I have been looking foward to this game for a while now as I enjoy a good tactical wargame. I need to spend more time with it to complete part 2 of the review and give it a final score, but so far I enjoy it a lot. The rules are elegant and very managable and for the most part the user interface is excellent with some minor quirks.
The review can be found here: http://www.oneguytoomanygames.com/2012/ ... -bear.html
As always feel free to make comments or ask questions here or on my site. It is a bit longer than the rest of my reviews, so hopefully I didn't overdo it.
Part 1 of my review is now available.
Moderator: MOD_WestCiv
Part 1 of my review is now available.
Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
One Guy, Too Many Games
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Good read.
-
Blind Sniper
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 4:19 pm
- Location: Turin, Italy
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Great review, very helpful for wavering customers.
WitP-AE - WitE - CWII - BASPM - BaB
[center]
[/center]
[center]
[/center]RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Nice article as usual.
A few comments/observations:
1) I disagree with your comment on stacking, I don't think it's strange at all.
We can agree that we have to have some mechanic that prevents shielding multiple units while stacking. You suggested (in essence) randomly choosing a unit but that also (in essence) shields all the remaining units thus not doing anything to prevent a 'stack of doom'.
Your second suggestion would be some beneficial modifier for additional units. That is, the first person gets attacked normally but the rest get some kind of cover benefit. I would counter though that you still aren't taking into account the unit density. If you cram a whole platoon of infantry into a hex, you are likely to be able to cause more damage with a single bullet than less arguing that you should actually have a penalty for stacking multiple units.
Secondly, and this is for those who are going to say hey, that doesn't work on armor!, having so many units together also makes it easier to hit. So more bullets (or rounds) will be able to hit as well for the same or less effort. So I think the current rule is a pretty good compromise considering all these factors.
2) You mentioned under the technical section that there were several minor bugs but you really only mentioned one (the save game bug) in the review. I think it would be beneficial to list what you felt were bugs so that if people refer back to it, they can see if it bothers them or if it has already been addressed in a patch.
3) I understand how visually you may think the flank bonus may not seem very helpful but it might be helpful to think about it in a different way. Take a situation where you have a LMG (Atk 4) attacking a Soviet Rifle from the front (Def 12). In one die roll, you would need an 8 or more to hit which you would get 41.7% of the time. If now you attack from the flank (Def 11), you would need a 7 or more. This you can achieve 58.3% which is a full 40% better odds (58.3/41.7-1)than from attacking from the front!
I think that's a pretty significant impact. While your odds are still low if you use a Rifle to attack (Atk 2) (odds are 16.7%), your improvement from attacking the flank is even greater. In fact, it increases your chances by 2/3rds to 27.8%. This is using an example where the difference between front and flank is 1 but the benefit increases exponentially as the difference between front and flank modifiers increase. In this way you can also see how small +1 modifiers (such as hasty defense) really are helpful!
4) Finally I would offer the tip that if you like to use models, you should turn on the unit names with the 'n' key. It makes the models much easier to follow, especially in terrain. There are already suggestions, such as adding unit bases or rings to help be able to follow them easier but this tip is a good thing to do until then. Who knows, you might even in the long run prefer it to unit bases.
A few comments/observations:
1) I disagree with your comment on stacking, I don't think it's strange at all.
We can agree that we have to have some mechanic that prevents shielding multiple units while stacking. You suggested (in essence) randomly choosing a unit but that also (in essence) shields all the remaining units thus not doing anything to prevent a 'stack of doom'.
Your second suggestion would be some beneficial modifier for additional units. That is, the first person gets attacked normally but the rest get some kind of cover benefit. I would counter though that you still aren't taking into account the unit density. If you cram a whole platoon of infantry into a hex, you are likely to be able to cause more damage with a single bullet than less arguing that you should actually have a penalty for stacking multiple units.
Secondly, and this is for those who are going to say hey, that doesn't work on armor!, having so many units together also makes it easier to hit. So more bullets (or rounds) will be able to hit as well for the same or less effort. So I think the current rule is a pretty good compromise considering all these factors.
