View Full Version : How do you feel POA2 stacks up against other modern wargames?
Don Maddox
02 Feb 04, 15:13
Point of Attack 2 is somewhat more complicated than most other wargame offerings, but that doesn't mean it's better or worse in and of itself. The engine seems to incorporate design elements from a number of different simulations, yet remains different than all the rest.
How do you feel POA2 stacks up against other modern wargames such as Decisive Action, BCT Commander, TacOps, Fulda Gap '85, and Divided Ground? Do you like the feel of the interface and the way data is presented? What's the game missing that it should include?
well...
I am impressed with the level of detail regarding what factors can be handled in this game. Let's take as an example NBC effects, "Friction", command and control elements which are influenced by communicaitons gear and commander's skill among other factors. Add to that some very devilish FOW effects which not only include the units you might face but also what the terrain holds... Certain types of terrain, particularly buildings and roads, can be unknown or incorrectly known to a player. The whole plan in a sector may change if upon getting there what you thought was a cornfield is actaully a barn and attached house plus cornfield. This means each unit will have its own unique knowledge of the battlefield... so you can never quite trust that what you see is what you got. That's Tension.
And I have not seen this modelled in DA or SP:WAW TOAW, etc..
Right-click and give orders is what I am used to and helps but other games have implemented this everywhere. What sets POA2 apart is the assistance from staff officers, who may or may not be right, but as a real-world commander you gotta work with your assembled team. And if there is a campaign mode latent in this, I would like to see my troops and Junior Staff improve over time.
LOS has to be the most modelled system I have seen in a wargame since PITS and TOP. Coupled with the modern sensor platforms you can play with from Satellites to eyeballs, it reminds me of Harpoon for ground pounders. If anyone played that naval wargame it really set the mark for technological detail which rewarded correct employment and tactics as POA2 would/will.
Direct fire, Indirect, oppurtunity fire, AA, SAMS... very wide selection of choices in the attack phase, because the database is contemporary and scalable (from the developer's end only I guess) we could see even more units come into play. Other wargames have done this too but I don't feel with as much in consideration as this one. Example: I look at a unit's details and see each weapon modelled for rotation, ROF, etc... the dataview document describes this in 9 some printed pages so I would need to refer someone to it for them to see the full range of interlinking values.
Weather, which includes both atmospheric and ground conditions affect sighting, weapon accuracy, movement, fatigue, the availability of support, the effects of toxic agents, and the spreading of fires, your communications and patrol capabilities... more interesting than just a visibility vs. range model.
On to some of the bad points.
Every wargame I have played has been released with warts... BUT... this one has bubonic plague.
Helicopters that don't work.
Loading troops, broken.
C++ errors if you even look at the screen the wrong way. Moody Moody game...
Databse not editable= BAD, BAD BAD!!!! But a contract is a contract, I understand.
I am more dissappointed at these show-stoppers and the moxy of a company to put out a hacked product for our cash, than in any way the game plays. It's like buying a house then finding out it has no roof and the foundation is kinda sagging but the construction crew comes buy and promises to fix it, just wait a little bit... Well that's good. I EXPECT you to fix what should have not been broken anyway... TOAW went through its growing pains, East Front was utter crap when I first bought it... DA died shortly after birth so that leaves SPWAW which to me is the consumate winner, but that took over 6 years to get where it is today. The difference between it and POA2 is that SPWAW is free I wasn't taken to the bank for it like POA2.
I would love to see the finer points turn into a campaign game with a fuller and more robust databse as some of the other wargames have. Currenty I think TOAW has the most extensive, but POA2 could better integrate that "think like a commander" immersion factor I am coming to respect with suspended imagination.
That's my take, because I''m Tiberius and I told you so... 8)
Is this a trick question?
:)
My ranking (of games I've played - never heard of some those):
TacOps
Decisive Action
ATF
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
[filler]
POA2
Is this a trick question?
:)
My ranking (of games I've played - never heard of some those):
TacOps
Decisive Action
ATF
POA2
Wicked... Wicked Child!
for shame you have not played the campaign series!
Lost your courageous wheremacht to Grandfather Winter... a tragedy. Seized the Chateaus of Calais with your last man. Oh, for shame.
