More on 'Point of Attack II' from HPS

[Don Maddox]

Okay, here is the first major -- and I mean major -- flaw that I have discovered so far. This is from the HPS website:



NOTE: Per our agreement with the US Government, the civilian release version allows users to customize and edit many of the data tables including force structures, leaders, nationality values, weather, and the TEC. However, it does not support editing of the weapons or ammunition related tables, although they may be viewed.


If this decision stands, this game will have almost zero future on the civilian market. As every wargamer on the planet knows, wargames thrive on third party (user created) scenarios. Apparently, owners of the civilian version of POA2 are limited to creating scenarios using only the equipment in the database. No new equipment can be added, nor can existing equipment be modified. The current database covers Soviet and US modern equipment. There is nothing from Canada, France, Germany, etc. That alone pretty much means this title will have no potential user base in Europe.

I'm hearing mixed signals about this issue right now and I'm trying to confirm what the plan is for POA2's editors. I can't believe that HPS would release a wargame with such limited choices. It virtually ensures that it will fail to attract new players.

I should also mention that I have discovered that although new maps can be added for user created scenarios, there is no included map editor. Apparently, owners wishing to create maps must also purchase the Aid de Camp II utility from HPS as well. That product sells for $49.95, but HPS is offering it to POA2 owners for $40.00.

[Don Maddox]

Okay, here is some additional notes.

HPS seems to have kicked up a dust storm with the release of POA2. A lot of gamers talked this sim up on various forums as an extremely powerful tool which could be used to simulate many different conflicts. That, apparently, was brought about because HPS posted screenshots of the Air Force version of POA2 on their website to market the game. These screens led many gamers to believe that adding new weapon systems to the game was entirely possible, and HPS's website did little to inform potential buyers that this isn't the case. The version that HPS is selling to the public has purposely been set up to prohibit users from creating new units or modifying existing data. But the plot thickens...

Apparently, the game was shipped with a bug that allows current owners to edit the units and add new ones. As I understand it, this was unintentional and HPS may be moving to squash that ability in a future patch. If true, that's hardly an incentive for people to upgrade to the latest version!

I have seen some info that HPS may add additional units if there is sufficient demand, or possibly even create WWII versions. Nevertheless, this whole issue seems to threaten to kill off the game before it even gets started. The CD ships with a total of 8 scenario, one of which is a tutorial.

I will try to get someone from HPS to comment on all of this so we can get to the facts.

[Deltapooh]

Thanks Don for looking out for us. Maybe if the wargaming community kicks up enough fire, HPS will realize the insanity of their concept. The heavy game specs will limit the community as it is. Without the ability to make mods, with the full support of HPS, puts POA2 in an even worse position than DA.

[KG_Norad]

I can't fathom that this could be true! You are intentionally shooting yourself in the foot if you treat your customers that way. Of course I can't believe Panzer Campaigns does not have a map editor either. You may have a good idea but if you intentionaly try to keep every aspect of a game unmoddable, and top secret the market won't grow. Seems like Apple and IBM tried this marketing technique in the past with PC's and it nearly killed them. Look at the Campaign Series and TOAW, Steel Panthers. These games are still around largly due to user made scenarios and moddability and of course the original engines had alot of playability! I am still shelling out my cash for add ons to CS...(Blitz Campaign Disks)!

All I can say I truly hope it is not true, or that company may never end up getting my business. Sometimes in business you have to give something back..not just SELL. If you do run your business on the SELL method you better be putting out Damn good add ons and expansions to the games your selling because the limited # of stock scenarios that come with a game get stale eventually. And the smaller the # of scenarios the quicker the interest fades. I hate to be bashing anyone here but I just don't see alot of customer service going on over there.

Sigh, it's a pity. There are several titles that they produce that I would be interested in but for one reason or another I never can quite bring myself to pay the prices they demand for the product I would end up getting. Perhaps this is unfair because I have not played any of their games. So I can not pass judgement on their individual merrits. But again the customer support and customer incentives seem to be in short supply.

[Don Maddox]

For the sake of all that is holy, don't get me started on the Panzer Campaigns map editor issue again! My blood pressure goes up twenty points every time I think about it.

I hate to think that this is going to be the final word from HPS. I'm trying to get in contact with HPS and get the word on what's really going on. From what I have heard, HPS is under some type of agreement with the US Air Froce, which may limit what they can do with it. If that's true, it will no doubt be a disappointment to a lot of people.

Be patient, we'll get to the facts.

