Rock Paper Shotgun review

[wodin]

I hassled Tim to get the game and do a review..and now it's up good fair review aswell.

Maybe MR or Capt could go over there and comment?

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/08/wot-i-think-flashpoint-campaigns-red-storm/

[CapnDarwin]

Wodin, thanks for pushing this to rps. I will jump on there tonight and address a few of the issues mentioned.

[wodin]

Sadly as usual the price gets mentioned, shame as it's not being sold for excessive amount, prob high end these days for a PC game but not excessive. The other issues really are ones that are being looked at and will eventually go with expansions etc. He is jaded with hex and counter wargames as many are just like the next, but this one grabbed him by the looks of it, having a unique core mechanic that drives the game is what makes this stand out and play great.

[Casinn]

He liked it enough to apparently replace Flare Path for a week with a review. I'm one of those that glanced at it last week and said hmm, cold war hex wargame and filed it on the mental "look at it later maybe" checklist. After his review it's probably my early xmas gift to myself next month. Thanks for pushing it on him wodin.

[wodin]

No probs Casinn..it is a great game.

[MikeAP]

Sudden death trigger...

[wodin]

Yeah I like it.

ORIGINAL: MikeAP

Sudden death trigger...

[CapnDarwin]

My guess is we will start dealing with SD and FOW issues for the 2.04 update. Next in the pipe is the remaining PBEM/odd localization issues still in the mix from 2.01 and anything left that 2.02 doesn't fix.

[wodin]

Excellent news.

[ComradeP]

After reading posts and AAR's on this forum and that review, I'm also inclined to buy it, but I don't like the Sudden Death trigger or not being able to give a set of orders, so I'll wait until those things are removed/added.

I don't like the Sudden Death trigger because it allows the side that would lose badly to force the attacker to accept a worse result than he would normally have achieved, according both to numerous posts and the results of some AAR'ed games. If the descriptions are correct, the defender ends the game when he's losing/after having lost 70%(?) of his strength, without much of a penalty aside from automatic conversion of victory hexes (which may or may not matter), which gives him an unfair advantage.

I dislike the theory of not being able to give more than one order (move to bridge>blow bridge) because it could make limited orders an annoyance instead of a really interesting feature in some situations, because you'd have to wait until the next order cycle to give a simple order that the troops had plenty of time to carry out after completing the previous order.

I do like what the game offers, now that my fears that the battlefield would be too high tech for my liking have been removed.

[TigerTC]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Sadly as usual the price gets mentioned, shame as it's not being sold for excessive amount, prob high end these days for a PC game but not excessive. The other issues really are ones that are being looked at and will eventually go with expansions etc. He is jaded with hex and counter wargames as many are just like the next, but this one grabbed him by the looks of it, having a unique core mechanic that drives the game is what makes this stand out and play great.

This game is worth the money I paid for it. Well worth it.

However, many Matrix games aren't worth what they charge (and, for some, unfortunately what I paid for them).

So my issue with their pricing is that they've made me quite risk-averse for Matrix Games. Yes, I, one consumer, bought *this* game; however, Matrix has quite a few that I'm interested in but won't touch because of 1) the high price; 2) the lack of demo; and 3) other games that I've bought and haven't enjoyed.

[TigerTC]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

I don't like the Sudden Death trigger because it allows the side that would lose badly to force the attacker to accept a worse result than he would normally have achieved, according both to numerous posts and the results of some AAR'ed games. If the descriptions are correct, the defender ends the game when he's losing/after having lost 70%(?) of his strength, without much of a penalty aside from automatic conversion of victory hexes (which may or may not matter), which gives him an unfair advantage.

This game is worth it. Still, the SD trigger causes problems. Playing a campaign game, for instance, the AI defended forward. Therefore, it was impossible to capture the vast majority of VP hexes before I destroyed 70% of their forces. I actually suffered a minor defeat even though I wiped out 70% of their forces in less than half the allotted time -- and only because the AI defended forwarded.

[MikeAP]

I dislike the theory of not being able to give more than one order (move to bridge>blow bridge) because it could make limited orders an annoyance instead of a really interesting feature in some situations, because you'd have to wait until the next order cycle to give a simple order that the troops had plenty of time to carry out after completing the previous order.

I don't like it, but fortunately it's something you can toggle.

It is a realistic constraint that commanders faced during the time. Coyle talks about it in Team Yankee, and the effect that it had on the teams mission command effectiveness.

