View Full Version : How much is too much?
Don,
After taking a break and waiting for a patch, I checked in today to see all the latest messages. I have to ask in all sincererity - at what point do you personally decide a game is a steaming pile, and the developer should be ashamed for releasing it to market? Not being snide here, just honestly curious. The amount of forgiveness you have shown towards HPS on POA2 is commendable, but far beyond anything I am capable of.
As I stated before, this games gets worse the deeper you dig, and I think that is being borne out as more and more users get more time on it. This is not a groundbreaking piece of software, it is covering a topic that has been addressed quite well by others - but POA2 seems intent on making every mistake personally, rather than learning from others and improving on what's already available.
For myself, I hope the patch(es) make the software respectable, since I bought the damn thing but can't enjoy it yet. But I don't hesitate to state what I think of the product, and the developer responsible for it. I guess I don't expect to nursemaid a developer, which is what appears to be happening here....
Do you ever reach a point that you wipe your hands of a product, or are you an exceptionally nice guy that forever looks for the gold buried in the mud?
I do appreciate you posting the emails from HPS, as that gives me some hope this may actually turn into something worth playing. From a communication perspective, it makes no sense to ignore the message boards and make each user submit an email about the same issues, and send out the same email answering it...but that seems to be another lesson that has be learned personally by these folks.
Do you have any estimate on your review? Or will you review it post-patch instead?
I have to agree to an extent, I would have gladly Beta tested this software for HPS. As I'm sure would many people who visit these forums. I had high hopes for this game. As Kammak states, the more I get into this game the less I understand what is working, whats a feature and whats a bug.
I dont mean to be personal or flame anyone, the game brought me out of lurking and I became an actual participant in these forums. I have trouble believing the game was adequately tested prior to release. I'm also not sure what game Mr.Cobb wrote his review on, obviously a different copy of the game than I posses. The Helos dont work, IF,DF and CAS are a mystery I have yet to unravel. The Icons dont display the units properly, multi-part, not multi-part. I couldnt make a mortar fire for anything. CAS is called but never shows up. The helos first dont move, then when coaxed to move they dont fire. The help buttons cause errors or link to files that dont exist.
Another game I paid $50 to betatest. I agree the community should try to be positive and to help this sim in a constructive way. I'm just running out of patients.
H_2
Don Maddox
28 Jan 04, 12:46
Kammak,
Those are very direct and well-worded questions. You've cut straight to the heart of the matter and these are questions that deserve answers.
After taking a break and waiting for a patch, I checked in today to see all the latest messages. I have to ask in all sincererity - at what point do you personally decide a game is a steaming pile, and the developer should be ashamed for releasing it to market? Not being snide here, just honestly curious. The amount of forgiveness you have shown towards HPS on POA2 is commendable, but far beyond anything I am capable of.That's a fair question. I can and do get upset with developers about the titles they release. I have not written as many "formal" reviews as I would have liked, however, I frequently post my opinions on this forum as sort of a collective review. I do intend to do a formal review on this game.
Having said all that, at what point do you give up on a game? This is a tough one to answer. I didn't "give up" on Decisive Action, but I did get frustrated enough to stop playing it for a while. There were a variety of reasons for that. Part of it was that I just didn't feel the developer did a good job of supporting the product, and part of it was that I simply found the abstract nature of unit compositions/strengths not to my liking. The rest of the system I liked, and I'm pleased to see that Jim is working on some interesting improvements.
As I stated before, this games gets worse the deeper you dig, and I think that is being borne out as more and more users get more time on it.
I do think it is fair to say that Point of Attack 2 was released before the beta testing was complete. Some of the bugs that we have found suggest that the QA was not very thorough and the developer didn't get enough feedback from users. Scott may not like to hear that, but I do think its a fair observation (and he might even agree with it). Some of the bugs were so egregious --such as helicopters that can't move or engage! -- that one can't help but feel a little annoyed. Having said that, I don't agree that the game is a waste of time. The underlying system is sound and sports a level of detail I have not seen outside the US Army professional simulators.
I like the system, but I do see a need for some interface enhancements and various tweaks to the system, not to mention the obvious bug fixes. I have taken an active interest in this system and I have been providing the POA2 team will the best feeback and support I can offer. It's probably fair to say that some will find my eventual review somewhat tainted because of this. I admit my bias and I plan to keep doing whatever I can to help get the bugs fixed and the changes I have suggested implemented as soon as possible. Why? I like the system and I would like to see it do well, even though I agree the original release was marred by some fairly serious warts.
This is not a groundbreaking piece of software, it is covering a topic that has been addressed quite well by others - but POA2 seems intent on making every mistake personally, rather than learning from others and improving on what's already available.
There are other systems on the market such as Decisive Action, Armored Task Force, and Fulda '85, but these either model modern combat at a somewhat different scale or they are limited in scope. They're good games and I have them all. POA2 offers the potential for a really great game engine, but it does need some fixes. Scott has implemented some of the changes I have suggested already, however, most of these were failry small and straight forward. Some of my other suggestions are going to take some significant programming and Scott and I have discussed some of these at length. Some of them may get put into the system, some may not. These things take time. The military may have ideas of their own they wish implemented and that may take priority (that's just a guess on my part). I wish I could make the process go quicker, but HPS is a small operation and they can only go so fast.
