 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / PC Games / War Games / July 2008World War II - Road to Victory - released
Hi, Must be the shortest time ever between announcement and release for a Matrix game :) Anyway, from the blurb : "David Heath, Director of Operations at Matrix Games, said “This debut release from new developer IQ Software delivers great gameplay and historical depth in a classic hex-based and turn-based grand strategy format. World War II: Road to Victory beautifully combines highly replayable game mechanics with ease of use to make a great wargame for beginners and advanced players alike.” World War II: Road to Victory, the first release from IQ Software, puts the player at the helm of his choice of one or more Axis or Allied nations, including minor nations, amidst a continent torn by full scale war. Combat, production, research and diplomacy are all fully modeled. A diplomacy system based on political points allows you to sway possible allies to your side. Naval combat includes fleet engagements, elusive raiders and U-Boats as well as a convoy system. Concentrate precious industrial resources on building, training and upgrading a wide variety of combat units from airborne soldiers and armored divisions up to nuclear weapons! Historical leaders enhance the performance of your armies and historical events give you choices that can change the course of history. World War II: Road to Victory is fought across turns that vary in length by season and 25 km hexes with divisions and corps, giving the player a broad strategic picture of the war while still leaving enough room for operational decisions. Features include: 1939, 1940 and 1941 start date scenarios with unique strategic considerations and challenges Simple and intuitive user interface with engrossing historical gameplay Play as any one nation or multiple nations at once to experience the war from a unique perspective An innovative naval combat model and realistic supply convoy attack system A simple yet immersive political point system for diplomatic relations – alienate enemies and solidify ties with allies A healthy variety of combat units to command from armoured and airborne forces to strategic bombers and battleships – even nukes! Historical events including player choices that can guide and shape the course of the war - More info : http://www.matrixgames.com/products/361/details/World.War.II.-.Road.to.Victory Greetz, Eddy Sterckx > Hi, > > Must be the shortest time ever between announcement and release for a > Matrix game :) > More info : > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Eddy Sterckx The lack of multiplayer options (pbem, tcp/ip) is going to hurt sales I would think. You could probably do a pbem work-around though like what is done for the old "Clash of Steel". You just won't get to see your opponents moves. At any rate, I'm going to read through the few posts that are their forum for it now to see if a couple of questions that I raised on the wargamer.com forum are answered (stacking, multi-hex attacks, zones of control, other flat-land board wargaming basics). > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - This got released yesterday, but on looking at it, the game looks awfully plain. Given that one will be staring at the map for a number of hours, I think having nice looking maps is a must. Feature list looks good though, so I might have another look on Matrix's website. RobP > This got released yesterday, but on looking at it, the game looks awfully > plain. Given that one will be staring at the map for a number of hours, I > think having nice looking maps is a must. Feature list looks good though, so > I might have another look on Matrix's website. > > RobP LOL, look at post #5 here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1872518 Modding the map would be the very first thing that I did.... ;) > Modding the map would be the very first thing that I did.... ;) If *you* mod the map, I'll buy the game :) Greetz, Eddy Sterckx On 25 jul, 09:06, GJK <j...@garykrockover.com> wrote: > Modding the map would be the very first thing that I did.... ;) If *you* mod the map, I'll buy the game :) Greetz, Eddy Sterckx ------- LOL, probably me too. You have a fan base. <g> There's meant to be an "innovative naval combat model and realistic supply convoy attack system" too, but the game doesn't seem to have Malta, so can someone say what the innovation is? Also, is Bitter Glory the same game or a different one? Still, it's a Polish wargame, and they don't come along too often. (And there are swastikas, shhhh). Regards, Mike Kreuzer www.mikekreuzer.com > Also, is Bitter Glory the same game or a different one? URL of where you're looking ? I saw an ad for it which had the USMC flag raising on Iwo Jima scene which last time I checked was not in the ETO. Greetz, Eddy Sterckx >> Also, is Bitter Glory the same game or a different one? