinking about it too much [:D]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

call of duty 4 6hrs

Wait a cotton pickin minute!!! 6 hours for Call of Duty 4???

On easy, it took 6. Played it through on medium for another 8 hours and still on the hardest setting some 14 hours in.

Plus all the online gaming I can get. The story itself keeps making me go back to play it...AND it's one of the few games I play that require a disk in the drive!

Sorry...but CoD4 has way more than 6 hours play time in it...if you're into that kind of thing.

I was waiting for someone to pick up on that. And the reasons that you just gave for replaying the single player campaign + multiplayer does not hold true for a wargame/boardgame?

I own COD4 by the way and have played it for many hours, mainly online.

Im fighting a loosing battle here If people are so intent on flaming it before any real details are released then fair enough. Go ahead...

If you read my post, I'm not flaming anything.

I know the reasons I gave for replaying CoD4 are not applicable to a wargame. I wasn't the one who brought up CoD4...you did. If you're going to use something as an example of not having replayability, then don't shoot the messenger when he returns to say he does get mileage out of it.

As it happens, it doesn't matter "why" or "how" I get mileage out of a game...the fact that I get mileage out a game is what counts. I want to play a game...and play it again...and play it again. If the game allows me to do that, and gives me something in return each time, then it's worth the money. If it doesn't then it's not.

CoD4 pulled me back several times because of a story. The fact that the missions are the same (albeit harder or easier) is irrelevant. It gave me value for money because the graphics were awesome, the story was great and the game dragged me in and made me want to play again.

A wargame will pull me in if it plays out differently and puts up a challenge. If it doesn't, then for me it will not be worth the money.

I simply find SSGs titles lacking in content and as stated here I gave a couple of examples of how much I could get for less than $50.

I'm not slating anything...I started this thread to suggest to the developers and Matrix that I will keep my ear to the ground on it, and if they prove me wrong, then I could be in. As it was, a week ago, knowing mine and SSGs history, I wasn't even going to look at it.

I said in the post that with the AoOs and MVs explained the way they are, it jumped onto my possible buy. I don't think that's flaming...and if it is, then I'm sure SSG would be eagre to have others flame away.

[Howard7x]

Eh? I wasnt even on about you... although it was a reply to you, it wasnt aimed at you directly other than the cod4 bit. I was mearly using a horrifically bad way of making a point and as usual, got jumped on. I wont make the same mistake twice, in fact im not even going to bother again. I dont come on here to get pissed off, just the negativity regarding a game before its even hit beta is a little hard to swallow, fan or no fan. Its just bullshit. And im not just talking about this game. Its frustrating cos i know how much hard work is being put into these games and compared with big budget games, the rewards for these devs is pretty poor. Wargames just are not that popular and hence we have a small market being made even bloody smaller by the rantings of certain people on this forum. Shame, real shame.
&nbsp;
Good luck SSG, im outta here.

[JudgeDredd]

Well a misunderstanding then. I wasn't trying to rub you up the wrong way.

I do think the negativity is peoples perceptions of the company they've had dealings with in the past. And personally, I think people who have been let down (and that is an objective thing and personal to each gamer) should come on the forum of a game being developed by the developer to voice their previous concerns. So the devloper gets the message

As I said, I'm not flaming the game...just hoping for more than I've received before from SSG. Once I read how the AoOs would work, it made the game sound very interesting, which is why I wrote this, because my initial post on this forum about this game was negative, due to my history with SSG games.

However, as I said, I am going to keep my ear to the ground on this

[JudgeDredd]

Its frustrating cos i know how much hard work is being put into these games and compared with big budget games, the rewards for these devs is pretty poor. Wargames just are not that popular and hence we have a small market being made even bloody smaller by the rantings of certain people on this forum

But if people don't let the devs know that they aren't happy and just leave, then the devs can't fix what is perceived as being a bad game, or errors of judgment or whatever.

Negative feedback can be very productive to the devs. Admittedly it depends on how it's put across...but they do need to know if they aren't maximising their sales.

By the same token, I also think sometimes "Why do they bother".