2) You mentioned under the technical section that there were several minor bugs but you really only mentioned one (the save game bug) in the review. I think it would be beneficial to list what you felt were bugs so that if people refer back to it, they can see if it bothers them or if it has already been addressed in a patch.
3) I understand how visually you may think the flank bonus may not seem very helpful but it might be helpful to think about it in a different way. Take a situation where you have a LMG (Atk 4) attacking a Soviet Rifle from the front (Def 12). In one die roll, you would need an 8 or more to hit which you would get 41.7% of the time. If now you attack from the flank (Def 11), you would need a 7 or more. This you can achieve 58.3% which is a full 40% better odds (58.3/41.7-1)than from attacking from the front!
I think that's a pretty significant impact. While your odds are still low if you use a Rifle to attack (Atk 2) (odds are 16.7%), your improvement from attacking the flank is even greater. In fact, it increases your chances by 2/3rds to 27.8%. This is using an example where the difference between front and flank is 1 but the benefit increases exponentially as the difference between front and flank modifiers increase. In this way you can also see how small +1 modifiers (such as hasty defense) really are helpful!
4) Finally I would offer the tip that if you like to use models, you should turn on the unit names with the 'n' key. It makes the models much easier to follow, especially in terrain. There are already suggestions, such as adding unit bases or rings to help be able to follow them easier but this tip is a good thing to do until then. Who knows, you might even in the long run prefer it to unit bases.
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Thanks for the comments guys.
@Jorum
1) Just in case my one suggestion wasn't clear. For stacked units, I was suggesting randomly selecting one to attack and if that fails then selecting the next one to try until all units in the hex were attempted or the attack hits one. This way the attacker has a much greater chance to have a successful attack. The second part of my suggestion would allow for the attack to hit multiple units in the hex, but at decreasing odds for subsequent checks. I think I would like to modify that suggestion by decreasing the odds of subsequent units only after a successful hit. This way an attack would have the full chance to hit a unit until it had success. Then subsequent checks after that would be reduced in effectiveness. I guess I was also thinking about bullets and not arty / mortar. That should have full chances on every unit. In any case, I don't have a big problem with the way it is now, it just seemed somewhat harsh.
2) I guess I was considering the somewhat hard to select 3D models and how the unit counters get a bit blurry when moused over as minor bugs. I mentioned those things in the review.
3) I understand your point and agree for the most part. It also depends on the required dice roll. If you needed an 8 to hit something, getting a +1 bonus makes a bigger difference than if you needed a 12 and get a +1 bonus because going from a 12 to 11 doesn't gain as many chances (2) as going from an 8 to a 7 (6). The flank / rear bonus doesn't seem as significant as in some other games. Perhaps they are over exaggerated in some other games.
4) Thanks for the tip! I wasn't aware of that.
@Jorum
1) Just in case my one suggestion wasn't clear. For stacked units, I was suggesting randomly selecting one to attack and if that fails then selecting the next one to try until all units in the hex were attempted or the attack hits one. This way the attacker has a much greater chance to have a successful attack. The second part of my suggestion would allow for the attack to hit multiple units in the hex, but at decreasing odds for subsequent checks. I think I would like to modify that suggestion by decreasing the odds of subsequent units only after a successful hit. This way an attack would have the full chance to hit a unit until it had success. Then subsequent checks after that would be reduced in effectiveness. I guess I was also thinking about bullets and not arty / mortar. That should have full chances on every unit. In any case, I don't have a big problem with the way it is now, it just seemed somewhat harsh.
2) I guess I was considering the somewhat hard to select 3D models and how the unit counters get a bit blurry when moused over as minor bugs. I mentioned those things in the review.
3) I understand your point and agree for the most part. It also depends on the required dice roll. If you needed an 8 to hit something, getting a +1 bonus makes a bigger difference than if you needed a 12 and get a +1 bonus because going from a 12 to 11 doesn't gain as many chances (2) as going from an 8 to a 7 (6). The flank / rear bonus doesn't seem as significant as in some other games. Perhaps they are over exaggerated in some other games.
4) Thanks for the tip! I wasn't aware of that.
Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
One Guy, Too Many Games
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
I'm totally clear on your stacking suggestions but as I said, your first suggestion still would result in all units but the one hit to be shielded from fire incentivizing people to stack as many as possible in one hex. Your second suggestion I think doesn't really take unit density into account. That's all I was saying.