For myself, I hope the patch(es) make the software respectable, since I bought the damn thing but can't enjoy it yet. But I don't hesitate to state what I think of the product, and the developer responsible for it. I guess I don't expect to nursemaid a developer, which is what appears to be happening here....
I won't be satisfied with the first patch. I'm very pleased it's being released and it does address many of the more obvious flaws, but I don't think Scott plans to stop there. It's a good start, but I intend to keep woking with HPS to help them "evolve" this system. Should I be doing this? Should there even be a need for me to do this? Perhaps not, and I do understand that most gamers will expect a very high standard right out of the box--an entirely reasonable expectation in my view. For myself, I just retired from the Army and I have the time and resources to lend to the project. Since I'm already spending a lot of time playing with the system, I may as well dedicate some time and effort to helping improve it. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on you point of view I guess.
Do you ever reach a point that you wipe your hands of a product, or are you an exceptionally nice guy that forever looks for the gold buried in the mud?
Yes. If I feel that a developer isn't doing what needs to be done to properly support a product and fix/improve it, I will be the first to fire a shot across the bow! Although I think it's fair to say POA2 may have been released a bit prematurely, I also believe the developer has taken an active interest in our suggestions and is working to correct the flaws. There isn't much more we can ask than that is there?
I do appreciate you posting the emails from HPS, as that gives me some hope this may actually turn into something worth playing. From a communication perspective, it makes no sense to ignore the message boards and make each user submit an email about the same issues, and send out the same email answering it...but that seems to be another lesson that has be learned personally by these folks.It's my pleasure. I run Warfare HQ because I love it, and I currently am having a lot of fun tinkering with POA2. If Scott can nail down these bugs and implement some of our suggestions, then I feel the system will be well received by wargamers. The original East Front was a piece of crap out of the box and was plagued by bugs, questionable design decisions, the crappy manual, and some other stuff. The development process was painful and there were a lot of people who were upset with the way it was done. Yet, that system went on to become the Campaign Series, one of the most successful wargames ever released. There is no guarantee that POA2 will ever eveolve into "a legend," but I do have high hopes for it and that's why I continue to be involved.
Do you have any estimate on your review? Or will you review it post-patch instead?I usually review a game "as is," however, in this case it seems appropriate to give the developer the benefit of the doubt. I will, of course, discuss the problems in the original release, but I will also tell the reader about any fixes that have been released to remedy the problem.
I don't know exactly when I will post the review. I still feel it's too early. This is one complicated sim and I don't yet feel comfortable offering an incomplete review. I'll wait for the official patch and I also need to do some PBEM testing, which I haven't done yet.
Now you have me curious - you say the "underlying system is sound" - what is this statement based on?
Without seeing the code all we can judge on is the results shown through the interface, and so far I see a VERY flawed system. It appears to be overly complicated in many areas - meaning more code and more processor cycles used to produce an END RESULT that is the same (at best), but achieved much more efficiently, in other systems.
The principle effect (but not the intent) of the complicated fog-of-war model is to hide bugs instead of enabling realistic gameplay - so I am very curious to start tinkering again post-patch with the stripped out FOW settings described in the readme posted.
I think the worst aspect of the system is regarding infantry...which I still believe is/was viewed as an afterthought or at least an insignificant element of the overall product. Even with interface changes regarding correct display of multipart units and hiding passengers etc...the problem is that the game doesn't treat infantry in a realistic fashion but instead tries to address them in the same "platform" view of warfare that loves airplanes and tanks as discrete objects.
Fighting infantry in this game is ridiculously awkward and extremely unrealistic. The "excuse" given as to why the infantry won't ever be consolidated per other wargames is very weak, to put it mildly. If a javelin team fires, then not only the jav gunner but his whole team (be it one guy or four guys) should be spotted and should receive return fire along with the gunner. An infantry squad DOESN'T group its riflemen in one group, its grenadiers in a second group, and its SAW gunners in a third group - they are used in teams with a weapons mix and need to be viewed that way by the game as well. If a saw gunner opens up, most likely his fireteam will be spotted (for determining effects of return MG fire, HE blasts, etc...) as well, but that doesn't mean the other two SAW gunners would be spotted as they are in different fire teams. But the game insists on grouping by weapon system instead of by REALITY, so you get incongruous results at best. To my mind, this is a very flawed system.
That so many fundamental elements of a modern wargame DON'T work in POA2, leads me to believe the "system" is so overworked, so overly complicated, that the developer has actually lost track of how things are working vs how they are supposed to be working. (I thought it was doing this, but I guess now its doing this instead....) I can see all of this happening during testing then and being chocked up to "well you just don't understand the fog-of-war settings". Many of the initial issues raised during the first week were similarly dismissed as ignorance on the part of the user, when in actuality the game just wasn't working as anyone intended (including the developer).
