Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: marklv
I understand Erik but there is too much bias in favour of defence in this game. Maybe I'm just confused, but even when attacking the USSR in 1941 the Germans are sustaining ridicuously high losses for little gain. Historically, the Germans killed 4-5 times their own losses when first invading the USSR, but the games does not reflect the huge German superiority in fighting skill and armaments.

You posted that you took serious losses as Germany when attacking Poland. That simply doesn't happen when I play, which made me think that you were missing some part of how hte game works. I don't recall having ridiculously high losses when attacking the Soviet Union either, but I'll take another look.

[Erik Rutins]

Mark,

ORIGINAL: marklv
Who is saying the Poles were not brave? I'm talking about weapons technology here; the Poles were using cavalry charges against tanks.
The problem with this game is reflected in the 1941 scenario as well; the USSR is too strong.

I simply can't duplicate the problem you are reporting in terms of losses when attacking Poland, which tells me that it has to be a play style/learning difference. I'll try playing Barbarossa in the release version as well, but I don't recall any problems with that in the past.

This game need serious revision and patching. As far as I'm concerned it's still a work in progress.

As I said, I'll try to duplicate, but because your Poland results are so far off from what I see, I have a tough time taking these comments as authoritative.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: marklv
I'm sorry Erik. I'm a software testing manager by profession, and I seriously could not recommend this game for release under its present state.

It's disappointing to see someone make a post like this. So far you've posted results that the only way I can duplicate them is by not playing the game the way it was designed to be played.

Another thing I've found is that it keeps crashing and freezing, for no reason. I am running Windows XP and have a powerful gaming laptop from Dell.

Please post some reports for us in the Tech Support forum. I played through two years yesterday without a single crash or freeze. I'm sure these are happening to you, but we can't help investigate or fix these issues without some details.

The strength of defenders needs to be carefully reviewed and made as historically accurate as possible, and the 1941 scenario needs to reflect initial Soviet lack of preparation and technological inferiority. Only Soviet tank units were any good, and even here the poor leadership negated the technical superiority.

I'll take another look at Barbarossa, perhaps it got a little too hard in the release version, but I had success with it in the past.

On the positive side, this game has huge potential. It's a much more serious piece than Commander, which is more a learning tool for kids than a serious wargame.

Thanks for the positive comments as well.

[Anraz]

Concerning Barbarossa - try to cut off Soviet units and then create big pockets.  Encircled units are easy to destroy, because they have reduced effective strength. Try this tactics and you will succeed.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
1. In the manual, under Diplomacy on pages 57-58, some tester or other reviewer questions were left in that need to be removed.

Whoops, thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look.

Hi Erik,

Check page 48 as well, rule 12.5.1. The third bullet point should read Eastern Mediterranean, not Eastern Atlantic.

Jim

Edit:
Also rule 12.5.6 contradicts itself.

Rule 15.1 Allied and Axis are reversed.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Check page 48 as well, rule 12.5.1. The third bullet point should read Eastern Mediterranean, not Eastern Atlantic.

Jim

Edit:
Also rule 12.5.6 contradicts itself.

Rule 15.1 Allied and Axis are reversed.

Thanks Jim, will have a look at those as well.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
1. In the manual, under Diplomacy on pages 57-58, some tester or other reviewer questions were left in that need to be removed.

Whoops, thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look.

Hi Erik,

Check page 48 as well, rule 12.5.1. The third bullet point should read Eastern Mediterranean, not Eastern Atlantic.

Jim

Edit:
Also rule 12.5.6 contradicts itself.

Rule 15.1 Allied and Axis are reversed.

Yep, these are exactly the other things I was going to use to start a list. Good job, Jim, I see our great minds are thinking alike once again...

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: panzers

Sounds like combined arms is quite necessary in this game. I love that, Little short on cash at the moment for I was not prepared for this little surprise you guys sprung on us, but I do want to get it. It sounds very nice.

Notwithstanding some ill-considered posts to the contrary, I am gratified that this game is as polished a product as it is. For me, it is very stable, presents a nice, simple representation of this conflict, and gives you a lot of decisions to make without burdening you with highly detailed mechanics and micromanagement. The AI seems, so far, quite good, and that stands to reason, given that the game is not an especially complex one, and this feature in itself says good things about the designers and the amount of time and trouble they took in "getting it right."

It is, in short, a lot of fun, and I look forward to playing this one for a good, long time.

Now, if we could just get Malta on the map ... and Scapa Flow ...

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: marklv
I'm a software testing manager by profession, and I seriously could not recommend this game for release under its present state.

Your comments so far indicate a disagreement with how the game presents combat capabilities of German arms in the early part of the war. I just have not seen this, although I have only had the game for a few days. You may be right, but I cannot agree with your conclusion this early in my own experience with the game.

[Plainian]

Scapa and Malta could be a problem in game where there is no stacking? Either they'd have to be 'special' 3 hex locations to allow air/ground/naval units or be some kind of off map box?

Quick question. Is the Russo-German 39 partition of Poland an event? I see a screen pic on the ww2 site which shows German units attacking into Russia but it looks like its the original Polish borders?

Weather question edited out and moved to correct topic heder.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

Scapa and Malta could be a problem in game where there is no stacking? Either they'd have to be 'special' 3 hex locations to allow air/ground/naval units or be some kind of off map box?

