impressions anyone?
-
Auggie_ssl
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2019 10:36 pm
RE: impressions anyone?
I'm liking the game. The scenarios are quick to play and the rules are easy to understand. With the way dice rolls are you can have a lot of different outcomes.
-
eddieballgame
- Posts: 901
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:50 am
RE: impressions anyone?
@MrsWargamer; I concur on how playable this game is.
I will add, the Scenario Creation system is also super easy.
In short...I like it a lot.
I do take umbrage with your...opinion that it is nonsense to suggest that a true map editor would be a good thing.
I, also concur that the price is right for what we are getting now.
To put it in the price range of Panzer Corps II, for example, seems a huge stretch to me...imho.
I would, however, gladly pay double/triple if it offered similar features per creation/modding as does PzC II.
I will add, the Scenario Creation system is also super easy.
In short...I like it a lot.
I do take umbrage with your...opinion that it is nonsense to suggest that a true map editor would be a good thing.
I, also concur that the price is right for what we are getting now.
To put it in the price range of Panzer Corps II, for example, seems a huge stretch to me...imho.
I would, however, gladly pay double/triple if it offered similar features per creation/modding as does PzC II.
RE: impressions anyone?
Sorry, a little late with this, but I've been out of town.
I was one of beta testers for Valor and Victory and found it enjoyable to play. I never played the board game, though I did play Squad Leader quiet a few years back.
But Valor and Victory is very easy to pick up, play is quick with fairly quick games. I'm looking forward to future modules.
Thanks
Rick
RE: impressions anyone?
ORIGINAL: z1812
Re Fog of War. This is a very important element. It cannot be considered a complete wargaming system without it.
Initially this concerned me as well, but I found it not an issue when I actually was playing the game.
Rick
RE: impressions anyone?
Regarding the map editor, I have absolutely zero nil none zilch null problem with a comprehensive map editor. But I'm wondering, seriously, what % of those buying the game will ever try to design a scenario. I've played tons of games. For decades. And have never done it. I've enjoyed games that have random battle generators or even random world generators like Civ or Shadow Empire. But I've never designed a map and scenario from scratch. So is this just a very very niche thing, or is it really important for game sales? I am asking. Is it 1% of players, but players who happen to be very vocal, or is it 20-30%. I have no idea. Maybe Matrix does. I'm not criticizing anyone here. The discussion just got me to wondering about that question.
-
MrsWargamer
- Posts: 1653
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm
RE: impressions anyone?
ORIGINAL: eddieballgame
@MrsWargamer; I concur on how playable this game is.
I will add, the Scenario Creation system is also super easy.
In short...I like it a lot.
I do take umbrage with your...opinion that it is nonsense to suggest that a true map editor would be a good thing.
I, also concur that the price is right for what we are getting now.
To put it in the price range of Panzer Corps II, for example, seems a huge stretch to me...imho.
I would, however, gladly pay double/triple if it offered similar features per creation/modding as does PzC II.
You misunderstand me. I think a full on everything editor would be nice. I meant it was nonsense to get in a snit over it not being present. I'm sure the game will evolve nicely and quickly.
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
RE: impressions anyone?
I don't think anyone is in a snit. Someone asked for their impression and they gave it.
I have both V&L and L&L. Both are very good attempts at bringing a boardgame to digital. I really don't care about a map maker if there are enough maps. I'll throw a short comparison with opinions in the mix.
L&L - Very inexpensive entry point of $5 for the base game and four scenarios. For another $20, you get a Normandy pack with 12 scenarios and a full scenario editor and battle generator. The battle generator is a great feature if you want to just throw a quick scenario together. I've had a lot of fun with it. But it also have a very feature-rich full editor. I have had the most fun with that. But you only have access to the maps in the modules you have purchased. The first battle pack coms with 10 maps and they can be arranged in multiple formats to create larger full maps. You can also alter the objects and terrain on the map. You can change tree types, ground types, etc. The biggest feature of L&L is that there are currently 12 dlcs covering all WW2, plus modern and cold war. All their maps and units are usable in the editor and generator in various combinations. That's kind of cool. L&L has several levels of FoW that are selectable by the player. There are now 100s of units, including a number of infantry types, support weapons, and AVFs.
