Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Am I to be criticized for actually trying to present a balanced picture.  Do I only get harsh responses for actually saying non-glowing things about PC.  Erik, tellme  this won't become like the BFC forums.

All opinions are welcome here and please be assured that I have a thick skin and an open mind.

Regards,

- Erik

thewood1, maybe if you expressed your thoughts more articulately, you wouldn't be misunderstood.  I don't think you wrote what you intended to say.

A couple of thoughts in regard to the review...

I checked and it doesn't appear as though this publication reviews games from MadMinute. With that in mind, it may be that being ranked as mediocre is better than not being ranked at all. MadMinute had trouble getting ANYONE to review their first game. I more or less begged Jason Ocampo at Gamespot to review Bull Run, but he couldn't even be bothered to respond to the email(s) that myself and others sent him.

When a computer-wargame actually is reviewed by a major publication, the piece typically isn't generated by a wargamer. The work gets assigned to the Command and Conquer guy, as the editor doesn't know anything about wargames, excepting they don't sell very well. That's why we were trying to get Mr. Ocampo to review TCBR, BTW. It was him or nothing.

There is exactly one reviewer that I pay any attention to in regard to computer wargames, and that is a fella named Tom Chick. He used to write for Gamespot but got the axe when the publication decided that they would no longer dedicate a staffer to wargames. Everyone else, including the "journalists" at Wargamer/Gamesquad/AG is so bound up in the incestuous little world of the computer-wargaming "industry," its remnant that is, that I consider their work to be essentially worthless as a source of meaningful discourse on our hobby.

As to my opinion in regard to Panzer Command: Kharkov, I view it in much the same vane as the ACW games from MadMinute. Both were made by teams that are known in this little universe of ours for producing games that are sound of programming, innovative in design, and for their ability to do both on a shoestring. If the art (or sound) isn't up to 2008-standards, it's because of money. The gameplay's darn-sure there, though, if that's still a consideration.

Finally, I have to say that I don't even read computer-wargame reviews any longer. IMO, their approach to my hobby is pretty much hash. I don't make that comment in celebration (or out of spite). That's just the way that I see it. Conversely, if I want insight in to the true strengths and\or weakness of a computer wargame, I'll visit its forums, check out the developer's involvement and support, mute the fanboys and trolls, and go from there. Any other approach sorta strikes me as, well, just plain daffey.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

thewood1, maybe if you expressed your thoughts more articulately, you wouldn't be misunderstood.  I don't think you wrote what you intended to say.

So educate me on how I should have wrttien to keep you from flying off the handle so drastically.

Erik, can you recommend a small scenario in PCK that would be a quick conversion to CMBB?  Something with a few units and a smallish map.  No air support to keep it simple and less random.  I will be playing hot seat in CMBB and PBEM against myself in PCK.  I will then play both against the AI.

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Erik, can you recommend a small scenario in PCK that would be a quick conversion to CMBB?  Something with a few units and a smallish map.  No air support to keep it simple and less random.  I will be playing hot seat in CMBB and PBEM against myself in PCK.  I will then play both against the AI.

I have a suggestion. Try Mcensk-L3-Maloy Dumchino.

Where a German column is ambushed. Use the editor and make a copy then take the air off. This has a variety of units in it so will be interesting.

thanks...I haven't played with the editor yet.  Hopefully won't slow me down much
 

ORIGINAL: thewood1

In fact, I am thinking of taking a PC scenario, converting it to CMBB and compare the two for playability and historical outcome just to highlight the strengths of each.

I suppose that might be an entertaining diversion but I'm not sure exactly how it would 'demonstrate the strengths of each' any more than playing a few scenarios of any sort from both games.

'Playability' will be a purely subjective opinion with a converted scenario just as much as with two different ones. 'Historical outcome' is impossible to assess in any meaningful way unless either game produced outcomes that were wildly unhistorical (as far as we can tell) on a consistent basis and again you don't need the same scenario to tell that (as far as we can tell) they don't. I suppose it is possible one version might consistently produce a win for one side while the other version does for the other, but again that wouldn't tell you much. Which is the likely 'historical' outcome? How likely was the likely historical outcome? There could be a multitude of reasons. The scenarios may not be equivalent, no matter how hard you try to make them so. The AIs are certainly different (obviously your test would have to be verses the AI), but that doesn't mean one is 'better', one 'worse' and results may be reversed on another converted scenario.

The overall score is misleading.

The GAMEPLAY score is 7.5, which is a pretty fair assessment, IMHO.

Those people (IGN) are a bunch of fruit cakes.

I am not happy with that review, it is way off base.

Regards,

Greg

ORIGINAL: thewood1
Erik, can you recommend a small scenario in PCK that would be a quick conversion to CMBB?  Something with a few units and a smallish map.  No air support to keep it simple and less random.  I will be playing hot seat in CMBB and PBEM against myself in PCK.  I will then play both against the AI.