You're absolutely right about that. Next time I'm in the game, I want to think about this some more, and take a closer look at how Gibraltar is represented. Scapa might not present a problem, being only a fleet base (I just hate to see Home Fleet based at Edinburgh). Thanks for your comment. I'm gonna go scratch my head for awhile...

[darthsmaul]

ORIGINAL:  doomtrader

the Poles were using cavalry charges against tanks.

Must say it's not truth

Would have to agree, this is one of those Myths of WWII that would be nice to see go away.

[Erik Rutins]

I did some more testing and I can see that the '41 scenario may be a bit on the hard side, vs starting in 1939 and building up to that. I'll discuss with the developers, perhaps we can tweak that a bit to make the initial Barbarossa easier.

[GJK]

Brings up the question; how historically accurate are the OOB's and what was the source of the research?

[Erik Rutins]

The OOBs, Maps and Scenarios were done entirely by IQ Software/Wastelands Interactive, so they would have to answer that.

[marklv]

Having played the same for many hours, I can see what the designer is trying to do, but the biggest issue is the game 'dying' on me suddenly. 
 
Other than that, I would like see a non-historical set of options, e.g. a neutral USSR and a neutral USA.

[Vypuero]

I am not having any issues - Poland and France very easy to take.  Marklv you didn't read the rules properly I think.  I do agree too easy to attack with 1 unit by accident.  I have trouble even seeing the red arrow and odds for 1 on 1 attacks - multis are easy - so the 1 on 1 needs fixing.
 
For naval battles - my subs have yet to do anything to any UK convoys - they just get killed - am I missing something?
 
Also - should not land based air have some ability to interact with naval battles?  Just seems wrong that air doesnt interact with naval units except via carriers.
 
Is there (or will there be) Murmansk convoys to interecept?
 
So far I like the game.

[winky51]

Seems like a game of big potential. Its playablility is not as good as SC2 but for a board game of this type I think you all have done a good job. Its hard to make a counter and hex game super easy playable. I have only played it some.

I understand the simplicity of one air unit and not fighter and tactical bomber although it wouldnt be bad to add. Fighters intercept, bombers bomb land units.

The auto air engage is nice, takes a lot out of the tedious air combat.

Land combat is nice with the zoc costs, combo attacks, and movement.

Naval seems a fair comprimise for sea zones instead of hex movement. Really makes the game flow.

----------------- questions on and recomendations
Naval
You have battleships, cruisers, subs, aircraft carriers. Raider mission and fleet missions.

Is is me or is there no u-boat war? I see you can make convoys but I do not see any for england from canada, africa, and aisa for resources. They had to ship everything in. I would add destroyers for convoy escort. I forgot if you had a tech for ASW (anti submarine warfare). ASW should represent tactics and technology. For example early in the war the british got slaughtered at sea. Mostly because they had too many smaller convoys not defended properly. Easier to find and to kill. Later they discovered they could protect twice as many ships while reducing the chance of being found and only increasing the # of destroyers from 4 to 6 for a convoy. 2x the transports for only +50% more escorts to protect.

This will allow for accurate uboat wars. Germans only had 25 long range boats and per boat they did devastating damage. Tech for germans higher like 2 while the british could have a zero early and have to build up.

missions

Fleet: same search and destroy, bombardment
Raider: same for subs and ships, should be harder to find since they are trying NOT to engage. Subs should be harder to find also.
Escort: protect convoys, destroyer only.

Now I saw someone mention about land based air in naval combat. Thats a really tough one.
1. Its really hard to find fleets in the deep sea.
2. Land based pilots didnt have the skill to perform oversea navigation... no landmarks. So even for a 1000 plane air division perhaps 50 planes were dedicated to naval air.

Which in this case its going to be hard to do sealion for how this game is setup.

Only thing I can suggest is have air intercept over a sea mission hex. Bombardment, invasion, transpor

Make weather visible like in SC2.

Names on city on the map.

thats it for now. But overall I think the designer did a great job on improving and expanding against whats out there.

[Vypuero]

Sealion?  I could not even invade Norway - lost the whole Kriegsmarine!  Maybe I can invade from the Baltic - probably was my mistake going from the North Sea - too easy to intercept.

[Redmarkus5]

I downloaded the game last night and played a few turns as Germany.  Overall, I like the feel of the engine but I agree with the comments by winky51 and others.  This game has great potential, seems easy to learn but fairly challenging to master, and is a very good representation of a traditional WW2 board game.  I can't comment on the AI.
 
By main concerns:
1. Screen resolution - the game looks pretty rough on my widescreen.  It's like I managed to get an old DOS game to run on Vista.
2. Map graphics - the map needs to be re-built with reference to the successful traditional boardgames of the 1980s and re-released in an early patch IMO.  It really does look poor to me and detracts from a very promising game.  If asked, I would tell a friend not to buy until that's fixed.
3. Unit counters - there's huge scope for modders to produce some counters that look like real boardgame counters.
 
My 'score':

• Is this game worth £20?  Yes.
• Is it better then the HOI series as a representation of WW2 strategy?  Overall, so far, yes.
• Does it look like a game released in 2008?  Absolutely not.
• Will I play it and keep logging in to hear about enhancements? Definite yes.