Don Maddox
02 Feb 04, 22:28
I'm surprised to hear people ranking DA higher than ATF. ATF is very well supported by the developer, while DA has hardly received even passing interest it seems...
From where I sit, the main complaint with POA2 is stability. That seems to be the biggest concern that most people have. I have played several games to completion and overall I like the system. It has a ton of detail and it does seem that HPS plans to support it.
Is it a fair complaint to say that POA2 was released without proper documentation and with some serious bugs? Yes, I think that's fair. The patch I'm using does much to correct these problems and also adds some significant replay value to the game. I believe this system is going to be pretty good after a few more patches and I'm looking forward to it. Am I being a little optimistic? Perhaps, but I like this game in spite of its flaws.
Ivan Rapkinov
03 Feb 04, 03:41
I'm reserving Judgement until the patches come out - after all, I bought (and still play) Hearts of Iron :D
I'm willing to forgive a few bugs if everything that POA promises is delivered in the end - there's nothing like it in scope at the moment - w/ LTL, EBW, and pretty much any 4GW aspect doable in some way,
hell, I'm contemplating doing a 1992 LA Riots scn (as discussed in the great book Soldiers in Cities: MOUT ) just to see how far you can push the system.
I'd prefer the game to be more infantry centric, but hey :D
I'm surprised to hear people ranking DA higher than ATF. ATF is very well supported by the developer, while DA has hardly received even passing interest it seems...
I just have a heck of a time actually doing anything in ATF - I can formulate a plan and execute it in Tacops and DA without hardly thinking about the interface...its just easy. With ATF I'm constantly fighting the system to get anything done, so usually I just give up and play something else.
Yes DA is pretty dead, and there are lots of things I would LOVE to see improved on, but what is there is GOOD and works well. Making new scenarios is a breeze, tweaking OOBs is a cinch, and helicoptor ops, artillery, and air support are easy to use and modelled OK. I would love to see TOAW's unit component model used in DA - so that SEAD strikes could strip out organic AD in brigades, helo strikes could target JUST certain vehicles, etc....That would be a wonderful marriage IMO. Or, flipside, I wish TOAW had a more detailed air model like DA's so you could do the same.
Anyway, its just a personal thing - I have a hell of a time enjoying ATF. I have to admit, I also REALLY prefer turn based/wego over "real-time & pause". That doesn't help my issues with ATF either. :(
Don Maddox
03 Feb 04, 09:19
I agree that DA's interface is fairly user-friendly. It's easy to do what you want, and the results are usually pretty close to your expectations. The game runs smoothly and there are very few bugs. I also agree about the OOB being a bit too nebulous.
ATF does have a cumbersome interface. Everything you want is there, but I sometimes have difficulty just making the system "do" something. Unless you are familiar with the system and use it a lot, it's not very intuitive. I've had performance issues with it too. The game engine is apparently able to scale to take advantage of more powerful systems. In theory, this should mean that the system runs smoother and more realistically on a higher end PC (as I understand it). My experience is that you can hardly tell the difference between a 1.8Ghz and a 3.0Ghz. Whatever you have, the system uses it all. having said that, ATF is a good game and it's getting better. With a few more engine modifications and some graphics enhanchements, the series could appeal to a lot more fans I think.
I have not tried TacOps. The whole issue of having only two elevations and limited ability to create new scenarios just kills it for me.
I agree that DA's interface is fairly user-friendly. It's easy to do what you want, and the results are usually pretty close to your expectations. The game runs smoothly and there are very few bugs. I also agree about the OOB being a bit too nebulous.
You may want to check out the DA user group at yahoo. Jim Lunsford just released a lengthy list of improvements which will be added to DA in an update which should be coming out in a few weeks. He is trying to run down a few bugs. Once that is finished, it should be out. cb
I have not tried TacOps. The whole issue of having only two elevations and limited ability to create new scenarios just kills it for me.
Heresy!
I think its the single finest piece of software out there. The elevation thing sounds very hokey, but when you play it just seems to work and isn't a big deal.
