Highway to the Reich reviews

JClark · Post by **JClark** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:04 am

Howdy Everybody,

I just found out about this game from the gamezone review which I think has just been posted ( http://www.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r21813.htm ).

Although Ive read better, this review did spark my interest, as Im an old WW2 board gamer. Im hoping some of you might be able to point me towards some other reviews for the game?

JC

gambler · Post by **gambler** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:18 am

Geez.. Talk about picking the wrong person to review the game. At least he stated that people who like "super detailed WWII games" would probably add a couple points to the score. Calling it a RTS, the 'counters' as tiles, and bashing it for not catering to a newbie misses the boat. It doesn't give any real information to people who like wargames, and he even calls it a RTS in the same vein as Korsun Pocket (and called KP a RTS in his review of that game).

Basically a useless review except to scare off anyone the least bit interested in making the jump to wargames.

ASHBERY76 · Post by **ASHBERY76** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:19 am

Its seems a good review, but why the poor rating.

MarkShot · Post by **MarkShot** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:29 am

ASHBERY76 wrote:Its seems a good review, but why the poor rating.

That's because the things you are talking as being pluses, he is taking as being negatives ... like the level of detail.

---

Classifying HTTR as an RTS is perhaps something of a miscategorization. On the other hand, it certainly isn't turn based. Perhaps, it is time for the industry to recognized the existance of a hybrid category. A category where time flow/management (via variable speed and pausing) is under the player's control. Certainly, this isn't the first game to ever take this approach in general. Although it may be the first to apply to WWII operation warfare.

Golf33 · Post by **Golf33** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:42 am

I noticed that the reviewer's approach was very very basic: "The first time I played, I saw a couple of my objectives in front of me and just selected all of my tiles and moved them to one of the closer ones, and quickly got pinned down and eliminated even with the size army I was using." Someone used to wargames certainly isn't going to want a game where this kind of ambit actually works! In fact I can't imagine anyone who wants a challenge would like a game where doing this proved successful.

I also got the feeling that instead of issuing orders to the headquarters units, he tried to command every single counter. This means he missed out on what I think is the best aspect of the game - the command structure that allows you to behave like a real general by giving commands not to every single unit but only to the main headquarters, who then carry out those commands using their own subordinates. You can play the game by issuing orders to every subordinate - there is also an option to penalize this type of play (optional since some people like it; however those who prefer to use the chain of command, as it was done historically, will want the challenge of orders delays).

It also did not seem to me that the reviewer had bothered to read even the quick start guide or the tutorial guides; I'd like to think that most people would be prepared to put in at least that much effort in trying out a new title!

Unfortunately the Gamezone review seems to be the only one up right now

Cheers
33

Warpstorm · Post by **Warpstorm** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 3:04 pm

Golf33 wrote:I noticed that the reviewer's approach was very very basic: "The first time I played, I saw a couple of my objectives in front of me and just selected all of my tiles and moved them to one of the closer ones, and quickly got pinned down and eliminated even with the size army I was using."

This is fairly gambit is typical for most RTS games (and often works). Rope up a group of units and order them all to a general location and hope they don't all get killed (your buildings would be cranking out new units to replace them if it happened, so no great loss, just a little monetum).

Kevinugly · Post by **Kevinugly** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:41 pm

Warpstorm wrote:This is fairly gambit is typical for most RTS games (and often works). Rope up a group of units and order them all to a general location and hope they don't all get killed (your buildings would be cranking out new units to replace them if it happened, so no great loss, just a little monetum).

A lot of reviewers just will not, or cannot, make the time to learn a game properly. Faced with what they think is a familier format they play it that way. Hence a game like 'Command and Conquer - Generals' - a very hackneyed RTS with very little 'strategy' (apart from 'build more units and faster than your opponent') but great graphics will always get a better review than the more innovative AA:HTTR, at least in more 'mainstream' gaming media.

Incidentally, I came into AA:RDOA from a background of RTS games and I found that not having to 'create' squads (it was already done for me

) was actually a relief.

MarkShot · Post by **MarkShot** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 4:34 am

Kevin,

Here is another one of my observations on how on the style of play HTTR differs from many other games and RTS.

In many games, the further the game goes, the more complex the management aspects become. Meaning you have more units, more engagements, more objectives, ...