As far as the odds, you actually have it backwards. Going from needing a 12 to 11 triples your odds of a hit! Yes, in absolute terms it's still small but the incremental impact is much larger making it a significant adjustment.
As far as the odds, you actually have it backwards. Going from needing a 12 to 11 triples your odds of a hit! Yes, in absolute terms it's still small but the incremental impact is much larger making it a significant adjustment.
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
As Joram explains very well even a +1 gain to your attack or defense is significant. You always strive to use cover to gain it or flank a unit to increase hit %. And getting in short range or close combat and firing first is a killer bonus. That's +3 or +4 to your roll.
The idea to come up with a complicated method to determine stack damage completely goes against the board game designers philosophy in keeping it simple. I find the simple disincentive to stack a very good game rule. Just because you get to fire twice for the same cost as firing once at a 2 unit stack does not mean your firepower magically doubled, it means your odds to hit something just went way up. So instead of Uwe Eickert designing it to give the shooter bonuses to fire into said hex, you instead get to reroll for each unit there. In the end, I like that better because it's simpler. Plus it's fun to roll dice is it not:)
And don't forget that when the enemies are stacked together, say 2 vs 1. The 1 can't shoot at both with a +4 to hit because in close combat you don't get the attack the entire stack. The reasoning is that once you are in CC it is more direct combat and it's unit vs unit only.
BTW you should check out the real rulebook for this game and read the designer notes and such. See Academy-games.com
The idea to come up with a complicated method to determine stack damage completely goes against the board game designers philosophy in keeping it simple. I find the simple disincentive to stack a very good game rule. Just because you get to fire twice for the same cost as firing once at a 2 unit stack does not mean your firepower magically doubled, it means your odds to hit something just went way up. So instead of Uwe Eickert designing it to give the shooter bonuses to fire into said hex, you instead get to reroll for each unit there. In the end, I like that better because it's simpler. Plus it's fun to roll dice is it not:)
And don't forget that when the enemies are stacked together, say 2 vs 1. The 1 can't shoot at both with a +4 to hit because in close combat you don't get the attack the entire stack. The reasoning is that once you are in CC it is more direct combat and it's unit vs unit only.
BTW you should check out the real rulebook for this game and read the designer notes and such. See Academy-games.com
Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
ORIGINAL: Joram
I'm totally clear on your stacking suggestions but as I said, your first suggestion still would result in all units but the one hit to be shielded from fire incentivizing people to stack as many as possible in one hex. Your second suggestion I think doesn't really take unit density into account. That's all I was saying.
As far as the odds, you actually have it backwards. Going from needing a 12 to 11 triples your odds of a hit! Yes, in absolute terms it's still small but the incremental impact is much larger making it a significant adjustment.
Ok, just making sure
As far as the odds, yes the +1 makes a larger % impact when you go from needing a 12 to needing an 11, but to me that doesn't matter. The absolute gain is what is important and you gain the most going from needing an 8 to needing a 7. It is only a relative 39% gain, but a 16.6% absolute gain, they largest for any +1 bonus. I much rather have a smaller relative gain and a larger absolute gain than visa versa. Going fromneeding a 12 to needing an 11 and I wouldn't even bother attacking in many cases as there are probably better uses of my APs.
I guess I should rephrase my original statement. A +1 can make a big deal, but in some cases it does not.
Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
One Guy, Too Many Games
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
ORIGINAL: Lebatron
As Joram explains very well even a +1 gain to your attack or defense is significant. You always strive to use cover to gain it or flank a unit to increase hit %. And getting in short range or close combat and firing first is a killer bonus. That's +3 or +4 to your roll.
The idea to come up with a complicated method to determine stack damage completely goes against the board game designers philosophy in keeping it simple. I find the simple disincentive to stack a very good game rule. Just because you get to fire twice for the same cost as firing once at a 2 unit stack does not mean your firepower magically doubled, it means your odds to hit something just went way up. So instead of Uwe Eickert designing it to give the shooter bonuses to fire into said hex, you instead get to reroll for each unit there. In the end, I like that better because it's simpler. Plus it's fun to roll dice is it not:)
And don't forget that when the enemies are stacked together, say 2 vs 1. The 1 can't shoot at both with a +4 to hit because in close combat you don't get the attack the entire stack. The reasoning is that once you are in CC it is more direct combat and it's unit vs unit only.
