Any thoughts on Point of Attack 2?

[KG_Norad]

Please see my post in the General wargaming section.
http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?p=49595#post49595

[Deltapooh]

I recall Skyvon telling me about this one a Loooooooooong time ago. Your post still caught me by complete surprise. It looks mouth-watering. However, given the specs and HPS's history, I'm going to wait a bit, upgrade my system. Once some reviews are written, I'll make my final decision.

1.5G-2.5G Processor requirement is extremely heavy :o

[KG_Norad]

Tell me about it chugging along at p3 800...:D
I would agree with your decision to wait it out to see...

Michael

[CPangracs]

We have been beta testing POA here, and we are going to be getting the latest and greatest here in a few days. This looks like a perfect replacement for TACOPS, IMO, and it looks to be a serious hardware-pusher with the larger maps.

However, smaller scenarios run fine on all of our machines here in the shop, and they are 2.1 gHz with 1 gig of ram and crappy 64MB ATI cards, so it should run great on today's higher-end machines.

We will be getting the Air Force version, which has more "extra's" than a teenager has zits!!!

[Black Moria]

Holy Crap! Even some high end first person shooters don't have the CPU requirement this puppy has.

Curt, how are the visuals? What do you like or don't like about it. Could you mini-review it, if you are so inclined.....

[Deltapooh]

The CPU requirements will keep the community very small for some time to come. Based on an update over at Wargamer, it should run on my 1.5G PC. However, I don't believe the wargame community are filled with high-end PC owners. HPS made a big marketing mistake to release such a system, at least right now.

Having said all that, I'm still tempted daily to order the dang thing and push my PC to her limits. CPangracs' post don't help much. (Kind of like dangling a piece of steak in front of a hungry bulldog tied to a tank.) Ghost Recon pushed me to buy a new PC two years ago. POA2 might be the last straw for me now.

[Don Maddox]

I just ordered it. We'll see how this puppy runs on an Alienware! :devil:

[CPangracs]

All that expendable income must be nice! I'm an old retired enlisted guy with a 7 and 5 yo at home,...not much extra $ passes through this home! :)

[amrcg]

We have been beta testing POA here, and we are going to be getting the latest and greatest here in a few days. This looks like a perfect replacement for TACOPS, IMO, and it looks to be a serious hardware-pusher with the larger maps.
...
We will be getting the Air Force version, which has more "extra's" than a teenager has zits!!!

Some questions =):

- Does POA2 support unit hierarchy, missions and formations like ATF?
- Is the weapon and unit detail equivalent to TacOps or ATF?
- Does it include scenario, unit and weapon editors?
- Does it support more elevation levels than TacOps?
- How does the artillery model compare with TacOps?
- Is it real-time or turn based?
- Does it support multiplayer and PBEM?
- Is the interface as simple to learn as TacOps'?
- What are the extras available in the Air Force version?

All the best,
Antonio

[CPangracs]

Some questions =):

- Does POA2 support unit hierarchy, missions and formations like ATF?
- Is the weapon and unit detail equivalent to TacOps or ATF?
- Does it include scenario, unit and weapon editors?
- Does it support more elevation levels than TacOps?
- How does the artillery model compare with TacOps?
- Is it real-time or turn based?
- Does it support multiplayer and PBEM?
- Is the interface as simple to learn as TacOps'?
- What are the extras available in the Air Force version?

All the best,
Antonio
-Yes, but you can't task organize during play (grrrrr!)
-More so
-Yes, yes, and yes
-Yes, although it doesn't use DTED data like ATF, there are many levels of elevation!
-The arty play is more detailed than TacOps
-Real-Time
-PBEM is supported, however there is no mp multiplayer! (grrr again!)
-No, POA2 is MUCH more difficult than TacOps!
-Can't say, as we rec'd the commercial version for testing (grr yet again!)

[Don Maddox]

-Can't say, as we rec'd the commercial version for testing (grr yet again!)Has anyone seen the Air Force version yet?