[Black Moria]

As I understand it, the agreement with the Air Force effectively ties HPS hands on the weapons and equipment editor.

That said, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

The bug that allows us to use the editors right now..... gee. How unfortuate about the bug. (Read in.....ya can't get sued by the Air Force if it was an unforseen bug....wink, wink ;) ) Could be an 'oversight' by HPS to allow full editing for the fans because HPS isn't totally stupid. They know that the future sales of this game is dependent on it being fully editable.

Or

If I was HPS, I would 'leak' a full editor program to a friend not associated with HPS and have said friend release the full database editor to the modding community - which nicely gets around the Air Force's restrictions.

Or

I imagine that someone will develop their own editor and release to the public.

So I have hope yet.

[Wolf]

Maybe it's just me being cynical, but I'm not sure that I believe the reasons given by HPS for the inability to create new scenario's.

In an earlier title (Campaign Eckmuhl) early versions enabled players to create new scenario's from scratch. As soon as HPS realised that this could affect the sales of any later Napoleonic titles (they saw that scenario designers were creating battles like Waterloo using the Eckmuhl Engine), they released a patch which whilst fixing some issues also prevented the use of custom map files thus preventing the creation of historical scenario's not using the maps in the game.

It seems to me that with this title HPS re trying to block amateur designers right from the start thus paving the way for more revenue from future releases.

[Don Maddox]

There is an interesting discussion going on at one of the newsgroup sites concerning POA2. I don't ususally visit those very often, but I do occasionally swing through to see what's going on. Here is a response I posted on the newsgroup that may also be of some interest to members of this forum. It doesn't contain much really new information, but a few may find it interesting.

-----------------------------

Hi all,

I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest. I don't frequent the newsgroups very often, but I do swing through once in a while to see what the latest is. :D

I have POA2 and have been messing around with it for several days. First, this is only intended to be some notes on my *initial* impressions, not a fair and thorough review. I understand that James is already working on a review for The Wargamer, but we may do one of our own for Warfare HQ. We'll see.

First, as to the performance concerns that many grogs have, my experience with the title may or may not be relevant to anyone else as I'm using a state of the art PC that was custom built for gaming. POA2 has performed very well on this particular PC, however, combat phases in the larger scenarios do take a few moments to run. There seems to be a significant amount of number crunching going on in the background and that's what seems to be the basis for the high system requirements, not fancy graphics. The graphics are fairly strightforward and remind me a lot of Decisive Action. In fact the whole game reminds me of Decisive Action to some degree, but this title seems to sport a lot more depth.

Maps are generally standard US military topographic maps, however, there is a twist. You can zoom these maps and underneath there are maps that were apparently made with Aid de Camp II (or some other map making utility). I find this to be a huge plus, as Decisive Action lacked any sort of method to zoom closer to the battlefield.

Units are represented by square counters with standard NATO symbols. As you zoom closer they get larger, but they don't have numbers and other statistical information like a TOAW counter. Basic information is available by hovering the mouse over the icon, and more detailed info can be had by right clicking on it. This may or may not be to your taste. Long time TOAW players have grown accustomed to being able to "read" the battlefield at a glance because of the info provided on the unit counters. Like Panzer Campaigns, you will need to spend a bit more time to see what's going on in POA2.

To make some of the management tasks a bit easier, you have access to the "staff officiers," which is a menu with detailed information on S1, S2, S3, etc. There is a huge amount of information provided to the player, and for the most part it is presented in a reasonable fashion. The whole product looks and feels like a military simulation, not a beer & pretzels wargame. That could be either a good or bad thing depending on your expectations and the level of detail you are seeking.

Although I am still in the preliminary stages of poking around with this title, I have run into -- what I consider -- a few issues. First, the interface isn't as intuitive as it could be. There are various pop-ups available to provide helpful information, but it still could be improved a bit. Second, I don't like the "scenario information" box. Scenario information is provided in the form of a standard US Army operation order (which I like), however, these orders are not nearly as detailed or fancy as those found in Armored Task Force or Decisive Action. I am a particular fan of the ATF style because these are actually html files which are displayed in-game. Using that format allows scenario designers to create really detailed operation orders and even include map images, graphics, or other relevant data that might be presented in a real-world operation order. I would like to see this system changed to allow for more detailed orders like ATF.