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Eddy Sterckx I just follow the links man! Game looks global, 1933-50, much prettier DEM map than Road to Victory, but I still can't tell if Bitter Glory became Road to Victory, or if it's a different unfinished (?) game. A tinyurl to the screens: http://tinyurl.com/5koc2b The main site: http://bitterglory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=43 The screenshot of the Swedish Santa units fighting the Finnish Reindeer units (no, I'm not making this up) suggest it's either quite unfinished, or the developers are kinda insane (or both). The dev blog ditto ... I suspect a lot of the actual information is lurking under headings like Dlaczego nie moge sie zalogowac? and I'm none the wiser. Regards, Mike Kreuzer www.mikekreuzer.com > but > I still can't tell if Bitter Glory became Road to Victory, or if it's a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The main site:http://bitterglory.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&I... It looks like a follow-up game they're working on - quite ambitious & looking good I must say. Greetz, Eddy Sterckx On Jul 25, 2:27 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Modding the map would be the very first thing that I did.... ;) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Eddy Sterckx Well, based off the alpha-demo, it uses "tiles" (like what TOAW does) which makes making a descent map mod all that much harder. Why tile it when the map never changes I don't understand (memory allocation, or whatever I guess). Guns of August used a single image for the map and that made modding it a joy - within the constraints of where the coastlines, cities, etc were, I pretty much could make the map look how I wanted. With tiles, it's the same few squares of images tiled over and over again. TOAW at least used numerous images composed of a set of tiles (forest tiles, marsh tiles, etc) so you at least had some play with the look of the maps and thus it didn't seem so repetitive and so I was able to make a semi-descent mod for it but not sure I can pull it off with this game, honestly. Still though, if I decide to make the purchase (and the developer will have to promise to add pbem support at the least) then I'll do what I can to mod the map, no doubt. > LOL, look at post #5 here: > > http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1872518 > > Modding the map would be the very first thing that I did.... ;) Would be cool if you could apply your magic to it. I guess they went tile based to ensure that each square of the map only had the terrain types that could be handled by the underlying engine. That way you click on a tile and the game can identify the tile type and access the relevant logic. For non-tiled games you generally need some kind of internal memory structure like a 2d array to store what type of terrain is where. RobP > > LOL, look at post #5 here: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > RobP Ahhhhh, makes sense. I guess it would depend on the size of the map then as to what kind of performance hit you'd take if you did an array of x,y coordinate storing terrain values. The tile sheet for this new game is very tiny as well, so it won't get too much detail but I tinkered some more last night and have a 'better' look, but it's never going to be a graphical stunner. > > > LOL, look at post #5 here: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ahhhhh, makes sense. Not to me - you need an underlying memory structure for the map anyway irrelevant of how many different tiles you have to display a "wood" hex. >I guess it would depend on the size of the map > then as to what kind of performance hit you'd take if you did an array > of x,y coordinate storing terrain values. eh, none whatsoever - doesn't take any memory worth mentioning and doesn't take any processing power either. Greetz, Eddy Sterckx > Not to me - you need an underlying memory structure for the map anyway > irrelevant of how many different tiles you have to display a "wood" > hex. True, but tiles force what can be in any particular location. This makes it easy to write rules for what happens on a particular tile. Without tiles, the artists get free reign and it can be a little harder to code stuff supporting a non tiled environment. The current wargame I'm working on is completely vector based and allows smooth zooming, rotation and translation. Unfortunately I had to pay a price for this in terms of creating the underlying structures to support the map (as well as the added complexity of direct-3d). If I had used tiles, it would have been almost trivial to write the code for the terrain engine. RobP Sparse map indeed. oh well..surprise. I bought it..digi dl :) Hi, Must be the shortest time ever between announcement and release for a Matrix game :) Anyway, from the blurb : "David Heath, Director of Operations at Matrix Games, said “This debut release from new developer IQ Software delivers great gameplay and historical depth in a classic hex-based and turn-based grand strategy