First Impressions (Played up to conquering poland and the low countries as Germany)
The Good -
Huge Map - Far better in size than any of its competitors
Attacking from several hexes - Makes tactics far more important, encircling etc.
Unit Size - Love the divisional / Corps level , on a map this size to see individual artillery units etc would not make sense.
Production - Being able to buy units lower than your current tech level at a cheaper cost. For example you can buy tech level 1 division say for use as a garrison even when you have researched tech level 3.
Air Power - I think the way this is handled suits the game as well, instead of having huge numbers of air units all over it feels like you are calling in an air strike on a position when required which again adds to the tactical feel.
Game Speed - Considering the scope of the game and the number of units and attacks you make, the game plays at a decent speed, very easy to use interface. Well done on that.
The ability to play as many countries as you want - This is great, for example - as the axis if you want you can play as just germany, germany and italy, all axis countris, or any combination you want. Very nice feature.
The Not So Good -
Country borders - Very hard to define at present (I think this is getting fixed in the next patch)
City names - Need to be visible, With a map this size they are a must i think.
Map detail - Really could do with some more features, the two above will help and i think railroads as suggested in another thread would be great too. A greater number of cities would help as well.
Im sure i will have more comments after ive played a bit more. Overall a good game, which has huge potential and is very enjoyable.
The next game they are planning looks even better . . .
Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
-
Redmarkus5
- Posts: 4454
- Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
- Location: 0.00
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
Bitter Glory does look nice from what I could see. Much better interface. Was WW2 just a teaser then? Wish I had know about BG before buying this... I couldn't make out the Polish - when does it come out?
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
im not sure redmarkus, but it does look good, sort of turn based hearts of iron - with the option to design your own units and unit compositions. Most of the website is in polish though, so i cant understand it.
WW2 RTV can keep us going until that one is done though . . .
WW2 RTV can keep us going until that one is done though . . .
-
LuckyJim1006
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 2:36 pm
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
Wow - this game does not like 1 on 1 attacks. 
But the idea of Action Points and battles being resolved straight away, allowing for 2nd echelon planning and breakthrough really swing it for me.
Still just learning the fine points but like what I see so far. Huge maps, simple but effective production and diplomacy rules.
Bit concerned about the lack of strategic movement points though. Can see that being a bit of a problem shifting the Wehrmacht West after Poland. But more knowledgeable people may say this is accurate. Then again I may just keep rolling East, see what happens
Yes the map needs a bit of TLC but those of us old enough to have played SPI or AH boardgames will feel at home.
Chris
But the idea of Action Points and battles being resolved straight away, allowing for 2nd echelon planning and breakthrough really swing it for me.
Still just learning the fine points but like what I see so far. Huge maps, simple but effective production and diplomacy rules.
Bit concerned about the lack of strategic movement points though. Can see that being a bit of a problem shifting the Wehrmacht West after Poland. But more knowledgeable people may say this is accurate. Then again I may just keep rolling East, see what happens
Yes the map needs a bit of TLC but those of us old enough to have played SPI or AH boardgames will feel at home.
Chris
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
[font="times new roman"]"Bitter Glory" is designed[/font] [font="times new roman"]as a grand strategy with real-time game flow. Usually people are connecting hex gird[/font][font="times new roman"][/font][font="times new roman"] with “turn based games”, so we very often have to rectify it. The game is under developing now, and the process will last for about two more years...(it's so early stage that now we even don't know who will be a publisher 
), but we are going to release the first trailer at the end of summer. Moreover in some time in future it is planned to release a stand-alone program which familiarize players with basic ideas of making its own equipment (it's something like Spore`s “Creature factory”, but focused on parameters and components rather then visual aspects – reminiscence of making own ship in “Master of Orion” crosses my mind. Of course this small program will be for free.).[/font]
“[font="times new roman"]ww2” and “BitterGlory” are quite different games - turns vs. real time; low micromanagement vs. customized micromanagement; simplified tech race vs. detailed tech race; standard units vs. customized units and so on. [/font] [font="times new roman"]There are some similarities, but the most important factor which connects both games are people from “Wastlands Interactive”. [/font]
[font="times new roman"]We are constantly translating www.bitterglory.com so visit the page time to time to get some more info.[/font]
), but we are going to release the first trailer at the end of summer. Moreover in some time in future it is planned to release a stand-alone program which familiarize players with basic ideas of making its own equipment (it's something like Spore`s “Creature factory”, but focused on parameters and components rather then visual aspects – reminiscence of making own ship in “Master of Orion” crosses my mind. Of course this small program will be for free.).[/font] “[font="times new roman"]ww2” and “BitterGlory” are quite different games - turns vs. real time; low micromanagement vs. customized micromanagement; simplified tech race vs. detailed tech race; standard units vs. customized units and so on. [/font] [font="times new roman"]There are some similarities, but the most important factor which connects both games are people from “Wastlands Interactive”. [/font]
[font="times new roman"]We are constantly translating www.bitterglory.com so visit the page time to time to get some more info.[/font]
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
sounds great anraz [:)]
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
That's both good and bad news for me.
