AG review...a step to order the the game if...

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

I cant believe 6 months later and were still harping on over the price of this game and the number of scenarios. ...

Since you replied to my message, I imagined you would be commenting on what I wrote. I was surprised that you started by discussing the number of scenarios , when I was talking about the continuous comparison with boardgame prices... Was that aimed at myself or just a general comment? [&:]

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: iberian

... It's an artificial intelligence system adapted for the scenario, that actually tests the player skills. ...

I would actually like to see more on the specifics of the AI being tailored for the Kharkov battle, am I missing something or will the AI then require to be tweaked for each different battle? Is that tweaking possible in the editors provided?

Or are you talking about things like setting paths for the AI to follow and so on? [&:]

[e_barkmann]

Behold AI tweaking heaven. [:)]

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Howard7x

I cant believe 6 months later and were still harping on over the price of this game and the number of scenarios. Unbelievable. Its been done to death. If this game came with 3 large scenarios people would still be moaning just like they did with BII. SSG have made huge steps forward with this engine. Should they have held off the release an extra year and made more scenarios? Or should they release it as soon as the engine and 1 scenario is complete so people can actually play the game then release scenarios afterwards? I dunno. I can see people being split down the middle. As for the price, well id tend to agree £31 was too much for 1 scenario imo but so far im getting my moneys worth so i dont see the point in comparing it/complaining about it. No one is ever going to agree on this subject. EVER!

And going on the amount of times that i and im sure many other people have spent more than £30 on a game only to find it to be a huge pile of shit at least this game actually plays brilliantly.

I think you're missing the point.

It isn't whinging for whinging sake and it certainly isn't to get people "on board" and agree....the point of discussing it is to tell the developers and the publishers that the price point and content do not match.

I bought Kharkov and thought it was a complete waste of money. As much as I want to give them another chance, I'm not doing so at the current price.

It's directed solely at them...no one else...if you bought it and you enjoy it, excellent...no-one is trying to make you hate it.

It's about the consumer telling the supplier about the seeming error of their ways. You have exactly the same right. You can keep popping in every now and again telling people how good it is. You never know, the devs and publishers might hear your voice before they hear that of the nay-sayers.

Matrix know fine and well how this game has sold. They will be able to determine if it was worth it or not.

If the game didn't sell well and people didn't post their reasons, then Matrix would not have a clue why it didn't sell.

As it is, people are letting them know.

And to reiterate, in case they didn't hear...for me (not you or anyone else....me) the price point and content are not worth the purchase...which is £40 ($80)for me!

To be quite frank...I think if Matrix took a gamble and dropped $10 off this game, it would fly. But they aren't going to, so that's a moot point.

And by the way, there are far more "lurkers" on here whinging about content and price than there are people "bigging" the game up. Your time would be better spent starting a thread about how good the game is and pointing out the reasons why a purchase is required...because as it is, you're just wasting your time whinging about people whinging...go figure. [8|]

[e_barkmann]

Hmm the game costs less than a full tank of petrol.

Driving is overrated anyway [:)]

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

Behold AI tweaking heaven. [:)]

Thanks for that. I was in doubt if my fellow Iberian up there was discussing that (which is what I called setting paths for the AI), or some ubber-duper AI that was engineered specifically for Kharkov. It seems it's a standard engine that is programmed for each scenario, pretty much in the same style you can do with any Pz Campaigns, Modern Campaigns, TOAW and others out there. It's good to read that it's well done on the released game, since it's actually a vital part of any PC game, most people don't realize that the vast majority of the gamers still play mostly against the AI.

[Frank.Costanzo]

In response to jmlima's computer game & board game comparison


Interesting viewpoint on game comparisons. I never thought anyone would be comparing computer games to board games. I still enjoy boardgames, although some of the ones I have been eyeing are more in the $100+ cost range. I am enjoying Kharkov, and having the ability to to play a turn or too at my leisure, against a very challanging AI is aslo very appealing to me.