[Pat Proctor]

This was originally posted on the TacOps list:

My initial good impression of Point of Attack 2 has flown out the window.
I'm sticking with DA and Tacops for the forseeable future until a patch or
"something" happens to POA2. In a word, "clueless" springs to mind. I have
no idea what the background of the developer is, but I strongly doubt it has
anything to do with ground combat. The ad lit all says the game was
developed under USAF contract, and that bias comes through clearly. Some of
my major grievances:

No M60s or ANY 7.62mm infantry machineguns. None.

No LAV25s, despite having "US Marine LAR" units in the database. The LAR
units are equipped with some fictional 6 wheeled beast with a 105mm or
40mm - no 8 wheeled LAV with a 25mm cannon exists in the database.

Hummers have 2 Tow launchers and a 50 cal machine gun, on ONE hummer

No weapons teams for infantry - a unit can only have one weapon "system", so
you can have multiple individuals with a SAW in one counter, but you can't
have a fire team (SAW, Grenadier, Rifleman, AGunner) because that is four
weapon "systems". To accomplish this you have to edit the database, which I
have not tried. The database ships with either individuals (1 guy with a
javelin, 1 guy with a SAW, etc...) or with predefined "squads" which can
then be viewed as a "multipart" unit, which I find totally confusing. Say
you have 13 guys with various weapons, if the "compress multipart" option is
selected, you will get one marker showing a rifleman, but the other 12 guys
(and their weapons) are hidden...but supposedly still exist for purposes of
fire resolution and damage.

Passengers - Markers never get hidden - if you have 13 individuals and you
load them on a LVTP, the map shows all 13 guys PLUS the LVTP, and there is
no way to tell the system which icon you want on top of the stack...so the
vehicles are buried under a stack of dozens of infantry.

Scenario creation - Despite what the manual and website says, you can't edit
a scenario, you can only create one from scratch. From what I can tell
there is no way to code/script AI behavior nor create any event system...but
I honestly have not pursued this too far. I get frequent C++ errors when
working with the scenario creation parts of the program.

Stability. I have had 8 "C++ Exception" error boxes and 3 crashes since
last Friday...not too encouraging. Per the website, the game was released
bug free after use by the military...the message board indicates the C++
errors are frequent and commonplace across the user base.

The Major and Capt Proctor (for ATF) have spoiled me as well with their
direct involvement on message boards - there has been no response by the
developer yet on the board for POA2, despite numerous posts about
fundamental game / interface issues from me and others.


I'm sure somebody will love POA2, but its not for me. The emphasis is
clearly not on ground combat. Issuing orders to each squad member (!)
individually in a TF-sized battle is, to me, just stupid. The fact that I
have to EDIT the shipped database to accomplish something as fundamental as
fire teams and weapons teams screams "clueless" in my opinion.

Of course, I am curious to read other Tacops players' opinions of POA2.
Perhaps I am having an extremely bad week and venting on this game...?

Take this for what it is worth. The guy who wrote it is not a big fan of ATF, either (specifically because the user interface is not "unit centric" but "order centric", which is true).

[Don Maddox]

Okay, I found that opinion interesting. It gave me several things to look into as I'm evaluating POA-2 that I might not have otherwise thought of. One point that the author of that post makes is that the developer of POA-2 is "clueless" when it comes to basic information about the US Army. I'm certainly not trying to speak for HPS, but in all fairness Scott Hamilton was an active duty officer in the Army. Does that automaticially make him an expert on everything? No, it doesn't. Having said that, Scott's work on Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the Mist is well known. I think it's fair to criticize portions of the game that one finds lacking, but some people resort to personal attacks.

At any rate, I'm glad you posted that here CPT. It gave me food for thought.

One point that I do agree with is that Captain Proctor has spoiled us with his direct involvement on these forums. A lot of the larger companies could learn something from his example. A lot of good ideas have been raised and a lot of bugs have been worked out on these forums. The developer's input is greatly appreciated and I know all the gamers feel the same way.

[Pat Proctor]

Don,

I appreciate the praise.

I agree with your assessment of Scott Hamilton. I didn't know he was once an Army officer though. What branch was he?

I haven't had a chance to play PAO2 (my one criticism of HPS, no playable demos) so I don't know the veracity of any of the criticisms in that post. But I think that the author may have crossed the line a little bit on the database comments. When dealing with a body of information that large, it is easy for things to slip past. The only fair criticism of a wargames database is, "the problem didn't get fixed after I pointed it out to the developer".

