Matrix Games Forums

Hello to all!,
I have been away from wargaming for a year or so now but have got the bug again when I came across Panzer Command Winterstorm by accident. It appealed to me instantly as I have always been a fan of the Combat Mission series.
Looking for more info' on Panzer Command has led me here to the Matrix Games website and I now have a plethora of wargaming titles that has had me salivating at the prospect of purchasing some of them!!.

So, why am I posting here....well, the one title amongst all the others that I keep returning to is Conquest Of The Aegean. It looks and sounds superb and I have yet to read a comment that actually says something bad about it.

But.....and the reason I am asking for an honest appraisal of the game......is that my preference I guess is for minatures style games like the CM series, Panzer Command, MadMinutes Civil War games, Theatre of War maybe if the patch sorts out a lot of the complaints and so on.
Thats not to say that this has always been the case, I played Talonsofts Gettysburg and Battlefronts (I think it was them) Normandy and Arnhem games all those years ago. The problem I always had with those games though is the lack of visualisation of the battlefield. I get a bit impatient and never found it all that intuitive to see from a counter stack what my forces were. I usually ended up moving stacks without even checking what their composition was. From that little description of myself it is probably clear to everyone that I'm not even sure how to spell grog nard let alone be one!.

I am therefore a bit concerned that I might fall into the same mind set with COTA. I Also note that terrain plays a very important role and I wonder if I will have the patience to take all of this information into account before moving a stack of counters to abstractly attack the enemys stack.

So, can COTA honestly give me a wargaming experience that I will become immersed in and enjoy or is the traditional top down boardgame style one that you either love or hate and not even COTA can convince you otherwise?

Thanks in advance for any enlightened comments [:)]

If you want to visualize the battlefield as a "voyeur" and not simply be the overall force commander, then this game is not for you. There is no 3D component, no little men, no little tanks, no smoke, and only a very small simulation of explosions.

The maps are 2D, the forces are done with counters, and the sound effects are adequate but they will not have you hugging the earth for dear life.

HTTR and COTA are some of the best wargames which have ever been produced. They focus you on the intellectual exercise of constructing a plan for a battle, monitoring/revising the plan throughout the battle, and learning to address the often totaly ignored aspect of combat in games which is the dimension of time and that comand/control is never really instantaneous.

I have no problem with saying that these two games are one of a kind opportunity for understanding military command/operations and a chance to play a game at the strategic level against an AI that approaches human levels at time ... and still saying that these games are probably not for you.

In the event, that you can live without 3D and hot action on your monitor, then I suggest to you read my two Mini-Guides for HTTR and COTA. These will illustrate what it means to play the game and the type things the player will focus on. Perhaps they will provide you with a chance to find an avenue of reward in gaming beyond simply simulating standing on the battlefield.

I hope my opinion satisfied your honesty requirements.

Jonesy,
 
Welcome. I concur with Markshot's advice. Check out the 5 Minute Guide here:
 
http://cota.matrixgames.com/downloads/
 
This will show you the game in action, albeit very briefly.

Hi Jonesy,

Tough question you ask here. I'll throw in my 2 cents.

ORIGINAL: Jonesy
So, can COTA honestly give me a wargaming experience that I will become immersed in and enjoy or is the traditional top down boardgame style one that you either love or hate and not even COTA can convince you otherwise?

Mark briefly described the game and you have screenshots. Check the movie, a bit blurry but it's worth it.
The biggest difference between COTA and the traditional top-down wargame is the continuous time approach. There is no turn. There is no hex. Gameplay-wise, it's a bit like Mad Minutes games, but seen from 10,000 feet, so that you don't see the men and the tanks anymore.

I am therefore a bit concerned that I might fall into the same mind set with COTA. I Also note that terrain plays a very important role and I wonder if I will have the patience to take all of this information into account before moving a stack of counters to abstractly attack the enemys stack.

Well, in COTA you *can* take all of these into account and check every bullet if you want to. Good thing is : you don't *have* to. You don't have to move all these units yourself. You don't have to place all these units yourself. The TacAI can handle most of the things : like placing a basic defense in a village, moving entire divisions, arranging complex attacks.
Remember how you have to micro-manage a platoon of tanks along a road in CM to avoid traffic jams ? This is gone in COTA : just order a complete tank batallion to go via the quickest route to the desired point : they'll follow roads.

All in all, it depends. As Mark said, if you think that what immerses you are the 3D graphics and the view of the battlefield, then COTA is not for you. But somehow, the gameplay is so radically different than the old Talonsoft games that you might like it. No hex, no turn. No abstract stack but a realistic chain of command.

BTW, I'm not a grognard either. Well I used not to be one. [;)] COTA can be handled very lightly if you desire so.

I hope this helps,

JeF.