The greatest replay aspect of Tacops is the easy OOB changing. Despite not having a scenario editor, you can change every single unit, add/remove units, and swap equipment at runtime. This is how I enjoy it. Example: You play a company sized battle as is, then next time change the tanks to hummers with TOWs, or add a LAV-AT section...maybe give RED more ICM rounds or an extra air strike. Those kinds of changes, which are made with such ease, give the game a lot of single-player replay-ability.
The unit database is a fantastic reference on its own as well. I honestly have nothing bad to say about it, at all. I only have wishes for MORE stuff that would make it even better. Tacops v5 looks to be absolutely fantastic, with (hopefully) a full scenario editor, additional elevation levels, and many other goodies.
I urge you to try it out sometime. Compared to POA2, it is a work of art!
Ivan Rapkinov
03 Feb 04, 21:49
Except that it has no user edittable AI, which means that you can only play the same scns -- on the same maps -- being able to edit the OOB composition does not make up for this in my opinion.
But TacOps is rather good :D
I have never bought Tac ops because I understand it does not model morale. If that is true how can it be considered on the same level?
Andrew :confused:
Ivan Rapkinov
03 Feb 04, 22:18
I have never bought Tac ops because I understand it does not model morale. If that is true how can it be considered on the same level?
Andrew :confused:
troops still get suppressed, etc - just that they never break.
given that "morale" is a subjective device that cant be accurately modelled, MajorH decided not to include it.
To tell the truth it doesn't seem to matter - TacOps strength is in multiplayer, not so much single player :)
Morale was not a design consideration for Major H. IIRC he felt it morale was more of a long-term effect, and the time frame of the engagements (240 minutes was a long one) didn't require it.
While I disagree somewhat with this, TacOps then becomes a purely tactical simulation. You can depend on your units to act accordingly, and if you fail, you only have yourself to blame. That being said, it doesn't have it's own AI as of yet (if it's the same as the version I cut my teeth on - 0.1 (!)), but rather uses one of several pre-scripted routines for OPFOR each time you play a scenario. It is a kick-ass game, and I still haven't had as much fun in PBEM as I have with TacOps.
I have never bought Tac ops because I understand it does not model morale. If that is true how can it be considered on the same level?
Andrew :confused:
?
Its dealing with battles that only last 20 minutes to 2 hours (tops), morale isn't that big a deal in that time frame. As the Major says, all troops are well lead, well trained, and well motivated.
Not on the same level - as what? Its one of the finest modern combat sims out there. I would love more single player options like scripting AIs and making new battles, but the features it does have are rock solid and extremely easy to use. And for multiplayer, I don't think it has real competition - easy to create maps, fully customizable OOBs, full referee/umpire functions, engineering options, PBEM/Hotseat/Network play, the list goes on and on....
Considering it is actively used by three different nations' military forces, I don't think it is the one "not on the same level"!? :confused:
Or perhaps I should agree - it is definitely NOT on the same level as POA2 - everything in Tacops WORKS, and works well!
Just try it - the demo is free.
Don Maddox
03 Feb 04, 22:29
I do not currently play TacOps so my comments have to be taken in that context. Having said that, I am somewhat familiar with the system as we used to have a TacOps section here at Warfare HQ. It died from lack of interest among gamers. :cry:
From what I have seen, TacOps sports an impressive level of detail in the areas in which it chooses to concentrate. The system does, however, have some critical shortcomings, which in my view are fairly serious. The game concentrates on warfare at the tactical level. Combat at this level is based on some very basic, fundamental principles. One of which is terrain. The maps in TacOps are just way too simplistic for my tastes. The system only has two elevation levels, which is just ridiculous for a tactical wargame. Even ASL -- a boardgame! -- has more than that. Next, the lack of a scenario editor is a true killer and I can't for the life of me understand why Major H. doesn't make this his number 1 priority (yesterday). The morale issue is also a serious one to many gamers. TacOps also is far more restrictive on what can be edited than POA2 is.
TacOps is a neat system and it has some good strengths. It also has some glaring weaknesses, which is why it remains a niche product with a very small fan base. A direct comparrison of POA2 and TacOps is like apples and oranges because the systems are so very different. TacOps has went through multiple incarnations and has had ample time to mature. POA2, on the other hand, is a few weeks old and is still having teething problems. It's too early to tell how it will all shake out.