What have you seen that indicates a great system hiding under these problems? And more importantly, how do I find it!! :)
Black Moria
28 Jan 04, 14:37
I just got POA-2 today after ordering it two weeks ago. In that two weeks, a lot of issues have come up on this discussion board and I wonder if I made a mistake in buying POA-2.
It is readily apparent that the QA process was flawed or glossed over since even fundamental aspect of the games seems to have problems - problems that should, to my mind, been readily apparent to anyone involved in beta testing/QA who played the scenario in question (like the helicopters issue).
While I applaud HPS dedication to improving the simulation, I have to ask when and why.
Someone said that it took 10 patches for some game to become the popular game it was. I ask why? Why should it take 10 patches to get it right? And when can I expect it to 'be right'? I don't know the history of that game in question but how many months or years elapsed to get 10 patches?
HPS commitment to excellence notwithstanding, I have to ask the 'hard question' that many probably have on their mind, since it certainly is on mine.
When will the game be fixed 'right'? How many patches and how long will it take for me to get a 'playable' game? No fancy bells and whistles - just a 'playable' game.
That, to me is the burning question. And probably for others.
Don Maddox
28 Jan 04, 14:43
What have you seen that indicates a great system hiding under these problems? And more importantly, how do I find it!! :)
Well, I don't totally disagree with your observations. I think the way the system is handling vehicles is decent and that part is okay. I'm not sure about how realistic helicopters are because of the aforementioned bugs. I admit, I don't know what the hell is going on with airpower yet, but that doesn't mean it's broke. I just don't understand enough of what is happening with air support to even judge what is happening, let alone if it is happening the way I think it should!
I agree that the way the engine is displaying infantry is odd. I'm not sure if this can be remedied with interface enhancements or if the problem is more fundamental. That remains to be seen.
As far as the way the engine is handling defensive fire goes, I'm also still experimenting with this. I'm not sure there are many games that do it well, although Comabt Mission isn't bad. Most units suffer from a one size fits all mentality. For example: let's say we have a simulation where the typical unit is a company-sized element and hexes are 1,000 meters. Our company moves three hexes and takes opportunity fire from a defender. The entire company was subject to defensive fire at the same time! In reality, there is at least a chance that advance elements from the platoon would have taken small arms fire and stopped or notified the company CP. It's an abstraction, but an accepted one in wargaming.
From what I can see, POA2 is attemting to model fires on a individual, bullet-for-bullet basis. I believe the reason Scott is applying FOW and DF effects the way he is, is because different units have different profiles. In the real life choas of combat it is absolutely possible that a defender may spot an advancing squad and not realize that it is in fact part of a much larger company. It's a great concept, however, the current FOW effects make it difficult to tell if the engine is working the way it should. Add to that the fact that few of us fully understand all the effects that are being simulated. The lack of a really detailed tutorial or better documentation isn't helpful either.
In reply to Black Moria the game in question was Tigers on the Prowl. It was the follow on from the original Point of Attack and as I mentioned in my earlier post “ahead of it’s time”. The 10+ patches that followed at regular intervals were not only bug fixes but user requested enhancements to improve the game. HPS was only a small company then and one of the reasons it survived unlike many of it’s contemporary wargame producers was that Scott listened to his players and supported the game 100%.
My only regret is that following the release of Panthers in the Shadows and a couple of similar simulations HPS signed up with the USAF, taking it’s excellent game engine along with him.
So nine years along the road we have POA2, POA’s big brother. The similarities are evident, movement, Staff Officer Screens, the list goes on.
This particular thread started by Kammak is one of the most hard hitting (and enjoyable) I’ve read in a long time, constructive and very much to the point. I’m not here to defend Scott, he can do that without any help from yours truly. But I believe him when he says he will address the problems raised. The game has only been out for a couple of weeks, many of us only receiving it in the last couple of days. There are obviously some serious issues but I think we should give HPS time to sort them out.
Fundamentally what turns a good wargame into a classic is a partnership between the developer and the players, SPWAW springs to mind. We are all I believe amateur developers at heart, why do we all want scenario editors and map builders etc. with every game? because we want to do things our way.
Now you have me curious - you say the "underlying system is sound" - what is this statement based on?
Without seeing the code all we can judge on is the results shown through the interface, and so far I see a VERY flawed system. It appears to be overly complicated in many areas - meaning more code and more processor cycles used to produce an END RESULT that is the same (at best), but achieved much more efficiently, in other systems.
I think the worst aspect of the system is regarding infantry...which I still believe is/was viewed as an afterthought or at least an insignificant element of the overall product.
Fighting infantry in this game is ridiculously awkward and extremely unrealistic. The "excuse" given as to why the infantry won't ever be consolidated per other wargames is very weak, to put it mildly.
But the game insists on grouping by weapon system instead of by REALITY, so you get incongruous results at best. To my mind, this is a very flawed system.
That so many fundamental elements of a modern wargame DON'T work in POA2, leads me to believe the "system" is so overworked, so overly complicated, that the developer has actually lost track of how things are working vs how they are supposed to be working. (I thought it was doing this, but I guess now its doing this instead....)