I would be interested to hear your observations after you play the game.

[Don Maddox]

Don,

I appreciate the praise.
You earned it.

I agree with your assessment of Scott Hamilton. I didn't know he was once an Army officer though. What branch was he?
I believe he was a combat engineer and did most of his time up at fort Lewis. His bio says he served as an assistant S-3 with the 864th Combat Engineer Battalion 1984-1988.

I haven't had a chance to play PAO2 (my one criticism of HPS, no playable demos) so I don't know the veracity of any of the criticisms in that post. But I think that the author may have crossed the line a little bit on the database comments. When dealing with a body of information that large, it is easy for things to slip past. The only fair criticism of a wargames database is, "the problem didn't get fixed after I pointed it out to the developer".

I would be interested to hear your observations after you play the game.
I'm working with it now. Scott has been very good about answering any question put to him within 24 hours (usually less), but like other HPS staff he doesn't frequent the game forums. That's just the way they choose to operate I guess. At any rate, he is providing quality feedback and support for the players, and that's really all we can ask.

I have already posted some of my impressions elsewhere, but here are a few more that may be of interest.

From what I have seen POA-2 is grounded on solid military data, and the way information is presented to the player is much like what you would expect to see in a brigade TOC. This may simply be a bit too overwhelming for many people. Even a lot of decent wargamers don't have much of an understanding of how military operations actually work in the real world. They don't understand the planning process, nor much of terminology and other misc stuff that goes with the territory. They are used to seeing an image of a Sherman which shoots at a Tiger. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but I suspect that POA-2 will only appeal to those who already have some experience with modern combat.

I admit, I could be wrong about that though. Wargamers never cease to amaze me. We have guys on this forum who have never even seen a real soldier, but they can tell you what kind of paper von Manstein liked to print his maps on! This game could have a fairly large potential audience if UK, Canadian, French, and German equipment is added to the database. I remain open minded about it.

Since no one else is doing so, I have been considering adding some support for POA-2 here at Warfare HQ. That could be indirectly beneficial to ATF as well. If we do that -- and I'm not sure that we will -- it will no doubt bring in some more hardcore wargamers and expose players of both systems to each other. "Building a modern wargames community" so to speak. Much of what we discuss in the ATF forum would be applicable to any modern wargame.

[HoustonAerosFan]

I have waited for this puppy for YEARS.

My initial impression, as one who did not get the opportunity to serve but who does computer modeling for a living, is that POA-2 seems to be an excellent simulation of modern warfare.

However, as much as I respect Scott, et. al., I think they missed the mark as far as making a good game is concerned. The high CPU requirements are a problem , as my 2 GHz CPU might not be able to handle the bigger scenarios. I'm certainly not upgrading to play one game. Also, the lack of DB modding leaves me wondering what they were thinking. With such a great model, why not let people explore the possibilities? Perhaps they are afraid of the tech support calls it might generate, or they are going to take the John Tiller aproach of making a series of unmoddable, cookie cutter games so people buy the same engine over and over (which is why I tend to avoid Tiller's stuff). The fact that there is no European or Isreali equipment has me suspecting this. Fortunately, I have ADC-2, so I can do map editing. If not, such a capability runs another $40.

I'm evaluating TacOps and BCT this weekend. From what I've heard, TacOps allows no DB or map editing, and is also real weak on command and control. While BCT doesn't allow map editing (and seems to be fairly devoid of real terrain like forrests, swamps, rivers, etc. - all I see on screen shots are hills), the DB is moddable.

My advice on POA-2 v2 - moddable DB, and reduce all the background calculations, lumping them wherever possible.

I hate to say it, but POA-2 might be going back. Too bad. A real disappointment if so.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

I have waited for this puppy for YEARS.

I'm evaluating TacOps and BCT this weekend. From what I've heard, TacOps allows no DB or map editing, and is also real weak on command and control. While BCT doesn't allow map editing (and seems to be fairly devoid of real terrain like forrests, swamps, rivers, etc. - all I see on screen shots are hills), the DB is moddable.