Ivan Rapkinov
03 Feb 04, 22:34
tacops I think think is fine for conventional scns (actually what it's best at imo)
where it falls down (and this is where I think POA will step in) is the OOTW aspect - it's there, but it's tacked on. (The Major has said he only included civilians due to military user requirements) - the use of non lethal weapons is not normally seen in a wargame, and I'm anxious to see if it's been done well or not.
I think the system is best suited for company/team engagements (also runs better :D ), where you have control, but you can utilise all the unique things about the system. (I do realise not too many staff oficers at company level - I abstracted those :D )
RE: Died from a lack of interest - That's really more a function of site traffic than game interest. Tacops has a very active fan base with multi-user CPXs almost weekly/bimonthly. It is also running a tournament that will carry on for several months. There has been no lack of players for the tournament. The Major himself just recently hosted and umpired two CPXs in the past month.
RE: Niche market - Based on what? It is used by several military forces, and the Major's primary focus is the military contracts, not the civilian "hobby" market. Obviously the Marines, Australians, Canadians, and Armored Cav found the game more than slightly useful, and most of them are actively using the product for officer training. I can't think of a better endorsement for a ground combat sim than repeated military contracts for updates and enhancements, can you? Again, if you haven't actually played the scenarios, any judgement about what is lacking has to be suspect.
Since it is designed primarily for military use, the focus has been on multiplayer via LAN - the single-player aspect IS secondary, but the Major has repeatedly said the scenario editor is his major goal for Tacops v5 because he also realizes the large market that is turned away because of the lack of an editor.
However, I am curious by what statistics you label it a niche product (somewhat derogatorily IMO) - the user base is FAR more active than DA, and from what I have seen far more active than ATF or BCT. A simple comparison of the number of maps available for each wargame would confirm this immediately, so what other factors relegate it to a small niche product? It is getting continual updates by the Major, and these are not major bug fixes but usually enhancements. From statements by users of the original version (Tacops v0.xxx) the game's feature set has always been rock solid. Tacops v0 would still be a superior product to POA2 - let alone the current version, based solely on feature set functionality. (I've asked, just for comparison. ATF has also received very good marks on version 1.0 functionality from beta testers and users of the original release.)
So please let me know why you classify it a niche product?
I think you could say that any wargame could be considered "niche" at this point where RTS and FPS games seem to garner a tremendous amount of the statistical market share... and the real one too.
I never thought niche was necessarily a derogatory terrm, I think niche can mean specialized as well. Or appealing to a very picky audience which I think relates to another term... grognard.
I like my niche! hehehe.
Ivan Rapkinov
04 Feb 04, 01:34
So please let me know why you classify it a niche product?
because wargaming is a niche, and modern wargaming is the niche of niches.
POA, TacOps, DA and ATF are the Nichiest niches of them all!
When TacOps first came out - it was hailed. So what does the fan base turn around and ask - when's the WW2 version coming out?
Squad Battles: Vietnam filled a niche, being one of the first wargames to cover Vietnam on the PC - so what happened next? A WW2 game... (I fought hard and long for a non WW2 game, but hey :D )
Operation Flashpoint - perhaps the best FPS out there, did very well, but how much do you still hear about it outside of the hardcore? Not much, because Battlefield: 1942 came out, followed closely by Call of Duty.
Out of the hundreds of TOAW scns, how many aren't about WW2? Quite a bit, but they're still outnumbered by WW2 scns.
So to begin with, there is a dearth of modern wargames to begin with. Then chuck in the complexity of all the afore mentioned titles(Don's mentioning of Divided Ground and Fulda Gap is to my mind irrelevant, as those games are just "modern", not modern sims.) and see how many people drop off.
look at the example of Harpoon - a great game, but a niche game :)
there is nothing derogatory about calling modern wargames a niche market. I wish for more modern games, but none are forthcoming :)
"It also has some glaring weaknesses, which is why it remains a niche product with a very small fan base."