Good for obvious reasons, but bad because the main reason I never enjoyed Hearts of Iron is the real time aspect of it. So, when I saw the screenshots and the game being exactly what I was looking for, for years, I was happy. Then I saw something about time speed and now this post and killed the game for me. Oh well. [:(]
Good for obvious reasons, but bad because the main reason I never enjoyed Hearts of Iron is the real time aspect of it. So, when I saw the screenshots and the game being exactly what I was looking for, for years, I was happy. Then I saw something about time speed and now this post and killed the game for me. Oh well. [:(]
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
ORIGINAL: Anraz
"Bitter Glory" is designed as a grand strategy with real-time game flow. Usually people are connecting hex girdwith “turn based games”, so we very often have to rectify it.
I think some of the confusion comes from when one clicks the British flag on the Bitter Glory site, the first entry is for WWII and says "Turned Based" although the banner and the top of the page say Bitter Glory. I know I was scratching my head for a minute when I saw you say BG was RT and then went over to the English language site.
And maybe, if WWII does well here, you won't have to worry about looking for a publisher for BG. [;)]
One question, with my 1440x900 widescreen laptop, the game will scale up from 1024x768, right? Can one play in a window, because the scaling usually creates a blurry look (at least to me)?
SoM
"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet!"
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)
-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade
(Kill them all. God will know his own.)
-- Arnaud-Armaury, the Albigensian Crusade
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
[font="times new roman"]
Right.
Yup.[/font] [font="times new roman"]But I have to point two things: in windowed mode the game window will be stick to top-left corner of the screen and remember to hide mouse pointer.
[/font]
One question, with my 1440x900 widescreen laptop, the game will scale up from 1024x768, right?
Right.
Can one play in a window
Yup.[/font] [font="times new roman"]But I have to point two things: in windowed mode the game window will be stick to top-left corner of the screen and remember to hide mouse pointer.
[/font]
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
I only use 1 to 1 attacks vs. units that are below 1 strength or otherwise on the verge of destruction - essentially this lets you "overrun" them.
It is also nice that with say France and Poland you can just bypass most of their cities and go for the key victory cities to win, then they surrender.
...but this won't work for Russia!
It is also nice that with say France and Poland you can just bypass most of their cities and go for the key victory cities to win, then they surrender.
...but this won't work for Russia!
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
Ok I had a chance to play the game some more. I am a super pessimistic 41 year old that doesnt like most of the games out there. I think this game is good. It needs fixing but I am finding it having good game playability. So since my baby is asleep I am going to list a lot of things I feel are good/bad/need improvement. I use to program quite a while ago and still understand code. So I will make suggestions within the realm of possiblility for what the programmers can do.
INTERFACE: I find the land/air interface for land battles and strat bombing very good. I think though instead of the text popping up at the top of the page for what you are hovering over (just the button functions) perhaps either a larger text (with taller green bar) on the map appears itself or a popup bubble. Like when I hover over the icons on the right I have to look up top for what it is "oh its bombing". For unit descriptions I might straighten it out and bold it and line up the numbers
HOW IT IS NOW
2nd Corp
Owner: Netherlands Level: 1
Supply:15
Action Points: 1 Used: 0
No HQ unit in range
Strength: 2.0 (100%)
Effectiveness: 82%
Effective Strength: 1.6
PERHAPS THIS see how its lined up and easier to read.