On the other hand I dislike the fact that I cannot give units multiple movement types in one order. For example, conduct hasty movement from checkpoint 1 to 2, then transition to assault from checkpoint 2 to 3. This was something in Command Ops.

Mad Russian says they're working the issue or they'd like to. I'm not sure how long that'll take to implement though

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

The game is sort of positioned between a traditional wargame (you manually control every unit) and a more abstracted command-based system like Command Ops (you give orders to formation HQs primarily, and the AI plans out the implementation). Right now my sense is that there's some issues with the way command and control is handled, in that being in command and subordination doesn't seem to play as much of a role as it should. As you give orders to individual units, not formations, while you might get some delays for out of command units (it's hard to tell, as the game doesn't communicate this to you really well if at all), there doesn't seem to be a huge reason to devote a lot of time to keeping people close to their HQs--and the command ranges are really short, as well, so it's nearly impossible to keep all your formations in command anyhow.

But then, if you adopted a more Command Ops style approach, where you gave orders to formations not individual units usually, and the AI handled the deployment and movement/combat, you'd have a very different game. What I'd like to see is a hybrid approach--you generate orders from your HQ, and you can either give them individually to units or to formations; if you activate a formation, you get to give each unit in that formation an order, but only if they're in command control. This would maybe cost one order for a company, two or three for a battalion, etc.

I don't know, but I just think it would add something if the whole HQ/subordination/command and control system felt a bit more robust.

[MikeAP]

Agreed, and i think the limited staff rule wouldn't be as harsh or restrictive if there was a more robust unit hierarchy in place.

Instead of giving orders to 8 individual platoons, it would only be orders to two company HQs.

I have no knowledge of how radio/frequency locating works but the time it takes for a Battalion HQ to make two transmissions is certainly shorter than 8. Plus the Company HQs are not normally co-located in combat situations so the density of radio traffic in one physical location shouldn't be too much.

With that being said, in sure we'll get there.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat

The game is sort of positioned between a traditional wargame (you manually control every unit) and a more abstracted command-based system like Command Ops (you give orders to formation HQs primarily, and the AI plans out the implementation). Right now my sense is that there's some issues with the way command and control is handled, in that being in command and subordination doesn't seem to play as much of a role as it should. As you give orders to individual units, not formations, while you might get some delays for out of command units (it's hard to tell, as the game doesn't communicate this to you really well if at all), there doesn't seem to be a huge reason to devote a lot of time to keeping people close to their HQs--and the command ranges are really short, as well, so it's nearly impossible to keep all your formations in command anyhow.

But then, if you adopted a more Command Ops style approach, where you gave orders to formations not individual units usually, and the AI handled the deployment and movement/combat, you'd have a very different game. What I'd like to see is a hybrid approach--you generate orders from your HQ, and you can either give them individually to units or to formations; if you activate a formation, you get to give each unit in that formation an order, but only if they're in command control. This would maybe cost one order for a company, two or three for a battalion, etc.

I don't know, but I just think it would add something if the whole HQ/subordination/command and control system felt a bit more robust.

Every wargame is a balance between sim and game. Trying to get that 'just right' feel can be tough. Because it's a moving target. What feels right to me as a soldier whose been in the Fulda Gap may not feel at all right to someone whose never been there.

In the end you get that 'just right' feeling of the developers. You get what feels right to them and hope it works for the majority of other gamers as well.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

If you are sitting on the fence waiting for the new orders type system, I fear your posterior may be a little sore waiting a bit for that. I can state the rest of November will spent on the 2.03 update with a focus on killing off the remaining PBEM++ bugs. 2.04 is tentatively focused looking at Sudden Death and FoW mechanics enhancements. Hopefully out before the Christmas/New year break. We also need to get started on the first Red Storm expansion too if that is to see daylight next year. [:D]

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

2.04 is tentatively focused looking at Sudden Death and FoW mechanics enhancements. Hopefully out before the Christmas/New year break.

I start holiday leave on the 14th of December and don't return to work until the 4th, so hopefully that time can be spent blasting all things Soviet.

We also need to get started on the first Red Storm expansion too if that is to see daylight next year. [:D]

Do I smell a NATO counterattack?

[CapnDarwin]

First expansion will have the additions to the Warsaw Pact of East Germany and Poland. NATO get the Canadians and the French.

Plus scenarios, maps and such.

[Panta_slith]

Oh, the Canadians? I just finished re-reading "First Clash"! At least the Canadians had the (almost useless) Blowpipe SAM... [8D]