:mad: :angry: This is the quote that makes me bristle. The implication is that it is weak, and therefore has a small fan base and is a "niche" product, not a mainstream wargame product. I find this statement inaccurate and unsupported. I think it is clear from the quote that niche is indeed meant in a derogatory fashion.
I don't think the fan base is any smaller than other wargame in its class - POA2, DA, and ATF. I KNOW it has a larger fan base than DA - and I strongly suspect it is larger than ATF, but don't honestly know. From what I can see in message boards and websites, Tacops has the most active user community of the four titles mentioned. And I'll reiterate that the primary customer for Tacops is military forces of various nations. Not a one time buy, but continual contracts for updates, enhancements, and equipment adds. If its good enough for the USMC, I think it can handle my wargaming needs too.
To say you don't like a game is one thing, but to then claim NO ONE else likes it, and it is an obscure little niche game because of its "faults", is quite another issue.
Hi!
I have to agree with Kammak. I am also a TacOps fan since the beginning and although I do not participate very much is the mailing list, I have been always subscribed to it. I saw version 0, then version 3 and finally version 4 and I still play TacOps in two-player with a colleague of mine who also knows TacOps since the beginning. I can assure you that the mailing list is very very active and I have never seen any signs of stagnation on the part of the Major. The user community is very numerous too and is always ready to help with scenario making, sugestions for future implementation and introduction of new units, etc.
I hoped that POA-2 would replace TacOps, but I am now very skeptic. It easier to believe that TacOps will evolve and incorporate many of the features that make POA-2 attractive right now (as I am now sceptic as to whether POA-2 will work correctly even after the patches).
Concerning ATF, I also think it is a very interesting game and I have bought it because of the detailed terrain model, artillery model, unit hierarchy, formations and missions, etc. Nevertheless it starts to be boring when you realise that formations and missions do not work well due to AI limitations. Besides, in some aspects TacOps is even more detailed (e.g. TacOps models the lower speed of some russian ATGMs, it allows reverse movement, etc.).
I've never tried DA, so right now my preferred games are TacOps and ATF.
Looks like a touched a nerve with my comments re morale. Well in for a penny in for a pound....................
How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously. Troops stop advancing against orders, retreat against orders, they break and run against orders. Their morale and will to carry out their assigned task fails in the face of fire, combat and uncertainty. A sim that ignores this most important aspect of combat is not a complete sim.
Rgds
Andrew
(Ducking for cover with helmet strapped firmly on)
Hi Andrew
The Morale factor is very random and depends on many aspects that do not belong to the specific scenarion that you are simulating (e.g. fatigue and victory/defeat from past actions, etc.). So it is not easy to simulate and one should always doubt if the simulators that claim to simulate it are really doing it right. TacOps and ATF prefer to abstract this randomness in order to allow you to evaluate a tactical plan for itself. They are thus "planning tools" rather than "sims". Their objective is to evaluate whether a plan maximises your chances of mission achievement. Will the plan work in the real world? One can never know for certain due to those damn random factors, but it is quite probable it will if your plan is good.
Cheers,
Antonio
Looks like a touched a nerve with my comments re morale. Well in for a penny in for a pound....................
How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously. Troops stop advancing against orders, retreat against orders, they break and run against orders. Their morale and will to carry out their assigned task fails in the face of fire, combat and uncertainty. A sim that ignores this most important aspect of combat is not a complete sim.
Rgds
Andrew
(Ducking for cover with helmet strapped firmly on)
How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously.
Because TacOps, as I mentioned earlier, was specifically designed on the assumption that both your troops and the enemy will carry out their orders as you drew them up. A commander can't make a plan with the assumption that troops will turn tail, but will stay and fight.
It is a simulation of battlefield simulations, if you will. To simulate the training at NTC. That's why the game stresses that you are fighting OPFOR. OPFOR doesn't run for the hills at NTC in Ft. Irwin - and they don't run here.
In that case they can't really be compared (PoA2 and TacOps that is) because they aim to do quite different things.
PoA2 for me I think - assuming its improved as I expect it to be.
Cheers
Andrew
Don Maddox
04 Feb 04, 10:45
"It also has some glaring weaknesses, which is why it remains a niche product with a very small fan base."