Kammak,
I somewhat begrudgingly have to agree with some/if not much of what Kammak saying. (though I do believe HPS is trying to work on putting out a better product, Scott & Rich are trying to make POA-2 the game in was sold as).
The "infantry" situation is one I am finding very hard to deal with. Being the "infantry" aspect was one of the major reasons I thought this game could really be something (infantry interaction with the whole larger scale of warfare modeled around it). However, I find this could be very lacking.
It does also does seem that the game-code could be overly complicated (much more then needs be). Kammak's quote
"so overly complicated, that the developer has actually lost track of how things are working vs how they are supposed to be working"
I think could sum much of the problems.
But I'm still waiting for the first couple patches to come out before I have a final judgement.
I do expect (and think it is owed) that at least 2 patches (with major issues addressed) come out in a rather short time frame (within a month). With after that patch #3 and Patch # 4 (if needed) further down the time line.
Black Moria
28 Jan 04, 16:43
Thanks for the response, Xray.
I don't know squat about Tigers on the Prowl. How long a period did some 10+ patches take?
I'm going out on a limb to make a big assumption here - I assume that Tigers was playable on its intial release and the patches fixed the odd bug but was mainly in response to the player community.
POA-2 isn't.... People have reported numerous C++ errors, helicopters don't work, issues with loading/unloading, units not firing even when the enemy is at 'whites of their eyes' ranges, the scenario builder has issues, and missing help files to name a few issues. That in my book says the game is 'not playable' out of the box, or what I would call 'playable' - namely, all parts work....maybe not elegantly or intuitively, but works nonetheless.
Perhaps a better question would be - after patch 1, is POA-2 a 'playable' game?
I just wanted to add, that I didn't want to seem like I was "flaming" HPS.
I really believe they are doing there best to make POA-2 bug free (as best they can)...and also to incorporate thoughts and suggestions from those who have purchased it.
They seem like good people and a good Company.
I’ll try to clarify a couple of point Del but my memory’s not as good as it was and a lot of wargames have passed through my HD in the last 10 years.
The original POA, Scott’s first game was pretty rudimentary, it was only after the release of Tigers on the Prowl that thing started to take off. Yes the game was playable but if I recollect there were plenty of bugs to start with and a certain amount of criticism aimed at Scott. The patches were released over a long period of time and new enhancements incorporated into the third game, Panthers in the Shadows . Eventually both games were basically the same, one covering WW2 East Front and it’s sister the Western Theatre. To be honest POA-2 has more in common with TOP & PITS than POA.
What they all have in common (except POA-2) is that the were designed to run on DOS, and that’s what I meant when I said they were well ahead of their time for accuracy and detail (a grognards dream)
I know there are lots of problems with the new release, I’ve only just scratched to surface of the simulation and the complexity beggars belief. The beta patch addresses a few of the problems but others remain. So all we can do is report the bugs and let HPS sort them out.
In answer to your main question “after patch 1 is POA-2 a playable game?”
I don’t know, but I see great potential in the simulation if HPS gives it full support
Don Maddox
28 Jan 04, 18:19
As long as we keep our comments professional, I don't believe Scott or the other members of the POA2 team will think anyone is "flaming" them. If our feedback, criticisms, and suggestions are going to be of any value at all to HPS, then they need to be direct and honest. The POA2 team, of course, would much rather love to hear how much everyone loves their new product and all the great things we are doing with it. Nevertheless, I believe they want to hear from users who have found bugs or have solid feedback a lot more. They may not "enjoy" such feedback, but I'm pretty sure they understand at this point that it is necessary if POA2 is going to be a success.
One other point. Point of Attack 2 was billed as an "ultra-realistic" simulation. HPS is well aware that the crowd that will likely be attracted to POA2 will be the hardcore of the hardcore. Gamers of this type are always concerned with minute attention to detail. It is likely that many of us grognards would complain about small features and the tweaks we would have liked to see even IF everything else in the game worked properly. HPS can't be too surprised at the rather cold reaction POA2 has gotten so far considering the number of bugs and other issues.
Having said all that, I too believe HPS will support this title. What am I basing that on other than gut instinct? Well, Scott and Greg have been receptive to my ideas and I know they are making progress because I have seen a beta of the patch. We should wait and see what they produce with the first couple patches. That's my 2 cents.
Fighting infantry in this game is ridiculously awkward and extremely unrealistic. The "excuse" given as to why the infantry won't ever be consolidated per other wargames is very weak, to put it mildly. If a javelin team fires, then not only the jav gunner but his whole team (be it one guy or four guys) should be spotted and should receive return fire along with the gunner. An infantry squad DOESN'T group its riflemen in one group, its grenadiers in a second group, and its SAW gunners in a third group - they are used in teams with a weapons mix and need to be viewed that way by the game as well. If a saw gunner opens up, most likely his fireteam will be spotted (for determining effects of return MG fire, HE blasts, etc...) as well, but that doesn't mean the other two SAW gunners would be spotted as they are in different fire teams. But the game insists on grouping by weapon system instead of by REALITY, so you get incongruous results at best. To my mind, this is a very flawed system.