V&V - Having only just arrived, its content is understandably a lot less than L&L. Pricing for a "full" game is reasonable at $20. It seems a little simpler to play. Its first load of content is quite a bit more that L&L's first DLC with counter mix and 18 maps. V&V has no FoW or artillery from what I can see. Its pretty basic. Like the very first squad leader module. I played for a bit and went right back to L&L. The FoW thing is a killer in a game played on a computer. Even SL has concealment counters.
Maybe as V&V adds content I'll be willing to play it more. Its game play right now is seems simpler than L&L, but that might change as they add more features that bring it more in line with L&L. But, in the short -term, I will favor L&L a lot more heavily because of continued excellent support, extensive content, battle generator, great documentation, and mostly, its FoW options.
I have both V&L and L&L. Both are very good attempts at bringing a boardgame to digital. I really don't care about a map maker if there are enough maps. I'll throw a short comparison with opinions in the mix.
L&L - Very inexpensive entry point of $5 for the base game and four scenarios. For another $20, you get a Normandy pack with 12 scenarios and a full scenario editor and battle generator. The battle generator is a great feature if you want to just throw a quick scenario together. I've had a lot of fun with it. But it also have a very feature-rich full editor. I have had the most fun with that. But you only have access to the maps in the modules you have purchased. The first battle pack coms with 10 maps and they can be arranged in multiple formats to create larger full maps. You can also alter the objects and terrain on the map. You can change tree types, ground types, etc. The biggest feature of L&L is that there are currently 12 dlcs covering all WW2, plus modern and cold war. All their maps and units are usable in the editor and generator in various combinations. That's kind of cool. L&L has several levels of FoW that are selectable by the player. There are now 100s of units, including a number of infantry types, support weapons, and AVFs.
V&V - Having only just arrived, its content is understandably a lot less than L&L. Pricing for a "full" game is reasonable at $20. It seems a little simpler to play. Its first load of content is quite a bit more that L&L's first DLC with counter mix and 18 maps. V&V has no FoW or artillery from what I can see. Its pretty basic. Like the very first squad leader module. I played for a bit and went right back to L&L. The FoW thing is a killer in a game played on a computer. Even SL has concealment counters.
Maybe as V&V adds content I'll be willing to play it more. Its game play right now is seems simpler than L&L, but that might change as they add more features that bring it more in line with L&L. But, in the short -term, I will favor L&L a lot more heavily because of continued excellent support, extensive content, battle generator, great documentation, and mostly, its FoW options.
RE: impressions anyone?
I had the chance to be an alphatester on the game, to see the complexity of the development of a game so that it becomes playable, I noted my first impressions, here they are ...
1-I started by opening all the game files I could with notepad + and paintnet.
The game will be easily modifiable.
2-I opened the game and went straight to the manual to find out more.
3-I opened the editor to make a first scenario.
4-I started to play but unfortunately the game makes desktop returns at each phase and I had to stop.
5-I send you screenshots.
-I liked the graphics of the game, the possibility of dividing the teams into two.
-I did not like the lane of fire in its current definition.
For me, Valor and Victory is a game that respects the current standards of the genre but to rise above the others,
it will have to add more such as the ability to name the units, essential units like the M10 and the MG42 , rare units
like the Goliath, mountain or navy units, rare defenses like booby traps and ditchs.
In short, as a passionate player, I want to be surprised!
I have a little more perspective on the game to understand that this game cannot be conceived as the holy grail of tactical games which would include everything that a tactical wargamer wants.
I understand and accept it but many future players will not understand it and will claim impossible features such as multi-story buildings, hidden units ...
The only solution, IMHO, is to communicate from the start that this game is an adaptation of the Valor & Victory boardgame, nothing more.
The game manual serving as a reference for adapting the game.
Future mods will partially meet player expectations.
Which will save precious time for the deployment of future DLCs.
Did I understand everything?
1-I started by opening all the game files I could with notepad + and paintnet.
The game will be easily modifiable.
2-I opened the game and went straight to the manual to find out more.
3-I opened the editor to make a first scenario.
4-I started to play but unfortunately the game makes desktop returns at each phase and I had to stop.
5-I send you screenshots.
-I liked the graphics of the game, the possibility of dividing the teams into two.
-I did not like the lane of fire in its current definition.