format. World War II: Road to Victory beautifully combines highly replayable game mechanics with ease of use to make a great wargame for beginners and advanced players alike.” World War II: Road to Victory, the first release from IQ Software, puts the player at the helm of his choice of one or more Axis or Allied nations, including minor nations, amidst a continent torn by full scale war. Combat, production, research and diplomacy are all fully modeled. A diplomacy system based on political points allows you to sway possible allies to your side. Naval combat includes fleet engagements, elusive raiders and U-Boats as well as a convoy system. Concentrate precious industrial resources on building, training and upgrading a wide variety of combat units from airborne soldiers and armored divisions up to nuclear weapons! Historical leaders enhance the performance of your armies and historical events give you choices that can change the course of history. World War II: Road to Victory is fought across turns that vary in length by season and 25 km hexes with divisions and corps, giving the player a broad strategic picture of the war while still leaving enough room for operational decisions. Features include: 1939, 1940 and 1941 start date scenarios with unique strategic considerations and challenges Simple and intuitive user interface with engrossing historical gameplay Play as any one nation or multiple nations at once to experience the war from a unique perspective An innovative naval combat model and realistic supply convoy attack system A simple yet immersive political point system for diplomatic relations – alienate enemies and solidify ties with allies A healthy variety of combat units to command from armoured and airborne forces to strategic bombers and battleships – even nukes! Historical events including player choices that can guide and shape the course of the war - More info : http://www.matrixgames.com/products/361/details/World.War.II.-.Road.to.Victory Greetz, Eddy Sterckx lol. well with the sparse map I can tell you it installed fast:) > Sparse map indeed. > oh well..surprise. I bought it..digi dl :) [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Eddy Sterckx > lol. well with the sparse map I can tell you it installed fast:) Give us your review after you've had the time to play around with it. FWIU, it's very comparable to Clash of Steel, but at a smaller scale. Well if the AI holds up I think I'm gonna rather like it. I'm always looking for a strategic WW2 anyway:) A couple turns in Poland not so good. A high strength panzer was taking high losses. So a glance as the manual mentions multiple attacks. oops:) However if you're too impatient you will FUBAR (pay attention Eddy:) Single attk you move up to the unit and click on the enemy unit. Boom (I do like the booms:) But..if you multiple attk you must move all your units up to the enemy unit and make sure you deselect the last one moved or you will make a single attk. fubar because the next step is to click on the nme unit and then click on your units you want to attk with and you'll see a red arrow. Then click the enemy unit again to execute him.:) If you have MPs (or action points) left you can move and attk again but I don't think those units can join in multiple attks again..which makes sense. After that doing that I took Warsaw and got a message for 50 political points for taking it in good order..not sure if those are extra. Another interesting feature is your allies move in succession which eliminates for example combined italian/german multiple attks. This might require some thought..especially US/England. The resolution seems low even tho my desktop is 1900x1200. It appears 600x800ish. (don't see any options to raise it). Its ok but if you zoom out one level you can't quite read the unit numbers. I of course use the nato counters and they are nice enough. The map of course scrolls flawlessly. The map is fine. No more sparse than any of the old boardgames. All in all I'm looking forward to it assuming the AI isn't a rout. I picked up Steel Beasts Pro so not sure when I'll get back to it. (prlly sooner than later). That game was direct for a whopping $125. Its the same the military uses and is not retailed or advertised to the masses hence the $125. But its very immersive and gives a great feel to modern..much like silent hunter gives a nice 1940ish immersion. On Jul 25, 1:11 pm, "HR" <H...