After doing a little more play testing tonight, I just have to say the above quote from Kammak....could be the main subject that HPS needs to address. The lack of a basic/coherent infantry model is severly going to hurt this game. It is a major aspect in which almost all other aspects in combat revolve from.
Don Maddox
28 Jan 04, 22:03
After doing a little more play testing tonight, I just have to say the above quote from Kammak....could be the main subject that HPS needs to address. The lack of a basic/coherent infantry model is severly going to hurt this game. It is a major aspect in which almost all other aspects in combat revolve from.Okay, I read the original post and I also read yours. I think I understand the direction you are going, but it would probably be more useful to HPS if we gave them specifics about (a) where and how the system fails, (b) examples of such failures and why we believe it isn't realistic, (c) constructive ideas on how the simulation should handle such situations and what it should look like.
Now bear in mind that this is me talking, not HPS. They may have an entirely different take on the matter.
In what I see as a nitch market, the ultra-warsim... you almost have to forgo some of the expectations that the mainstream game industry has rightfully taught us to hold. I've learned that even big production companies put out garbage billed as the ubber-sim. And they don't even bother listening to thier customers suggestions.
My patience will hold because I had no idea what to expect after DA sank into the quagmire of history. So as long as HPS and the developer are actively listening and working at the software, I can hold on and tinker away. What I hope though is that the devs. seriously learn from some of the erros made with POA2 Quality Assurance... some bugs just should not have happpened and it is a mystery how helos that can't fly or fight got past'em.
If the USAF used this for training, it makes me wonder how on god's green earth they can keep anything flying.... that was just a joke. Maybe a little venting....
But I have every reason to believe that things will improve based on all the positive feedback here in this and other forums. I am also accustomed to simulations like these ALWAYS being "Diamonds in the rough".
If this software was from a more expansive corporation with millions of dollars to flling at game-coders, then that would be Quite a different story.
Regards,
Tiberius
BTW- I think this is an excellent thread. It brings to light the partnership (for all its good and ill) between us and the makers in quite a unique and constructive manner.
I'm seeing two recurring issues cropping up on this board. Don just asked one of these questions, and since I haven't plunked my money down yet, I'd like to know:
1) What's wrong with the infantry model? Can someone please explain so I can understand what all the fuss is about?
2) What's going on with the FOW settings? From the manual, it sounds like the <i>idea</i> behind POA2's FOW and unit sighting model is very smart. I'm assuming something doesn't work as expected . . .
I for one am a fan of HPS's programs. Although I think they overcharge a bit for their older products (TOP2 is still $50 on their site), they generally have good titles, pay attention to details, and patch on a consistent basis (I really can only limit myself to Tiller's titles, so YMMV). From what little I've seen, this game has a lot going for it. It just needs to work:rolleyes:
Don Maddox
29 Jan 04, 09:44
1) What's wrong with the infantry model? Can someone please explain so I can understand what all the fuss is about?As I understand it, the main complaint is the way defensive fire works due to the way units are set-up in POA2. In games like TOAW, for example, units are made up of all sorts of different weapons systems. Once the game starts this is considered "one unit," although it's easier to effect some portions of the unit than others. When a unit attacks that unit, it attacks the whole unit. Similarly, if the unit is hidden, moves, and is subsequently spotted by an enemy, then the whole unit is spotted and will show on the map.
In contrast, POA2 can't create "units" of this type. Actually it does, but the effects can vary. Let me explain. A typical infantry squad in POA2 might consist of 5 soldiers with assault rifles, 1 soldier with a light machine-gun, and 1 soldier with a light grenade launcher. The game engine keeps track of them as separate entities (as I understand it...) and some may be easier to spot or destroy than others. If the machine-gunner opens up, he may then be spotted and fired on while the other soldiers in the squad remain hidden or otherwise unaffected.
There is a command in POA2 called "compress multi-part units." A multi-part unit is a unit that consists of more than one type of weapons system. In our above example, the game will display each of the different weapons systems as a separate icon on the map unless the compress multi-part units command is used. I believe the game actually tracks each member of that squad as a separate unit (though the clear intention of the scenario author was to create a "squad"), however, the player usually sees a single icon on the map.
Clear as mud? Me too.
2) What's going on with the FOW settings? From the manual, it sounds like the <i>idea</i> behind POA2's FOW and unit sighting model is very smart. I'm assuming something doesn't work as expected . . .
I believe the main problem right now is that the documention isn't as good as it could have been. POA2 is complicated and it models so many different things it's sometimes hard to tell exactly what is happening. For example: an enemy unit sitting on a hill may suddenly disappear, even though it has been visible for some time. What happened to it? Was it destroyed? Did it move away undetected? Is it hidden in smoke or fog? Or was the enemy unit never really in that location in the first place? When you hover the mouse over an enemy unit you get some interesting information on it. It may say the unit consists of "x3 T72 Main Battle Tanks." All is well and good, except...it also says the information is 15 minutes old! That's because our knowledge of enemy forces is incomplete or out of date and the unit may no longer be there.