[Frank.Costanzo]

[/quote]I think you're missing the point.

It isn't whinging for whinging sake and it certainly isn't to get people "on board" and agree....the point of discussing it is to tell the developers and the publishers that the price point and content do not match.

I bought Kharkov and thought it was a complete waste of money. As much as I want to give them another chance, I'm not doing so at the current price.

It's directed solely at them...no one else...if you bought it and you enjoy it, excellent...no-one is trying to make you hate it.

It's about the consumer telling the supplier about the seeming error of their ways. You have exactly the same right. You can keep popping in every now and again telling people how good it is. You never know, the devs and publishers might hear your voice before they hear that of the nay-sayers.

Matrix know fine and well how this game has sold. They will be able to determine if it was worth it or not.

If the game didn't sell well and people didn't post their reasons, then Matrix would not have a clue why it didn't sell.

As it is, people are letting them know.

And to reiterate, in case they didn't hear...for me (not you or anyone else....me) the price point and content are not worth the purchase...which is £40 ($80)for me!

To be quite frank...I think if Matrix took a gamble and dropped $10 off this game, it would fly. But they aren't going to, so that's a moot point.

And by the way, there are far more "lurkers" on here whinging about content and price than there are people "bigging" the game up. Your time would be better spent starting a thread about how good the game is and pointing out the reasons why a purchase is required...because as it is, you're just wasting your time whinging about people whinging...go figure. [8|]
[/quote]

You definitly have very strong opinions across the board, game content, pricing. I don't agree with you on game content, and I am not sure how the overseas pricing works. Seems your point is you are making your criticisms to Matrix for greater good. You say you do not want to effect anyones positive viewpoint on the game, and that is good and fine. One thing I would like to point out is your opinions do effect people who may be happy with the way the game system is progressing. You have every right to express your opinions, and I like to hear everyones viewpoint, but lets not be under the illusion that it can only effect certain people.

My personal opinion is I am really enjoying the game. I am not "bigging" up the game, because I think, and as others have posted, that content speaks for itself. I am not a professional game reviewer, but I have played wargames for a long time, and I know what I like.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: Chris Merchant

Behold AI tweaking heaven. [:)]

Cool stuff, thanks Chris! I just need some free time to have some with with Kharkov AI!

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: Frank.Costanzo

I think you're missing the point.

It isn't whinging for whinging sake and it certainly isn't to get people "on board" and agree....the point of discussing it is to tell the developers and the publishers that the price point and content do not match.

I bought Kharkov and thought it was a complete waste of money. As much as I want to give them another chance, I'm not doing so at the current price.

It's directed solely at them...no one else...if you bought it and you enjoy it, excellent...no-one is trying to make you hate it.

It's about the consumer telling the supplier about the seeming error of their ways. You have exactly the same right. You can keep popping in every now and again telling people how good it is. You never know, the devs and publishers might hear your voice before they hear that of the nay-sayers.

Matrix know fine and well how this game has sold. They will be able to determine if it was worth it or not.

If the game didn't sell well and people didn't post their reasons, then Matrix would not have a clue why it didn't sell.

As it is, people are letting them know.

And to reiterate, in case they didn't hear...for me (not you or anyone else....me) the price point and content are not worth the purchase...which is £40 ($80)for me!

To be quite frank...I think if Matrix took a gamble and dropped $10 off this game, it would fly. But they aren't going to, so that's a moot point.

And by the way, there are far more "lurkers" on here whinging about content and price than there are people "bigging" the game up. Your time would be better spent starting a thread about how good the game is and pointing out the reasons why a purchase is required...because as it is, you're just wasting your time whinging about people whinging...go figure. [8|]

You definitly have very strong opinions across the board, game content, pricing. I don't agree with you on game content, and I am not sure how the overseas pricing works. Seems your point is you are making your criticisms to Matrix for greater good. You say you do not want to effect anyones positive viewpoint on the game, and that is good and fine. One thing I would like to point out is your opinions do effect people who may be happy with the way the game system is progressing. You have every right to express your opinions, and I like to hear everyones viewpoint, but lets not be under the illusion that it can only effect certain people.

