Review

[Big Joe]

Has anyone seen the review at games domain by David Williams? Seems there is not much he likes about SPWAW. Complaining about every thing from the sound! to the AI. His biggest gripe though is with the interface as its such a intergal part of the game! Oh well too each his own.

[Pack Rat]

Yeah I read it earlier today and was still fuming. Next time he should play it alittle longer. Slick graphics, slick interface do not a good game make, give me meat and potatoes anyday. He is right on some accounts but damnit, I don't think Matrix had a couple million for a budget. It's going to take time and who better to help than the gamers themselves?

I was thinking a complimentary concusion granade would be a proper add on here but have changed my mind. Instead I don't give a Pack Rats Ass if he likes it or not.

[This message has been edited by Pack Rat (edited 05-24-2000).]

[kartono]

Well, I don't care of that d**n review anyway.. Obviously he hasn't played spwaw long enough to review it and does not know what good product is.

All I know is that Matrix has done a wonderful and great job, I love it, I play it... I don't care what the heck the reviewer said...

cheers
Kartono

[Bondy]

That review was just pitiful.

Here's a few choice quotes with my thoughts:

(Describing a bug) "Routed units spontaneously recover to pinned status when fired upon. Retreating units often retreat directly towards the enemy that is killing them."

Isn't this a feature? I've read this in many places, maybe not the manual though. The routed infantry can go beserk and charge you if you keep firing at them. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"The AI of SPWAW can be quite horrid."

I wouldn't argue this point if someone made it about any game, BUT, the AI is improved from the previous SP versions. That should be recognized.

"The only negative thing I can mention about scenario design..."

That makes him seem dissapointed!

"Documentation on the new features of the game are barely adequate. The documentation on the old features of the game is worse, if it is even provided at all."

Okay, it seemed good to me, but I know the system and read these forums. How about anyone else out there? Did you learn SP1-3 by reading the manual? Whenever I checked for something in the manual it was there. This seems like a weak argument to me.

"Steel Panthers is a game for the patient. I spend nearly half my time watching the computer move and seeing the results of bombardment."

This is like saying a games music is too loud. Just turn the delay down and the turns fly by. He does admit that you can adjust this at least.

"All these bugs are merely the vanguard of an army of bugs that I feel I will spot at any moment..."

That is the entire paragraph. Maybe I'm playing different game, but it would have helped me to know exactly what army of bugs I would be facing next. Also, would the bugs be advancing or defending?;-)


"If you like Steel Panthers, there is no reason why you shouldn't like this game."

In keeping with the article theme he uses a double negative to indicate SP fans will like it.

"I have seen modifications by third party hackers change gameplay just as much (for games like XCOM or Diablo)."

Whoa - Thems fightin' words! Michael Wood - you gonna take that?!?! Seriously, we know better - Matrix folks - Michael, Wild Bill, Paul, Nick, Scott, David, Maik, Tom and everyone, you guys did a bang up job. I haven't played SP this much since 1995. Let's hope GDR lets a wargaming fan review SPWAW for it's Second Opinion feature.

[Wild Bill]

Hey, we're having fun. He's not. To each his own. Thanks guys, for your support. That is appreciated and needed very much.

At least he liked the scenarios...a little bit

WB

------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[renwor]

Ok, just read the mentioned review. What problem do you have with it? Most bugs he describes simply ARE there, the game looks more like "beta" it's so.
He just failed to capture how much fun it is to play SPWAW. It's fun even after learning to live with bugs.
High cost for aircraft, unrealistic AI selection of MBT, core force management problems, double stats tables for units, all is there ....
You don't see any army of bugs? I do.
It would be nice if Bill could post a list of planned first patch fixes. ... first enemy bugs wave out

Renwor

[krull]

D***mn reviews are never very accurate mostly desgned for rock em sockem people who want quick graphical fast gameplay. @nd army of bugs? heheh I got all the steel panthers as the emerged and seems too me they had just as many if not more bugs hahah.
I think this is the first game i have every seen or tried where they MAKERS realy want people to find stuff wrong anf make suggestions which to me makes the game worth while if it crashed my computer every 20 minutes hehe anymore than that id say my wife did it to get me off so she can play steel panthers WaW hahahaha

[renwor]

Well I hate to defend the reviewer, but I guess somebody should. I never said SPWAW is bad game, unplayable game or not fun. If that would be my opinion, I wouldn't hang around here. It's just not finished. I believe even Matrix, Bill & Raiders and Paul would admit it. And thats the ground for the reviewer. Of course he could take another way around and mention just few bugs and go on about fantastic gameplay. But his points are valid.