:mad: :angry: This is the quote that makes me bristle. The implication is that it is weak, and therefore has a small fan base and is a "niche" product, not a mainstream wargame product. I find this statement inaccurate and unsupported. I think it is clear from the quote that niche is indeed meant in a derogatory fashion.
First, wargames themselves are a niche product. The PC gaming industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, but our particular segment of it is so small that "companies" often consist of only one or two guys! A joke compared to the development teams for even small companies in other types of PC games. The term "niche" is not in and of itself derogatory. It's entirely appropriate here.
Did I say TacOps was not a mainstream wargame product? Yes I did, and dealing with wargames is my business. Again, that's not the same as saying it's a bad product or a bad game. Wargames themselves are a niche. Modern wargames are a niche within a niche.
I don't think the fan base is any smaller than other wargame in its class - POA2, DA, and ATF. I KNOW it has a larger fan base than DA - and I strongly suspect it is larger than ATF, but don't honestly know. From what I can see in message boards and websites, Tacops has the most active user community of the four titles mentioned. And I'll reiterate that the primary customer for Tacops is military forces of various nations. Not a one time buy, but continual contracts for updates, enhancements, and equipment adds. If its good enough for the USMC, I think it can handle my wargaming needs too.
TacOps has a fan base that is roughly equivilent to the other wargames you mentioned. ATF, DA, and POA2 are all niche products as well and they will remain so because they simply lack a full fledged development team that could turn them into a shiny, top-of-the-line product. Graphics stink. Sound stinks. Can't even buy most of them at a real store, etc. I know our hobby doesn't receive the kind of attention that other PC games get, and no I'm not talking about the "twitch" crowd. There are a lot of PC games out there who's fan base is dominated by older, well educated players. Flight simming is a good example. If you have ever hung around with hardcore flight sim enthusiasts, then you know just how high tech and incredible the support for that community is (not to metion how large that comminity is). That's one example and I could offer more, but the point is that almost all of our hobby products are low-tech, enthusiast efforts.
To say you don't like a game is one thing, but to then claim NO ONE else likes it, and it is an obscure little niche game because of its "faults", is quite another issue.
Quite true, but that, in fact, is not what I said. I said TacOps had "an impressive level of detail, in some areas" and that is was a "good system." I also said it has some glaring shortcomings, which in my mind is true. I also said it is a niche product, which it is.
Are there mainstream wargames on the market? Sure. The Campaign Series sold more copies than every title HPS has offered to date combined, and then some. TOAW, which is by any standard a hardcore wargame, has sold enough copies almost to be considered a non-niche product. It has an incredible fanbase from all over the world. The Steel Panthers games and Close Combat (which is used by the US Marine Corps) have each sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Most of the modern wargames we're talking about here are considered a success if they sell 5,000 copies. I don't have direct access to the data, but I suspect civilian sales figures for TacOps are a few thousand (5,000-10,000) copies at best. ATF, POA2, and DA may have even sold less. All these are niche products due to their very real limitations, poor graphics, and small potential fan base.
But I think you're missing my point. What I was trying to say is that I really think TacOps (and some of the others we mentioned) could go "bigtime" if they had larger development teams that could afford to really spruce them up. How would a version of TacOps sell that had great 2D maps and graphics, a fabulous and user-freinly interface, support for multiple time periods and nations, a full featured scenario and map editor, an accessible OOB editor, the full range of multiplayer options, and was available for sale in game stores everywhere? I bet it would sell fairly well. Not Doom III mind you, but it would have a pretty good fan base. That's all I'm saying and you could say the same about ATF, BCT, POA2, DA or any number of other wargames.
Unfortunately, the reality is that we're saddled with a situation in which development teams consist on one guy, no professional graphics programmer, no professional multiplayer programmer, hardly any investment capital, slim to none marketing efforts, etc. That's the current state of wargames. POA2, ATF, TacOps, and DA are not mainstream wargames like SPWaW, the Campaign Series, etc. Those games have sold big time, but modern "niche" products are unlikely to ever break 5,000-10,000 copies because they are targeted at a very small audience. The fact the various military forces use them as a quick and dirty training tool is irrelevant. The military uses all kinds of wargame simulations that you have never heard of, but they all remain "niche products" with all too real limitations of what they can do.
