ORIGINAL: Tactics
It's just that playing a bunch of scenarios just for the sake of playing them is a little tiresome. I enjoyed HttR a lot, and did my share to advertize it to all my friends, but after a few scenarios, it seems there's just no point ...
I agree with that.
It there is no grand camp and no replacements - What is new, besides bridges?
When HTTR was first out and COTA was being worked on there was some pretty serious talk about letting us download the features of new release and apply them to the older games.
In other words play HTTR with the supply features of COTA.
There are many new things under the hood that may be unseen in the way of improvements to the AI.
There are several new things visible to the gamer in the form of extended control over orders implementation with regard to basing, stragglers, allowing units with defend orders to attack on their own initiative, allowing units with move orders to bypass enemy units rather than stopping to engage and the ability to set up ambushes by having units hold fire until the enemy is at optimal close range for the units weapon type.
Minefields and engineering capabilities have been added/expanded.
Most of all what is new are the scenarios themselves and the conflict/campaign they cover, one that has obvious broad appeal.
While I can fully appreciate the desire for linked scenarios to form an overall campaign, I feel it is a bit extreme and unfair to say "besides "this" what else is new?".
As a beta tester I have pushed as hard as I can, this very week in fact, for arranging the OOBs, maps and objectives of the stand alone scenarios so that they can be played in a sequence that gives a feel for the larger campaign within the limits of the overall design decision to not have them linked.
I also salivate over the idea of playing the entire battle in one big scenario, although that may be wishful thinking more so from the satnd point of a players ability, or inability, to manage such a large scenario in realtime than it is as a result of the present physical limitation of computer processing power.
At present, I'm just a beta tester providing feedback and the ocassional bit of historical research to aid the data design teams. I have no experience with scenario design and have no idea how much work would be involved in linking one to another. I do know that the production process has slowed with Arjuna's full time work committment. At the present rate I believe he hopes to have the game released around year's end. Redesigning the present scenarios to link them into a campaign could well add another half year to that process.
Frankly, I'm finding the stand alone scenarios I have tested to be engrossing, immersive, challenging and loads of fun to play......what else can we ask for....well, obviously, we can ask for a full campaign of linked scenarios.........but we may just be asking for too much at this point in time......
Personally, I'm ready, willing and able to accept the game in it's present form (bug fixes not withstanding), but then I am obviously biased as I have made a committment to the game engine and subsequent releases by becoming a beta tester.
[/center]
