Combat Animations

[GalacticOrigins]

This is a Complaint.

Hrm. Well, I supported GG games since the 1980's.[;)][:D][8D][;)] (Too bad CoS does not work in windows.) I have been playing games for nigh 40+ years, so I definately qualify as a die-hard gamer.

Um, the combat animation screen is not in this game (it is mentioned as the first answer in the FAQ). The earlier game 'World at War' had it. Er, that is 1/3 the game! I have built the units, I have moved the units, what? no show? I can't see my units fight? ARRRGHHHHHHHHHHHH! [:@] and

Ok. So, perhaps they want to still sell the earlier game. (Too bad that last patch annihilated German AI vis-a-vis Barbarossa.) Really, the combat animations are the something to look forward too. Well, I paid more for the newer game 'A World Divided' but received an inferior product. [8|]

Anyway, I seldom used the 'combat report' screen as I enjoyed the combat animation MUCH more (especially in the Pacific, since carrier warfare was always my first - and best - strategic/tactical interest ... LOVED all the GG carrier games, even the C64 game, as well as the initial DOS 'Carrier Strike'.) [:)]

Well, maybe it will be added with a patch. It is a shame, really, since now the game is only strategic in scope. I just bought it, and I won't play this right now. MaN, CoG, and WiPac2 are going to get more time, since this 'updated WatWar2' is [8|]

Other than, "Hey, I recognize many names in the credits, since some of them have been around as long as I have!", I am very disappointed.


PS. Hint: PacWar has been updated, but what about WiR? [&:]
'War in Russia' is/was the only mega-Eastern Front game available - ever. Perhaps a newer version could make an appearance ...

[rjh1971]

If CoS= Clash of Steel, thenit does run under windows applying certain patches, no sound though, it's a pitty but you can get over it, WiR has no sound either and is a great game.
Contact me and I'll tell you how to do it, there was even some guy that made a COS for windows platform.

About your complains for the lack of animated combats, much was debated about them and finally it was decided to drop the animations, many people made you're same complain, but then again this is an strategic game if you like animations Call of Duty has all the action you may want (don't mean to be rude[:)])

My recomendation is you give the game a chance, many things were improved and it's definitely, imo, a better game than the first one.

I'll let others that know more than me, pull you out of your,imo, error about combat animations, believe me there is a lot more behind the missing C. A.

[Petiloup]

I must say I agree with rjh1971.

Playing wargames since 20 years ago I never had animations when doing board wargames, just a die and the thrill of winning or loosing.

If WAW animations were entertaining it was no more than static units shooting at each other but you had the thrill to watch and hope for the best. Well I'm missing it sort of because it was there before but frankly compares to all the improvements in AWD compared to WAW it's a small price to pay.

Cheers,

PS: As rjh1971 said, gives the game a chance and you might be surprised how good it became.

[elhior]

Hi there,

I think you're unfair to the above complaint. I have the same complaint, and it's not because I enjoy action games or super effects, otherwise I wouldn't be here, writing in these Forums and replying to this post. Who could assert that the W@W's combat animation was action and high effects? [:D] Nobody. I don't miss it because it gave a shoot-'em-up feeling to an otherwise "pure" strategy game, come on! [&:]

The reasons I liked the combat animation and I'm very sorry it isn't included in the new game are two:

a) It made it A LOT easier for me to comprehend to combat mechanics. Maybe I'm a bit stupid, who knows, but what I'm certain of is that I represent a lot of people in this. Moreover, suppress fire and new submarine rules made the game's combat mechanics and equations a lot harder to follow, which makes the slow, step-by-step combat animation with the small numbers next to each unit significantly more useful.

b) It added a little suspense to the battle. Ok, this doesn't apply for the "strategy comment of the year", but it's still a nice feature to organize your plan, make the calculations in your mind, prepare your armies, and then sit back and enjoy a little cinematic sequence, praying every time before a crucial dice is rolled. No matter how complicated the battle is in terms of numbers and equations, the "luck" factor still plays an important role in it (it has to, that's how wars are in real life, too). The nice feeling every time my artillery managed to hit an enemy armor unit, no matter how "pathetic" it can sound to some people, cannot be replaced by a very analytical combat report after the battle, which I have quite a hard time to decypher and I usually don't bother to read, because I'm eager to proceed to the next battle.

So, there you are. These are two important reasons, for which Matrix shouldn't have totally ignored and underestimate the use of combat animation.

My two cents [:'(]

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: elhior

a) It made it A LOT easier for me to comprehend to combat mechanics.

Indeed I didn't think of this [&:] That part was usefull to learn how to send the right troops when needed. There should be something in the rules about it but seeing it makes it easier to learn. Good point.

[rjh1971]

I'm not saying that both you and GalacticOrigins don't have a point, I would have liked some kind of animations aswell, in WAW I did never turned them off, maybe if it was a battle with too many units and didn't have time I pressed scape, but what happened is that pograming the animations was not worth the cost, then again Joel or WanderingHead might explain why the decision was taken much better than me.