Okay, we realize we don't have an exact knowledge of the enemy's dispostion. What do we do? Send out a recon element. Fair enough, we send out our trusty scouts in a HMMWV. The problem is that battlefield communication isn't always what we might expect due to a variety of factors and once our scouts find the enemy it is possible there may be a delay before the information makes it back through the communication circuit to us.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe I have pieced together part of what is happening. POA2 is really meant to simulate the battlefield as the battalion or brigade commander sees it, not as Sergeant Maddox sees it from his forward vantage point. Each unit -- including the TF commander -- only knows what he has seen and what has been reported to him. In POA2 individual units may indeed have a line of sight to an enemy that, due to communication delay, has not yet been reported to HQ. So this unit can see this particular enemy, but the only way for the player to see it (before it has been reported) is to select the freindly unit and use the LOS tool. This is a somewhat unintended effect I believe. From what Scott has said in his earlier posts, his intent is that players not try to micromanage the battlefield in this way, and instead allow the HQ units to do their job. By micromanaging in such a way the player alters the fog-of-war effects.
Am I 100% sure of all this? No, I'm not. I'm still trying to piece together what is happening and it's somewhat difficult to tell what is an intended fog-of-war effect and what might be a bug. The end result is that units can suddenly "pop-up" from nowhere and then disappear again. In real life this is exactly what a battalion or brigade commander has to deal with. Is everything working the way it is supposed to in POA2's FOW system? I'm not sure, but I do believe Scott is on the right track.
Don, I think that the FOW event that Scott is trying to simulate is a good idea, and I like the idea of not having to micromanage the entire battlefield. However, it will only work if the AI is doing its job. One of the problems I have come across is that the AI does not seem to handle obstacles very well. Specifically, in scenario 4 the tank companies behind the river at start have a hard time crossing the river. If you give the company a formation move to the other side of the river, the individual platoons do not recognize the bridge and will plot a path straight across the river. When the platoons get to the river, they will stop and cancel all remaining movement orders. It does not matter what movement setting you are using (direct, semi-direct, or best). I pointed this out to Scott the other day. He wrote back that he saw what I was seeing and could tell from the routines why that was happening. Unforturnately, the work around will not be easy. He said not to look for this fix in the first patch. Therefore, you will have to "micromanage" your units when you come to obstacles.
Don Maddox
29 Jan 04, 13:53
I suspect that players may want to micromanage to some degree even if the AI did what it should. We've been taught to do this by years of playing other wargames and it's a really hard habit to break. It is in real life too! Commanders always want to interfere in subordinate commanders' affairs and even into the realm of the NCO. Learning to allow your subordinates to operate on their own is difficult to say the least.
If the AI is having problems with pathfinding I'm not surprised. This seems to be a difficult issue because many games, both turn-based and RTS, seem to suffer from it. Scott is probably correct when he says it will be a difficult problem to solve.
Regarding "What is the Infantry Issue" - Don, what you are saying is actually at odds with what the developer himself said on the FAQ - what you describe is actually better than what I believe the game really does.
You say the game is actually keeping track of each individual, even if they are in a group marker of more than one of the same type of weapon system? That would seem to contradict the reason given by the developer for why he couldn't have real squad markers and real platoon markers. From the interface, and the FAQ, it seems that the game tracks a platoon literally the way the markers are displayed when compress multipart is OFF - i.e. as one group of 3 SAW gunners, one group of riflemen, and one group of grenadiers. So that if one SAW gunner fires, that "spots" the group of 3 SAW gunners, but not necesarily the other two groups, riflemen and grenadiers. So return fire would be targeted at the group of 3 gunners. This is what I find so ridiculous, and the reason given was that like systems had to be grouped for purposes of spotting, noise&light camoflage, etc...so he couldn't have a single marker representing 13 Marines with a real weapons mix because the system couldn't handle spotting and targeting for all those different weapons.
If it is as you describe, where regardless of the interface marker size and composition the system actually tracked each individual man/machine, then the interface issue COULD be solved, one marker could reprent any group of things, and the system would still work hunkey dorey.
It is this issue to which I am referring to when I say the infantry model is unrealistic and awkward.
To the folks that are reading the manual but not playing the game, BEWARE. My first 30 minutes with this game were awesome and I was so excited I called my wife telling her how fantastic this new game was. No joke. The manual reads wonderfully, and seems to represent an awesome wargame. Things like multipart and compress multipart make a lot of sense when you read them...then you actually try to fight the infantry and find out that 12 out of 13 guys are hidden and you have just one Jav gunner where your whole squad is, and then you start scratching your head. Its not like you get a "squad" marker that says "3rd Squad/1st Platoon/B Co", 13 men, etc...THAT would be understandable. Instead it just HIDES everybody but the anti-tank gunner, and you are supposed to remember that is where your squad is. Combine that with what are now called bugs, like the APC disappearing even when your squad is loaded on it (with compress), being able to see the other guy's infantry even though THEY are loaded on an apc, and seeing all the markers for every guy even when they are loaded your APCs (without compress), and it becomes a big mess.
