not impressed

[prinzeugen]

i've spent about 30 hours playing this game, and i have to say.... its big waste of my time and money..... you might as well play risk.... first of all the transport function doesnt work..... rather, it works sometimes.... sometimes units get transported from A to B.... sometimes they are stuck on transports that cant be moved for no reason.... sometimes if you try to unload transports the game crashes.... the game has a very random, and non-sensical feel.... it centers around land combat in europe.... but nothing about this makes you feel like you re playing a historical ww2 type of game....
the gaming system doesnt work.... so you have "historical events" happen in the game--to kind of keep it on track, so it kind of looks "realistic" and hides the big flaws of this game. Land combat feels more like medieval total war... Cities are like castles.... im surprised there no "trebuchet" event.... but it's far worst than a "medieval" game.... Surrounded units, usually, not only keep on fighting but they get reinforced! units can be surrounded for years... and actually grow bigger and more menacing.... it more like a science-fiction game than anything about ww2....

[Mickrocks201]

ORIGINAL: prinzeugen

i've spent about 30 hours playing this game, and i have to say.... its big waste of my time and money..... you might as well play risk.... first of all the transport function doesnt work..... rather, it works sometimes.... sometimes units get transported from A to B.... sometimes they are stuck on transports that cant be moved for no reason.... sometimes if you try to unload transports the game crashes.... the game has a very random, and non-sensical feel.... it centers around land combat in europe.... but nothing about this makes you feel like you re playing a historical ww2 type of game....
the gaming system doesnt work.... so you have "historical events" happen in the game--to kind of keep it on track, so it kind of looks "realistic" and hides the big flaws of this game. Land combat feels more like medieval total war... Cities are like castles.... im surprised there no "trebuchet" event.... but it's far worst than a "medieval" game.... Surrounded units, usually, not only keep on fighting but they get reinforced! units can be surrounded for years... and actually grow bigger and more menacing.... it more like a science-fiction game than anything about ww2....

[font="Arial"]Yep... the AI sucks big time. It is pathetic. The game plays ok player v. player, but the mechanics seem to be beyond the ability of the AI to deal with effectively. Much of this is already document in other threads.

Supposedly the next release will deal with AI improvements. In my mind it is their last chance to save this game. Currently, even giving the AI all the advantages possible it can be beaten into the ground with little effort - no challenge at all. I know there are some out there that have defended the game, but they must be playing pvp, for there is nothing to recommend with regards to the AI.[/font]

[philturco]

I have to agree with you. The AI is inadequate. I have a post in the war room lamenting the poor AI play. I was hoping this game would be a good solitaire play of WWII but I quit playing it after getting bored with the AI play.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: prinzeugen

the game has a very random, and non-sensical feel.... it centers around land combat in europe.... but nothing about this makes you feel like you re playing a historical ww2 type of game....
the gaming system doesnt work.... so you have "historical events" happen in the game--to kind of keep it on track, so it kind of looks "realistic" and hides the big flaws of this game. Land combat feels more like medieval total war... Cities are like castles.... im surprised there no "trebuchet" event.... but it's far worst than a "medieval" game.... Surrounded units, usually, not only keep on fighting but they get reinforced! units can be surrounded for years... and actually grow bigger and more menacing.... it more like a science-fiction game than anything about ww2....

In my opinion, two major changes would give the LAND game a more WWII flavor and make it so much more fun (see other threads for issues related to air and naval):

1) a more detailed map, with functioning railroads and roads. Railroads for strat movement and supply network; cities are fine to funnel and serve as supply sources and PP objectives, but to get that max supply capability, a city should be linked by railroad to the ultimate supply source; roads could serve for extending supply from the nearest city to the front.

2) stacking; the current one unit per hex, regardless of unit size, is goofy. Should allow stacking up to some strength point/unit amount, thus allowing for max use of divisions/corps. Give some advantage for utilizing corps, allowing for increased stacking limit if a corps is involved, perhaps.

In another thread the developer nixed the idea of adding stacking, because of design issues. Change the design! Make it a great WWII game, as opposed to the rather anemic game it is now. It might be said that railroads are IMPLIED in the current system, but they need to be explicit, serving as objectives for offensives, for instance, or critical points for defense.

[bigdogcurt]

I concur with these assesments of the AI. I will try a PBEM game to see how I like it, but overall I would say this has been a waste. I also agree there are some major flaws. Germany never had sufficient resources to mount an amphibious invasion of England or the US and the cost for purchasing amphib points should be so high for them as to be impossible. Also, shouldn't there be a maximum number of units allowed for each country? I've played both sides against the AI and it seems with exception to the US and Russia, it seemed that any country could develop an army of ridiculous size and quality. It also seems like the PP values are skewed quite a bit, and some diplomatic events seem to be a bit on the high side for cost. Other smaller things like shouldn't a penalty be imposed on movement for arourmed or motorized units if the country doesn't have access to oil....for instance if Axis no longer controls any of North Africa or Polesti. Also, I agree on a VP for even the smallest cities as they seem like critical points. Other things already mentioned are the reinforcemtn/upgrade of cutoff units seems a bit much.

