Matrix Games Forums

It's just that playing a bunch of scenarios just for the sake of playing them is a little tiresome. I enjoyed HttR a lot, and did my share to advertize it to all my friends, but after a few scenarios, it seems there's just no point ...

I agree with that.

It there is no grand camp and no replacements - What is new, besides bridges?

When HTTR was first out and COTA was being worked on there was some pretty serious talk about letting us download the features of new release and apply them to the older games.

In other words play HTTR with the supply features of COTA.

ORIGINAL: Skyfire76
... As for wargames I play (or used to) with a campaign mode, or something close to it, I can say : Uncommon Valour, Hearts of Iron II, Battles in Normandy (though the campaign is just one huge scenario in that case), Crusader Kings, Birth of America, Blitkrieg, Strategic Command 2, Medieval Total War (I), Supreme Ruler 2010, Knights of honor, PeG-WW2 (remake of Panzer General) and so on. Should I go on ? ... [:D]

Perhaps it's a matter of semantics, but I have most of these games and many don't have either a campaign mode, or anything "close to it". Blitzkrieg is the only one in this list that I know is actually played as a campaign as either Germany, the US or the USSR.

I'm defining campaign mode as a series of locked scenarios/battles in which the next scenario/stage can only be unlocked by successfully playing through the previous one, a la Panzer General.

But UV is just a series of independent scenarios -- some longer than others -- where experience, reinforcements and/or losses don't follow from one scenario to the other. The same is true for BoA, HoI and MTW, although these games have several "grand" campaigns/total operations (as did HttR), which are actually a single, all-encompassing scenario, sometimes with an option as to when (what date) you can start it. These "campaigns" are either won or lost, and then the game is over and nothing follows.

ORIGINAL: Tactics

It's just that playing a bunch of scenarios just for the sake of playing them is a little tiresome. I enjoyed HttR a lot, and did my share to advertize it to all my friends, but after a few scenarios, it seems there's just no point ...

I agree with that.

It there is no grand camp and no replacements - What is new, besides bridges?

When HTTR was first out and COTA was being worked on there was some pretty serious talk about letting us download the features of new release and apply them to the older games.

In other words play HTTR with the supply features of COTA.

There are many new things under the hood that may be unseen in the way of improvements to the AI.

There are several new things visible to the gamer in the form of extended control over orders implementation with regard to basing, stragglers, allowing units with defend orders to attack on their own initiative, allowing units with move orders to bypass enemy units rather than stopping to engage and the ability to set up ambushes by having units hold fire until the enemy is at optimal close range for the units weapon type.

Minefields and engineering capabilities have been added/expanded.

Most of all what is new are the scenarios themselves and the conflict/campaign they cover, one that has obvious broad appeal.

While I can fully appreciate the desire for linked scenarios to form an overall campaign, I feel it is a bit extreme and unfair to say "besides "this" what else is new?".

As a beta tester I have pushed as hard as I can, this very week in fact, for arranging the OOBs, maps and objectives of the stand alone scenarios so that they can be played in a sequence that gives a feel for the larger campaign within the limits of the overall design decision to not have them linked.

I also salivate over the idea of playing the entire battle in one big scenario, although that may be wishful thinking more so from the satnd point of a players ability, or inability, to manage such a large scenario in realtime than it is as a result of the present physical limitation of computer processing power.

At present, I'm just a beta tester providing feedback and the ocassional bit of historical research to aid the data design teams. I have no experience with scenario design and have no idea how much work would be involved in linking one to another. I do know that the production process has slowed with Arjuna's full time work committment. At the present rate I believe he hopes to have the game released around year's end. Redesigning the present scenarios to link them into a campaign could well add another half year to that process.

Frankly, I'm finding the stand alone scenarios I have tested to be engrossing, immersive, challenging and loads of fun to play......what else can we ask for....well, obviously, we can ask for a full campaign of linked scenarios.........but we may just be asking for too much at this point in time......

Personally, I'm ready, willing and able to accept the game in it's present form (bug fixes not withstanding), but then I am obviously biased as I have made a committment to the game engine and subsequent releases by becoming a beta tester.

Hi all,

There was/is also something being done to allow for better coordination of forces when attacking isn't there?? Don't think I was dreaming when reading that somewhere... I hope. [>:][:D]

Rob.

[font="times new roman"]Clearly there is a difference of opinion, and that’s fine.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]That said, I fail to see how asking “What else is new?”  can be viewed as “extreme” or “unfair”.  It’s the first question any gamer asks before making a purchase. There is no sticky in this forum telling me – So I asked.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]My definition of a campaign mode is not a locked sequential series of scenarios. It’s dynamic. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]No offense, but I call some BS on “Most of all what is new are the scenarios themselves and the conflict/campaign they cover, one that has obvious broad appeal.”  [/font]
[font="times new roman"][/font] 
[font="times new roman"]There were a good number of people, myself included that did not want BFTB. It’s an over used series, IMO.  The consensus at that time from the players was to go straight to the Eastern Front, but BFTB had already been started – So here we are.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]New maps and more 2-day fictional scenarios and still no reverse upgrades to previous titles.  HTTR ruled. This doesn’t.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

ORIGINAL: Tactics
New maps and more 2-day fictional scenarios and still no reverse upgrades to previous titles.  HTTR ruled. This doesn’t.  [/size][/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

Thats a pretty stupid comment.