So perhaps the developer could clarify exactly what he can and can't do, and why the interface HAS to stay the way it is, without single unit markers for infantry units?
Kammik: So if I understand you correctly, the following is a possibility?:
You order a platoon to hex 13,5, some 20 hexes away. 3 turns later, your platoon is presumably enroute to 13,5, when a couple of hexes away an anti-tank team is spotted - for this example it is spotted by what appears to be your infantry platoon. You give DF orders to your platoon, only to discover the infantry's granadier unit is the only friendly unit you actually know the location of (by virtue of the unit icon?), and he can't do a DF with grenades due to being out of range?
Continuing with my example, said AT team also has a MG crew at the same locale, and the MG crew also makes it's spotting, but only of the infantrymen, and not of the grenadier team. So any firing towards that hex will only reduce the infantry team?
Very confusing!
Don,
Regarding your question above about how to fix the infantry - here's 1 idea of many:
Have the developer create (our allow us to create) a "vehicle" with the weapons of various fire teams - USMC 4 man, Army 6 man, whatever. For a USMC fireteam the "vehicle" would have 2xM16, 1M16/M203, and 1 M249, plus however many grenades etc....
The vehicle speed would be the slowest man's speed, and you rate sound, light, etc... on the SAW gunner or whatever is the loudest/brightest/noisiest.
Let these "vehicles" be the components for building infantry units, which would then resemble platoons of tanks. After all, the vehicles have multiple weapons on them, so use that existing system to model infantry fighting teams. You could then build a platoon consisting of 9 vehicles/fireteams, and scale it from there....
A platoon coudld then split back into fireteams, which would become the smallest controllable unit, as a single vehicle is as well. THAT would be a heck of a lot closer to reality than the current system. Afterall, the SAW gunner will be pretty close to his AGunner, and the team leader and scout won't be too far distant either - so once the SAW opens up the other three guys should be close enough to get hit by return fire as well...but not the SAW gunners in the other fireteams, just because they have the same weapon!
Ideally, these "vehicles" should be user-constructable, so that any nationality / force structure could be modelled, along with other properties like engineering/demolitions, FAC, illuminators, etc....
Then the fun would start with playing around with small teams against larger forces, working with on-call fires directed by small ground units, etc....That would open the game up to an aspect of modern warfare that ATF and Tacops don't really address too well.
And it would still scale well up to battalion & brigade level by taking the base vehicle stats (the fireteam / weapon team) and making companies instead of platoons, whatever...the base values would be determined by the force's primary maneuver element - the fire team.
I would imagine that as long as the "vehicle"/fire team/weapon team is built from components already in the database, that constructing the combined values would be achieved by taking the highest or "worst" rated and making that the composited units' value. If some bozo actually tries to build such a composite unit by combining an A-10, a grenadier, and a ZSU, then sure the values will be whacked but who cares?? The solution would solve the 80/20 rule and make many infantry-detailed folks VERY happy with POA2.
Anyhow, that is just one stab at it - I've got a couple different solutions rattling around my head but thought I would put that forward to answer your question!
Regards,
Kevin
Kammak,,
Great idea on one way to improve the "infantry model"....I like it!!
Have you sent this to Scott at HPS?
If not, cut and paste your suggestion and email it to them.
Kamak,
That really is a set of suggestions of noteworthy proportions... please do send it to the Head Programmer and keep us informed as to what you hear back.
-T
Will the system allow Kammik's plan? It might be a significant amount of recoding to allow units to load onto vehicles if they also are in fact vehicles in the technical sense . . .
Then again, A UH60 should be able to shlep HMMMV, so why not?
Ivan Rapkinov
31 Jan 04, 12:26
Will the system allow Kammik's plan? It might be a significant amount of recoding to allow units to load onto vehicles if they also are in fact vehicles in the technical sense . . .
Then again, A UH60 should be able to shlep HMMMV, so why not?
I think loading has more to do with weight than unit type.
Don Maddox
31 Jan 04, 21:53
Has anyone tried to slingload a vehicle yet? Can a UH-60 or CH-47 sling load a HMMWV in the game?
Ivan Rapkinov
01 Feb 04, 10:39
loading (from the manual) is governed by cargo points; there are two types: "Personnel" (troops, light weapons, missiles etc etc) and "Other" (Vehicles, Guns, whatever). A unit has two limits to the amount of cargo points it can carry (tow?); the "Personnel" limit, and the "other" limit.
the Manual gives the example of a truck w/ 25 "Personnel" cargo point capacity, and 1 "Other" capacity - meaning that you can load 25 troops and one vehicle.
On top of the cargo points system, the carrying unit has a weight limit as well, so even if it has enough cargo points to carry 25 troops and vehicle, it may be beyond it's weight capacity.
As for Kammak's infantry as vehicles suggestion; I assume the infantry team "vehicles" could just be assigned personnel cargo pointd, and forget the "other" point - not sure if Persoannel/Other is hardcoded into unit type though.
