First Impressions here please.

sol_invictus · Post by **sol_invictus** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:01 pm

I had the US PCGamer in mind actually; but as I said in my previous post; it was simply very sloppy posting on my part. I shouldn't have refered to PC Gamer specificly.

bluemonday · Post by **bluemonday** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:01 pm

ORIGINAL: Arinvald

bluemonday, of course you are correct; I should not have mentioned a specific source when it wasn't my intent to criticise that source. I have subscribed to PC Gamer for years so that was just the first example that came to my mind to represent the mass media as a whole. I do disagree with PC Gamer reviews quite often though and would not be surprised about what types of reviews CoG receives. This game requires a real commitment and effort; something that most gamers aren't willing to invest in, imo. I hope I'm both surprised and proven wrong.

No problem - I just think that if you look at the reviews in the US PC gaming magazines, you will find very fair reviews. That is simply my prediction.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that of the major US magazines (PC Gamer, Computer Games, Computer Gaming World) and sites (Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN) you will see fair reviews from all of them. They may not like it wholeheartedly, but the reviews will be extremely fair and well-considered. Those are the only "professional" reviews that you'll see - I would not consider and of the other sites "professional."

Hanal · Post by **Hanal** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:27 pm

Well I decided to print the manual myself but one of the things I did was reduce the number of pages printed....I started on page 12 and finished up on page 74....I feel there is no need to print all of the intro stuff and the strategy and scenario guides could easily be read from the monitor....I only copied the meat of the manual which saved on consumables....

waynec · Post by **waynec** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 4:43 pm

I haven't even played the game properly yet because I can't read the manual via alt-tab and have no clue what is going on. Maybe I'll have gone and stocked up on printer cartridges by the end of the weekend. Maybe other things as well [:@]

burn the manual on a cd and take it to office depot. got game manual and tutorial printed (b/w single sided), both in one "book" with a separator, spiral bound with clear plastic front and back for $13.00. took about 2 hours. sitting here going though the tutorial and listening to 1812 overture.

Warpstorm · Post by **Warpstorm** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:11 pm

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

No problem - I just think that if you look at the reviews in the US PC gaming magazines, you will find very fair reviews. That is simply my prediction.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that of the major US magazines (PC Gamer, Computer Games, Computer Gaming World) and sites (Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN) you will see fair reviews from all of them. They may not like it wholeheartedly, but the reviews will be extremely fair and well-considered. Those are the only "professional" reviews that you'll see - I would not consider and of the other sites "professional."

I will agree with this. These magazines will get a reviewer who understands wargames to write the review, not give it to the same guy who writes about the latest FPS.

Queeg · Post by **Queeg** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:55 pm

ORIGINAL: Mr. Z

Casualties vary according to a number of factors (fire combat and charge combat modifiers are listed in detail in the "Detailed Combat" section of the manual). Changing morale can significantly affect casualties (morale tends to drop after receiving damage.)
Formation also significantly affects casualties (did you see whether they changed formation from column to square, for example?) Flanking is also significant. Type of unit vs. type of unit (heavy cavalry vs. light infantry, regular cavalry vs. regular cavalry, etc.) is also important. Terrain is also important. Facing is also important.

If, on the other hand, you have one isolated unit attacking another isolated unit, and neither one moves, and the next round you perform the very same attack against the very same unit with the very same facings in the very same formations, and you notice that the morales of each unit has not changed significantly, and the casualties are still wildly off from attack to attack, please let us know--we'd like to look into that sort of thing. Thanks!

My guess is that what I was seeing was due to the factors Ralegh mentioned a few posts back - points expended for movement and the fact that I was firing every round (while the AI, as I think back, was letting its guys rest every other round). I'll see if it repeats itself.

Rooster · Post by **Rooster** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:52 pm

ravinhood wrote:

But, how about a pocket pdf manual machine? Does nothing but hold pdf files you can take anywere and read anytime and will have a magnifying feature so you can easily read the manul from the pocket pdf unit? Would work in the bathroom or in the bed easily don't you think?

Um... it's called a PDA. The acrobat reader is a free download - load the manual and there you go. You can even put your own private list of game tips, notes, etc.

