So, what is this game like?

[Perturabo]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

[edit]
What's this then?

This abomination is Space Wolf. There's also another abomination - a Horus Heresy tower defence game.

[wodin]

Ranger33..the game is still as abstract as Panzer Corps and follows rock paper scissors style of gameplay (though not as bad as PC I expect due to different weapons per unit) and these are the issues I have with PC. Though it is modified and has some new additions it is still PC at it's core with regards to gameplay you can't get away from it as it uses the PC engine. It would have to use a different engine or have it's own engine to fully break away from the PC core gameplay.

[Ranger33]

Wodin, I don't think I claimed that the game was something completely different from PC, but like I said, it is not simply PC with sci-if graphics. In my experience so far, the game offers a greater degree of freedom in terms of movement, targeting, and unit choice. You really have to figure in the range of the different weapons among your units and the enemy.

Also, the rock-paper-scissors aspect is mitigated by the multiple weapons like you said: for example, many artillery units have machine guns that can engage attacking infantry effectively, but have a relatively short range with their big guns that can expose them to counterattack from enemy tanks 2-3 hexes away if there is LOS.

The terrain is also more interesting I think. There are multi-hex forts and trench lines scattered around some of the maps, ramps that lead to different elevations and need to be held at times, and other fun stuff like toxic rivers.

When I first looked at the screen shots I thought it was a straight reskin and would play exactly the same, but in practice I find it to be a different experience. I enjoy Panzer Corps but it has never hooked me the way this game has.

[wodin]

I understand Ranger. If I enjoyed PC and the many game similar I would def buy it. It's the core gameplay as I said I don't like..the biggest bug bear is the abstract unit scale compared to map scale. In PC for instance seeing a Ack Ack unit taking up say one hex out of a total of four lets say which is supposed to be a City just breaks all immersion for me.

As for the multiple weapons..do you find you just click fire anyway and the closer you get the more weapons you can fire at the same time so it just feels the unit gets stronger the closer you get? Or is choosing the right weapon an important decision?

[ComradeP]

The lack of good documentation is something I don't really understand.

When I joined the Panzer Corps open beta in 2011, the developers were very responsive and could explain everything. As an aside, Kerensky started as a tester at the same time. He's now a team member.

On the Slitherine forum, there's a post explaining that one of the reason the documentation is limited is that the developers were still discussing the mechanics seemingly until the last moment. For a game that uses its own combat mechanics, not used by other games, good documentation is essential.

There not being good documentation makes it appear as if the game was rushed, the comment by a team member didn't help.

The hardcore Warhammer 40K crowd didn't like Rites of War, but I liked it for what it was: an enjoyable Panzer/Fantasy General-like game. Armageddon borrows heavily from Panzer Corps, but due to the changed mechanics, it's not as easy to understand as Rites of War was compared to Panzer/Fantasy General.

I initially intended to buy the game on release, but I'll wait a while now. The comments I'm seeing about the combat system not being clear and incomplete documentation make me a bit worried about how finished the rest of the game is.

[Werewolf13]

I saw the product page, watched the trailer on STEAM. Hyped to get WH until I found out it used the PC engine.

Try as I might (and I've tried the PC DEMO twice over the last 2 years) I just cannot stand Panzer Corps. Don't get it. Don't have a clue why (well - I kind'a do but sometimes silence is golden) its so popular and probably never will.

Too bad...

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

This game is fun, it has a lot of decent atmosphere, and the writing (needs some proofreading, but...) is cheesy fun, in the vein of a lot of the crappier Warhammer 40k novels. What it lacks is any meaningful documentation of units, stats, abilities, or mechanics. That part of it is only half-baked. There are no clear explanations of support, logistics (if any), differences in types of weapons, differences between factions, whatever. Sure, you can puzzle it out, and do, sort of, but it feels not quite ready for prime time. Still having fun with it, and I wouldn't avoid it because of these issues necessarily, but it's not up there with Flashpoint or anything.

[ComradeP]

Well, I guess I just didn't expect a "release it now, polish it later" game from the Lordz.

It almost makes me feel bad about not being in the beta, as they had a 3 month beta period or so, which should've been more than enough to get good tooltips, proofreading and documentation into the game, but it seems something went wrong somewhere.

Until that documentation is there, I won't buy it. As much as I would like to play another turn-based Warhammer-inspired game, I'm not going to encourage releasing games without good documentation by paying for them. It's a very common oversight in the business, and usually there's no legitimate reason why it's lacking. Often, it's due to poor planning or oversight. I've been in enough beta's to know that.

[ImperialGrunt]

Warhammer 40K+Battlefield Academy=REAL AWESOMENESS!

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: Ranger33

I've played for several hours and I can safely say that this is not a simple reskin of Panzer Corps. The combat has a more tactical feel to it, with units engaging at multiple ranges with different weapons, with many more options for cover among the variety of terrain types.

*gasp*
Do you mean gameplay is closer to Battle Isle serie? I totally loved Battle Isle 3!

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

What it lacks is any meaningful documentation of units, stats, abilities, or mechanics. That part of it is only half-baked. There are no clear explanations of support, logistics (if any), differences in types of weapons, differences between factions, whatever. Sure, you can puzzle it out, and do, sort of, but it feels not quite ready for prime time.

Doesn't game itself provide unit statistics by moving mouse over it like in Panzer Corps? What comes to factions, hardcover WH40k game manual provides some overview and codexes have the rest.

[Rosseau]

Of course, you can open up the data files in Excel and see what units and weapons do what. Also, visit a WH40k site for stats. But yeah, I'd say WitE is king of documentation (and it needs it!) with actual updates to the 400+ page manual. And that takes real work.