[balenami1291]

if all of improvements required in this 3D or in this forum will be done, then the game difficulty rises more than a little bit.

more difficulty means

1) strong IA hardest to make.
2) more variables to handle when playing
3) more rules to study.

are we sure we want and need a more detailed simulations ??

I can be the first one to answer this question.


Yes. It's

I Think this game system can support more details and more rules ... ...

[Mickrocks201]

ORIGINAL: mi1291


if all of improvements required in this 3D or in this forum will be done, then the game difficulty rises more than a little bit.

more difficulty means

1) strong IA hardest to make.
2) more variables to handle when playing
3) more rules to study.

are we sure we want and need a more detailed simulations ??

I can be the first one to answer this question.


Yes. It's

I Think this game system can support more details and more rules ... ...

[font="Arial"]All I ask is that the AI be challenging with the current game elements. That has to be the first step. [/font]

[doomtrader]

What is hiding under more variables?

[bigdogcurt]

I downloaded the new beta update and played the better part of a campaign as axis. I percieved a very slight increase in AI ability in Russia. I'm not sure if this was real or because I opted to not honor the non aggression pact and the Russian AI declared war. So it could have been a misperception based on an abnormally weak OoB when I had to start against Russia. The North African situation is still pathetic. Currently I have 2 level 4 infantry corps at Tripoli and the American and English have surrounded them with units equal or greater in strength .....4 or 5 units deep! A 20+ to 1 superiority and the AI refuses to attack, and since I have one unit adjacent to Tripoli, it will not even calculate any siege losses. I paricularly liked the historical set up they put in for Poland. Why not do it for the entire game? Any improvements seem ridiculous until they get the AI to function better.

[Mickrocks201]

ORIGINAL: bigdogcurt
[font="Arial"]
I downloaded the new beta update and played the better part of a campaign as axis. I percieved a very slight increase in AI ability in Russia. I'm not sure if this was real or because I opted to not honor the non aggression pact and the Russian AI declared war. So it could have been a misperception based on an abnormally weak OoB when I had to start against Russia. The North African situation is still pathetic. Currently I have 2 level 4 infantry corps at Tripoli and the American and English have surrounded them with units equal or greater in strength .....4 or 5 units deep! A 20+ to 1 superiority and the AI refuses to attack, and since I have one unit adjacent to Tripoli, it will not even calculate any siege losses. I paricularly liked the historical set up they put in for Poland. Why not do it for the entire game? Any improvements seem ridiculous until they get the AI to function better.

I was still able to take Moscow (which was undefended) by September '41. It seems the Russian AI still wants to have 3 full strength air armies as its first priority regardless of whether they can garrison its cities or not (much less even care about maintaining a line which would be the best thing for it to do).

I have found in general that in human v human the Germans really start running out of gas PP wise if the Russians can get thru to spring '42 with any semblance of a force and a complete line. The priority for the Russian AI s/b buying as many cheap inf corps as possible to maintain a line while preserving its armor and air units to throw at the inevitable weak points in the German line. The Russians with Lend Lease support can slowly put together a nice armor strike force for local counter attacks by the fall of 42 and once the Western Allies start leeching German PP in 43 it starts to get really dicey for the Germans. Strategic bombing really can be a factor in 43 when the allies have some PP to spend but no other contact with the Germans to diminish its PP reserves. Attrition works well in this case.

[/font]

[prinzeugen]

tried lastest patch.... some things work better, others work worse--no finland, no greece, no vichy france.... events. its just terrible... after a certain turn... game just crashes to desktop... the problems in this game go far beyond "tech support" issues.... this game is a train wreck and a waste of my time.... but i was dumb and paid almost 50 bucks for this game.... so, after the next patch.... maybe, i ll try again... otherwise, i m just a dumby that threw away 50 bucks... dont get me wrong.... i like this game, and i want it to "work".... right now, it doesnt....

[Sgt.Fury25]

Dont feel bad your not alone.[:(]

[doomtrader]

prinzeugen, I'm still trying to get information when your game crashes?
I would really appreciate a save game

and BTW, there is a Vichy France event.

[prinzeugen]

game crashes to desktop every time after turn 113/190.... playing the germans when i defeated france I simply got the whole country.... no screen came up to say that vichy france option failed.... also no russo-finish war....

i would love to send u a saved game... but im not that computer savy... if u tell how, i will.... thanks for your time

[doomtrader]

go to C:\Program Files\IQ Software\World War 2 Road to Victory\data\Save\

zip your save game folder
then you can upload it to the post or at some hosting service
at least send it at my e-mail
doomtrader[at]wastelands-interactive.com