Scott could probably answer that for us ;)
Ivan Rapkinov
01 Feb 04, 10:41
Don: I'm having enough trouble getting troops to load/unload - forget vehicles :D
I'm going to try airlifting hamels and m198s though to see if that's possible atm.
Don Maddox
01 Feb 04, 12:02
I'm having better luck loading/unloading with build 5 of the beta patch. This patch seems to work better than the last one and a lot of little things have been fixed.
I have not tried loading a vehicle into a cargo aircraft for, example, so I don't know how well that is working. I'll try it when I get a chance.
I'm having better luck loading/unloading with build 5 of the beta patch. This patch seems to work better than the last one and a lot of little things have been fixed.
I have not tried loading a vehicle into a cargo aircraft for, example, so I don't know how well that is working. I'll try it when I get a chance.
As of right now there are no cargo aircraft in the data base. I pointed this out to Scott earlier in the week. He was surprized when he checked and could not find them himself. He guessed that they got deleted for some reason, but he did say that he would add them back in with the patch. cb
Don Maddox
01 Feb 04, 23:30
As of right now there are no cargo aircraft in the data base. I pointed this out to Scott earlier in the week. He was surprized when he checked and could not find them himself. He guessed that they got deleted for some reason, but he did say that he would add them back in with the patch. cb
The C-17, C-130, and C-141 are all back in with the patch.
I've just bought POA2 and after more than 8 rather broken hours of play I've decided to drop the system until it's patched. I'm fairly happy with the mechanics and indeed the system seems to have a lot of potential. Unfortunatley, it has been released in a state that would have a hard time making the Beta stage of development.
There are many bugs in the system, some already mentioned by other members. On my machine I get problems with entrenching units and fairly regular C++ exceptions. I've also had one or two saved games that refuse to load. As a consequence, apart from the tutorial scenario I haven't managed to finish one yet, depsite my best efforts.
As a software developer myself I can see some of the issues that must be going on in the background and one has to wonder whose descision it was to publish the game in such a poor state? The developer or Publisher? Either way I'm not too impressed.
This is the first HPS game I've bought (These are difficult to get in the Uk) and it has been a rather expensive aquisition. I would at least expect to be able to play an entire scenario warts and all without crashes. But this doesn't seem to be the case. Has anyone else here completed a scenario other than the tutorial?
I would estimate that no beta testing was carried out and that the publisher/developer released early to make a quick buck. As a result, we have a game that is so unstable as to be unplayable. I hope the system gets sorted, as it clearly has potential. One thing for sure, I will think very hard before purchasing another HPS game.
RobP
I've just bought POA2 and after more than 8 rather broken hours of play I've decided to drop the system until it's patched. I'm fairly happy with the mechanics and indeed the system seems to have a lot of potential. Unfortunatley, it has been released in a state that would have a hard time making the Beta stage of development.
There are many bugs in the system, some already mentioned by other members. On my machine I get problems with entrenching units and fairly regular C++ exceptions. I've also had one or two saved games that refuse to load. As a consequence, apart from the tutorial scenario I haven't managed to finish one yet, depsite my best efforts.
As a software developer myself I can see some of the issues that must be going on in the background and one has to wonder whose descision it was to publish the game in such a poor state? The developer or Publisher? Either way I'm not too impressed.
This is the first HPS game I've bought (These are difficult to get in the Uk) and it has been a rather expensive aquisition. I would at least expect to be able to play an entire scenario warts and all without crashes. But this doesn't seem to be the case. Has anyone else here completed a scenario other than the tutorial?
I would estimate that no beta testing was carried out and that the publisher/developer released early to make a quick buck. As a result, we have a game that is so unstable as to be unplayable. I hope the system gets sorted, as it clearly has potential. One thing for sure, I will think very hard before purchasing another HPS game.
RobP
For the record, I have not been able to finish a single scenario on any of my three computers without c++ errors mucking up the game.
I really would like to hear from someone in charge how this got released with some of the bugs being "show stoppers"... I'm not asking for a witch hunt, that's just bad. I do want to know as a customer, what the hell was going on here. I want to give HPS my money and support there efforts. But I also want some idea that I am buying a product which pretty much does what it says without too many warts. I like POA2 a lot and want to see it grow... probably only because no other developer has taken upon themself to make a game of this nature and magnitude, so they win not by skill but by default.
Rob: All I can say in defense of HPS is that they usually put out a stable product. However, that's partially because 90% of their titles are just rehashes of the Tiller game system.
Don Maddox
03 Feb 04, 09:25
I would be curious to hear what the Air Force's impression of POA2 was. I wonder what kind of feedback they had and if their version had the same bugs as ours.
I'm hoping that the only difference between the two systems is that the dataview utility is more powerful for the military version. If there are actual differences to the base code, then I can see that turning into a royal nightmare for HPS to keep track of. Not to mention it will divide their efforts and cause more time to be lost tracking bugs and testing new versions. I'm not sure if the two systems are the same or not. I have heard two different stories and I can't seem to get a straight answer on the subject.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.