2nd Corp (lvl 1)
Owner: Netherlands
Supply: 15
HQ: None
AP: 1/0
Str: 2.0 (100%)
Eff: 82%
Eff Str: 1.6
The counters look great, easy to read on the map for strength and action. Just using the map itself for land combat is easy. COunters love it.
No chart to show whats in production like ships and planes. Do different units take time to come out?
Buttons on lower left are good.
Fleet operations look fine, about as simple and easy to use as I can think.
Reports should include, total units, losses, whats in production.
MAP:
better define borders.
Place ports on cities that have ports within the big map. It took me 2 days to realize the barber poles meant ports, they are hard to see. May I suggest something more obvious like perhaps a big blue ring around the city.
Keil should be a double port off of west germany and Baltic.
You dont seem to have impassible hexes like at El Alamein.
On fleet map define where zones begin and end. I would even go so far to put hexes on the land masses so we know what zone can invade what hex. I have an idea but I am really not sure where things are. I would add a sea zone in northern norway and for the murmansk area. You have 3 in the med and only one for all of the scandinavian area. I would add a west coast sea zone, north atlantic (you have) and one off of the west english coast.
GAME PLAY:
Convoys? Do we have a set # of convoy ships? Each power should have a set # of convoys. HoI2 has it. You should be able to build them too.
Destroyers? We should inclued these in the game. Main function is escort convoy. 2ndary fleet action.
Cruisers & Battleships should not be able to sink subs.
Scale I suggest for counters? 1 battleship per counter, 2 cruisers, 16 destroyers, 10 subs.
Carriers should be able to technically bombard shorelines subject to air intercept just like bombarding ships.
The scale of the map for the div/corp is great BTW.
Missions:
fleet like it is now... openly looking for battle with fleet, raider
raider like it is but harder to find they are looking to openly engage convoy, and transport missions only.
escort which is for any ship but only destroyers engage subs. their job protect convoys they do not openly engage at all
escort can also be used for transports when moving div/corp from one port to another.
A raider fleet of only subs should be VERY hard to find, I mean very.
Air units should be able to attack bombardment ships or invading ships. I would do it very simple. Any air unit within 5 hexes of a coastline where a bombardment or invasion occurs auto attacks, if it is more it does not. Opponent's air units can intercept of course. Very simple solutions that puts control into the players hands by simply moving air units closer or farther away from sea zones. Land based air attacks sea units only when they perform a mission.
Make visibility based on air unit range not fixed like you have it in the game options. Or if you want to keep it that was make it ONLY apply to air units and make a default 4 hexes for everything else.
Add ASW research which would include tactics and tech effectively.
-----
Really with those improvement I think the game will be very very good. Well beyond the other grand strategy games out there.
One more thing. Make a scenario editor. This game looks dynamic. With a game editor you should be able to adjust how the system works for combat and naval searching. Adjust OOB, tech, and scale the naval to your level of play.
I took the 1939 SC2 scenario and the CEAW 1939 scenario and scaled it for more detail. I adjusted how somethings work and how ships respond to each other. I felt I made a much better sceanrio that what came with the game. I am sure some one will do the same for this one if its not me.
I do have the OOBs for air, naval, and land for WW2. I also have production units for each power. I have several books on these statistics and I am fairly well read on the 2nd world war. I would love to make a 1939 sceanario for this game accurate to history and balanced for good game play.
I think I covered it all. I thought it would be more. But overall for a 1st shot at this type of game good job!!!
Right now this game looks and feels much better than Computer War in Europe by design games, even the new one coming out. Those improvements should blow it away.
INTERFACE: I find the land/air interface for land battles and strat bombing very good. I think though instead of the text popping up at the top of the page for what you are hovering over (just the button functions) perhaps either a larger text (with taller green bar) on the map appears itself or a popup bubble. Like when I hover over the icons on the right I have to look up top for what it is "oh its bombing". For unit descriptions I might straighten it out and bold it and line up the numbers
HOW IT IS NOW
2nd Corp
Owner: Netherlands Level: 1
Supply:15
Action Points: 1 Used: 0
No HQ unit in range
Strength: 2.0 (100%)
Effectiveness: 82%
Effective Strength: 1.6
PERHAPS THIS see how its lined up and easier to read.