I concur with you that understanding the combat formulas takes a while, an example in depth in the manual would have been very handy, but eventually you will come to understand them.

[WanderingHead]

In the original WaW 2by3 actually got a lot of flak for including the animations. A lot of people thought they were a stupid thing to spend time and effort on.

So clearly, they just can't win. I'm sure Joel really regrets ever doing them now, given the time spent, plus the flak for having them in WaW, and now that people have seen them in WaW the flak for not having them in AWD.

Personally, I watched them about twice in WaW and then turned them off.

I think the decision not to do them was correct. I do not mean to disparage other quite valid opinions, but really it added very little to the game. The new complexities to combat made it more difficult to support the animation. And it would have taken a lot of programming time and effort.

It is a zero sum game, really. If they did the animations, then either:
a) the game would have been available to the public later (and so would the next game from 2by3, a ripple effect)
b) mechanics that actually matter to play would have been poorer, less fleshed out and developed.
c) the game would have been more buggy
d) some other useful UI features or mechanisms would not have been implemented
e) some combination of the above.

What I am trying to say is if you consider it a matter of prioritizing where to spend limited resources, I think it makes a lot of sense to throw the high maintenance irrelevent-to-actual-play stuff overboard. I was happy about it, because it meant they had more time to spend on things I thought were more important.

[GKar]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Personally, I watched them about twice in WaW and then turned them off.

I think the decision not to do them was correct.

Same for me, I agree.

[Uncle_Joe]

I enjoyed the animations in WaW and was sorry to see them go in AWD. When I first starting testing AWD, it was much harder for me to follow the combat system without them. Eventually, I just learned the new mechanics and it was no longer a problem. I think it would have been nice to have had the combat animations still in the newer game, but its not a big deal to me anymore. I can enjoy the game without them and their absence would hardly be a reason for me not to play a game as well thought out as this one.

[GalacticOrigins]

Sorry, I stand firm. Everything in the game builds up to fighting the battles, and when I finally get a major combat in a province and receive .... no battle, well, that is a let down. The whole game is about planning and using strategy, using economics, etc., and the C.A. is the end result of the whole thing. In my opinion, without C.A., this is only a shell of a game. Building the units, moving the units, all cumulate into seeing them in action.

Personally, I'd think about 50%+ of the buyers of the product most likely prefer the animations. Of course, the few who actually post on forums do not make up a good sampling of the customer base (New World Computing Phenomenon, which led to M&M 4 and 5 which 'killed' fantasy RPG for PC until Baldur's Gate ... "... we received many complaints about M&M3, so the next will be more linear ..." hmm, I liked it the way it was, so did not post, and the result = connect the dots (bad).)

"The customer is always right, but the customer does not always know what is good for them{selves}."

As far as giving this a chance, um, "No"( maybe someday, when I am really bored). I have a better game already ... the original, WITH C.A., so why should I add - diplomacy, 1939 scen, and spies? Not a good trade off.

Don't get me wrong, I am not mad or anything, but disappointed. Basically, C.A. worked well in the original game, why not have it here? Again, marketing reasons are most likely #1, coding time #2, and coding difficulty not 1 or 2.

As far as CoS, yeah, I had it running at one time in Win/OS, but have not messed with it since I upgraded to new mainboard and system. Thanks for the feedback though.


And, as usual, "If you want something done right ..."

[WanderingHead]

I must admit that is quite surprising, especially since I thought the animations rather lame (units didn't move, they fired off into random directions their weapons weren't pointed towards, units fire once at a time, even the scale of infantry to ships was way off, etc).

I get the most pleasure about thinking through the problem and seeing the result.

As for how many like it versus not, when it first came out I didn't like it but I didn't say anything, cause after all I could turn it off (I'd have raised hell if I couldn't). In testing, my recollection is that only UncleJoe said he liked it, the other 6 or so active testers had nothing but support for removing it (considering the coding time saved by doing so).

I really think it is a funny issue to get hung up on. It definitely had some value for some people, no argument. But to shelve a game for a side issue like this seems funny.

I doubt that anyone who got AWD and never saw WAW would think that this is something "missing" from the game, it was really sort of a non-sequiter.

Are there really a lot of PBEM turn based games that have animation of this sort? I.e. not to support UI/control, but to unfold the results of actions while the player sits back and watches?

[PyleDriver]

I agree Brian, the CA was cheesy (a bad cartoon), and I never used it in WAW...

Jon

[Petiloup]

Agreed with Wanderinghead, it's a no win discussion.

Or you like it or not, and there are no way to proove that one is better over the other.

I liked those to understand the mechanics but as animations it was rather simplistic and cut most of them at one moment.

On my side I don't quite miss them and would play AWD all the time over WAW with the animations and this tells me enough that the game is good like it is. Could it be better? well this is also a never ending story.