The only problem might be - and I haven't checked it out - that they might have locked the PDF file so that it can't re-flow the text on the smaller PDA screen. If it can't re-flow the pages, then the line-lengths are problematic because you can only read 6-7 words, and then you have to scroll left to finish the line, then scroll back to finish the next line. This was a problem with the HTTR manual - I posted it up on the "wish list page" over on the HTTR forums, but didn't get much of a reaction over there.

Warpstorm · Post by **Warpstorm** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:11 pm

If I could get it, I'd ask for my money back. While the game may be good, I'll never know because of the sub-standard programming. C'mon, a windowed mode is trivial (even using DirectX) and really needed for those of us with LCD monitors, as is responding to the alt-tab request (for those of us who want to learn to play). Maybe I'll give it a try once this is patched a few times (assuming the patch allows me to have the documentation open at the same time as the game), but I don't have the patience to put up with this on a game of this complexity. And I am not throwing another $10+ dollars away to print the manual.

I guess I should have taken the warnings here more seriously, but I figured that I'd be lucky and it would work on my system.

wayne19563 · Post by **wayne19563** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:20 pm

ORIGINAL: Warpstorm

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

No problem - I just think that if you look at the reviews in the US PC gaming magazines, you will find very fair reviews. That is simply my prediction.

In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that of the major US magazines (PC Gamer, Computer Games, Computer Gaming World) and sites (Gamespot, Gamespy, and IGN) you will see fair reviews from all of them. They may not like it wholeheartedly, but the reviews will be extremely fair and well-considered. Those are the only "professional" reviews that you'll see - I would not consider and of the other sites "professional."

I will agree with this. These magazines will get a reviewer who understands wargames to write the review, not give it to the same guy who writes about the latest FPS.

I went to Kinko's and had them print the PDF file that I burned to a disk ... Cost $8.00 - B&W. Took 20 min. - while I waited ... now on to reading! [;)]

Reg Pither · Post by **Reg Pither** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:19 pm

Overall first impression after a few hours' play - [X(][X(][X(]

So much to do, absorb and learn. Definitely a step up from EUII, but obviously very similar. Good thing it's not realtime, or that would be impossible!

A few random thoughts...

Minus :

- Undo / verify buttons for just about everything are needed!
- The 80% penalty for artillery on higher ground is waaay too harsh.
- Uniforms are functional, but need to be more country and unit specific. (This may have been mentioned already somewhere...[;)])
- Most of the fonts are ugly; the map looks pretty good and is very atmospheric, but I'd prefer the land and sea to be more distinct - one a significantly darker shade than the other rather than the similar tones we have now.
- Windowed mode would be very useful.
- Sort out the alt+tab viewing of the manual, as mine doesn't work. Luckily I can just have the manual up on my other PC, but it's not ideal.
- Too many buttons need more than one push to work, even though I get the 'pressed' sound. Sometimes they don't work at all and I have to go out of that screen and back in. And the general interface is a bit 'clunky', not nice and smooth and tactile like we'd expect of a modern computer game.
- As others have mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a comprehensive overview screen for your nation, just all sorts of details spread across various screens and repeated on others. Needs to be more streamlined.

Plus :

- It's a huge, strategic level Napoleonic wargame!!! So I'd probably have to be dragged from my PC before I stopped playing, no matter how many problems it had. [:D]
- Depth. Plenty of it. Trade and diplomacy in particular have plenty of options.
- Combined arms tactics seem to be well modelled.

Overall, spectacularly good, if a bit rough around the edges. [:)] [&o]

ravinhood · Post by **ravinhood** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:26 pm

There is a US PC Gamer and a UK PC Gamer.. there may well be PC Gamers in other countries too. I don't believe the writers for the UK and US mags are the same so you may be talking about a different reviewer.

You're right there and the PC Gamer UK reviewer is notorious for giving low scores to wargames.

But, the overall average that appears in Gamerankings.com is the one that matters most. PC Gamer US is only one magazine, hardly the last word in pc gaming, I quit taking a subscription to them because of their youthful kiddiefied reviews except for when Trotter was there.