I often find that the further large scale HTTR battles go, the less complex the management aspects become. Why? Often at the start of a scenario, you are trying to accomplish the most with the least. So, you are conducting recon missions, screening, blocking road intersections, setting up defense of DZs, LZs, key bridges, etc... I often find myself giving orders to battalions, companies, and support weapon platoons. As the battle progresses, zones of control over areas of battle space become much clearer and there are usually substantially more forces (due to reinforcements) to work with. Thus, mid/late game orders tend to be given in much broader strokes to divisions, regiments, and brigades.

I find it quite refreshing that as the game progresses (assuming you have commanded well) that the battle tends to increasing clarity/simplicity and you do not feel crushed under the weight of exponentially increasing details. I some games, that crush is so bad that if you are confident of the final outcome, you often quit rather than struggle through it. In HTTR, I never abandon a game even if I can see where it is headed, since it is no big deal to finish.

Putting aside the actual features of the game for a moment, I find that HTTR is simply different than other games in quite few respects that make it very enjoyable experience.

Kevinugly · Post by **Kevinugly** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 5:07 am

Mark, there ain't a lot I can add to that

although I will!. As flippant as I may appear, AA is a game (and format) that I want to succeed

. I've played a multitude of games in the last four years or so (the brief tenure of my 'gaming career') across most of the major genres and, as a game, AA has more in common with games like (waits for cry of 'heresy'

) 'Sudden Strike' and 'Red Alert' than hex-based games like TOAW and the more recent 'Korsun Pocket'. Complex weapon modelling, unit morale, and AI aside, it's the 'real-time' nature of the game moving 'groups' of units around that push it towards the RTS genre rather than 'old style' wargames. As such it's unique in the current market. In some respects I feel sympathy for any reviewer, stuck with a deadline trying to get to grips with the game. It's real-time, it's strategy, it's a wargame, it's fluid, ... it breaks the mould! I'm expecting to read some very 'interesting' reviews over the coming weeks.

Golf33 · Post by **Golf33** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 8:47 am

The reviewers could always go with the term we use to describe it - "pausable continuous time" - instead of trying to stuff it into a category that clearly doesn't fit.

But that would require them to actually read some of the literature that comes with it, eg the box.

The fact that it's simply unique in the current gaming market is obviously going to be a challenge for a reviewer, and I think if they aren't prepared to at least spend a little time with the game and maybe even read the quick start guide and manual, that they will not be able to provide an accurate picture to their readers.

You might want to read some of the AARs posted around the place - these give a much better idea of how the game plays.

Regards
33

HitMan52 · Post by **HitMan52** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 10:30 pm

Simply put, GameZone selected an individual to review HttR who was not qualified to review a War game. "Tha Wiz", who, by the way, also butchered a GameZone review of EYSA. HttR and EYSA both deserved a review from an experienced wargamer and not from someone like "Tha Wiz" who demonstrated he was clearly out of his depth on both reviews. If GameZone wants its reviews to be taken seriously they need to put some experience behind their reviews. In addition, they need to find people to write for them who received better than a C in English.

bobnickbob · Post by **bobnickbob** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:18 am

I thought he did a pretty good job on the review , he
did point out many times in the review that if you like war
games and play them often then this would be a good game
to pick up. And lets face it folks this ain’t command and conquer
or warcraft, Thank God some one went off the beaten path and
tried something new. I am sure Trotter will like it , and all of us
need to talk it up, and buy it....That is about all we can do........

BnickB

Beery · Post by **Beery** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:25 am

bobnickbob wrote:I thought he did a pretty good job on the review , he
did point out many times in the review that if you like war
games and play them often then this would be a good game
to pick up.

BnickB

Yeah, but let's face it, the genre is pretty much limited to those gamers who are used to investing half-an-hour on a single move anyway. This game simply isn't meant to appeal to traditional RTS fans. The game should have been reviewed by a wargamer, not a Command and Conquer fan.

Beery · Post by **Beery** » Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:49 am

I dunno. I guess what it comes down to is this - I'd have been more comfortable if the review had been written by someone with the nickname 'Panzer44', 'Guderian66' or 'Spitfire' rather than 'Tha Wiz'. 'Tha Wiz' implies that this fellow is more interested in fantasy than military history. It would be like having a review of an adventure game written by someone calling himself 'LeetFPSdude'.