For me, Valor and Victory is a game that respects the current standards of the genre but to rise above the others,
it will have to add more such as the ability to name the units, essential units like the M10 and the MG42 , rare units
like the Goliath, mountain or navy units, rare defenses like booby traps and ditchs.
In short, as a passionate player, I want to be surprised!
I have a little more perspective on the game to understand that this game cannot be conceived as the holy grail of tactical games which would include everything that a tactical wargamer wants.
I understand and accept it but many future players will not understand it and will claim impossible features such as multi-story buildings, hidden units ...
The only solution, IMHO, is to communicate from the start that this game is an adaptation of the Valor & Victory boardgame, nothing more.
The game manual serving as a reference for adapting the game.
Future mods will partially meet player expectations.
Which will save precious time for the deployment of future DLCs.
Did I understand everything?
RE: impressions anyone?
or me, Valor and Victory is a game that respects the current standards of the genre but to rise above the others,
it will have to add more such as the ability to name the units, essential units like the M10 and the MG42 , rare units
like the Goliath, mountain or navy units, rare defenses like booby traps and ditchs.
In short, as a passionate player, I want to be surprised!
To my understanding, the developers' intention is to be faithful to the boardgame system and philosophy. So additional features will probably be limited to current missing features of the boardgame (except maybe for FoW, as mentioned in a previous post). Of course, I'm not talking about scenarios, nations, maps, which can be infinite and numerous if they follow the path of LnLT. But I doubted that more advanced features or more detailed units will be implemented, which is perfectly fine, as many people are pleased by it. It's a bit too simplistic with too small scenarios for my own tastes, but V&V is an elegant system for a boardgame, and as mentioned by MrsWargamer there's almost no learning curve. It would be my choice for playing with friends.
I realize that my preferences go for games that are developed for the PC (CO2, FP Campaign, SP) and not boardgame. So I'll wait patiently for Second Front, but will continue to play V&V once in while (considering that I already paid for it!) and check on how it will evolve.
RE: impressions anyone?
I'm kind of a hybrid. I like games based on proven systems and mechanics of a boardgame. But my expectation is that they will adapt themselves to PC-based features that can easily be incorporated. If you don't plan on using FoW, just make a VASSAL version. I'm sure the V&V system will evolve and grow. I'm interested in its simpler interface and playstyle that I'll keep watching it.
btw, Second Front. I am waiting on that one. If anything looks like ASL on a PC, while taking advantage of the bookkeeping capabilities of a PC, its that one.
btw, Second Front. I am waiting on that one. If anything looks like ASL on a PC, while taking advantage of the bookkeeping capabilities of a PC, its that one.
RE: impressions anyone?
Impressions. Honest ones wanted and i shall give honest ones. I haven’t bought the game yet, but as soon as I get settled in my new house, have internet/TV hooked up, that’s my plan. Simply haven’t bought it b/c every single precious penny is tied up into ‘the move’. But I want the game. I think about the game. I shall have the game.
The negatives shall be dealt with first.
1) Limited number of maps. For me, not a big deal since who am I kidding; I will never make a map. I’d like one, even if other people will be making maps for me 🥸 I want a map editor, would personally never use one. This simply isn’t a game killer.
2) No fog of war. I only play solo, so I really, really want FOW. V&V as it stands now reminds of refereed blind games of ASL I use to play. Even played an Atari 4/800 version of SL that came with a physical board/counters and used the comp as referee. Not a game killer, but a feature I want and expect when DLC’s start to appear.
The positives
3) Maps appear gorgeous to me. Maps provide immersion, and I like the little touches (even the flying birds, although I wish they would appear a little more random). if I don’t want to look at the map, I don’t want to play the game.
4) Graphics are functional, informative and the colour pallette doesn’t offend my aging eyes. If you’ve played SL/ASL/etc you’ll understand the information presentation.
5) Combat Result tables are given. I like to dive into meat/potatoes and making my own graphs/charts of data for my own use.
6) Combat is granular and the system won’t take long to play/learn.
I thought that allowing the system to decide/execute defensive/op fire was/is a no brainer and makes multi phased turns workable. Would I like more maps? Yes. Will I pay for more maps, DLC’s and other nationalities? Yes, yes and yes.