I just think, that calling this release public "beta" would have been smart move on the Matrix part. It would take wind out of many criticist sails. Let us concentrate on the core, the game mechanism, gameplay and leave minor bugs aside.
SPWAW is the best beta i had seen in years.

Renwor

[Arralen]

Read through the review quickly - seems that the author is right with most complaints:
- the AI is weak
- pathfinding virtually non-existent
- unit stats are questionable
- documentation is bad (if any..)

But he missed a most important point - not only that they give it away for free but that they are still working on it.

If I think back how horrible the first Stars!2.0 was, and to what a marvelleous and well-respected game it developed over >4 years, I can only say I'm looking forward to the future development of SP-WAW - I hope MatrixGames will put as much effort into it as Mare Crisium put into Stars!, and SP-WAW will become a true classic this way!

Arralen

PS: ..o.k., let's start rooting these bugs out .. X-Com experience says heavy weapons are used best

[Paul Vebber]

Frankly that a "mainstream" game site even gave us the time of day is a good thing!!

As was said some of this is perhaps poor perception management on our part....

Having been involved for years now in updating SP games, it was sort of "assumed" that the "process" was understood. This whole "update an old game for free" thing is sort of virgin territory for all of us!

This ain't a "finished product"! Something the reviewer was expecting, and that was the criteria he used to judge. Thats fine and frankly I have little beef with him on that!

The idea, as with SP:WW2 before us, was to release something when we thought it was far enough along that folks could start getting enjoyment out of! We didn't call it a "Beta" becasue in effect the game will ALWAYS be a "Beta". There are enough "bugs" and new features to add to keep us busy 20 more years! Its not "done" until we simply run out of resources to support it!

Someday we may do our own tactical combat game, but until we have a compelling alternative to offer, we look on SP:WaW as an ongoing dialogue with the SP community.

We released the game not becasue we thought it was "done" but becasue we thought it was mature enough to be enjoyed! IF you think its "not soup yet" as the reviewer seems to, well, wait until a few more patches come out and try it again!

Those that DO think they can enjoy it, CAN!

From the enthusiastic response, we think we at least were in the ballpark of "maturity" for releasing the game. Sure there are rough edges, but it would have taken us months in our small playtest group to find some of the things that the mass of you supporters found in 2 weeks. There can be compelling argument for "public beta", from an efficiency standpoint and to some extent the market niche we are in requires a certin buy in form the "early adopters" to put up with rough edges in even a pay 1.0 product. Very few 1.0 games have come out bug free! Its the support after the sale that we feel is key!

Now for games we expect money for, obviously a different notion than the SP:WaW model is required, but unfortunatley the economics of the wargame industry are either you wait for 3 or 4 or more years to get an imaculately groomed product, or you set your initial sights a little lower complexity wise and increase as you develop more games in the "series".

For gamers, both have their drawbacks, either you wait interminably for "vaporware" to materialize, or you feel like the company is contually dipping into your pocket.

From my standpoint with 2 kids and a wife (yes she hasn't left me yet despite I tell her that I have "cleaned out the 7 garage hexes") when we go out for a night ,its 15 bucks for a babysitter, 30 bucks for a decent dinner and 20 bucks to go to a movie and 20 bucks or more to go somewhere after wards - 85 bucks minimum for 5 or 6 hours out.

By a "Dollar/Hour" standard, wargames tend to be pretty cheap entertainment

A new thread to discuss these issues may be inorder if any of you are so inclined...

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited 05-24-2000).]

[grockall]

I don't think I even want a finished product. It will be a sad day when nothing more can be learned or improved.

[renwor]

Originally posted by grockall:
I don't think I even want a finished product. It will be a sad day when nothing more can be learned or improved.

Don't be afraid. It cannot happen. Never, ever.

Renwor

[Charles22]

I don't think most reviewers would know weak AI if it bit them on the face. From what I've seen, you generally have to play all types of missions several times in order to ascertain whether the AI is weak. I think reviewers just use 'weak AI' as just a common problem of all games and don't bither to really investigate. Is weak AI designated by the player winning decisively against a weak opponent? Has the reviewer been assaulted by the Poles (though not the strongest of nationalities) with visibility of six at three different objective clusters at the same time? No, didn't think so.