No one is aying TacOps is a bad system (at least I'm not). But I do think it's fair to say that it has limitations, and these limitations keep it from being more widely accepted by wargamers. Again, you could say the same of other titles. Look around at the plethora of dedicated webpages, discussion forums, and such that exist for "mainstream" wargames. There are a lot of them and they are active. How many pages exist for the games we're talking about? Hardly any. Visit the official TacOps forum at Battlefront lately? It gets a few posts per week!
Interesting discussion, I didn't try POA2 so far, although I have it.
I feel the need to contribute some points of clarification on TacOps. It is actually a lot better than people make it here.
First of all, a scenario editor will full AI playable is what the Major is currently working on. More elevations are very high on the list and might go into 5.x as well.
BUT, "no scenario editor" is extremely misleading. What TacOps misses is the ability to make scenarios that the computed opponent (AI) can play. You can, and people do that all the time, make your own maps and it has a nice OOB editor. So people who go PBEM or TCP or multiplayer can always have as much new scenario as they want. In fact, practically all multiplayer games are done in scenarios that are designed on the fly by the umpire (it is more useful to think of the umpire as a scenario designer or as a "game-master" in tabletop role-playing here).
Now, if somebody could kick the Major into providing an interface for an external AI, I'd be all set :)
I was actually sorry that WarfareHQ had to close the military simulations section. But the TacOps mailing list is just too strong, it absorbs all traffic there is. And MajorH is using the forums at battlefront, which I don't find surprising since unlike other developers BFC is giving him a forum in nice shape. That WFHQ is in even nicer shape doesn't override that.
How can a game that does not model the impacts of combat on the morale of troops be taken seriously. Troops stop advancing against orders, retreat against orders, they break and run against orders. Their morale and will to carry out their assigned task fails in the face of fire, combat and uncertainty. A sim that ignores this most important aspect of combat is not a complete sim.
That's a little over the top, too.
In TacOps, infantry under fire does stop.
If they are under so heavy fire than other games model them running back TacOps models them as "out of the game". I don't know whether you played Combat Mission, but I can assure you the behavior of breaking troops annoys the hell out of most players. Unfortunately they also extended it to overwrite your orders on pretty light suppression, creating the mess far too often, but that's another story.
TacOps in general is an extremely lethal wargame, so abstracting broken troops as out of game fits it very well.
What else is missing? Lower hit probabilities for low morale, slower movement? TacOps does have that to a limited degree, if troops are suppressed they have lower hit probabilities and they move at half speed.
What TacOps does not have is a model of troops starting out with different levels of resistance against suppression. But, again, as the Combat Mission example shows, that is extremely hard to model and can lead to gameplay aspects that are more of a joke - for example the command delay in CM, which is a good feature in itself, but certainly not if you have to wait 3 of your 30 turns just for having green pre-1944 T-34s start moving along a road with a few bents.
Don Maddox
04 Feb 04, 17:05
Redwolf, thanks for the update on what's going on with TacOps. It looks like the sim is moving in the right direction.
Again, I would just like to point out that the purpose of this thread is to discuss some good wargames, not to flame any wargame. In the course of discussing the relative merits and shortcomings of POA2, it's entirely reasonable that players will compare the system to other products on the market. That's always a little bit like apples and oranges, but it's still the most useful benchmark we have. The POA2 vs. TacOps comparison is a useful one in my opinion. As grognards, we all want to play good wargames and that's why these debates are constructive in many ways.
On the Issue of TacOps. I am pleased to see that the system may be evolving even further. As most of you are aware, Warfare HQ only "officially" supports a small number of wargames. TacOps was at one time one of the chosen few, so what does that tell you? It is a good system, we just couldn't find a way to generate enough interest in it to justify the section. We posted a bunch of new maps, opened a TacOps forum, posted numerous AARs, etc. We also did our best to make the section responsive to what gamers wanted and get the word out about it. The general club membership voted overwhelmingly to nix the TacOps section in favor of a more popular system. I am open to the possibility of bringing it back at some point if someone could demonstrate that there is sufficient demand. We had a poll a while back and again, members voted that they had no interest in this system. You can draw your own conclusions on why that might be.