TacOps allows no DB editting, but does allow map editting

ATF allows DB editting, but the map editting, whilst doable, is bloody hard. AS for "real" terrain" when you play you will switch views a lot - there is still plenty of terrain, perhaps more so than TacOps.

On POA-2, as far as I can tell, the smallest unit is a squad? just wondering if it'll compare with AATF in the small scale unit actions stake.

[Pat Proctor]

On POA-2, as far as I can tell, the smallest unit is a squad? just wondering if it'll compare with AATF in the small scale unit actions stake.

AATF will be similar in scale to ATF. Unit sizes will be fire teams and crew-served weapon teams. It will also support the platoon and company hierarchies introduced in ATF.

Since no one else is doing so, I have been considering adding some support for POA-2 here at Warfare HQ. That could be indirectly beneficial to ATF as well. If we do that -- and I'm not sure that we will -- it will no doubt bring in some more hardcore wargamers and expose players of both systems to each other. "Building a modern wargames community" so to speak. Much of what we discuss in the ATF forum would be applicable to any modern wargame.

I am ALL for bringing POA2 to the forums.

While I may be alone in this, I really feel there is no need to "compete" in such a small niche. Actually we are a niche of a niche of a niche (wargamers who like hardcore detail and like modern combat). With roughly one-three releases a year in the genre, games with shelf lives of many years, and a customer base that is, generally, mature and can afford the occasional leisure purchase, there is plenty of room for all of us.

I am a wargame developer, but I am ALSO A WARGAMER. I can only play scenarios I WROTE for so long. That is why I encourage and do my best to support an active mod/scenario developer community. And that is why I am happy whenever I see a new modern wargame come out.

[HoustonAerosFan]

TacOps allows no DB editting, but does allow map editting

ATF allows DB editting, but the map editting, whilst doable, is bloody hard. AS for "real" terrain" when you play you will switch views a lot - there is still plenty of terrain, perhaps more so than TacOps.

On POA-2, as far as I can tell, the smallest unit is a squad? just wondering if it'll compare with AATF in the small scale unit actions stake.

I think a squad, or single vehicle is the smallest possible unit in POA-2. Platoons are the norm, and I think 10 is the limit on vehicles - a Soviet style company.

Thanks for the comments on ATF - but I'm looking at BCT instead.

[Pat Proctor]

BCT includes all kinds of different, specialized terrain types (as does ATF). It has everything from rivers and lakes to forests and urban areas.

[Kammak]

Well that review of mine certainly made its way across several message boards!

Capt. Proctor, as I stated in my email to you, I *am* a fan of ATF but keep getting frustrated with the issues I mentioned - but I keep playing it despite though issues! And I sincerely am looking foward to the next iteration you spoke of.

RE: The clueless remark, I'm going to have to stick by it. In addition to my previous examples, the comment by the developer that he had never thought of allowing editing of an OOB AFTER scenario creation doesn't strike me as someone that really knows much about wargames - either playing or making. I am now enlightened by Don Maddox as to the developer's military background, so that leaves me dumbfounded as to the many issues that are present in POA2.

RE: The statement by Don Maddox that I may be "confused" by the display - sorry but no. The issue is not my ignorance of CPs, just a clumsy and awkward interface that belies an apathy or inattention to the infantry aspect of the game. The system of single-weapons-per-marker falls out of a USAF approach to warfighting via discrete "platforms" which can be enumerated, quantified, and then destroyed from 20,000ft. It works fine for vehicle-only combat, which the tutorial specifically is, and works very well with the USAF view of warfare. It just doesn't work too well when the humans start mucking about that nice clean display with their rifles, grenades, ATGMs, and teams of various weapons.

The biggest issue I now have with POA2 is the lack of scenario editing - which is how I typically learn a game. It would be ideal to play the tutorial as is, then go back and give blue some arty so you could work with arty. Then add blue CAS, and learn how to control air strikes. And so on. I've done this with ATF, DA, and Tacops, and aside from learning the game it is essential to be able to edit OOBs when playtesting and balancing scenarios. Would you want to retype a game review every time you decided to change a word, or a sentence? Why would anyone think that is acceptable in a wargame?