@horizon.net> wrote: > lol. well with the sparse map I can tell you it installed fast:) Give us your review after you've had the time to play around with it. FWIU, it's very comparable to Clash of Steel, but at a smaller scale. > Well if the AI holds up I think I'm gonna rather like it. I'm always looking > for a strategic WW2 anyway:) [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > $125. But its very immersive and gives a great feel to modern..much like > silent hunter gives a nice 1940ish immersion. Jim Burns gives a some good insight in his "wishlist", post #9 of this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1873203 Seems he found the "one click accidental attack" a PITA as well. I read in another thread that Malta isn't even on the map which has got to be corrected, and with the .csv files, it's easy enough to add it however since there is no stacking, how do you have Malta represent the air/ground and naval fortress that it was? Why these recent batch of ETO games have no stacking is beyond me. I'm also not convinced that I like the "buy and deploy it immediately" 'feature'. I understand the notion that it can take a while to build up your PP's (BRP's or whatever they're called in this game) and that could represent the time that it takes to build the shiny new aircraft carrier that you just bought and immediately deployed (in that one or two week turn) - but it still seems kinda hokey that it depends on what resources have been taken as to whether you can build something, and then once you can build it, you get to drive it off the lot right away. I'd much prefer a production schedule that is at least somewhat historically based. I think overall though, that it may be a good replacement for Clash of Steel; once they add pbem support. >I read in another thread that Malta isn't even on the map which has >got to be corrected, and with the .csv files, it's easy enough to add >it however since there is no stacking, how do you have Malta represent >the air/ground and naval fortress that it was? Why these recent batch >of ETO games have no stacking is beyond me. Mallta if you count the tiny island NW of the big island is about 20 miles long and 10 miles wide or so. Given that the game hexes are 12.5 miles, I see no problem making a 2 hex island. One hex would have a port that an inf unit could defend and the other hex (I'd make it hills for the defensive bonus) could have an air unit. Air units defend themselves as week land units if attacked, so it gives its hex some ability to repel an invasion. Jim Jim Burns gives a some good insight in his "wishlist", post #9 of this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1873203 Seems he found the "one click accidental attack" a PITA as well. I read in another thread that Malta isn't even on the map which has got to be corrected, and with the .csv files, it's easy enough to add it however since there is no stacking, how do you have Malta represent the air/ground and naval fortress that it was? Why these recent batch of ETO games have no stacking is beyond me. I'm also not convinced that I like the "buy and deploy it immediately" 'feature'. I understand the notion that it can take a while to build up your PP's (BRP's or whatever they're called in this game) and that could represent the time that it takes to build the shiny new aircraft carrier that you just bought and immediately deployed (in that one or two week turn) - but it still seems kinda hokey that it depends on what resources have been taken as to whether you can build something, and then once you can build it, you get to drive it off the lot right away. I'd much prefer a production schedule that is at least somewhat historically based. I think overall though, that it may be a good replacement for Clash of Steel; once they add pbem support. Heh..whadda know, no malta. wierd. Haven't read all the manula but.. Denmark to copenhagen. Nothing to cross. dont know how to take it but I assume the manual will tell me. Can't tell whats produced and when. Tedious turn from poland to west germany. Few strategic redeploy pts and long way to walk. 2 week-4 week turns though. read all the manual. No land crossing to copenhagen so Denmark remains. They didn't have to invade did they? > read all the manual. > > No land crossing to copenhagen so Denmark remains. They didn't have to > invade did they? Sounds like he's copying the "Clash of Steel" model *too* closely. In COS, you could only move into Denmark if you declare war on Norway (don't ask me why) and then after that there was no real reason to even move in there as there was no ports or cities. >Sounds like he's copying the "Clash of Steel" model *too* closely. In >COS, you could only move into Denmark if you declare war on Norway >(don't ask me why) and then after that there was no real reason to >even move in there as there was no ports or cities. You can't invade Norway until Denmark falls since no naval moves from the Baltic to the North Sea are allowed until you own Copenhagen. You'll need every German ship you have in the north sea if you want to try and invade Norway. Save up for a Para Division right away, and you can simply drop on the Danish capital as there are no units present. I'd also recommend not trying an amphibious invasion of Norway like I did. Half the British and French navies reacted to my landings and wiped out my fleet to a ship. Instead use all three air armies based on the tip of Denmark to pound Oslo's unit into oblivion. Then para drop on the hex (range 20 is max drop) and you take Norway the next