After a Day's Gameplay

[Adam Parker]

So how's the AI?

Playing the Western Desert campaign, I'm surprised how many times the player (me) has been pitted against an attacking Axis AI. You'd think giving the AI the role of defender would be easier to program.

The result? The AI indeed does attack. Yep at times half tracks will be seen zipping back and forth between two squares if caught in a tight spot. But the AI does approach, probe, deploy, fight and can win. Impressed.


So how's the feel?

Also impressive are some nice features borrowed from games gone by. Most scenarios will let you purchase units by point limit that are added to a preselected force. There's a nice variety of units seen so far - and all I've been permitted to play in is the desert.

Very nice art and period feel given to the units too. Infantry fidget whilst waiting for orders. The screen shakes as arty flies. Tanks recoil and rock as they fire. Excellent map art and atmosphere. Love the paint scheme and grill detail of the Matilda's! And those Mk IV Shorts are mean brutes when they shoot. Can't wait to see a Tiger and Panther in action.

In addition to unit purchasing, some scenarios will allow the player to deploy prior to the start.

At first I thought the scenario briefings were going to be childish. That for the first scenario gave me this impression - but here too I've been proven wrong. The briefing map cartoons are critical to game play - they give just enough to know what's going on and leave the execution and strategy to the human. Thank you.

Reinforcements are a nice touch as scenarios play on and both sides can get them. In fact, I even have the impression that receiving them is a little random between plays of the same situation - but that could just be me getting lost in the action.


And the Interface?

I still haven't read a word of the rules and I'm in scenario 6. How's that for intuitive?

Other that mouse-overs, the game spews forth advice as the game plays out, such as akin "if you're on a hill you can't be seen till you fire". Nice. And the scenarios to date have offered many in-game features that other titles would take reams of paper to explain - how to target an air strike, how to fire OBA, how to add field promotions to forces etc. These so far have all been by way of scenario-specific "special rules" and all I've done to make them work to my benefit has been to notice the icon at the side of the screen, left click, right click the target and watch for effect.

Yup, this is one lazy grognard's game. Just what the doctor ordered.


What I wish for?

Before buying this game I thought I'd be comparing it to Panzer General 1 - don't know why but I just had that opinion - knowing full well that I'd be fighting for a village rather than an entire country such as France in a single scenario.

Therefore I was expecting to see the tried and true formula of growing a core army of experienced troops, beginning to mother them and adding auxilliary units and purchases to supplement them as the campaign went on.

Well, I'm not getting that feel here and truly can't remember whether Steel Panthers either gave me that experience all those years ago - SP being the better game I feel, to now compare this title to.

There has also been no logical connection between scenarios making up the Western Desert campaign that I've seen. Nothing relational about them. The TV series Combat in fact is a good analogy. Where will Sgt Saunders find himself next week? That's sort of what I'm getting here; "what clever situation will I be placed into next".

Is it working? Yes, because I do have that "one more" scenario sensation. No becaue I have no idea what victory looks like as I'm progressing through the scenario spread.

Which brings me to another aspect that could personally be improved. After finishing scenario you get a list of your kills by category. Yet how well have you done? There's no major or minor victory here unless I've missed something. There are "stars" that suggest things the player should aim for each time. Eg: Kill 10 enemy units, don't lose a victory location etc.

But in this way - Panzer General - mother your troops, get rewarded for doing well - this game is not.

It's Battlefield Academy. It's not revolutionary. It's not bad either. It's a game that so far is working in its own way with a fantastic atmosphere and without anything feeling too out of place. And for that, where in the past I've deleted games after only one play, I'm happy to let this one keep entertaining me for a long while longer.

Happy gaming,
Adam.

[jomni]

Designers said they didn't want to make core units that carry over to the next battle in order to not unsettle the game balance and challenge.
Example, they don't want people who didn't do good in the first 3 battles to have an impossible chance of winning the 10th battle.
They also don't want the people who mastered the early battles to breeze through the 10th battle.

The AI apparently works and does things properly. But it's also a factor of scenario design.  AI reactions are actually scripted per scenario. So you also have to also commend the scripting skills of the scenario designer. I have a bias against scrpted AI (replayability) but this game makes the AI believable and fun to play with.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

The AI does a pretty good job, I'd agree. Scripting trades unpredictability for more intelligent action, and I think the trade off here is pretty good. The game does rely some on the tried and true methods of overwhelming the player with numbers of enemies at times (where ARE all those armored cars coming from??) but all in all it's satisfying, and pretty challenging. I've been working on the first Normandy mission for several tries actually, trying to save those danged paratroopers. The Krauts are hanging tough, Sarge!