If your so intent on NOT liking this game before its even releaed purely on the battle its simulating then why clog up the forum with negative opinions. In fact, why come into the Battle For The Bulge forum at all if you already know your not into it.

Dynamic campaigns could be implemented if the developer had alot more time and probably a few more people working on the project. At this moment in time that isnt the case. Were not talking about Blizzard Entertainment here.

I think its fantastic that such small development houses can turn out wargames that are both genre defining and are leading the way in how a wargame can be played. If you dont see that, i feel for you.

The airborne assualt games have matured with each release and i dont see why BFTB will be any different. Take your negativity and go elsewhere.

A linked campaign may be nice but whether its in this release or not, its going to be a good game.  Also, I've played dozens  and dozens of battles over and over again using different game engines and I don't ever get tired of playing them again and again.  If I was to list every battle of WWII (specifically) of any significance, I've probably played through 75 or 80% of them ... from eastern front to western front to North Africa ... alas not too many from the Pacific Theater.
 
Maybe a linked campaign can be developed after the initial release of BtfB.  I sure don't want its release to be held up over this.  There's so many new goodies coming out with this game, I can't see it not doing well without an initial linked campaign included.  One of the new features I'm anxiously awaiting a screen shot on is the graphical estab info for the units.  Lack of weapons info and graphics are about the only thing I missed in HttR.  (Any screen shots of this yet?)
 
2 pennies

ORIGINAL: hank
... Maybe a linked campaign can be developed after the initial release of BtfB.  I sure don't want its release to be held up over this.  There's so many new goodies coming out with this game, I can't see it not doing well without an initial linked campaign included ...

Linked campaign or not, due to circumstances beyond the developer's control, we will be lucky to get this game by Christmas. It almost feels like I'm stuck in Bastogne, waiting to be relieved!

As a result of the above, I am beginning to deeply regret the unexpected detour from BftB to COTA; apparently the developers felt that Bulge sims were overdone, but anything well done will be successful and will sell.

[font="times new roman"]It is what it is, Howard. If my post upset you then try hard to get over it.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]This isn’t a press release section – it’s a forum – where people communicate thoughts and ideas. Some of which you’ll agree with, some you wont.  My negativity, as you say, has been here since 2002 supporting both Matrix and Panther.  I’m not going anywhere; accept it.[/font]

There's another element. When COTA came out, some people were wondering why the hell they should play some barely known little squabbles in the eatern Mediterranean. Not only that, but take a look at the titles which come out by anyone. It's still the same old stuff in any age: the Bulge in WW2, Austerlitz and Waterloo for Napoleonics, US Civil War... I played at least two Bulge strategy games on the ZX Spectrum, more arrived in the Amiga/ST era, and they're still going strong today over 20 years after I played my first. The fact is, they sell. They sell because they buy into what people already know, and maybe more what people readily identify with.

Sure, it'd be nice to fight Wagram rather than Austerlitz, or Kursk rather than the Bulge, Solferino not Gettysburg. But no matter what forums users want, game developers don't just have to cater to those couple of hundred people who contribute to a forum, but more importantly the thousand that just read the forum and more important still the ten(s of) thousand(s) that might buy the game.

Disappointing for many, but a good game generally supercedes anything.

Regretably, I passed on COTA because I just couldn't get into that campaign; it was a pointless battle as Gilbralter, not Greece, was the true key to the Med.

It's not enough to have a good game engine, but a good game, a good story, i.e., droping paras behind enemy lines, and then racing to cross bridge after bridge in order to link-up w/them before it's too late.

Certain battles just have more of an attraction to the gamer because of how close they were fought -- Waterloo's "near run thing" -- and/or how much their victory meant; the end of Napolean (again), of WW II and going home by Christmas, and so on.

Waiting expectantly for BftB for all the above, including some family history.

.....including some family history.

That is the main reason I got COTA...one fellow's turn off is another fellow's turn-on.[:D]

While I'm no great fan of the Greece campaign, there ares ome really, really good fights to be had in the COTA scenario line up.

Spartans at the Pass (guess which pass) is one of those finely designed and balanced scenarios that truly challenge the player.
No one, to my knowledge, has succeeded in getting a decisive victory with the Germans. A marginal victory is fairly easy, but I tried
time, and time again, for the decisive and came up short every time. Any scenario that compels you to play it repeatedly in an effort to better your last showing, is worth the price of the entire game.