Gamespy and Gamespot reviews will have a big impact on scores as well. I'll just be amazed if this game gets the kind of overall scores like Korsun Pocket or HTTR got. Though just from the readings by the players and the way it plays I know already I'd score it high because I love reading manuals, the bigger the better.

Reg Pither · Post by **Reg Pither** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:32 pm

UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks. [:(]

Oh, and I just want to say... Hello, ravinhood! [:)]

Age of Wonders Heaven, I believe...?

bluemonday · Post by **bluemonday** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:40 pm

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks. [:(]

Why do you think that?

John B · Post by **John B** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:00 pm

Re the manual, if your printer can do this, (which I think most can) set it to print two pages per sheet in "landscape" mode. This halves the number of sheets, cuts down on the ink used, and is still readable. For the eagle-eyed, I suppose it would be possible to print four pages per sheet, though I for one would have the same difficulties as Davout without his eye-glasses[;)]

Reg Pither · Post by **Reg Pither** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:58 pm

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks. [:(]
Why do you think that?

Because it's complicated, old-fashioned, isn't in 3D, requires effort and doesn't come with a manual.

bluemonday · Post by **bluemonday** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:07 am

So you think that the guys who gave Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy 5 stars are going to dislike CoG because it is turn-based and not in 3D? Please. You obviously don't read the magazines.

Reg Pither · Post by **Reg Pither** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:14 am

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

So you think that the guys who gave Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy 5 stars are going to dislike CoG because it is turn-based and not in 3D? Please. You obviously don't read the magazines.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought... [8|]

bluemonday · Post by **bluemonday** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:45 am

Your statement:

"UK or US PC Gamer, or any of the mags (apart from CGW maybe) aren't going to like this game, methinks. [:(]"

"Because it's complicated, old-fashioned, isn't in 3D, requires effort and doesn't come with a manual."

Actual ratings for recent turn-based, non-3D wargames from US magazines and major websites:

PC Gamer: Korsun Pocket 93%
Computer Games Mag: 4/5 stars
Computer Gaming World 5/5 stars
Gamespy: 5/5 stars
Gamespot: 8.6/10

PC Gamer: Battles in Normandy 81%
Computer Games Mag 5/5 stars
Computer Gaming World 4.5/5 stars
Gamespot: 8.4/10

So despite the rolling eyes in your last post, my statement holds.

bostonrpgmania · Post by **bostonrpgmania** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 12:48 am

ORIGINAL: Reg Pither

ORIGINAL: bluemonday

So you think that the guys who gave Korsun Pocket and Battles in Normandy 5 stars are going to dislike CoG because it is turn-based and not in 3D? Please. You obviously don't read the magazines.

Yes, that's exactly what I thought... [8|]

Unfortunately, Reg Pither, you are wrong
It depends on who reviews it
For example, Bruce Gyrwek of Computer gaming world, rates games by independent developers quite highly
He gave very very high opinion for Dominion II ascension wars even with its very very primitive graphics in 2D
What matters is gameplay.....for strategy games, especially turn based ones

Banquet · Post by **Banquet** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:17 am

Well, some wargames get good reviews by some people.. but I agree with Reg in that, generally, they don't score high enough. For instance.. Victoria.. A game I love.. was one of Paradox's more complicated variations of their well known 'province' theme.. but it is a gem. Some reviews;

Gamespy 1/5
Avault 2/5
PC Gamer 62/100
Gamespot 63/100

Admittedly Strategy Gaming gave it 90/100

Anyway, we could all spend weeks draggin up reviews to prove our point.. Most of the ones that have really riled me up are long since thrown away in disgust..

I do know that I'm quite used to reading reviews of deep, thoughtful, complex games I enjoy.. where the game gets rubbished because the reviewer simply wasn't into that kind of game, or able to learn it's rules.

Here in the UK we have a mag called 'PC Zone' that's fine for normal games but is just unable to review wargames.. if I remember correctly (don't quote me! [:D]) they gave Korsun Pocket 19%!

So, while I agree there are reviewers around who understand our love for these kind of games.. it is generally the case that games like CoG don't get the credit they deserve in mainstream reviews.

First Impressions here please.

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: First Impressions here please.

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: Oh no, another seniors master thesis game!

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs

RE: print costs