Hello and thanks for the replies and yes, thanks Mark your reply did indeed meet my honesty requirements [:D]

I guess I should have clarified that I dont crave the 3D view of little men and machines moving around but I do find the feedback from a 3D view more or less instant (by no means accurate though I do realise!) than having to analyse a top down view and as mentioned I was more concerned that I might not have the patience working from a 2D view!

Interesting to read JeF's comments though about allowing the TacAI to manage as much or as little as you like. I really like the idea of giving a tank battalion its destination and allow it to find its own way there safe in the knowledge that the AI pathfinding is pretty good and will get them there safe and sound. I dont recall this being much of an option in those games I mentioned. Perhaps it was there but the AI way back when left a bit to be desired I suppose.

Anyway, I could go on longer but my first post was boring enough without adding more to it....suffice to say that I am happy to accept the fact that COTA is so far removed from the traditional hex games and MArks description of it being an opportunity to understand military command/op's etc along with an AI approaching human levels at times means that I have to give it a go and see for myself.

Just two more quick questions though.....

The next installment Battles For The Bulge.... it looks a bit slow in that forum so I guess I should take the plunge with COTA and not hang around for BFTB ?

I have a desktop PC that will happily run COTA but I also have a laptop which I would love to be able to install COTA to. Here are its specs:
intel dual core T2080 (1.73ghz, 1mb L2 cache, 533mhz) and 1024mb 533hz DDR2 SDRAM. Graphics is intel media accelerator 950, 256mb shared memory.
Will this spec be able to run COTA ok?

It wont be a deal breaker if it cant but would be nice to know all the same!

Thanks and regards, Mark.

Despite the lack of 3D feedback, the series (RDOA/HTTR/COTA/BFTB) have very good tools for promoting SA (situational awareness - all flight simmers know this term):

You have the usual mini-map besides the main battle map.

Each counter has a unit info box. The information presented in the box can be selected en mass for all your counters to display such things as advancing/panicking, fatigue, ammo, deployment status ... The closest analogue to this would be the use health bars seen in RTS games. So, you can know what is going on big picture just from a glance at the map. Of course, a wealth more detailed statistics is available for each unit when it is selected via the side bar.

So, although not as instantly obvious as a 3D interface, SA is very easy once you get familiar with the game.

In response to your questions:

(1) I would recommend getting COTA now as opposed to waiting for BFTB. PG is a small company. Recently, Dave O'Connor (who posted here) took a full-time job and game development continues in his spare time. Both HTTR and COTA each took about 2.5 years to get out the door (this was with full-time development). So, I think there is little risk that the week after you purchase COTA, BFTB goes gold.

(2) Your specs look fine to me. The game has a relatively small memory footprint and does not use 3D graphic acceleration. Thus, CPU cycles is the most important determinant of performance. Good performance simply means the clock will run faster (especially at the FASTEST setting). Poor performance simply means the clock will run slower. Since time is not 1:1, it doesn't really impact or break gameplay. Although sometimes it is nice to have a powerful machine and zoom through a slow night where there is not contact and not much is happening.

(3) The major determinant of performance in the scenarios is the number of units on the map (whether or not they are rendered). There is a fairly diverse collection of scenarios with unit counts ranging from 60 to about 300+. So, even those with low spec machines can find scenarios which will play snappy.

I will dig-up a thread I did (used to be sticky) that has analysis break down of the scenarios.

I think you will like the AI of this series a lot. I know CWBR/TC2M quite well. You will see my name in the credits of TC2M and am personal friend with the designer. Despite that, COTA's AI is substantially better than what War3D provides which heavily relies on scripting. PG uses a generic AI that analyzes the scenario situation and gets very few hints from the scenario designer.

The main differences between MMG's and PG's command approaches are:

(1) MMG is more role oriented. The player is often subordinated to the AI. For PG, the player is always the senior commander of the battle.

(2) MMG very weakly handles the dimension of time. There are couriers which introduce some element of delays into the battlefield control, but most interaction are instantaneous. PG has a highly evolved system of order delays that considers many factors and makes the dimension of time just as critical the terrain on which you fight.

I hope that helps.

I cannot find the link to that thread. Search functions never seem to work when you need them.

Anyway, you can find an Excel spreadsheet I did here which will give some basic data on the scenarios. What I like about is that it sortable so that you can easily use to it pick what to play based on your interests. Lastly remember that almost the scenarios can be tailored to increase or decrease the difficulty level.

http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/DropZone ... depot.html

In this series, you don't adjust difficulty aiding or crippling the enemy AI. Instead you alter the scenario startup by adding/removing reinforcements, adding/removing supply, and in some cases the weather.

I hope that helps.