Second, it isn't always easy to find the information you are looking for. I hid one menu and it took me almost twnety minutes to figure out how to get it back! Some users have also complained about certain pop-up boxes not appearing or not sizing properly when using Windows XP, but I have not experienced this. I also have not had any of the C++ errors that some other users have had, but more testing is needed to determine stability.

I have not tried to create any scenarios as of yet, but I have looked at the scenario builder. It looks powerful, but I didn't see any options for scripting events like in TOAW. It could be there and I haven't found it yet, I'm just not sure. There also doesn't seem to be a map editor. That's a major oversight IMHO. Every wargamer knows that wargames thrive on third party scenarios and the lack of a map editor is ALWAYS a mistake in my opinion. HPS does this with some other games as well, and my disapproval of this is well known. At least it appears that maps can be made with Aid de Camp II, but I have not tried it yet so I can't say how easy or cumbersome the process is. HPS is offering a discount on Aid de Camp II to owners of POA2, but this may not be enough to satisfy some users.

Another major concern I have is the lack of available nationalities. Apparently, there is some ongoing confusion regarding wether or not owners of the civilian version of POA2 will be allowed to add or modify existing weapons and nationalities. Warfare HQ is working on getting these answers from the developer and we will post what we find out on our forums at http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/index.php (http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/index.php). I will say this, the existing database has most modern US and Soviet equipment that you will need, but there isn't anything from the UK, Asia, or elsewhere included. From what I understand there is a bug in the current release that allows users to edit/add weapons, however, HPS did not intend for this to be the case in the civilian version. Without a very comprehensive add-on to the existing database which includes the UK, German, French, and other units, POA2 may fall into the category of "neat, but useless tools." As I said earlier, we'll post more info on that when we have it.

Another issue is that the game ships with only eight (yes I said 8) scenarios. :confused: One of these is a tutorial scenario, and the others range of small fights against terrorists, to multi-battalion level engagements. I'm not sure why the product was shipped with such a limited number of scenarios. Each of these is a stright forward battle, not a huge scenario of "campaign" proportions. It's still unclear if the developer intends to provide additional scenarios for free, and add-on disk, or nothing at all. Considering the title does not ship with a map editor, I'm not sure what the future of POA2 scenarios will look like. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Sounds in the game are fairly limited and only occur during combat. They're mediocre in quality, and there aren't many of them. This may not be a huge issue in a title of this kind though. Opinions will no doubt vary on this issue.

These are just some preliminary thoughts after several days of looking at the system. My opinions could dramatically change as I spend more time with it.

[Black Moria]

This from an 'unofficial' message board that has Rich Hamilton lurking on it and making comments....

Begin Quote
"The military uses Windows 2000 as their primary platform, at least for the users involved with this, and all of the errors that have been reported have been generated by Windows XP. Not a cop out, but simply a fact. Most have been addressed and will be covered in a patch that is forth coming.

Regarding databases and such, yes they will be closed, as they were intended to be to begin with due to contractual obligation, the "save on exit" method got by though, so that has to be rememedied. There will be further version of this out covering other time periods, just a matter of when. And if the demand is there more items can be added to the current DB. Time will tell on that.

New scenarios are in the works and should be out soon as free downloads.

There's also a document in the works detailing the scenario creation process.

Regards,
Rich

Rich Hamilton
Board Moderator
Scenario Designer"

End Quote

Make of it what you will. Wolf may have hit the nail on the head to some degree, cause it sure looks from my bench that they intend to milk this for what it is worth doing "add-ons" to take advantage of the closed database issue.

Am I being unkind if I say that HPS is looking more like HP$....

[JAMiAM]

What does HPS stand for? Humungous Payments System?

[Kurt Stevens]

I have to admit. I agree with most of the comments made here. The thing that bothers me the most about the game is the lack of scenario content. I was aware going in that there were a limited number of scenarios but the ones included just dont grab me. From Rich Hamiltons comments it looks like it will be more difficult to create user made scenarios. There model for POA seems to be the same as Tigers on the Prowl. Release a game with 8 scenarios. Then sell you the map editor. Then sell you expansion packs of 8 to 10 scenarios. The sad part is I enjoy the actual game more that some of the other recent modern combat games.

Ive purchased at least 10-15 of HPS games over the last few years but this is a real disappointment for me. I think Norad's comments regarding the need to give something back and not sell everything is valid. How many games have you guys bought where you had to buy the map editor? If this was a main stream title, people would be screaming bloody murder. If the newest RTS game was released for 50.00 and you had to pay an extra 40.00 to get the random map generator or editor.