Most of the historical scenarios are not really "small". Your best bet might be to create a few small random battles in PCK until you find one that you like, then convert that over.

ORIGINAL: Hertston
'Playability' will be a purely subjective opinion with a converted scenario just as much as with two different ones. 'Historical outcome' is impossible to assess in any meaningful way unless either game produced outcomes that were wildly unhistorical (as far as we can tell) on a consistent basis and again you don't need the same scenario to tell that (as far as we can tell) they don't. I suppose it is possible one version might consistently produce a win for one side while the other version does for the other, but again that wouldn't tell you much. Which is the likely 'historical' outcome? How likely was the likely historical outcome? There could be a multitude of reasons. The scenarios may not be equivalent, no matter how hard you try to make them so. The AIs are certainly different (obviously your test would have to be verses the AI), but that doesn't mean one is 'better', one 'worse' and results may be reversed on another converted scenario.

I agree. I suppose one could learn how different systems handle the same situation. And maybe find out if ahistorical actions had to take place to gain a win.

fyr, I'm totally in agreement with Prince. Mad Minute totally rock like you guys (Norb and Erik could be the same person??), their approach is very similiar and their lead guys are just as helpful and passionate! They had a tough time with reviews also but that hasn't hindered their success, stack of awards or community following, ignore the ratings, as I said in my very first post most gamers that go for these kind of games look at player's reviews, everyone with half a brain knows that most site and magazine reviews aren't worth toffee and are usually totally corrupted by vested interest and advertising deals.
 
As for sales well most of us know plenty of other gamers, I bought four copies of TC2M for fellow wargamers, it's a bit of slower burn regards sales curves imho (word of mouth etc).

The reviewer and the site is focused on mainstream.  And the score is just right for the mainstream audience.
The reviewer doesn't care about command and control and relative spotting... most mainstream players will curse this feature.  The reviewer doesn't care about random mission and gampaign generation since most mainstream players just play the available linked campaigns and move on to the next game being released.  And it's obvious that the reviewer did not read through the whole manual. Most mainstream games have a 10 page (useless) manual.  No one takes time to read and appreciate the game and design decisions anymore.

Here are the sites I trust when it comes to wargames:
Armchair General (http://www.armchairgeneral.com)
Out of Eight (http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com) - apparently game Winterstorm a decent rating.

Erik, you should send your review copies to these guys.

Frankly, I mostly agree with this review, and the final score is the one I would have given. All this "it's a mainstream site bleh" makes not much sense, did you READ the review ? The reviewer shows he know some classics , that he likes the exact spotting, the details of the game, etc...
He also states that models are blocky, textures low res, and sounds not very good. It's just the truth. He finds the "platoon" commands awkward, so do I (in some of the Boot Camp scenarios, with 1 platoon to play, it just doesn't work properly). For the 40 sec action/reactions half-turns, it's more a matter of personal taste, it has some merits but makes imho for a somewhat less "smooth" gameplay, as you can choose from a list of actions on one "turn" (seen from the player that is, when you issue orders), then you have another, then the first choice again etc..
 
Eventually he recognises the game system strengths, give 7.5 to Presentation Gameplay, and Lasting appeal, the score are lower for graphics (5.5) and sounds (5.) I'll have given 7 to graphics but 4 on sounds, they're really dull, it evens out to the same average.
 
And I'm a wargame grog, never play RTS or FPS, my hallmarks in tac combat are Tanks, Steel Panthers and (above all) CM...
 

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Frankly, I mostly agree with this review, and the final score is the one I would have given. All this "it's a mainstream site bleh" makes not much sense, did you READ the review?

Well, you can see my disagreements in the reply I posted.

The reviewer shows he know some classics , that he likes the exact spotting, the details of the game, etc...

Yes, ironically he says that no "real wargame" can be without relative spotting and then proceeds to recommend CMBB (an outstanding game, don't get me wrong, but rather ironic given his earlier statement).

He also states that models are blocky, textures low res, and sounds not very good. It's just the truth.

I'll admit some of the textures look a bit low res _if you zoom way in_ but none of the models look blocky to me and in general things look better than CMBB, so that's where the subjective disagreement comes from. Why not consider such "eye candy" within the wargame sub-genre. There has never been a case when the most graphically beautiful wargame is really up to the state of the art graphically as far as the mainstream and there's a simple reason for that - sales = development resources. The insistence to compare all games to the level set by something like COD4 means that wargames can never score a truly high score unless these guys selectively ignore their own ratings system.

He finds the "platoon" commands awkward, so do I (in some of the Boot Camp scenarios, with 1 platoon to play, it just doesn't work properly).

I'm sure we could make them more user-friendly, but frankly I think what we have is a realistic command system that's just not as easy to get used to for folks used to CM. As I noted before, I think some of the CM similarities actually might make the learning curve harder mentally than it should be.