It's a catch 22...if a game doesn't do it for you, you need to tell the devs...but that could well just move the devs onto something more "rewarding".

It is in the tone though. But it seems that "some people" have been more severely burnt by SSGs games than I have. My experience has not been great with them. I can see how their games appeal to the people specifically interested in the battles they portray...but in a shrinking market, they're not really maximising their sales by ignoring the other people who say "I know you do detailed battles and they are very detailed...but I would like more content and I will buy your games".

Anyway, sorry to see your pissed off. It wasn't my intention and I'm sure it wasn't anyone else's. No-one wants to rain on the parade of a new game...they just want to tell the devs that they need to look at the broader picture to accommodate as many gamers as their system will allow.

[Gen Alexandra]

I do not pop in here very often, but felt the need to maybe redress some of the argument/debate.

Firstly, I see a lot of mention of $50 for this game, have SSG released a price for this game, or are we all basing the $50 on the Battlefront release?

Kharkov BoD is a 16 turn scenario which has a fair few counters to move on both sides of the scenario. Looking at the releases so far from SSG, the amount of work per turn could take up to 1hour? – So we get a game that would take us around 16hrs to play. Add in the mystery variants and we in fact get another host of scenarios (ok based around the same map and counters), to play.

BII shipped the same, one map and a few different variants to depict several battles, the same with BIN, only Battlefront has shipped with differing maps and differing scenarios, so to me this release is along the lines of other SSG releases.

It is only the player created scenarios that makes BII probably the most played title in SSG catalogue, Battlefront failed on that score because of the difficult AI modelling and as a fair few players like to play against the AI rather than by PBEM it is fair to assume that these players will not be turned on by a one scenario with variants game.

But, SSG I believe are already planning future release around the same engine. We know that a certain player from Run5 already is working with this new engine in creating a scenario, so for me the future looks bright as for increased playability.

Now what do you want from a game? One that holds an interest, is fun and challenging to play? Well think about all those games that lie gathering dust somewhere in your life (I know I have a whole host of them) they promised so much then failed once you learnt the scenarios, where to move, when to move etc. What SSG are offering IMO is something unique, the chance to play a scenario and not know the outcome before you start, the chance to maybe really think like a commander and assess what is front of you, rather than repeat moves from game to game.

I for one, will be looking forward to this release, IMO it has a bright future if SSG get the release right (manuals & price), continue to support the engine with official release’s and patch’s and support those able and willing to create their own scenarios.

IMO I think SSG will.

[sullafelix]

It does sound interesting. But, I think what is troubling most people is that they were spoiled from early on by SSG. From it's beginning in the early 80's, SSg had released HUGE amount of scenarios for the games they were releasing then. It now seems that they rely on user made scenarios to fill in the gap. I for one was pretty amazed that there were no SSG scenarios released for BF. So when we bought the game we thought " so four scenarios, soon they will release dozens ". This also happened with CAW. There was no release from SSG of scenarios, besides one or two with the patches/upgrades.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;SSG puts out great games but I really think that&nbsp; ( at least in my case ) we were spoiled. Also time is a big factor. Most of us wargamers are older with children ( grandkids also ), so between work and duties we don't have the hours upon hours to tinker that we used to.&nbsp;I know I must have made&nbsp;50 scenarios&nbsp;and numerous tweaks to existing ones with the original BF( GB series ) and CAW. Maybe the original scenario editors were easier,&nbsp;I don't know.
&nbsp;
Another point is HPS games, they come with a hundred plus scenarios. But on closer inspection 90%+ of those scenarios are tiny little tweaks which could be done easily in the SSG editors. So at first look a game of one battle looks pretty thin. On the other hand look at risk. I can't stand it but I know people who have spent probably a year of their life playing it. There are no scenarios, it is always the same setup ( at least vanilla risk ) yet people are drawn to it.
&nbsp;
Now if there was some way of meshing the old PB and it's vast amount of scenarios onto BF, that would be great.
&nbsp;
I do know that I really did expect when I bought CAW this time to have all the worlds maps done and a large amount of inhouse SSG scenarios released. To some extant that was also the way I felt with BF.