IGN Review

[z1812]

Hi All,

It would be nice to get past the comparisions to CM. CMx1 games are great and I play them all. PCK is also great and I play that too. The best of both worlds.....

regards John

[PDiFolco]

Now we're in for some CM-bashing, that's rather funnily ridiculous ... Well I'm no CM fanboi either, just trying to tell what I like or dislike in each : CM has feeble strat AI, no campaigns, and yes soldiers model are awful, if they'd just redone them instead of that CMSF thing !

Erik, you're correct, there's no blocky models in PzC. But some textures - above all buildings ones - are really lacking. I could post a comparison with CMBB buildings and tanks textures, they're mostly better than or equal to PzC, and are 6 years older. Really, recently I played both games, and don't find CM graphics that much bad, they're less realistic looking than PzC sure, but I eventually find more immersion with them and CM sounds, than with PzC overall...

Platoon orders are another beast : sometimes, it makes sense to give platoon orders, and the game works fine - for armor it's mostly ok. But deploying/fighting with infantry doesn't work well, they should'nt advance in line abreast and miss the covered spot I want them to go, calling a squad to help another shouldn't need that mess of orders, depending if it's the leader that must move or the contrary, and why is the 1st squad the platoon leader, instead of a small command unit à la CM ? So the system is as much debatable than squad level orders, and not one is more "realistic", in reality it depended mostly of training and doctrine, some units could have squad or even team level orders (Finnish), other up to company level (early Russians) !

I really didn't want to bash PzC, sorry if it seemed so to some, but oppose to the review bashing (not from you) that developed, with lame arguments pointed at the reviewer rather than the review. That a mainstream game site give 3.5/5 to a rather groggy wargame seems rather good to me, and the critics are valid. If the guy did had only CoH in mind he wouldn't even have bothered to review the game !

"Getting past comparisons" would be easier if the games weren't that comparable, and if compar isons were not telling ! Why do ppl keep comparing CM or PzCK to ASL ? [:'(]

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

"Getting past comparisons" would be easier if the games weren't that comparable, and if compar isons were not telling ! Why do ppl keep comparing CM or PzCK to ASL ? [:'(]

CM came about because Avalon Hill hired Moylan to program Computer Squad Leader. Moylan broke from AH late in the process, perhaps because he envisioned something more than a computer representation of the board game which is really what AH wanted.

Anyway, CM, PCK and ASL are all squad-based with individual AFVs. Many concepts and models would apply to all three.

[Joram]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

.... Really, recently I played both games, and don't find CM graphics that much bad, they're less realistic looking than PzC sure, but I eventually find more immersion with them and CM sounds, than with PzC overall...

That's my main complaint too though regardless of CM. The sense of immersion in PzC isn't there for me.

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: Joram

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

.... Really, recently I played both games, and don't find CM graphics that much bad, they're less realistic looking than PzC sure, but I eventually find more immersion with them and CM sounds, than with PzC overall...

That's my main complaint too though regardless of CM. The sense of immersion in PzC isn't there for me.

What type of immersion are you looking for anyway?

Back to ASL:
For me, ASL give the most immersion of all because you exactly know the situation of each squad, the odds of success and failure, etc. Therefore you get a feeling of what your little squad chits are feeling. Computer games have less immersion because all the calculation and combat resolution is automated.

And immersion is not about the graphics. The more graphical the game is, the less you use your brain to imagine... The more symbolic the game is, the more you imagine and the more you get immersed.

That's my definition immersion... Call me a geek. And boardgaming is on a revival with companies like GMT, Lock and Load, MMP, etc providing the goods.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

It's astounding that some people coming from CM feel that concentrated terrain and tiled maps are *more* realistic and exciting than PCK's authentically scaled historical maps. Sometimes folks should just stop and think about what it is they're doing and what makes a simulation, any simulation, worthwhile.

What is unhistorical about the maps I made for CM?

They come straight off of Mapquest and Google Earth. When there were tactical battle maps those were used as well.

What we need to stop and realize is that the two games systems are very different in their own rights.

If all CM had was the smaller maps then it would be much easier to compare them. CM's maps are just as historically accurate as the designer makes them, which IMO, is exactly the same situation with PC maps. When an editor for PC and larger maps become available then the differences may be easier to compare at the moment they aren't very much alike.

Historical accuracy in either case is in the hands of the map designers not the game system....at least that's the way I see it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Joram]

Hey, I knew a Mad Russian once.  From TFC.  You're not him are ya?   :)
 
But anyway, you bring a good point.  I think though the scale of the PCK feels more natural than in CM but to your point, it tends to be because of scenario design.