For the 40 sec action/reactions half-turns, it's more a matter of personal taste, it has some merits but makes imho for a somewhat less "smooth" gameplay, as you can choose from a list of actions on one "turn" (seen from the player that is, when you issue orders), then you have another, then the first choice again etc..

You know though, he didn't even seem to understand the purpose of this. It's clearly explained and I just don't see how it's so hard to figure out. He said "i've tried to think of a reason why you might be limited in your commands during one turn and not in another but it still doesn't make sense to me." I just don't see what's so darn confusing about an 80 second turn with a mid-turn "adjustment" phase.

Eventually he recognises the game system strengths, give 7.5 to Presentation Gameplay, and Lasting appeal, the score are lower for graphics (5.5) and sounds (5.) I'll have given 7 to graphics but 4 on sounds, they're really dull, it evens out to the same average.

Well, I can't argue with your opinion or his, I just disagree with some of the mistakes or omissions he made and I disagree with rating things based on a "put every mainstream game in there" scale.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
He finds the "platoon" commands awkward, so do I (in some of the Boot Camp scenarios, with 1 platoon to play, it just doesn't work properly).

You seem to be rejecting the notion that a squad/crew/vehicle is part of a larger formation, and the latter can't complete it's mission for the turn unless it's part of a coordinated effort. I realize that units in CM are mostly free agents to do with as players please, but this is inherently unrealistic. Likewise, if a squad/crew/vehicle can't do something in a PCK-phase that it might be able to do in CM, that freedom of action has been compromised for the sake of restraining excessive and unwarranted player control over each unit's behavior.

For the 40 sec action/reactions half-turns, it's more a matter of personal taste, it has some merits but makes imho for a somewhat less "smooth" gameplay, as you can choose from a list of actions on one "turn" (seen from the player that is, when you issue orders), then you have another, then the first choice again etc..

I'm again reading this to mean that you're chaffing at the inability to micro-plot the actions of each squad/vehicle/crew throughout the course of the game. IMO, giving players that kind of "God-like" control over every leader on the map undermines the validity of such a game as any sort of simulation. Not only is that level of control wildly unrealistic, it'll generate wildly unrealistic results as well.

Were BF to publish a patch for CMBB and/or CMAK tomorrow which split the standard, CMx1 turn into thirty-second increments, it'd be lauded as the greatest thing since sliced-bread, "the best game in the universe just got better," the forum posts would read. The reaction would be such because it'd expand players ability to micro-manage the behavior of all those squad/crew/vehicle commanders.

When I first started playing PCOWS, some of the stuff that the reviewer cited in his piece was driving me up the wall. Like him, I had played CM and thought that the newer game was simply a half-baked, rip-off of the BF products. Then I read the rules/manual and realized that it was a completely different game. To play and enjoy it, I had to stop trying to pound a round PC-peg into the square CM-hole. Failing that, the game would never have worked for me.

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
He also states that models are blocky, textures low res, and sounds not very good. It's just the truth.

I'll admit some of the textures look a bit low res _if you zoom way in_ but none of the models look blocky to me and in general things look better than CMBB, so that's where the subjective disagreement comes from. Why not consider such "eye candy" within the wargame sub-genre. There has never been a case when the most graphically beautiful wargame is really up to the state of the art graphically as far as the mainstream and there's a simple reason for that - sales = development resources. The insistence to compare all games to the level set by something like COD4 means that wargames can never score a truly high score unless these guys selectively ignore their own ratings system.

I reinstalled CMAK last night, just to take a look at it. I honestly can't believe how gosh-awful-ugly the infantry is. How is that folks are willing to give those corpulent-little suckers a pass in the graphics department? I realize that the uniform art can and has been modded, but it's still hung on some of the fugliest figures in wargaming. And while some of the low-res shapes in PCK may be need to be fleshed-out, at least they are properly proportioned! [;)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Very true PoE.  CM is one of the ugliest games I have ever seen relative to its popularity.  It's Exhibit A for the proposition that wargamers actually prefer ugly graphics.

I still recall when I first played CM - I thought it was gorgeous and a lot of that was because of seeing a real wargame in 3D for the first time. I still think that they are nice looking games, I just don't understand how (in comparison) PC could be seen as worse-looking. I don't know of any other wargame that allows you to really put a battalion on the map in 3D and play it out with relative spotting at reasonable frame rates and good quality DirectX 9 visuals. For that reason alone, I think it should have scored a bit higher.

Graphics are a subjective thing though and I can't really disagree with opinions on that. What looks good to me will look bad to someone else. My real disagreement was in areas where it seemed like the original reviewer just didn't understand the game or was comparing it too directly to CM instead of looking at its own strengths.

With all that said, does our goal involve better graphics, better sound, better interface and better everything? Yes! I don't say these things this in order to avoid improvement or to say there's no room to make things better. We are constantly trying to improve and to make all gamers happy with every category, within our (relatively limited) resources.

Regards,

- Erik