turn. Jim I still like it but its getting lamer. Rebase air has 40 hex range but I have to count them..doesn't give where they can move to. Rebased German air to sicily for the next hop to Africa. uh..can't go anywhere now..need 9 supply pts (no where is that mentioned) to rebase and you draw from nearest city which the one on Sicily only has 2 supply. Its stuck. Only way to move it is disband it and I got nothing for it. If there is no counter limit on second thought I should have just left it there. Ger 10-9 armor is now a 2-9 near alexander because supply line length from nearest city (Tobruk in this case) subtracts the combat number. Why bother sending a 10-9. Denmark is a joke but whatever. Even the panzers going into Yugo are low strength due to length in hexes from nearest suppy city. That's going to be a problem everywhere because HQ makes no difference. > I still like it but its getting lamer. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > from nearest suppy city. That's going to be a problem everywhere because HQ > makes no difference. Dissapointing information HR. Did you post this over on the Matrix forums? I'd like to hear what the dev has to say about it. I know that many of the parameters of the game can be changed with the easy to modify .csv files, maybe that's something that can be adjusted easily. Still, HQ's should be supply sources for units within range as it is in every other ETO game. > Rebase air has 40 hex range but I have to count them..doesn't give where > they can move to. Rebased German air to sicily for the next hop to Africa. > uh..can't go anywhere now..need 9 supply pts (no where is that mentioned) to > rebase and you draw from nearest city which the one on Sicily only has 2 > supply. You should be able to create a supply convoy to Sicily to bring more supplies. Did you try that? But if the city is at full supply limits it wont take more supply. I'll try. Dont post much on matrix forums. >> Rebase air has 40 hex range but I have to count them..doesn't give where >> they can move to. Rebased German air to sicily for the next hop to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You should be able to create a supply convoy to Sicily to bring more > supplies. Did you try that? >I still like it but its getting lamer. I really like the potential of this game, but as time goes on I think it was released WAY too soon. I'm not even sure it rates alpha status at this point. The fact you cannot even get US air groups to Europe (too far to rebase and air groups can't load onto ships) shows there was absolutely zero play testing done. Matrix's normally high level of quality control took a vacation or something on this one. There is a lot of potential here, but there is a lot wrong with the game right now. It remains to be seen how dedicated this new developer is to finishing his game. Currently I remain optimistic. Jim > >I still like it but its getting lamer. > > > I really like the potential of this game, but as time goes on I think it was > released WAY too soon. I'm not even sure it rates alpha status at this > point. Really. Crikey. Ouch. I'd be interested to hear a full review. I'm on the fence WRT this title.  SignatureGiftzwerg *** "It's easy now to pretend that the surge and its success was inevitable. It wasn't. President Bush had to implement it against stiff political headwinds, made all the stiffer by the likes of Barack Obama. If Obama had had his way, we would have lost in Iraq." - National Review > Really. Crikey. Ouch. I'd be interested to hear a full review. I'm > on the fence WRT this title. OK, I guess alpha is a bit too harsh, the game engine isn't alpha, but the scenarios definitely are. I've only had one crash to desktop in the several days that I've owned it, and I've not seen that repeated yet. So I guess the engine rates a stable rating. The scenario's however, are basically unplayable as things stand right now. I've covered several problems in my recent postings on the Matrix site, so there is no sense repeating them here. Suffice it to say, you can't help but too see the problems if you play the game. So it's safe to assume no one play tested it. I mean common, no US planes show up in Europe for the entire game because they are trapped in the US and no one happened to mention it during play testing? I don't think so. Also the fact it's impossible to get more than one axis minor to join by the end of 1941 because there are no political events bringing them into the axis, also just happened to go without mention in the mythical play test? Again I don't think so. The list of obvious major problems (I killed almost the entire Russian army by Nov 41) continued to grow as I played the game. At this point I no longer bother playing though, the current problems are simply too great. All that being said, I really like how the game plays (except for the one click attacks, those HAVE to go). It just needs a decent WWII scenario to play that actually represents WWII and