AA vs ATF?

[Awac835]

Whit the title it was not my meaning to try and play the two game out against each others, as to what is the best etc. etc. but just want to here if anyone have some experience with the Prosim games.

I like HTTR but would like something modern so until Panther games leave WW2 im looking for alternatives. i was looking at "Star and Crescent" from ProSim.

I like the demo, but it seems much more complicated then HTTR, but i think that is just until i get the hang of it. Also it feels very different as everythin happens so fast. I guess it comes from greater firepower and the communication is much faster then with realistic delay in HTTR and thens it tactical not operational.
But have anyone here tried any of the ATF games and can give me cons and pros as to the differnece between AA and ATF.

thx for any help [:)]

[PaulWRoberts]

I haven't played the full version of any ATF engine games, although I downloaded the demos to ATF and Raging Tiger and found that they were not to my taste. My sense from reading reviews and seeing discussions online is that ATF's AI is not up to HTTR's level, and the ATF interface can be a bit of a struggle at times.

According to a thread at comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical, HTTR will someday have a modern-combat incarnation. Check out the discussion here:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys ... aa88bc4da4

[wodin]

Star and Crescent maps look so much beter than the previous games.

Hate the counters for some reason though.

If you want a modern game then go for Falklands or Star and Crescent. The engine has some good reviews and support.

[Trigger Happy]

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

I haven't played the full version of any ATF engine games, although I downloaded the demos to ATF and Raging Tiger and found that they were not to my taste. My sense from reading reviews and seeing discussions online is that ATF's AI is not up to HTTR's level, and the ATF interface can be a bit of a struggle at times.

According to a thread at comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical, HTTR will someday have a modern-combat incarnation. Check out the discussion here:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys ... aa88bc4da4

I think they should stuck to Ruskies vs. Nato kind of war even for near future engagement. Anyway, in anything modern there would have to be limits to the use of force due to nukular deterence, like...

-don't attack my ground forces with tac nukes or we'll strat nuke Paris
-Well, if you destroy Paris, we'll destroy Moscow
-What? if you'd dare do that, we'd nuke 10 of your cities
-Bah, then we'd push the earth auto-destruction button
-That's it, you're so evil. WE would never do that
-Coming from you, that's a compliment, thank you
...

The thing is I don't think central Asia or ex-soviet states would be worth, in the eye of nato, a nuclear war.
A scenario like:
Uzbekistan suffers a violent putsh, GIs in their military bases are attacked. US intervenes from their bases in the region and Afghanistan. Russia intervenes through Kazakhstan. All hell breaks loose.

[Trigger Happy]

I tried the demo of Raging Tiger... not for me. The only modern game I play is TacOps. So much more satisfying and fun. So much more intuitive. Of course it's not Real Time, but it does play a lot quicker than ATF and other Turn Based games. Plus TacOps is much cheaper.