I love HPS's games and have probably got more enjoyment out of them than from any other company but this has left a bad taste in my mouth. I just dont see this game going anywhere. Wargames need an active community of users creating mods to survive. I may be wrong but I dont think this one will be able to generate enough interest. The sad thing is I doubt if you see a change in marketing strategy form HPS any time soon. Take a look at their store web site and you will find TOP2/PITS still priced at 50.00. Anyway, I hope we are all wrong and the game thrives. Im going to take a wait and see attitude. Hopefully, some folks who actually have Aide De Camp can start turning out some different scenarios. Without the ability to add different nationalities, this may not even save the game. Time will tell.....

[Don Maddox]

Okay guys, check this out.

Warfare HQ has conducted a brief Q&A with POA-2 developer Scott Hamilton. Scott took the time to answer all of our questions and address some of the concerns that have been riased concerning the editor. I think all of us would like to see the editor be wide open for mods, but I was encouraged by Scott's promt reply. He sounds committed to making POA-2 a success.

http://www.warfarehq.com/previews/point_of_attack_2_qa.shtml

I'll try to get Scott in here to answer a few more questions, but guys from HPS tend to be difficult to get into the forums compared to developers from other companies. Nevertheless, Warfare HQ will stay on top of the issue and continue to do what we can to help.

[KG_Norad]

Just finished your Q&A. Nice job, and I will say it was nice of Scott to step up to the plate. I have been wanting to get TOP but could not justify the money for the dated graphics and interface. That game also has the staff asisstants and it seemed to work well in the demo I played. I would be very interested in seeing a reworking of TOP and PITS. But I would hope it is released with more then eight scenarios;). This will still be a big wait and see for me, but if they show commitment to their Civilian customers this could turn out to be a good buy eventually.

Michael

[Black Moria]

Thanks for getting an 'offical' response from HPS, Don. It clears up alot of the speculation that has been rampant.

But not all. I don't know if you asked this but I, for one, cannot phantom why the Air Force wants to 'lock out' the weapon and ammunition editor for the civilian version. That totally doesn't make sense to me at all. Why does the Air Force care at all what Joe Civvy does with his civilian version of the game (which as I understand, is very different from the Air Force version which contains alot of 'classified' stuff)?

I don't understand why the Air Force would insist on this in the first place. And how important is it? The game was released with a bug allowing us modify the weapons/ammunition database, so the damage is done. Why not allow us to keep that functionality?

[Kurt Stevens]

I agree with Black Moria's statement above. Why would it matter what I do with the database. It would only matter if I had some kind of classified info. You would think that if someone had highly classified weapons data they would probably have better things to do than plug it into the POA database. I dont get it. At this point I guess I will hang onto the game, although Im tempted by the offer to return it. I see potential but it needs more content in regards to scenarios. I'll wait and see i suppose.

[Don Maddox]

Well, I'm sure we all have more questions about POA-2. It's a complicated simulation and it will likely take us a while to get a grip on just what it can and can't do. Scott did mention that several additional scenarios will be released shortly, and these will be free of charge. If 10 or so additional scenarios are released by HPS, that will bring the total in line with what we normally see from other wargames. The only issue then becomes the equipment database.

From what I understand, we will retain the ability to modify the "nationality" characteristics, but not add new weapons systems. Since many countries make heavy use of older US equipment and Soviet designs, which are included in the game, we should be able to fashion a reasonable amount of fresh scenarios before new equipment is absolutely necessary.

At some point HPS might release an add-on CD or patch with stuff from the UK and elsewhere. Remember, East Front II only had equipment for two nationalities. There are many wargames that start out with a somewhat limited palette which slowly evolves over time. Will that happen here? I can't say for sure, but I think Scott's responses point in a positive direction.

Let's keep an open mind about the system.

[NBrenner6]

Well, I'm sure we all have more questions about POA-2. It's a complicated simulation and it will likely take us a while to get a grip on just what it can and can't do. Scott did mention that several additional scenarios will be released shortly, and these will be free of charge. If 10 or so additional scenarios are released by HPS, that will bring the total in line with what we normally see from other wargames. The only issue then becomes the equipment database.

Any word when those scenarios are going to be released? If HPS releases 3 or 4 more that would be enough to satisfy me. I don't own the game yet, but I'm strongly tempted to get it.

There seems to be a lot of harsh language floating around about this new game. It just came out about a week ago, so I don't believe many people have had a good chance to make a fair assessment just yet. Why all the harsh words? It seems like there are some people out there who would like to show that HPS is up to no good.