works with accurate diplomatic events, narrow straights land crossings, etc. etc. The only thing I wish the engine did that it currently doesn't do, is allow land based air to have a say in the naval zone battles. Currently you could base 50 air armies along the Mediterranean coast and not affect the naval game in the Med. one iota. Other than that I like how things work. The multi-hex attacks and combined arms effectiveness of the combat routines are very enjoyable and *feel* right for the era being simulated. Tech's should perhaps be a bit more expensive, but again that's a scenario design issue. Jim > Also the fact it's impossible to get more than > one axis minor to join by the end of 1941 because there are no political > events bringing them into the axis This should be possible, from what I recall. Did you use your DPs on anything else? We did rely too heavily on external testing for this one. However, on the good news side the developer is very responsive and heavily involved in fixing any reported bugs and balance issues. The base game itself is also quite good, so these really are fixable scenario/ event issues by and large. The v1.20 change list I've seen already addresses all of Jim's complaints and I'll personally test it before it goes out. Regards, - Erik That should do the trick. I'll put it on hold for now since no air from USA is a no no :) Good to hear. > We did rely too heavily on external testing for this one. However, on > the good news side the developer is very responsive and heavily [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Erik >> Also the fact it's impossible to get more than >> one axis minor to join by the end of 1941 because there are no political >> events bringing them into the axis > > This should be possible, from what I recall. Did you use your DPs on > anything else? By Nov 41 I had only managed to get Hungary into the fight. Rumania was perhaps one or two DP tries away. Bulgaria and Finland... forget it. And had the allies made any attempts whatsoever to block my DP attempts, even Hungary wouldn't have gotten into the game. To put it another way, were I playing any allied country, I could have prevented Germany from ever gaining a minor, simply by blocking his DP spending with my own. There needs to be historic political events that bring in the historic allies before Barbarossa, currently it's impossible to achieve even close to historic results with those 4 minors. Also Russia needs to take Bessarabia (doesn't do it currently) form Rumania. The current DP system should be used to fight over minors like Turkey, Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, etc. But the problem is the AI doesn't try and block axis DP moves, which it should be doing. So I guess until the AI learns to oppose axis moves, the current DP system should be disabled in favor of political events. Also, why no ports in Morocco/Algeria? Without a port to send supply convoys to in Western Africa, conducting an Operation Torch is impossible. Jim > By Nov 41 I had only managed to get Hungary into the fight. Rumania was > perhaps one or two DP tries away. Bulgaria and Finland... forget it. And had > the allies made any attempts whatsoever to block my DP attempts, even > Hungary wouldn't have gotten into the game. To put it another way, were I > playing any allied country, I could have prevented Germany from ever gaining > a minor, simply by blocking his DP spending with my own. Odd, I recall doing this in a pre-release version without any events to help. I'll try it again, perhaps something changed. In any case, I'm bringing all these comments to the developer's attention. He confirmed for me that Germany's DPs were calculated to allow this and should normally only be insufficient if used on other countries, but perhaps we're missing something. It'll be re-checked. > The current DP system should be used to fight over minors like Turkey, > Spain, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, etc. But the problem is the AI doesn't try > and block axis DP moves, which it should be doing. So I guess until the AI > learns to oppose axis moves, the current DP system should be disabled in > favor of political events. No, the DPs are really for everything, but I agree that if they're not sufficient to re-create history then they need to be adjusted. Regards, - Erik >> By Nov 41 I had only managed to get Hungary into the fight. Rumania was >> perhaps one or two DP tries away. Bulgaria and Finland... forget it. And [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > - Erik I think the screenshots on the matrix site needs to include one or two with the nato style counters. The game looks *much* better with these, in addition a Screenie with the map zoomed out to give an immediate impression of scale. I'm now on the fence with this one. A few things are putting me off though. One is the screen resolution looks limited, which incidentally is the same reason that puts me off playing Commander War at