2nd Corp (lvl 1)
Owner: Netherlands
Supply: 15
HQ: None
AP: 1/0
Str: 2.0 (100%)
Eff: 82%
Eff Str: 1.6
The counters look great, easy to read on the map for strength and action. Just using the map itself for land combat is easy. COunters love it.
No chart to show whats in production like ships and planes. Do different units take time to come out?
Buttons on lower left are good.
Fleet operations look fine, about as simple and easy to use as I can think.
Reports should include, total units, losses, whats in production.
MAP:
better define borders.
Place ports on cities that have ports within the big map. It took me 2 days to realize the barber poles meant ports, they are hard to see. May I suggest something more obvious like perhaps a big blue ring around the city.
Keil should be a double port off of west germany and Baltic.
You dont seem to have impassible hexes like at El Alamein.
On fleet map define where zones begin and end. I would even go so far to put hexes on the land masses so we know what zone can invade what hex. I have an idea but I am really not sure where things are. I would add a sea zone in northern norway and for the murmansk area. You have 3 in the med and only one for all of the scandinavian area. I would add a west coast sea zone, north atlantic (you have) and one off of the west english coast.
GAME PLAY:
Convoys? Do we have a set # of convoy ships? Each power should have a set # of convoys. HoI2 has it. You should be able to build them too.
Destroyers? We should inclued these in the game. Main function is escort convoy. 2ndary fleet action.
Cruisers & Battleships should not be able to sink subs.
Scale I suggest for counters? 1 battleship per counter, 2 cruisers, 16 destroyers, 10 subs.
Carriers should be able to technically bombard shorelines subject to air intercept just like bombarding ships.
The scale of the map for the div/corp is great BTW.
Missions:
fleet like it is now... openly looking for battle with fleet, raider
raider like it is but harder to find they are looking to openly engage convoy, and transport missions only.
escort which is for any ship but only destroyers engage subs. their job protect convoys they do not openly engage at all
escort can also be used for transports when moving div/corp from one port to another.
A raider fleet of only subs should be VERY hard to find, I mean very.
Air units should be able to attack bombardment ships or invading ships. I would do it very simple. Any air unit within 5 hexes of a coastline where a bombardment or invasion occurs auto attacks, if it is more it does not. Opponent's air units can intercept of course. Very simple solutions that puts control into the players hands by simply moving air units closer or farther away from sea zones. Land based air attacks sea units only when they perform a mission.
Make visibility based on air unit range not fixed like you have it in the game options. Or if you want to keep it that was make it ONLY apply to air units and make a default 4 hexes for everything else.
Add ASW research which would include tactics and tech effectively.
-----
Really with those improvement I think the game will be very very good. Well beyond the other grand strategy games out there.
One more thing. Make a scenario editor. This game looks dynamic. With a game editor you should be able to adjust how the system works for combat and naval searching. Adjust OOB, tech, and scale the naval to your level of play.
I took the 1939 SC2 scenario and the CEAW 1939 scenario and scaled it for more detail. I adjusted how somethings work and how ships respond to each other. I felt I made a much better sceanrio that what came with the game. I am sure some one will do the same for this one if its not me.
I do have the OOBs for air, naval, and land for WW2. I also have production units for each power. I have several books on these statistics and I am fairly well read on the 2nd world war. I would love to make a 1939 sceanario for this game accurate to history and balanced for good game play.
I think I covered it all. I thought it would be more. But overall for a 1st shot at this type of game good job!!!
Right now this game looks and feels much better than Computer War in Europe by design games, even the new one coming out. Those improvements should blow it away.
-
JudgeDredd
- Posts: 8362
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:28 pm
- Location: Scotland
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
The fact that Paster has bought this makes me want to jump in...but I'll wait a while longer....just have a few reads. [:'(]
Alba gu' brath
-
LuckyJim1006
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 2:36 pm
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
Good post Winky51.
I for one think this could be the WW2 game we have been looking for.
As long the developers keep up the enthusiasm we are on to a winner.
Chris
I for one think this could be the WW2 game we have been looking for.
As long the developers keep up the enthusiasm we are on to a winner.
Chris
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
Ahh saw that the classic view has easy to read city and city ports.
One more thing I noticed... No malta?
One more thing I noticed... No malta?