After I received my copy of POA2, I went to the message board that was linked from the POA2 website, and posted numerous innocuous questions about the game. Not one was answered - so finally I wrote my quick review for the Tacops list as we had discussed the game's arrival previously. I'll admit to being hostile about this as my hopes were VERY high. As I read the manual and played the tutorial, my initial view was very favorable, as I also posted on the Tacops board. It is not until you actually start getting into the depth of the game, working with scenario creation, looking at the units and equipment, fighting infantry, that the good image falls apart FAST. I am very curious how much time the reviewer at Wargamer.com really had on POA2 - and if a follow-on review is forthcoming as more experience is gained with it.

By the way - I have no clue what the "bad blood" is about regarding something-Panthers-and-Tigers (?) - my opinions are solely based on my experience with POA2.

Regards,

Kevin MacLennan
aka Kammak

[Don Maddox]

RE: The clueless remark, I'm going to have to stick by it. In addition to my previous examples, the comment by the developer that he had never thought of allowing editing of an OOB AFTER scenario creation doesn't strike me as someone that really knows much about wargames - either playing or making. I am now enlightened by Don Maddox as to the developer's military background, so that leaves me dumbfounded as to the many issues that are present in POA2.Well, Scott said this about adding units to a scen after it is created:

This means you can't add them to existing games. If you add them the scenario must be reverted back to the setup phase, which essentially resets the scenario. So you could take an existing scenario and save it as a new one, make your changes that way. Or do it during the basic setup phase.
I guess this means if you are going to edit the OOB for a scen you have to go back and place them on the map again as they are "reset." Not the best solution I would say, but it looks like the OOB can be edited. Perhaps Scott will revise the scenario editor and add this function. I'm sure the scen editing tools will eveolve over time with user feedback just as the interface is.

Remember the original TOAW? It didn't have a lot of stuff that ACOW has, but Norm listened to users and made changes as he went. I agree that there are some shortcomings in the system and I intend to call it as I see it when I write the review, nevertheless, let's give Scott a chance to act on the feedback we give him.


RE: The statement by Don Maddox that I may be "confused" by the display - sorry but no. The issue is not my ignorance of CPs, just a clumsy and awkward interface that belies an apathy or inattention to the infantry aspect of the game. The system of single-weapons-per-marker falls out of a USAF approach to warfighting via discrete "platforms" which can be enumerated, quantified, and then destroyed from 20,000ft. It works fine for vehicle-only combat, which the tutorial specifically is, and works very well with the USAF view of warfare. It just doesn't work too well when the humans start mucking about that nice clean display with their rifles, grenades, ATGMs, and teams of various weapons.
Perhaps I'm missing something. I thought Scott had already given us some instructions on how to create multi-weapon units?


After I received my copy of POA2, I went to the message board that was linked from the POA2 website, and posted numerous innocuous questions about the game. Not one was answered...
In all fairness, HPS has stated from the beginning that they will support the game by answering any questions by email. I have sent Scott perhaps 10 e-mails so far and he has responded to every one within a few hours. HPS can say they are doing exactly what they promised to do.

Why don't they venture onto the forums? I can't say. I know for a fact they do browse them from time to time. I guess it's simply the way HPS has chosen to do business. Rich and Glen do frequent the forums though. Would many gamers prefer to see the developer in person on the various forums from time to time? Probably, and HPS is one of the only companies I know of that doesn't have an official forum. Having said that, they are providing answers and feedback as they said they would.


...so finally I wrote my quick review for the Tacops list as we had discussed the game's arrival previously. I'll admit to being hostile about this as my hopes were VERY high. As I read the manual and played the tutorial, my initial view was very favorable, as I also posted on the Tacops board. It is not until you actually start getting into the depth of the game, working with scenario creation, looking at the units and equipment, fighting infantry, that the good image falls apart FAST. Fair enough. I still have a lot of stuff to explore in the system and I still don't understand much of it. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other because I don't have enough experience with it yet to have an opinion.

I am very curious how much time the reviewer at Wargamer.com really had on POA2 - and if a follow-on review is forthcoming as more experience is gained with it.
I can only speak for myself. I won't be writing my review for a while yet. I still need to learn a lot of things, explore the editing tools, and test the PBEM capability before I'm ready to do a review.