From what I understand, we will retain the ability to modify the "nationality" characteristics, but not add new weapons systems. Since many countries make heavy use of older US equipment and Soviet designs, which are included in the game, we should be able to fashion a reasonable amount of fresh scenarios before new equipment is absolutely necessary.

Is this for sure? If we could use the existing weapons to make new nationalities we would be able to do a lot with that. Most of the Middle Eastern countries rely on US or Soviet designs. What we really need is some equipment from the UK and France. Are there any generic types that can be used until Scott has time to do an add-on?

[Black Moria]

It just came out about a week ago, so I don't believe many people have had a good chance to make a fair assessment just yet. Why all the harsh words?

The majority of the harsh words come from two principle issues:

1. Windows XP users have been complaining about a number of C++ errors. Then it is revealed that the US Military uses Windows 2000 and the product was not QA on XP (at least, not to the level of Windows 2000).

2. The perception that HPS did a bait and switch on database editability. POA-2 was long advertised as being fully editable. When the game was sold in the first week, there was nothing said to change this perception. Then when the complaints started, HPS put up a disclaimer stating that all databases are editable except the weapons and ammunition tables, due to contractual obligations with the US Air Force. A bad mistake on HPS's part since it really irked and riled up the buyers long awaiting this game. It didn't help HPS cause much that some important documentation for scenario editing missed being included the game documentation, which threw gasoline on an already hot fire.

I would say 90% of the complaints are the two issues above. I actually haven't heard any negative comments about game play. The issues are as I stated above plus some negative comments about the map editor - namely, you need to buy ADC2 to edit maps.

[NBrenner6]

The majority of the harsh words come from two principle issues:

1. Windows XP users have been complaining about a number of C++ errors. Then it is revealed that the US Military uses Windows 2000 and the product was not QA on XP (at least, not to the level of Windows 2000).
I would guess that HPS is working on a soon-to-be-released patch?


2. The perception that HPS did a bait and switch on database editability. POA-2 was long advertised as being fully editable. When the game was sold in the first week, there was nothing said to change this perception. Then when the complaints started, HPS put up a disclaimer stating that all databases are editable except the weapons and ammunition tables, due to contractual obligations with the US Air Force. A bad mistake on HPS's part since it really irked and riled up the buyers long awaiting this game. It didn't help HPS cause much that some important documentation for scenario editing missed being included the game documentation, which threw gasoline on an already hot fire.

I read the interview with Scott and he admitted that the HPS website wasn't clear about the editor issue and took responsibility for it. Since HPS has offered to refund anyone who isn't satisfied there isn't much more they can do is there?

I would say 90% of the complaints are the two issues above. I actually haven't heard any negative comments about game play. The issues are as I stated above plus some negative comments about the map editor - namely, you need to buy ADC2 to edit maps.
Did HPS ever claim that POA-2 would have a map editor? I don't know. If they did, then I can see why people would get mad. If not, we'll thay can't complain too much because a map editor is available and HPS has cut the price so POA-2 owners can get it at a better price.

It does sound like HPS got a little sloppy with how the game was released, but it also seems that they are doing their best to remedy everone's concerns. I'm not sure what my opinion is worth because I haven't put up any money yet, however, it doesn't seem like HPS is trying to stiff anyone.

Thanks for the replies.

[Black Moria]

If not, we'll thay can't complain too much because a map editor is available and HPS has cut the price so POA-2 owners can get it at a better price.

Yeah, now. But when POA-2 was released, ADC2 was still $50 for POA-2 buyers. It was only after the firestorm erupted that ADC2 was discounted. Another mistake, that while corrected now, lent credibility to the perception that HPS was milking POA-2 for they can get.

A number of mistakes were made that could have been avoided if someone at HPS did some forward thinking on the marketing plan for POA-2. The ball was dropped on the editor disclosure, the ball was dropped again with the ADC2 discount. All fixed now, but it has cost HPS an amount of customer 'goodwill' and POA-2 has a certain taint to it because of it.

Which is a shame, cause the limited information about actual gameplay indicates that this game portrays modern combat very well.

[Harlikwin]

I think we should wait and see what the patch brings before passing too harsh a judgment on the game. Regarding the editor issue, as Black Moria mentioned, perhaps there is more than one way to skin a cat. And I would tend to agree with him :D . Also, the HPS contract with the airforce will at some point run out and they might release the editor then.