Europe, even though I have bought it. And roads/Railroads. Not sure of the mechanics, but these should have a function at this scale, especially the latter for strategic troop movements. I'm going to be keeping an eye on the Matrix forums on this one to see how it pans out. Btw Erik any news on on Flashpoints sequel? I enjoyed the first game and looking forward to its sequels release.... RobP > I'm going to be keeping an eye on the Matrix forums on this one to see how > it pans out. To counter those who say I've got it in for DRM and companies employing it, here's one for you DRM loving guys - to show that I also care about your needs. Get the game a full Euro cheaper than at Matrix !! http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DD-WW2RTV That's the full game, a full Euro cheaper, and you even get ByteShield's Dynamic Licence at no additional cost !! http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=18495 This ends this public announcement. Greetz, Eddy Sterckx "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Really. Crikey. Ouch. I'd be interested to hear a full review. I'm > on the fence WRT this title. > Giftzwerg James pretty much nailed it. Also when you buy stuff you can deploy them that turn. No que. Why preplan. Other than get them to the front. >>I still like it but its getting lamer. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Jim Yikes no US air to England. How in the world can one miss that. I agree with ...lots of potential and I do like the looks as simple as they are and the scale but way too many missing things that kinda bring it to a halt. > >>I still like it but its getting lamer. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > are and the scale but way too many missing things that kinda bring it to a > halt. I think the good news for this game is that it appears that each of the scenarios are all controlled by simple to edit .csv (well, they will be simple when the first patch comes out that translates the headers from Polish to English), so eventually (hopefully) some good user-made scenarios will come out. I'm with James in that I'd like to see a more historical OOB. So, if they fix the "one-click to atack" issue and (fingers crossed) add pbem, then the engine behind the game will be quite solid and then as the scenario fixes come out we should have a nicely updated "Clash of Steel" that is broader in scale. > Matrix's normally high level of quality control took a > vacation or something on this one. It looks like they rushed it. No call for betas was ever made, but weirdly enough time and effort was put in to make what everyone agrees is a fine manual. I put it all down to the move to Colorado throwing some monkey wrenches into the normally well-oiled machinery. I'm on the fence at the moment, but have little doubt I'll jump in once these things get ironed out - given that the devs seem very active and responsive in the forum I've got a good feeling about this one. Greetz, Eddy Sterckx On Jul 29, 2:22 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Matrix's normally high level of quality control took a > > vacation or something on this one. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Eddy Sterckx Actually, and Mr. Rutkins can correct me, but FWIU, somebody at Matrix saw this (alpha-demo perhaps) and decided to pick it up and publish it. I would gather that they put together the manual, but the rest of the game, code, etc was left "as-is" so in all, Matrix is publishing it but really had no hand in the coding of it. What playtesting was done by the original designer is up for debate but no doubt it wasn't tested to the extremes that a Matrix title would usually be tested before release. By the way - started tinkering with some map mods as it's well known that I enjoy modding games more than actually playing them..... :) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1876768 GJK > By the way - started tinkering with some map mods as it's well known > that I enjoy modding games more than actually playing them..... :) > > http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1876768 No doubt you just spotted me in the mod forum scrutinizing your work :) I was just about to post the link with a comment going along the lines of "our mod junky is at it again" :) Greetz, Eddy Sterckx "GJK" <junk@garykrockover.com> wrote in message news:65ab732b- By the way - started tinkering with some map mods as it's well known that I enjoy modding games more than actually playing them..... :) http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1876768 GJK I love it! You're good at it:) > "GJK" <junk@garykrockover.com> wrote in message news:65ab732b- > By the way - started tinkering with some map mods as it's well known [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I love it! You're good at it:) Infact I love the units. I always like the lighter shade rather than the stark stand out ones. Good job!!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.