By the way - I have no clue what the "bad blood" is about regarding something-Panthers-and-Tigers (?) - my opinions are solely based on my experience with POA2.

Regards,

Kevin MacLennan
aka KammakNo, that comment was referring to something else on another forum. It wasn't directed toward you -- or any other individual -- it was simply a general observation. I admit I could be way off the mark on that issue.

Just my 2 cents. :D

[Kammak]

Don -

Regarding editing OOBs and "Save as scenario" - all that allows is a one-for-one change of the units placed in the scenario at creation time - you can change an M1 platoon to a M2 platoon, change the number individuals in the unit, and change competence ratings...you can't add new units nor delete units. Nor can you change the HQ of units or the task organization - so if you try to change one tank platoon to a flight of A-10s, the A-10s will be under the command of the Tank Company HQ still. Likewise, even if you change the quantity of individuals in the marker, you can't edit the defined size of the unit - Sqd/Elem, Co, Rgmt, etc.... This is a far cry from a real scenario editor with full OOB editing.


Regarding:


"Perhaps I'm missing something. I thought Scott had already given us some instructions on how to create multi-weapon units."

He didn't. He gave instructions that are the same as the manual for creating units and then using the compress multipart option to hide the individuals. One marker on the map can NEVER be anything but one "weapon system" as he has designed them in the database. Using the TOE editor, all you can do is create a formation - example: one saw gunner, one grenadier, and two rifleman, then give them all (the three counters - saw gunner, grenadier, 2xrifleman) the same HQ (which is another individual). What this allows is the use of "Compress Multipart" to hide all the counters except the first one, the "HQ" unit. So in my example above, if compress multipart is turned on, my SAW gunner disappears from the map, as does my rifleman (x2) marker, and all that is left is the grenadier. If I give him orders, those orders will apply to the other hidden guys.

Where this causes problems is with the infantry units the developer himself built - he made the APCs a part of the squad or platoon, so if you load the infantry on the APC and use "Compress Multipart", the game hides the APC, leaving just one infantryman, which can't be given any orders because HE IS ON THE APC which is now hidden! Its is literally comical that a system like this was DESIGNED in 2003, given the numerous examples already on the market that address the exact same situation in a far simpler and logical manner.

Since a marker can NEVER contain more than one weapon system, and since he designed each infantry weapon as a "weapon system", you can't have a single marker that represents a 13 man squad and shows all their weapons, their ammo, their orders, and their morale. The best you can get is 12 of them hidden and one left to give orders to. But even then, that doesn't work with the mech infantry the developer himself designed, for the reason above.

Now, you might think you could ease the situation by placing the APCs in a seperate "formation" from the infantry...you could, but then the APC will have a different HQ than the infantry he is carrying, so whatever the infantry sees has to go up the flagpole of the infantry's chain of command, then go back down the flagpole through the APC's chain of command, before the APC will see it too. There are a few other oddities that this introduces do to the elaborate fog of war model, but suffice it to say there is no "good" solution to the problem other than reworking the basic paradigm of the game - single weapon systems per marker.

[Don Maddox]

Don -

Regarding editing OOBs and "Save as scenario" - all that allows is a one-for-one change of the units placed in the scenario at creation time - you can change an M1 platoon to a M2 platoon, change the number individuals in the unit, and change competence ratings...you can't add new units nor delete units. Nor can you change the HQ of units or the task organization - so if you try to change one tank platoon to a flight of A-10s, the A-10s will be under the command of the Tank Company HQ still. Likewise, even if you change the quantity of individuals in the marker, you can't edit the defined size of the unit - Sqd/Elem, Co, Rgmt, etc.... This is a far cry from a real scenario editor with full OOB editing.
If this is indeed the case, and I have not tested it yet, then I agree it's a problem that needs to be addressed in the editor. We can't add/delete weapons systems from the database, but we should at the minimum be permitted to edit scenarios as we see fit. Any veteran scenario author knows that scenario creation is a painstaking process of trial and error. Scenarios often go through many beta iterations before they are ready for prime time and this frequently means tweaking the OOB.

I will run this issue past Scott and see what he has in mind. He may already be working on some enhancements to the editor, and he may possibly know how to do some things that we don't. More to follow.