When I was younger we got around the sameness of the maps by buying multiple copies of SL and glueing photo copied overlays on top, effectively making new maps.
There is more than enough room in my heart/wallet for V & V, Second Front and Steel Divisions 2/expansions.
No comment on the AI since I’ve never played.
Just a curious question; anyone played through Crossover on a Mac? And probably not answerable, but Crossover on an M1/M2 Mac? How much ram?
Thx
Tom
The negatives shall be dealt with first.
1) Limited number of maps. For me, not a big deal since who am I kidding; I will never make a map. I’d like one, even if other people will be making maps for me 🥸 I want a map editor, would personally never use one. This simply isn’t a game killer.
2) No fog of war. I only play solo, so I really, really want FOW. V&V as it stands now reminds of refereed blind games of ASL I use to play. Even played an Atari 4/800 version of SL that came with a physical board/counters and used the comp as referee. Not a game killer, but a feature I want and expect when DLC’s start to appear.
The positives
3) Maps appear gorgeous to me. Maps provide immersion, and I like the little touches (even the flying birds, although I wish they would appear a little more random). if I don’t want to look at the map, I don’t want to play the game.
4) Graphics are functional, informative and the colour pallette doesn’t offend my aging eyes. If you’ve played SL/ASL/etc you’ll understand the information presentation.
5) Combat Result tables are given. I like to dive into meat/potatoes and making my own graphs/charts of data for my own use.
6) Combat is granular and the system won’t take long to play/learn.
I thought that allowing the system to decide/execute defensive/op fire was/is a no brainer and makes multi phased turns workable. Would I like more maps? Yes. Will I pay for more maps, DLC’s and other nationalities? Yes, yes and yes.
When I was younger we got around the sameness of the maps by buying multiple copies of SL and glueing photo copied overlays on top, effectively making new maps.
There is more than enough room in my heart/wallet for V & V, Second Front and Steel Divisions 2/expansions.
No comment on the AI since I’ve never played.
Just a curious question; anyone played through Crossover on a Mac? And probably not answerable, but Crossover on an M1/M2 Mac? How much ram?
Thx
Tom
-
chris_merchant
- Posts: 77
- Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:10 pm
RE: impressions anyone?
I was impressed with Lock n Load Publishing release of their battle and campaign generator feature for the LnL Tactical Digital game the day before this title was published 
Very tactical
I'll wait till they've fleshed out the features of this game.
cheers
Very tactical I'll wait till they've fleshed out the features of this game.
cheers
RE: impressions anyone?
Very incisive comments here from people that know their wargames. Kudos to all of you!
I've played the original Matrix Heroes of Stalingrad (along with Tom Proudfoot's Word-documented editor), as well as the much newer Lock 'n Load Tactical series on Steam.
Even with LnL's very recent release of an editor and battle generator for its series on Steam - and it's a bargain at $10 and highly recommended - I would still humbly recommend this game.
It's a bit quicker and simpler, as "theWood1" points out, but pretty easily moddable, as our world-famous modder Rico (you're the best!) has posted.
While I look forward to Rico and others doing the heavy lifting, even I can use Notepad ++ to add a tank or two to an existing scenario. And for some bizarre reason, I love the devs for giving us that opportunity.
Plus, with a very reasonable entry price of $20, I will have no hesitation investing in more maps and OOBs, just like with the LnL Steam release.
Good job, Matrix and testers!
I've played the original Matrix Heroes of Stalingrad (along with Tom Proudfoot's Word-documented editor), as well as the much newer Lock 'n Load Tactical series on Steam.
Even with LnL's very recent release of an editor and battle generator for its series on Steam - and it's a bargain at $10 and highly recommended - I would still humbly recommend this game.
It's a bit quicker and simpler, as "theWood1" points out, but pretty easily moddable, as our world-famous modder Rico (you're the best!) has posted.
While I look forward to Rico and others doing the heavy lifting, even I can use Notepad ++ to add a tank or two to an existing scenario. And for some bizarre reason, I love the devs for giving us that opportunity.
Plus, with a very reasonable entry price of $20, I will have no hesitation investing in more maps and OOBs, just like with the LnL Steam release.
Good job, Matrix and testers!
RE: impressions anyone?