My personal opinion is I am really enjoying the game. I am not "bigging" up the game, because I think, and as others have posted, that content speaks for itself. I am not a professional game reviewer, but I have played wargames for a long time, and I know what I like.

Not sure how my opinion affects people who are enjoying the game or are happy with the engine going the way it does. As far as I can evaluate, my opinion on the game being too expensive for one 16 turn scenario would possibly affect people who were going to lay out the money for the game but then discover, through my post, that it's only got one scenario and it's only 16 turns long and it's price is over £40.

However, I am, as you pointed out, purely trying to tell devs and publishers that should they have reduced the price of this item, it may would have sold better....I know that for an absolute fact...because I would've purchased it.

Also, as I mentioned, there seem to be more people on here complaining about the price and content than there are suggesting the game is magnificent. Kind of odd.

[Howard7x]

"only got 1 scenario and its only 16 turns long" is really simplifiying too much, theres much more to it than that isnt there? If you were to tell everyone what you said above then yes, they would probably think its bad value for money but seeing as there are AO's and Mystery Vairants which makes this one, sixteen turn scenario's replayability both vs the AI and PBEM very high. I do think 1 scenario isnt enough though but what comes with the game has many hours of playability IMO. I also think paying full price for a game then having to pay for an extra scenario is too much. Id like developers/publishers to move away from that just the same as you. Prehaps a good incentive to buy this game would have been the 1st ATD scenario for free, then each subsequent scenario you would have to pay for.
 
Really this engine is fantastic and the AO's and MV are something that (as far as im aware?) has been seriously lacking from any hex based/turn based game. Taking away the gamey factor of knowing exactly what your opponents objectives are and his opening moves make this 1 scenario hugely replayable and much more fun. One of my big gripes with the DB games was that playing against PBEM veterans was a chore as they knoew exactly what to do from turn 1 to win the battle. If you purchased this game and only played through it once on the historical (which does take a fair few hours even at 16 turns) then you are missing out on the new features and so have not fully explored the game. Oh and the AI kicks ass which seems to be sorely missing from alot of matrix titles.
 
PBEM is not for everyone but how many more hours does PBEM add to even 1 scenario with 16 turns adding into account MV's, playing as both sides?
 
As you can see i have conflicting views on this game. I think the game is fantastic, im unsure about the price. Im glad i purchased it though.
 
How many hours of gaming is worth £30? Is comparing it to the length of other games the only way to judge it?
 

[JudgeDredd]

Well if Matrix drop the physical copy by a tenner, I'll buy it. Don't worry Matrix...that wasn't a "public" challenge...I know you have figures to meet and expectations...I guess I'll wait until the Christmas sale and see if it's there.
 
After Kharkov (I think that was their first game sold here at least), I'm not risking it.
 
Although I am (as I have alluded to in the past) very impressed by the mystery variants and Areas of Operation....but without the game, or a demo, I am completely in the dar as to how those work...and I'm not paying £40 to try it.

[Howard7x]

I agree, a demo would be beneficial. Prehaps the 1st turn? You would see how the AO's work. Still, i dont know how they would be able to demonstrate the MV's with a demo and for me, that along with the AO's really are the biggest new features to the engine.
 
SSG have never done a demo for any of their games, this is prehaps to do with the complexity of the game and the lack of a tutorial that works without reading a manual. They would need to give you a full copy of the manual with the demo just so you could pick up the basics!
 
Ive always hoped that SSG would implement a tutorial that works in game, like Hearts of Iron or AGEOD's for example or even videos like the excellent Stardock Galactic Civ 2 tutorials, but i suppose that goes for alot of games here at Matrix. Come to think of it, some tutorial videos would really help show the players how the AO's and MV's work and highlight how replayable the scenario is. I remember my first foray into the DB engine to be very complex due to the manual tutorial, i almost gave up myself and shelved the game after lesson 2. Manual tutorials definately put alot of players off, but thats a different subject...
 
