Matrix Games Forums

Yup...

Do it NOW...

I agree 100%. It's a must own.

I like this game too, and don't want to come across as a spoilsport, but since I am a friend of balanced discussions.....wait until 2.1 comes out.

As long as engineering and the artillery mechanics are broken/misrepresented/abstracted/oversimplified in this game, it is only "Cold War Themed", and not a simulation of a what-would-have-been War. Missing GSRs, absurd bridging, FOW problems (you can see the enemies Command Cycle, his units moving through VPLs etc.) and the artillery mechanics are just a few issues that need to be adressed.

I know that these guys are aware of the issues, but until these are implemented/fixed I would recommend anyone to wait until 2.1. On the bright side: If there is a studio that makes the first actual Bn/Rgt/Div level Cold War game happen, it's them.

Hope you take it sportingly,

A

Calgar, let me hit a few of those points.

Abstraction. Every game and simulation has it to one degree or another. As one of the designers, I can tell you we looked at areas where we could abstract, but still maintain enough realism. You have to do this or a game name comes out. Supply is important in warfare, but less so in a single battle. Abstract it and move on. Engineering, though important in single battles, was tone down to be "callable" functions units had. It will be refined in 2.1, but not down to discreet equipment.

Artillery functions are working again in the upcoming 2.06 update. It works for this game level and there is a lot we plan to add and enhance here going forward, because there are a number of additional capabilities we need for future titles. This includes illumination and EW use of arty as well.

FoW has been updated along the way. We left the enemy command cycle in after some discussions in house so you could get a feel of the battle tempo. The is also a function for turning of the VP locations if you don't want to see them.

We are aware of both the things we want to add as well as a number of the items the players want to see. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but in my case I would tell folks to enjoy this game for the next year until the new one comes out.

Even with some of its minor flaws and ugly map art (I can say it because I did it, it was functional), the game is highly regarded, awarded, well reviewed, and enjoyed by the vast majority of people who play. If you are on the fence, jump down and play!

And that is my somewhat biased opinion on the game. [8D]

Always appreciate your pont of view.

It is not abstraction per se that I am having a problem with, I totally agree that supply should be abstracted in this game. Still, every unit being able to blow and build bridges is an abstraction that is....let's say debatable. Especially for a game that claims to be a simulation.

And to turn of the VPs on the map, does not help a lot in terms of multiplayer gaming.

Otherwise, i broadly agree. It might be that the mechanics will be working again in the next patch, and I am looking forward to this. But even with the patch, there is quite a way to go 'till we have a cold war simulation.

Capn Darwin

the game is highly regarded, awarded, well reviewed, and enjoyed by the vast majority of people who play.

And you deserved it. You understand that I am not saying that this is a bad game? No offense intended. The point is that I think it curently does not live up to its own expectations, and to phrase it positively (and I mean it) you guys and the game have a lot of potential.

It is a great game, at the moment it is, in my humble opinion, just not a Cold War simulation.


A

ORIGINAL: calgar

It is a great game, at the moment it is, in my humble opinion, just not a Cold War simulation.


A

Each of us has our own definition of what constitutes a level of abstraction we will accept to determine what is a game or a sim. All games/sims are a blend of each. Some have a higher blend of one than the other. The reason I would label our effort closer to a sim than a game is the level of control in the micro management department at the grand tactical scale.

But that's just my own personal opinion and realize others have a different criteria to judge things by. As well as it's always good to get a balanced view of how gamers view the subject being discussed.

As you well know we often ask for your opinions and then react to those if we can. Opinions are not a problem here. Whether or not they agree point for point with ours.

Good Hunting.

MR

Just waiting on the final update. I hope Matrix doesn't hold onto it too long.

I've been reading Red Army this weekend in anticipation.

I just discovered the Scenario Editor and therefore Apache Gunship Squadrons.

This game is really good. I'm not going to get involved in the "realism"/"Simulation"/"Abstraction" morass. I'm just going to start modifying and creating my own scenarios and really getting my money's worth from this game.

Sometimes it is good to just drop all the academic pretense and just enjoy a fun fast and furious product.

Strongest appeal of this game for me so far is the way it plays out the ebb and flow of the struggle. Attack, counterattack, counter-counterattack, and so on.