Hi Mark, MMG must be where I recognise your name from, I knew I had seen it somewhere before the first time I dropped by here. I thought CWBR was an excellent attempt but I was subsequently a bit dissapointed with TC2M. I didnt find that it had moved on a great deal but nevertheless MMG are to be commended in their efforts (they too are only a small outfit I believe?).
Back to COTA, I have to say that I am now more than a bit excited in trying my hand at some strategic level planning and really warming to the idea about actually having to put some thought into my plans. I guess thats why the game got its hooks into me when I first dropped by here, no fancy screenshots or anything, just a lot of very positive comments about gameplay and AI.
 
I had noticed on the BFTB forum that the PG team had lost the regular services of Dave O'Connor so I wish them well in continuing with their plans for future releases.
 
.....and thanks for confirming that my specs are up to the task even if I might not be [;)]

ORIGINAL: Jonesy

I had noticed on the BFTB forum that the PG team had lost the regular services of Dave O'Connor so I wish them well in continuing with their plans for future releases.

The West Front Data Design teams are alive and well and make no mistake Dave is still in direct contact with us.

Nothing official yet, but the slower development pace of the new BFTB engine might just provide a nice unexpected suprise for the fans of the West Front '44...

ORIGINAL: simovitch

ORIGINAL: Jonesy

I had noticed on the BFTB forum that the PG team had lost the regular services of Dave O'Connor so I wish them well in continuing with their plans for future releases.

The West Front Data Design teams are alive and well and make no mistake Dave is still in direct contact with us.

Nothing official yet, but the slower development pace of the new BFTB engine might just provide a nice unexpected suprise for the fans of the West Front '44...

You tease [:'(]

Yeh be quiet Richard. [:-]
 
Now ee'll have endless speculation...and they wonder how rumours start! [;)]

Jonesy,

So, have you started playing COTA yet?

How's it going Mark........no not yet I've been playing the Red Devils demo [:)]
Quite a few things puzzling not least the tutorials seemingly been non-interactive and how to issue orders to a HQ that will then filter through to the attached battalions (can that even be done?).
 
Already downloaded your COTA checklist and mini-guide in preparation though!.
 
Only thing I am now undecided on is download or hard copy. Payday coming up next week so will have made my mind up by then.....leaning towards the hard copy to obtain the manual (sounds like a big un and an absolute neccesity).
 
 
 

Sssshhh - you weren't supposed to mention that I was passing out the link to the outdated RDOA demo. That's why I PMed it. "Private" Message. Oh, well ...

We try to keep the old demo low profile, since it is way out of date.

If you watch the unit info box with the order option selected, then you should see your orders filtering down to lower units under those to whom you give direct command. Of course, the orders you see may be in a series of phases and broken down per the higher level task. Like an attack order will show up for the line units as a sequence of move, reorg, assault, reorg, move, and defend. To best understand the dynamics of the system, you should turn off order delays when experimenting so that things happen instantaneously.

I would go for the digital download. COTA has about 500 pages worth of documentation. I think the physical order only gets you the CD - no printed docs. Either way, you will get two sets of PDFs. One is a print version (takes more space), but has high resultion graphics. The other is a screen version (small memory footprint), but use data compression on the graphics which reduces sharpness.

Take care.

I'm chiming in a few days late to this discussion, but I wanted to add that there is plenty of realtime feedback, both visual and numerical data wise, as a battle develops. The action consists of "lines of fire" and "explosions". Lines of fire have varying widths to them and colors representing the intensity and severity of fire. There is an almost nail biting sense of anticipation and urgency as you watch the companies you ordered into an assault take fire from the enemy and get pummeled by artillery. There is nothing quite as distressing as watching the numerical strength of a company evaporate before your eyes as they get routed by artillery fire and dwindle from 147 men to 32 bruised and battered survivors routing away.

There have been some criticisms from gamers more used to being in direct, instantaneous control of their units, one of which was "it's like watching a movie" and "I'm not in control". This is actually one of the aspects that appeals to me most. In most games it takes a couple of seconds to physically move my units across the board and a couple of more seconds to resolve the battle. In this system, I get to watch my troops executing and implementing my orders. I get to see the ebb and flow of the battle as my troops sometimes initailly rout and retreat under fire, rally, recover and go again. I get to see the timing and implementation of the unit coming in from the flank to catch the enemy engaged with the units I sent at them frontally to pin them. With orders delays I have to accept that there will be a lag time as I decide to call off an attack and I have to watch my troops get a little more decimated before they can actually stop the attack or before I can get my reserves moving in to add support. There is a realism to this that gives it more of a "command simulator" feel than a "game" feel.

For a good look at BFTB and an idea of the decision making process and orders implementations undertaken by a player over the course of a long scenario take a look at my unfinished AAR of the Race to the Meuse scenario on the BFTB forum.

Oops sorry Mark, I had assumed you were pm'ing just to take it away from the general forum.....now have no delay on orders and HQ and all units are moving and acting in unison, I think perhaps the orders delay was making me think that only the HQ was moving.....either tat or I was doing something stupid.
Taking a fair bit of getting used to I can tell you but will persevere.
 
Apologies again Mark