Since a marker can NEVER contain more than one weapon system, and since he designed each infantry weapon as a "weapon system", you can't have a single marker that represents a 13 man squad and shows all their weapons, their ammo, their orders, and their morale. The best you can get is 12 of them hidden and one left to give orders to. But even then, that doesn't work with the mech infantry the developer himself designed, for the reason above.

Now, you might think you could ease the situation by placing the APCs in a seperate "formation" from the infantry...you could, but then the APC will have a different HQ than the infantry he is carrying, so whatever the infantry sees has to go up the flagpole of the infantry's chain of command, then go back down the flagpole through the APC's chain of command, before the APC will see it too. There are a few other oddities that this introduces do to the elaborate fog of war model, but suffice it to say there is no "good" solution to the problem other than reworking the basic paradigm of the game - single weapon systems per marker.
Agreed, this seems like it needs to be improved. I will also try to get some feedback from Scott on this issue.

Good observations Kammak. If the developer is able to address some of these issues with a patch/and or updates to the editors, then we may be doing some good.

[meade95]

Kammak,

Very good observations. Like Don, I have also contacted Scott with his thoughts on these issues and how HPS plans to address them.

These are the basic functionalities that have to be addressed within the first patch.....

[Don Maddox]

Here is Scott's reply.

Hi Don,

Thanks for the email.

What you and he are saying is true, and it’s due to a bug in the program. The map display for compressed multi-parts is not showing up like it should, and I’ll have to get that corrected.

The force tree, however, is correct (as intended, anyway). It shows the HQ “sub-unit”, and the first “sub-unit” of each stacking type.

In any case, although the simplest answer around all of this is to let the AI do it, I understand most users will want to access the units directly, and the AI may not do the things they want. So the next most-simple answer is to use the force tree to select units if you can. Otherwise, if you can’t, for now you’ll need to turn off multi-part unit compression when you want to give certain orders. However, while that method works, I agree it can be cumbersome and not very elegant. So we’ll start looking at ways to simplify giving certain orders to multi-part units, most notably those dealing with movement (because you’d rarely want targeting or other orders to be the same).

BTW - In the latest FAQ update (I’ll send you a copy - probably tomorrow) I’ve explained why muti-part units are essential to the accuracy of the program, and why I wouldn’t even consider doing it any other way.

As for editing scenarios, the person making the post [Kammak] is exactly correct. Currently the only things you can edit in existing scenarios are the unit qualities and values. You can change weapons, quantities, morale and supply levels, or anything like that for any of the units. However, you can’t change the number of units or rearrange the command structure. This ability will be incorporated in a future patch, however (although not the first one).

So there are some shortcomings in the system, but at least we know Scott is aware of them and working on some improvements. I think the best thing we can do is to provide him with feedback, bug reports, and ideas on how to make the system better.

[Kammak]

[Editor's note: post was accidentally deleted by staff. This was unintentional. Please re-post.]

[Priest]

With all that I have heard about POA-2, I would have to have a demo to evaluate this title with. I'm not sure if my rig would even run this game. Without a demo I probibly won't buy this game even though it does sound interesting.

[Don Maddox]

Here is some additional info on the issue:


First, the poster is correct about scenario editing. If you want to add new units, you have to start from scratch. Based on customer feedback, and some stuff the military wants, we’re going to revamp the entire creation process. It will make the entire process easier, and more flexible editing will be possible. It won’t be in the first patch, though, so I’ll have to ask folks to be patient.
To boil the multi-part unit stuff down - there is a bug in the program and the units aren’t displaying on the map correctly.

That aside, however, the interface we use now for multi-part units is kinda cumbersome. We should have caught it in testing, but after quizzing the guys, I found out none of them really used the compression option (and neither did I), so it never came up. So now we’ll be working on trying to figure out better ways to do it. Unfortunately, until we do the only sure way around it is right now is to turn the compression off.
Sounds like the first patch may be a fairly straightforward release to fix the C++ errors and a few other small things. I'm not sure if the new weapons systems will be in this patch or not. After that, my guess is that Scott is going to work on some of these larger issues. I'm not certain how much time and effort it is going to take to rectify some of this stuff. I hope it won't be too long.