Bought it. Like it. I've bought LnLT previously and like it. Each has good points and bad points. Maybe someday I'll be able to have the same experience on a computer as I had with SL and later ASL when I was younger. I will play both this one and LnL Tactical, but the LnLT system is more advanced at this time, and I will play that one more.
JRR
RE: impressions anyone?
if you haven't checked it out, ASL's Heroes & Leader mod for Matrix Heroes of Stalingrad title is some of the best modding around anywhere...
-
MrsWargamer
- Posts: 1653
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:04 pm
RE: impressions anyone?
ORIGINAL: dox44
if you haven't checked it out, ASL's Heroes & Leader mod for Matrix Heroes of Stalingrad title is some of the best modding around anywhere...
Yep, got it, love it. And Rico is on this game too
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.
RE: impressions anyone?
Ahh...thanks, I have the Matrix version on Hero's of Stalingrad but have not played it in years and was unaware of the mod (It actually is in my online games under Matrix Your Games, not on my computer).
JRR
-
barkhorn45
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:19 pm
RE: impressions anyone?
Lack of fow is the reason I don't play tigers on the hunt.Makes ambushes a little difficult to say the least. Will wait to purchase.
RE: impressions anyone?
Gents: [8D]
I am "on the fence" with purchasing this game. I've watched some video replays and I like the simple game mechanics and fast-paced nature of each scenario. However, as noted by other players, there are many "under-developed" / missing features;
Need:
* Fog of war. Players now have complete enemy information.
* Better sound effects. Infantry moving and AFVs treads are terrible.
* More out-of-the-box scenarios. American Sector scenarios = 10 and British Sector scenarios = 9. Should double the number of scenarios. Frankly, I am indifferent on DYO scenarios.
* Mortars and artillery.
* Air strikes.
* Nice to have - customize leader names.
I am "on the fence" with purchasing this game. I've watched some video replays and I like the simple game mechanics and fast-paced nature of each scenario. However, as noted by other players, there are many "under-developed" / missing features;
Need:
* Fog of war. Players now have complete enemy information.
* Better sound effects. Infantry moving and AFVs treads are terrible.
* More out-of-the-box scenarios. American Sector scenarios = 10 and British Sector scenarios = 9. Should double the number of scenarios. Frankly, I am indifferent on DYO scenarios.
* Mortars and artillery.
* Air strikes.
* Nice to have - customize leader names.
Regards, - Mike
"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein
"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein
RE: impressions anyone?
I need to check out tha ASL Mod for HOS, never heard of it.
As for V&V, just buy it, how many squad level tactical games are there really out there? I don't think you will be dissapointed. I have L&L and TOTH, but to be honest V&V just keeps me coming back and I can't explain it other than perhaps it's just basics without any "story" type play that you find in L&L which isn't my style. I find myself a bit frustrated and elated at the same time when playing, coming back to some scenarios over and over to "give it a go one more time". I have never had that desire with L&L as much as I like that game as well.
Also it's very open to modding, if you want a leader name, get your favorite paint program and get it done, it's not hard and once you start you might find a whole new modding angle to explore. Sounds not right? Guess what, they are accessible and easy to change as well. It's a small dev group and they have left these files easily open for modding so now you can buy it and change those "terrible" sound effects to whatever you desire.
As far as lack of scenarios, the scenario editor is simple and you can bang out a quick and fun scenario in just a few minutes.
I'm looking forward to where the game takes us, I think it's a big winner.
As for V&V, just buy it, how many squad level tactical games are there really out there? I don't think you will be dissapointed. I have L&L and TOTH, but to be honest V&V just keeps me coming back and I can't explain it other than perhaps it's just basics without any "story" type play that you find in L&L which isn't my style. I find myself a bit frustrated and elated at the same time when playing, coming back to some scenarios over and over to "give it a go one more time". I have never had that desire with L&L as much as I like that game as well.
Also it's very open to modding, if you want a leader name, get your favorite paint program and get it done, it's not hard and once you start you might find a whole new modding angle to explore. Sounds not right? Guess what, they are accessible and easy to change as well. It's a small dev group and they have left these files easily open for modding so now you can buy it and change those "terrible" sound effects to whatever you desire.
As far as lack of scenarios, the scenario editor is simple and you can bang out a quick and fun scenario in just a few minutes.
I'm looking forward to where the game takes us, I think it's a big winner.