review of this on gamespot

[bigmilt]

Gamespot has a review of this game didn't like it too much.

[Arctic Blast]

ORIGINAL: bigmilt

Gamespot has a review of this game didn't like it too much.

It looks like that review is of the Strategy First release that's been out for awhile...so I don't know what Matrix is doing differently, but that review might not correspond to this version of Officers.

[SeanD]

Hey guys, I posted this over at the Wargamer as well so this should answer your question about the SF and MG versions being different:

The game will not be radically different but it will be better than the version that was reviewed on Gamespot. I can't say what the Gamespot score would have been had the writer reviewed our version instead but I'm confident we would have scored higher. A few of the things that will be different in the Matrix/Tri Synergy version:
[ol][*]Various bug fixes and tweaks
[*]AI improvements
[*]Units drowning themselves near water will no longer happen. You can't easily order units into water where they are destroyed which was a big pain.
[*]Better documentation - the manual is heavily edited and slightly expanded. Supply is explained and the overall quality of the documentation is improved.
[*]The difficulty is addressed. On easy and medium difficulties you will have more support fires (arty, aircraft) to smooth things along. We found that more arty and bombers generally was substantial enough to tip the balance in the player's favor. If you play the game on easy it still won't be an quick rampage across Europe - you'll need to be skillful, but you won't get trounced.[/ol]

[Hertston]

Can somebody please clarify whether

Better campaign difficulty balance especially on “Easy” and “Normal”.

Improvements to unit pathfinding for both friendly and enemy AI.

Many map tweaks and changes which fix problems with units drowning themselves when ordered to cross a river or other body of water.

A number of additional bug and stability fixes.

which are clearly all patch material, not 'add-on' or 'bonus' material, will made available to purchasers of other 'versions'? If not, this is not a developer I would choose to support.

[Erik Rutins]

You're not supporting the developer primarily with this purchase, you're supporting us. They were paid and required to make these improvements for our release. We have no access to the previous releases or any idea how to update them. If the developer chooses to make any of our fixes available to the earlier publisher, it's between them. We wish we could address that better, but we really don't have any connection with the earlier release or that publisher.

To add to the above, the game itself has a lot of good gameplay and is a great hybrid of wargame and real-time strategy. This is a significant release and I think a lot of folks will enjoy it.

Regards,

- Erik

[Krec]

realtime ......................

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Krec

realtime ......................

Me too, but it's pausable which helps some for us hardcore TBS people.

[Crimguy]

Realtime can be fine. See, e.g. Take Command: Second Manassas, or any of the Panther Titles. Both are pausable, of course. . .

[Phatguy]

Gamespot to me is worthless[/align]

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

Gamespot to me is worthless[/align]

Sometimes they are, but very few things are worthless entirely. Some of their reviews are worthless, but then some are spot on. If I compare their review with the reviews of the members, I can usually tell what's right or wrong. I really like to use their download section for patches. Also the hints section for cheats and walkthroughs. Reviews... you have to pick and choose. [;)]

[killroyishere]

I like Gamespot reviews as well 99% of the time as they agree with what I think about the games. I also like Steve Butts reviews over at IGN and of course Tom Chicks blogs and reviews of strategy and wargames.

[Klahn]

With gamespot I always read the whole review and try not to pay too much attention to the score. Officers, for example, was downrated because the battles can easily take 5 hours. For your average RTS gamer, that is a huge problem and a potential dealbreaker. For your average wargamer, longer more complex battles is probably considered a good thing. Just remember they are rating for what they believe the masses will think of a game, not what people like us would think.

[Lützow]

By any means I would recommend to play the Officers demo before you consider a purchase. There are some improvements for the Matrix edition but the core game should be still the same.

[killroyishere]

That's why I like Butts and Chicks <~~~ lol that is pretty funny. But anyway I like their reviews because they appear to be strategy gamers and wargamers at heart.

[Kipper]

What's all this about resource gathering in the game?&nbsp; How does that work?

[Lawnchair Warrior]

I tried the demo yesterday. I realize the "matrix version' is patched, but oh brother - Make sure you play that demo before dropping down any cash.

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Lawnchair Warrior

I tried the demo yesterday. I realize the "matrix version' is patched, but oh brother - Make sure you play that demo before dropping down any cash.

I just played it for about 45 minutes. Before I would play this, I would reinstall World In Conflict.

[SeanD]

What's all this about resource gathering in the game? How does that work?

You can take enemy resources when you capture a map section or you can try to take smaller objective points (like a small village or a factory complex) which will give you additional resources as well. Your army needs a steady supply of the various types of resources to keep running. Here's an excerpt from the manual explaining:

In order to function properly (or, in some cases, at all), every unit must have supplies at their disposal. Every strategic point on the game map (denoted by the images of buildings, bunkers, trenches, airfields, etc. in the strategic map) has a reserve of resources. There are three types of supply that can be stored at each strategic point: fuel, food, and ammo. Vehicles consume fuel, soldiers consume food, and both consume ammo when in combat. When unit is located in a zone that its army has captured, it uses that zone’s supplies and conserves its own. When a friendly zone has expended all of its supply, each unit then uses its own reserve to sustain its operation. Additionally, when a unit is situated in an enemy controlled zone it must use its own reserves.

Remember, though, that there are three types of supply each with separate amounts in every zone. One supply type may be expended in a friendly zone before another. Therefore, it’s possible that a unit in a zone with no ammo left will use its own ammo reserves while still drawing on the zone’s food supply, for instance.

If a vehicle is completely out of supply, it ceases to move and fire. If an infantry squad is out of food, it slowly starves and cannot throw grenades. A starving infantry unit will lose its hit points until it reaches 20% of its full strength. The unit must then be in supply of food and healed by a medical unit to regain its strength.

A zone can be resupplied by truck string. Each transport truck can carry 500 units of fuel, food, or ammo. However, be sure to protect supply lines well because if truck is destroyed its resources are permanently lost.

[Guddi]

Various bug fixes and tweaks

AI improvements

Units drowning themselves near water will no longer happen. You can't easily order units into water where they are destroyed which was a big pain.

Better documentation - the manual is heavily edited and slightly expanded. Supply is explained and the overall quality of the documentation is improved.

The difficulty is addressed. On easy and medium difficulties you will have more support fires (arty, aircraft) to smooth things along. We found that more arty and bombers generally was substantial enough to tip the balance in the player's favor. If you play the game on easy it still won't be an quick rampage across Europe - you'll need to be skillful, but you won't get trounced.

These are only fixes for singleplayer no fixes for the MP Part wich is horrible buged.[:@]

All these fixes makes me not to buy another version of that crappy game cause i got it last year and i m still pissed off when i hear the name Officers.[:@]

No Multiplayer fixed no cash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![:-]

[Erik Rutins]

As far as I know from our testing and the info we have from the developer, the multiplayer issues from the original release have also been addressed. Quite a few bug fixes the developer had worked on since the original release made their way into this release. In our testing, multiplayer was stable, though it does not have any kind of online GameSpy-like matching service.