[Capitaine]

@Mad Russian: I've never seen your maps; I only played CMBO and became disenchanted with the whole CM business.  However, if you look at thewood's CMBB vs. PCK scenario, you can see how contrived a CM map is.  Everything is a right angles: fields, roads, buildings... they all face the same way or at best must be at a 45* angle (roads).  The tiled nature of CM maps makes them inherently inferior to PCK.  I'll admit that scenario designers like you can create nonconcentrated terrain maps for CM, but you're still limited by the artificial orientation of everything.  Not only are PCK's maps more 1:1, but they are created pretty much "freehand" and have a much more natural look.  The price is that it's more difficult at present to create a PCK map.  But to me the reward is worth it. YMMV.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

@Mad Russian: I've never seen your maps; I only played CMBO and became disenchanted with the whole CM business.  However, if you look at thewood's CMBB vs. PCK scenario, you can see how contrived a CM map is.  Everything is a right angles: fields, roads, buildings... they all face the same way or at best must be at a 45* angle (roads).  The tiled nature of CM maps makes them inherently inferior to PCK.  I'll admit that scenario designers like you can create nonconcentrated terrain maps for CM, but you're still limited by the artificial orientation of everything.  Not only are PCK's maps more 1:1, but they are created pretty much "freehand" and have a much more natural look.  The price is that it's more difficult at present to create a PCK map.  But to me the reward is worth it. YMMV.

I heartily disagree [:'(]
What's the cost ? Drawing 3D maps in MS3D or such instead of a map editor, so like 300% more work
What's the reward ? Sure it looks better, but in game terms, tiles or not, roads at 45° or 37°, make *no* difference, as can be seen by the same comparative AAR.
So sure it's visually inferior and less realistic looking, but with the advantage of easy editing/creation, I don't see any "inherently superior" solution here.

[Capitaine]

That's why I said YMMV.

[thewood1]

I have to agree with PiD here.  I saw no difference in results from the two different maps.  In fact, the PCK map had an error that would have been significant in unit placement if I hadn't caught it by chance.  But I couldn't change it.  In reality, visually, the CMBB map ended up being more graphically accurate because of it.  Regardless of platoon commands, number of units, etc., PCK is a good game.  Most of the differences to CMBB are just about learning a new way to play.  There are some key things that make CMBB a little more enjoyable; map editor, covered arcs, better integration od support weapons, better independent operations of AFVs, split squads, use of buildings, and a few others I can't think of now.  PCK has much more wrapped around it, but IMO, right now, CMBB is the more enjoyable tactical combat engine for the east front.
 
As I have said before, if PCK had come first, CMBB wouldn't have made any impact.  But luckily for us customers, CMBB's legacy will keep Erik and his minions upgrading and improving PCK to the point no one will compare them any more.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
In fact, the PCK map had an error that would have been significant in unit placement if I hadn't caught it by chance.  But I couldn't change it.

I do have to comment on this - I looked over all the maps after your report and as far as I can tell you managed to find the only one with a terrain map/3d mismatch. It also is easily fixed actually, if you've used the Scene Editor or can use a basic paint program. A lot of folks also haven't used the CM editor, so coming from the reverse point of view they may have found it difficult to change anything in CM map-wise.

I'll also say YMMV of course, but I think that while this was a fascinating exercise that did highlight some differences well, drawing too many conclusions from one scenario replay is not a good way to go.

I'm planning to play both scenarios later tonight, I'll report how that goes for me.

Regards,

- Erik

[Vincenzo_Beretta]

ORIGINAL: moss_icon

Mainstream review sites are never going to give an "indie" game a high rating because the publishers haven't paid for any advertising, so the site has nothing to lose. 6.7 is a pretty good score for an obscure, niche game on a mainstream website.

Actually both "mainstream review sites" and magazines can easily give 8-8,5 to TOAW III, AGEOD's American Civil War and Dominions 3 (just to quote games from different companies) WITHOUT having a single page of advertising by them - trust me [;)]

Or, if you don't trust me:
http://gamesradar.futuregamer.it/review ... leid=71484
http://gamesradar.futuregamer.it/review ... pagetype=2

I agree with Erik's earlier comparison with movies. Either a movie is good or it isn't. "Memento" is a great movie done with a shoestring budget; ditto for "Equilibrium". The same happens with games: adventures, wargames and other games now in the "indie" genre deserve to be judged on their merits - which also means not to be "compassionated" by their indie status ("Fortress Europe"... cough...)

Bur I also feel that the same applies to the public. Why should someone be upset by "perceived preconceptions" (by the mainstream press") when he is the first to show preconceptions (*towards* the mainstream press)? Let he without sin cast the first stone [:)]