Matrix Games Forums

Hi all!!!

Wanted to start a thread for reviews of the newly released strategy guide. I haven't purchased it yet, so I am interested in your comments/thoughts before making my purchase.

It rocks!

Good enough review? [:D]

I liked it.

It's divided into two major sections Game Play & History.

The Game Play portion should be sufficient to help improve most folks play style as it goes well beyond the manual. Also, if you are just getting into wargaming, it does cover enough of the basics that if this is your first ground combat game; you will get up to speed.

The Historical Portion seems quite detailed, but I have to confess to never having the time to get through it. It's kind of like the History Channel on steroids.

Very nicely done. I obviously havn't had a chance to read through it yet (pity it's .pdf only, a printed copy would have made a great read for the two hours a day I spend on a bus), but it seems to offer something for everybody, from total newbs right through to the very experienced.

I particularly like the way the game maps are used in the historical section. I have half-a-dozen books on the campaign already, so I wasn't anticipating that is something I would be bothering with, but those maps really put it in the context of the game.

Thanks for the feedback guys.
I am just a bit hesitant, cause I have been burned in the past by so-called "strategy guides." Plus since it isnt a hard copy, I will have to shell out additional money to get it nicely printed. With everyone's good reviews, it makes that extra price an easier burden.

1) How many pages is the strategy guide?

2) What does it offer to someone who knows the game mechanics already, and who already knows the history of MG too?

Thanks.

Player's Guide portion:
Pages 5-94 for strategy, pages 95-107 for OOB and weapons tables

Historical analysis portion:
pages 108-183

But there's an earlier thread that had a photo of the table of contents. You should search for it.

Can't help you with your second question as I haven't read the text in full yet.

The history portion I cannot comment on.

Regarding the player's guide, it definitely significantly goes beyond the manual.

If you have read through my two stickied threads and felt that everything I covered concerning strategy and game mechanics was obvious and remedial, then maybe you won't get too much out of the strategy guide. If you found the stuff in those threads to be useful, then there is more to pick up from the guide. I guess that is the best test I can give you as to whether it will be appropriate for your level.

I took the plunge and bought the Strategy Guide yesterday, and I'm very glad I did. The insights into the workings of the game and even into the battle itself are substantial. I've seen plenty of such guides where the "tips" are just glorified restatements of the game's manual, but this one is not like that at all: it puts the game's workings well into the context of the historical commanders' planning and concerns, and it actually makes you think about the options available. There is no mere "filler" to speak of.

There's one aspect of the guide I can't praise highly enough, and that's the writing itself. I'm an English teacher, and the poor quality of most game-related writing really gets under my skin. HTTR's guide, however, is written in a mature voice and makes its points succinctly. It's the first game-related manual or guide that I've seen that is actually a good read!

Presentation overall is very strong. The guide's organization is clear, the screenshots are well-chosen (and well-cropped) to illustrate their points, and the charts and tables are all properly formatted. I've read about 2/3 of the text so far and I haven't noticed a single typo! (In the last paragraph on page 109, however, there's a reference to "1st Parachute division" that should probably be "1st Parachute brigade." You see I'm picky!)

Thanks for the good work.

So, Paul, did you read my tutorial and tips thread? Will I be attending Summer school or left back next year.

That's why I went into computers. When I started out, if you could spell a vocabulary of 50 words, then you could earn a decent living. Now, you may think that takes out all the challenge from work. But there are tough issues such as do you spell "GO TO" or "GOTO"? And then it got a lot harder in the late 70's with languages like C that supported upper and lower case.

{all said jokingly, of course}

You get a A, Mark. And I don't give them lightly!

I won't name names, but a recent strat guide for an otherwise extraordinarily good wargame by another company was just embarrassing to read. It was mostly lightweight filler. HTTR's (and your hint threads, too) is much better!

Very good, I would have to say most strategy guide are not. This one is worth the money

Guys, thanks for the positive feedback! I've emailed Steve Barnes (who wrote the historical section) to pass on your comments, and I certainly appreciate them.

Regards
33

For the sake of completion:

I've finished reading the guide, and I'm happy to say that my earlier impression stands. (I did notice a few more slips of the keyboard towards the end, but they are minor.)

Thanks for a great read.

I've just finished the Guide section and I must say: what have I been playing [at], it certainly ain't HTTR [8|].

It's like I've got a new "game" all over again! So many tips and tactics to try out.

The writing is clear and precise, not too technical and definately not gamesy. It does what it says on the tin: "Strategy Guide".



***********************

now the anal part:
I printed it onto A5 double sided (screw my eyes [;)]). Unfortunately, the length ways pages, i.e. the Vehicle and Weapons tables and the Detailed Order of Battle pages, when I punched the holes for the binder it punched through some of table headings etc. (Really not a big deal for me, but...).


now the follow up question:
I notice the guide mentions a technique where one can use the "In-Situ" defence as another type of "Delay", great, but, what implications does this have on a static defence where one is "forced" to issue "In-Situ" order to stop the force HQ re-positioning units.