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
Playing as Germans in 1940 scenario I chose the "No Vichy France" option, and after awhile I had my Italian allies in the fray with me. The problem was that they prevented the complete capture of France by mostly surrounding a city and not being able to capture it. I could get a one hex attack on it which was unproductive. France did not fall due to this "help".
In the same vein I really feel that different countries units should be able to participate in the same attack. I also think that when viewing the map that I should be able to see the location of all the units of the alliance upon the map as well as the enemy units that they are next to/close to.
Edit:
As a followup, I truly feel that you have a true "diamond in the rough" here and that with some additional polishing it would really shine and stand out. I agree with a lot of the other comments here. Other things I would like to see:
1. Headquarters units: Army and Army Group such as the old War in Russia. This would allow better control of formations as well as allow for the top commanders to be assigned to an appropriate sized unit. Allows for a much better feel to the "command and control" aspect.
2. Weather effects really should be included. Of course to do it right there should be more than one weather zone. Then go with weekly turns throughout the game.
3. Historical OOB unit designations as well as allowing for the "what if" aspects, such as Germany having more panzer divisions than they actually did. The ability to rename units is great, but having actual unit historical names when a unit is produced is good also. Could divisions numbers be placed on the counters?
More later...
In the same vein I really feel that different countries units should be able to participate in the same attack. I also think that when viewing the map that I should be able to see the location of all the units of the alliance upon the map as well as the enemy units that they are next to/close to.
Edit:
As a followup, I truly feel that you have a true "diamond in the rough" here and that with some additional polishing it would really shine and stand out. I agree with a lot of the other comments here. Other things I would like to see:
1. Headquarters units: Army and Army Group such as the old War in Russia. This would allow better control of formations as well as allow for the top commanders to be assigned to an appropriate sized unit. Allows for a much better feel to the "command and control" aspect.
2. Weather effects really should be included. Of course to do it right there should be more than one weather zone. Then go with weekly turns throughout the game.
3. Historical OOB unit designations as well as allowing for the "what if" aspects, such as Germany having more panzer divisions than they actually did. The ability to rename units is great, but having actual unit historical names when a unit is produced is good also. Could divisions numbers be placed on the counters?
More later...
USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
We don't take kindly to idjits.
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
The HQs would not be a bad idea instead of assigning commanders to units. Or at the very least make the unit stand out more as an HQ. You can always make a crap unit and assign it as an HQ
-
LuckyJim1006
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 2:36 pm
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
I had some thoughts on Commanders as well - the HQ unit sounds good but would it start to distract from the simplicity of the concept. I understand that Leaders give benefits to units within a certain range so does that not reflect that they are a 'HQ' unit ?
696's 2 and 3 suggestions are sound.
On the rename unit thing I find myself renaming units with thier historical name but appending the Army Group/Army as well eg 1st AG/2A/1st Corp or whatever. Helps me keep track of who is meant to be where.
Chris
696's 2 and 3 suggestions are sound.
On the rename unit thing I find myself renaming units with thier historical name but appending the Army Group/Army as well eg 1st AG/2A/1st Corp or whatever. Helps me keep track of who is meant to be where.
Chris
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
I agree with most of the comments. The naval gameplay certainly needs a lot of attention, among other things.
One other thought: it would be nice to see this game adapted for WW1.
One other thought: it would be nice to see this game adapted for WW1.
-
doomtrader
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:21 am
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
ORIGINAL: benpark
Add Lake Balaton in Hungary to missing geography.
I've got problem with the shape and size of the Balaton.
Firts thing is that the Balaton is a little bit too small - it's something around 500 sq km.
Second is that it's long and thin.
Only thing it could be done wit that is making it a river between hexes, but I'm not sure is it a right choice.
RE: Obligitory Initial Impressions Thread
ORIGINAL: benpark
One other thing that I really had hoped for- unit stacking.
This seems to be something that most developers of the last few strategic/high operational wargames don't like. It's still one of the best ways to depict the massing of assets for breakthrough. At the games scale, stacking two (or 3) divisions together seems like a realistic proposition.
I mentioned this in another thread...the scale of this game really begs for stacking, for the exact reason you say--to depict a high concentration of units for a breakthrough. This game looks great, but this stacking thing is really a deal-breaker for me.