So what 'really' makes weak AI? In my view it's that the AI doesn't adjust to player strategies, which I suppose would be most AI. In any case, it takes a while before you can determine if the AI is really adjusting to different players, different types of battles, and different types of attack/defense. I "think" my attack and defense plans are pretty good, but put the same strategy in the hands of playing the Japanese and it probably wouldn't go so well.

In any case, the way I feel about it, unless the griper cares to furnish his final scores and whether he basically didn't cheat, I feel they have no grounds to be trusted. Sure, I had a decisive victory against the Poles, the first battle, but part of the beauty of the system, at least as fighting as Gerry in campaign, is that I'm merely warming up for the Big Boy of Ruskie, and if in getting my decisive victory, all my losses were the most depended on pieces, then how much will it hurt me down the road, and how well will I adjust to the various upgrades available later? If every battle was only one mission, with no campaign, and there was only one type of battle with only one nationality to pick with only one possible opponent, then maybe one battle might be able to tell you that there is weak AI across the board. In my opinion "weak AI" cannot be determined just because you win overwhelmingly, nor is it necessarily tough because you lost half of your core. Sometimes, particularly with reviewers, and the ability to redo a move, or save a game, I think we can get too much into 'not thinking' very well about what we do, so that we lose the main reason we started playing in the first place. How many people who complain about weak AI, still just put all their tanks and guns on hills? I notice the reviewer comaplained about objecitves being in bad places. Ah, I see, he must be one of those hill hogs, who might be frustrated that he would actually have to do some fighting off of hills (imagine that).

[renwor]

Originally posted by Charles22:
How many people who complain about weak AI, still just put all their tanks and guns on hills? I notice the reviewer comaplained about objecitves being in bad places. Ah, I see, he must be one of those hill hogs, who might be frustrated that he would actually have to do some fighting off of hills (imagine that).

Forgive me, but due to weak AI, whats wrong with strategy to put all my guns and armour on hills ??? Errr ...whats overally wrong in putting long range weapons on hills? If I put all my ATGs like 88's in deepest woods, it may be surprising move, but I doubt It will put AI off-balance!!!!
Hasn't tougher battles always been fought for various, even nameless hills? I probably missed some point here.

Renwor

[ncpanther]

To hell with this guys review!! I make my own opinon about a game anyway! The Matrix Team did a GREAT job with this game and I was surprized that it was FREE! I had all but quit playing SP when this came out. Now ive discovered SP all over again!! And its got alot of what WE ALL WANTED in a game because Matix LISTENED TO US, the Gamers!!
Thanks Gents!!

------------------
NC

[grockall]

If you've got a pair of 88's stick them on a hill preferably in rough ground. If they can't take on the enemy at range their crews will start taking casualties far too soon.
Battles have been won for centuries due to holding the high ground

[Mark_Ezra]

Ok I read the review carefully. Had I been Mr Williams editor I would have asked to move ..."That every major gripe I had with the original Steel Panthers still holds." from the end of the review to the top. Does he make valid points? Yes. It's important for Matrix to read what the harshest critics have to say. They are new to the business and need to learn to operate in the world they find themselves in..(not the world you and I want for wargaming) New Hybride Wargamer devotees cum producers are not going to be accepted by the industry with open arms. Many a tame reviewer will pound hard on any defect found to crush these young upstarts. That is NOT to suggest that Mr Williams is a hack. Frankly alot of what is says is correct. That he has a longstanding opinion less than favorable towards SP needs to be remembered when we review his review.

[Charles22]

renwor: I was trying to say, that if someone has such a limited scope of developing offense/defense, that he still resorts to only sitting on hills, particularly since that's the area that an AI, weak or strong would bombard, then he's not a very good judge of weak tactics. Or perhaps, to be a little more direct, if this guy played Gerry with the 88's, and fairied around leaving them there, lame enough to fire them on the first spotted unit, only to have them wiped out for lack of moving them out after firing that first turn (because we mustn't lose our precious entrenched status), then he has no room to gripe. If HE cannot adjust to what a supposedly weak AI would dictate, that it pays to not keep everything on hills all the time, then he expects out of the AI, what he himself doesn't do. In any case, to complain about the weird placement of the objective hexes, in my book, is tantamount to his admitting that he has little concept as to where the objectives are, matters. When I saw so many objectives and seen where they were placed, being an SP vet., I was most intrigued.