BTW you should check out the real rulebook for this game and read the designer notes and such. See Academy-games.com
As I just responded to Joram, I agree that a +1 bonus can make a big difference, but it doesn't in all cases (see above reply).
I agree that my suggestions for stacking wouldn't make sense for a board game. Perhaps my suggestions wouldn't even be better for the computer version. Since the computer now handles the rules, more is possible without overwhelming the player. I'm not saying my suggestions were necessarily better for the game, but some of them made a little more sense in my head and may be better for the computer version of the game. I concede that is is very debatable and my suggestions may be rubbish - but again, maybe not
. Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
One Guy, Too Many Games
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
I understand why sometimes people want to change a board game when it makes its PC translation. In some cases it works, and in others it's not even necessary or wanted. Take Chess for instance. No gameplay changes there.
In any case, one good reason for leaving an attack on a stack of units exactly the same as the board game version would be to preserve the nature of rolling for each unit, which in turn gives the attacker the option to CAP modify any of his rolls. For instance in the board game when I attack a hex with 2 units I can CAP modify either or both rolls. For one, I may add 1 point, and for the other, 2 points depending on which I want to hit more. Sadly, the PC version only lets you CAP modify once and you don't even know which unit that bonus may apply against. It may go to the unit you really weren't as concerned about. That is currently a problem I hope gets patched soon. It has been on the beta wish list for a time.
In any case, one good reason for leaving an attack on a stack of units exactly the same as the board game version would be to preserve the nature of rolling for each unit, which in turn gives the attacker the option to CAP modify any of his rolls. For instance in the board game when I attack a hex with 2 units I can CAP modify either or both rolls. For one, I may add 1 point, and for the other, 2 points depending on which I want to hit more. Sadly, the PC version only lets you CAP modify once and you don't even know which unit that bonus may apply against. It may go to the unit you really weren't as concerned about. That is currently a problem I hope gets patched soon. It has been on the beta wish list for a time.
Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Part 2 of the review is up for those interested: http://www.oneguytoomanygames.com/2012/ ... ar-pc.html
Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
One Guy, Too Many Games
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
My only comment is that you call it 'Company' of Heroes several times.
If you want to schedule more MP, I can make myself available with enough advance notice, just PM me if interested. I'm on EST.
If you want to schedule more MP, I can make myself available with enough advance notice, just PM me if interested. I'm on EST.
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Crap! I caught myself doing that and thought I fixed them. I will get that fixed. Thanks for the help.
Thanks for the MP offer. I need to step back from the game for a little bit and do something different. I need to learn to pace myself when a game comes out! I'll keep you in mind if I am up for some MP.
Thanks for the MP offer. I need to step back from the game for a little bit and do something different. I need to learn to pace myself when a game comes out! I'll keep you in mind if I am up for some MP.
Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
One Guy, Too Many Games
-
FroBodine
- Posts: 874
- Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 4:13 am
- Location: Brentwood, California (not the OJ one)
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Diablo 3!!
RE: Part 1 of my review is now available.
Ahhhhh!!! No not Diablo 3! [:)]
I grew tired of all the clickiness that makes up Diablo. I tried the open beta and it did nothing for me. If Diablo 3 were a $10-$15 game I might get it, but it just doesn't have enough substance to the gameplay to keep me interested. I played Torchlight 2 a while ago and got so bored.
I do play games that have pretty simple gameplay sometimes, but Diablo 3 won't be one of them. [:)]
I grew tired of all the clickiness that makes up Diablo. I tried the open beta and it did nothing for me. If Diablo 3 were a $10-$15 game I might get it, but it just doesn't have enough substance to the gameplay to keep me interested. I played Torchlight 2 a while ago and got so bored.
I do play games that have pretty simple gameplay sometimes, but Diablo 3 won't be one of them. [:)]
Because I play too much,
One Guy, Too Many Games
One Guy, Too Many Games