 
 

[JudgeDredd]

Ok...well I'll tell you how I see this game at present.

I hear of Mystery Variants and Areas of Operation and I think "Oooooh...that sounds nice". I understand that Areas of Operation tie units to a particular tactical area, so I can go and launch all my units at one objective at a time.

So far, cool.

What of these Mystery Variants? They really are a mystery. Do they "alter" the AOs? Do they introduce more units? Do they free up some units from some AOs? Do they Move units from one AO to another?

Also, regarding MVs...are they random? Further, are they TRULY random? By that I mean if you switch on Mystery Variants, is the one assigned to the German AI/PBEM player depending on which one is assigned to the Soviet player? If this is the case, then I presume it's for balance purposes...

[Fred98]

Before you begin a game you go to the set up menu.

To choose from, the Germans have an historical Area of Operations (“AOs”) and 10 other AO’s to choose form

To choose from, the Russians have an historical AO and 10 other AO’s to choose from.

This means there are 11 x 11 or 121 versions of the scenario.

If you choose Mystery AOs’ the computer will choose at random one of the 11 AO’s for each side.

If for example you got AO 4, you will never know unless you have memorised all the AO’s

If for example you’re opponent got AO 7, you will never know that. If you had memorised the AO for each corps and division on the map, then as the game draws to a close, it might twig that you’re opponent was using AO7. But of you were that good you should be playing chess against Deep Blue!

Of course the final option is to use no AO’s and play the game in a traditional wargaming manner. This means of course there are 12 x 12 or 124 versions of the game.

This is the best AI in wargaming.

-

[e_barkmann]

The MV's are great once you've played the game a few times with historical AO's.

The MV option can be set per side, so for a challenge, for instance, you could assign yourself historical AO's, and assign an MV to the AI.

The enemy's MV is never revealed to you except by observed enemy actions, but if you assign yourself a MV at the start of the game, once you have started, the mystery variant assigned to you by the game is described via the new 'i' button.

The variants take on the form of generally positive improvements to the historical AO's, such as earlier activation of AO's and broadening of AO areas for particular HQ's. 

As an example, one of the MV's allows the German's southern attack to start a couple of turns earlier than the historical version. 
Another is the Soviets being given a broader AO to capture objectives further north of Kharkov. 

Having seen this kind of surprise in action, I guarantee words similar to 'what the...' will be uttered [:)]

At setup the computer will select each sides MV's randomly - they are not dependent on what each side is given. 

For PBEM's I'd suggest both players be given MV's, and then try both sides with MV's and Unknown Units for even more unpredictability.

cheers Chris

[Gregor_SSG]

The Mystery Variants are designed for PBEM games as much as they are for single player. Their existence acts as a real deterrence to gamey tactics based on knowledge gained through repeated playing of the game and encourages people to play the game based on the merits of the situation that they see in front of them.

For example, one MV allows the Soviet Player to conduct an offensive on Belgorod. The very existence of this variant discourages the German player from completely stripping Belgorod of defenders to help further south. If the Soviet player then starts clearing forts and positions some units in the area, then the German player won't necessarily know if this is just a demonstration or the real thing, and will have to make sensible provisions, just like his real life counterpart would have done.

While your opponent's MV will sometimes become apparent over the course of the game, the maximum uncertainty will be on those crucial early turns, exactly where it is needed.

Gregor

[laska2k8]

SSG have never done a demo for any of their games

wrong, the "Battle in Normandy" demo (with TAO scenario in it) lead me to buy Normandy/Italy/Battlefront games.
A demo give me the opportunity to deeply try the engine before buying it.

[Howard7x]

Yeah i forgot about that, i stand corrected. BIN is a good entry point to SSG's titles and personally my favourite SSG scenario to date. Id love to see it done with new artillery rules.