***********************


Other then that, so far [;)], outstanding. And the Historical section is starting to look as impressive.


TANX
Andrew

ORIGINAL: CriticalMass

I notice the guide mentions a technique where one can use the "In-Situ" defence as another type of "Delay", great, but, what implications does this have on a static defence where one is "forced" to issue "In-Situ" order to stop the force HQ re-positioning units.

It just means your units will stay where they end up if they are forced to retreat, so you will need to give them new orders if you want them to return to their previous position. Once they are back there, you can reattach them to the HQ to reduce your command load again.

Regards
33

First, just to bring everyone up to speed ... you can use "in-situ" formation in lieu of some other formation for [D]efend as a form of short range delaying action. So, normally a unit will retreat/route and then attempt to resume its former position. With "in-situ" it will fallback and then reestablish itself whereever it currently is which should be just somewhat out of range of the enemy, but in his intended path.

I would think that "in-situ" defense for the purpose of delaying the enemy (as opposed to just overriding an AI HQ) is most useful when that static defense is in relatively homogenous closed terrain and being done more as a screening action. Why?

(1) If the environment only provides a few key terrain features, then you probably want to attempt to reoccupy your former positions if the advancing enemy gets thrown back. Otherwise, your unit could end up being left highly exposed. Also, remember that units that reoccupy previously improved (dug-in or entrenched) positions, then go through the position improving process faster as compared to a map location which was never improved. {Note: the game tracks this on the map, but you cannot see it. By the way, I have requested for such position improvements to be made visible to the player.}

(2) If it's homogenous close terrain, then whereever the unit stops to recover should be relatively defensible. Although their former positions might have previously been improved, the unit will be most vulnerable while it is on the move back to its former position. So, being caught by the enemy deployed in its new position is probably preferable to being caught on the move on the way back its former position.

(3) In homogenous close terrain, the unit which falls back has a better chance of being out of LOS of the enemy for some time (so that it can get dug-in) and the enemy advance may be slower than an advance over open ground.

(4) This haphazard giving up ground is more appropriate for a screening force than your main line of resistance. Since this giving up ground is not something which you can easily control, it is likely that holes will be left in your line. For your main line of resistance, holes are not a good thing, since it is your last and best hope to turn back the enemy's assault. However for a screening force, its mission is somewhat different. It is mainly attended to slow the enemy and to maintain contact with the enemy in order to provide you with intel, time to deal with the developing situation, and an opportunity to apply arty and mortar barrages to weaken and possibly break the enemy advance before it hits your main line of resistance.

I hope that helps.

Some more comments ...

I would choose "in-situ" to override the AI if and only if, the my units are dug-in and I like the positions, footprint, and current facing. Otherwise, I would let the AI HQ reorganize its defense as it sees fit ... of course, with some hints from me.

(1) If the environment only provides a few key terrain features, then you probably want to attempt to reoccupy your former positions if the advancing enemy gets thrown back. Otherwise, your unit could end up being left highly exposed. Also, remember that units that reoccupy previously improved (dug-in or entrenched) positions, then go through the position improving process faster as compared to a map location which was never improved. {Note: the game tracks this on the map, but you cannot see it. By the way, I have requested for such position improvements to be made visible to the player.}

On this point, how "intelligent" is the AI to choose a tree line you've ordered them to defend in or a nearby previously improved positions? or many other occations you may prefer to jump into the trenches than run for the trees.

Oh and PS: Thanks, Mark

*** Regarding tree lines and terrain boundaries in general ***

I believe Dave did state that the AI will attempt to use these. Personally, I believe the biggest determinant in proper usage is the player's use of line formation and 300m depth and appropriate placement of the [D]efend marker. Using other formation types to conform to non-linear terrain features has always been problematic to me. So, rather than ordering a wedge formation trying to cover a corner terrain boundary, I would just split my force and place two lines.

When you are talking about generally open terrain with a few patches of BUA and woods, then I will tend to micromanage and place companies and heavy weapons in key locations. I believe the AI is supposed to make some effort to do this also, but I have always felt that the AI puts more emphasis on achieving the specified foot print and formation than it does on exploiting a few good terrain features.

*** Regarding improved positions ***

Well, this is mentioned either in the manual or the strategy guide in passing. However, to me, it's one of those things like quantum mechanics. I take it as an act of faith, since I can not see it with my own eyes and it is very hard to perceive its affects if you don't know what you are looking for. However, either Dave or Paul did confirm that this is actually tracked in the game. Another interesting question which came to mind which I don't believe was answered is if one may also take advantage of the enemy's improved positions when you overrun them?

*** Regarding terrain alterations during a scenario ***

It just occured to me that artillery should do quite a number on a landscape. Shells falling on otherwise open terrain should probably improve the cover value of the terrain due to the appearance of shell holes. Shells falling on highways should decrease movement rates on these routes as they might get pretty chewed up. As far as I know, this isn't modeled. Dave, or is it?

---

By the way, you are welcome. It's always my pleasure to share my hobby and interest in each HTTR with others with similar interests.