In my latest battle there was a fairly wooded southern hill, with a valley within some of the hill's eyeshot, which had objective hexes, which was unoccupied during my advance, but was later counterattacked by the Poles to retake. I don't know about him, but when I see objectives in a valley, and the advantage of a hill nearby, somehow I realize that it calls for quite a change in tactics as opposed to the objectives being on the same hill (hopefully one stocks the valley with infantry for a start). I wonder if mister expert reviewer would realize what a profound difference it would make, if all of the objectives were in the sea or on an island with only a connecting bridge to the mainland?

[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 05-24-2000).]

[Wild Bill]

I read it Mark. We all read it here in the SPWAW group. We probably had it before you guys did. We take it all very seriously.

If there ever comes anything that everybody approves, I'll be wondering what the catch is .

To be honest, our best critics are you players. I put more credence in the troops than the generals.

He has some good points and he is in error in some places.

And we will learn and improve from all of it.

In my personal life, I always go see the movies the critics put two thumbs down on

"Red Dawn" was the worst movie ever made. So said the critics. I loved it.

I read what the critics say. I learn from it. I make my own choices based on personal likes and dislikes.

Beth, my wife has faults (Shh!). I make a pro-con list. The pros outweigh the cons so much that I'll take her, keep her, love her and enjoy her as long as God gives me breath!

SPWAW is kind of like that to me. It has faults. But I love it. I love playing it. And I'll keep on playing it. And I'll keep on striving to improve it.

------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Charles22]

BTW, I thought I'd clarify the battle which I described earlier. The southern hill's valley, that has the objectives, is south of the hill (if you consider the bottom of the screen south), while there are thick woods to the west, with relative clear to the east and north. In other words, the hill has enough cover, that very few hexes can do a reliable job of observation to cover the objectives. I've been forced to cover the, what by now has amounted to an en masse rush from the north to go over the hill and retake the objectives, an armored thrust from the west to take the objectives, some of have attempted to take the hill, while others have attempted to go straight for the objectives. The defense has amounted to my having to split up some three tanks to cover the objective area, should the armor get beyond my platoon of infantry, and overlook some to the west from the hill, some three tanks to try to flatten, along with some of my units which make up my main force back east the onslaught from the north, and some four tanks to cover the thick woods direct west of the hill, from which there is a small line through the woods they can cover. The change ongoing, has already required the movement of some of the tanks on the hill, to other positions of the hill, to help out when their covering area becomes tamer (there was never any time to dig-in). From the game where I fought the Poles with six visibility, I know that it probably won't be too long before the my tanks have been moved, that they may have to get back to cover their old arc of fire. All this, not dug-in, not sitting pretty on some obvious hill with an objective area right smack dab on the hill or directly in front of the hill, so that the hill only need be manned. Frankly, if the en masse infantry gets to the hill, I don't know what I'm going to do (perhaps temporarily vacate the infantry from the objective areas). This all complicated by at least five 75mm flaks of the enemy's, which can't see this particular hill, but are a potential dominating force should I move the eastward larger forces west, or the hill forces north.

Not exactly an objective area which is directly in the path of the enemy that the hill overlooks terribly well, in other words, sitting on a hill back at my own lines wouldn't cut it, and the original cautious recon had to be sent emergency relief. Also, As I mentioned earlier, the front of the deployment line was scarcely manned (this is a surprise), and where the infantry was manned (for the most part behind some level five, one hex deep, line of hills), the concentration was massive.

If objective areas are on key hills or directly in the normal path of the enemy with a key hill backing it up, and behind your own lines, that's a MASSIVE difference as compared to what I just described.

I would also would question whether the reviewer even bothered to see how large an impact that scouts could have, alongside the fact that infantry can be so much more obscured. I have to think that he also has no idea just how much fun creeping with snipers and scouts are.

Now that I've ranted a bit, I have a question: Is there a way, during battle, where I can place a cursor over a hex, and see what that hex would see? It seems this is needed in order to access whether the hex I'm moving into is relatively safe, particularly since command control orders are used for each single hex that I move into. Interesting sidenote here, scout units don't use orders to plot one hex at a time.