In addition, a big part of the appeal for me, besides the game engine itself, was the inclusion of a hypothetical Malta scenario. I played the hell out of Avalon GHill's Malta board game and have waited a long time for a chance to fight battle on my computer.

Not to mention the educational value. I learned a lot about the Greek campaign I had never learned before.

And who can pass up a chance to try their hand attacking the Greeks in the mountains with the Italians. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Tactics

[font="times new roman"]There were a good number of people, myself included that did not want BFTB. It’s an over used series, IMO.  The consensus at that time from the players was to go straight to the Eastern Front, but BFTB had already been started – So here we are.  [/font]

I'm absolutely incredoulous over the claim that the Bulge is over done. While it has probably been "done" more than any other battle in history I still find each new game on it thoroughly enjoyable. I was just posting on the design forum about how much fun I am having beta testing the BFTB scenarios.

I played the hell out of and enjoyed almost every last regimental level bulge board game I ever played, and there were quite a few. When I discovered Wacht am Rhein I literally salivated over the prospect of playing the Bulge at battalion level. Now we have a chance to play it at company level!!! [&o]

No matter what anyone wants to claim, no matter how many times you have fought the battles over Elsenborn Ridge, St, Vith, Clervaux, Stavelot, Trois Ponts and Bastogne, I guarantee you the depiction of these fights at company level in BFTB will be a breath of fresh air giving you new insights into how those fights went down at a much more detailed level than you have ever been able to play them before.

While I would like to play a dynamic campaign as much as the next guy, I can't fathom the mentality that takes the stance of depriving oneself of the immense enjoyment of these individual fights as a means of "protesting" the lack of a campaign. From my perspective you hurt yourself more with this stance than you hurt the games developer by the lack of a sale. I, personally, couldn't possibly pass this up. But, then again, I do have the advantage of an inside insight into just how much fun it truly is.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Tactics

[font="times new roman"]There were a good number of people, myself included that did not want BFTB. It’s an over used series, IMO.  The consensus at that time from the players was to go straight to the Eastern Front, but BFTB had already been started – So here we are.  [/font]

I'm absolutely incredoulous over the claim that the Bulge is over done. While it has probably been "done" more than any other battle in history I still find each new game on it thoroughly enjoyable ...

There's over done, and there's well done; Panther's engine works well w/games at this level, and I'm looking forward to a desperate struggle and a good fight in Belgium, just like the "over used" battle at Waterloo (OK, it was really St. Jean).

But if the consensus was the Eastern Front -- and it probably was -- how did Panther Games end up in the Med?

Like Market Garden, Greece/Crete/hypothetically Malta involve airborne forces. Also they're an Aussie company and probably wanted to do something with Aussies in it. Just my guess.

Cheers, Neilster

Sounds like a good guess, and there were no Aussie's on the Eastern Front; I had also forgotten about Germany's "pyrric victory" air drop over Crete.

But if Panther wants to stir local interest down under, how 'bout New Guinea for a future release as land combat isn't very exciting in WitP/UV?

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
and I'm looking forward to a desperate struggle and a good fight in Belgium, just like the "over used" battle at Waterloo (OK, it was really St. Jean).

Does that mean it should be the Battle of Sokolnitz, not Austerlitz?

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Sounds like a good guess, and there were no Aussie's on the Eastern Front; I had also forgotten about Germany's "pyrric victory" air drop over Crete.

But if Panther wants to stir local interest down under, how 'bout New Guinea for a future release as land combat isn't very exciting in WitP/UV?

I don't think the size of the Australian wargaming market justifies targeting it. Panther have probably satisfied themselves by exploring an interesting and little-wargamed campaign that involved ANZACs (with an eye on potential contracts for officer training with the Australian Defence Force too), further developed and expanded their engine and are ready to take on some more diverse and commercially lucrative stuff.

They should make some good sales now with BFTB and titles set on the Eastern Front, in Normandy and North Africa (can't remember the order and isn't there going to be a Pacific one too?). The commercial reality is that you have to appeal to the North American market. It's good to see games like COTA being made for variety though. Also, the Eastern Med in the Spring of 1941 was actually a vital theatre. Remember, there was no Eastern Front yet and this was where the Axis were attempting to project power.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: Agema

ORIGINAL: Joe D.
and I'm looking forward to a desperate struggle and a good fight in Belgium, just like the "over used" battle at Waterloo (OK, it was really St. Jean).

Does that mean it should be the Battle of Sokolnitz, not Austerlitz?

Never gamed Austerlitz, but Wellington's first dispatchs were sent "from the town (Mount Sainte Jean) before (south of) Waterloo," and the name just stuck.

As Wellington's engineers had previously surveyed the terrain of St. Jean as a good place to make a stand, you would have thought they knew the name of the hamlet they were defending.