It's also fair to mention that we had a DA section and it too died due to lack of interest. Would I like to see TacOps come back? Yes, but only if there is going to be some genuine interest in the game. I'm not going to waste the server space and bandwidth if there are only going to be four or five people interested. We don't have a POA2 section yet either, for precisely the same reason. I'm still waiting to see if the system is going to be accepted by gamers or not.
Visit the official TacOps forum at Battlefront lately? It gets a few posts per week!
You are just not getting it. You can't NOT participate in a community and then slam it for not having an active community - you're just not looking in the right places.
The Tacops mailing list is extremely active, and per the Major the current subscription is 272 folks. And, the number of different posters is quite high compared to many web boards where 3-4 members basically talk to themselves.
I've played Tacops for over a year, yet I only found out about Warfare HQ a few weeks ago when you posted the link on the other POA2 board...so what? If you didn't get a lot of traffic for Tacops on your website, that has no reflection on whether Tacops has a good following. The mailing list is Tacops central, the Major posts new maps from the USMC pretty regularly and users frequently post new maps as well. There is simply no need for another website - everything is already setup and working and everyone knows where to go for stuff.
Would you tolerate someone talking about ATF or POA2 on your boards like this without them having played its current version? If someone has played it and wants to discuss what doesn't work right, great...but pontificating about it without any recent direct knowledge is kind of...uh...odd.
Hi, Don,
it wasn't my intention to go defensive on TacOps. What I wanted to correct is something else. From my point of view people were arguing that POA2 has all these bugs (hopefully soon fixable) and compared that to TacOps which is about as rock-stable as any software I have ever seen, including Unix, Open-Source, whatever. People then implied that this is because TacOps is so much simpler. This is true, TacOps is simpler, but it is by far not as simple as people assume.
Reminds me to add another point on scenarios:
http://www.eventfoto.com/privat/mil/tourney2003/scen_1_details.html
http://www.eventfoto.com/privat/mil/tourney2003/scen_2_details.html
http://www.eventfoto.com/privat/mil/tourney2003/scen_3_details.html
This what we play in the Tourney, and you can see that they are fairly complex, very real-world-dish and only one of them the classical TacOps red horde storms poor Blue defenders game. They require some house rules to applied on player's honor (not enforced by the engine) but nothing major.
As most of you are aware, Warfare HQ only "officially" supports a small number of wargames. TacOps was at one time one of the chosen few, so what does that tell you? It is a good system, we just couldn't find a way to generate enough interest in it to justify the section. We posted a bunch of new maps, opened a TacOps forum, posted numerous AARs, etc. We also did our best to make the section responsive to what gamers wanted and get the word out about it. The general club membership voted overwhelmingly to nix the TacOps section in favor of a more popular system. I am open to the possibility of bringing it back at some point if someone could demonstate that there is sufficient demand. We had a poll a while back and again, members voted that they had no interest in this system. You can draw your own conclusions on why that might be.
I think you missed my point. The situation right now is that the TacOps crowd is a very tightly integrated group, as opposed to for example the Combat Mission players who diversify. Most of TacOps activity centers around their multiplayer sessions, the tourney or talking directly with the Major. That is handled better by the mailing list.
So the WarfareHQ section was welcome but with the current situation is was clear it wouldn't see much traffic. Several of the current TacOps regulars are also well-equipped with web-servers where they post their material, along with the Battlefront-sponsored map-room.
So the lack of interest in the TacOps section at WarfareHQ had nothing to do with either lack of interest in TacOps nor with the (high, IMHO) quality of the resources offered by WarfareHQ.
That situation is different from DA where the awful yahoo group made things painful to be a member of but there is just so few activity that a WarfareHQ community couldn't be populated.
Ivan Rapkinov
04 Feb 04, 18:41
Kammak: I think you're judging Don a bit too harshly. I've been here since the beginning (1999 was it?) when Don was still known as Panzertruppen :D and he's forever supported any wargame. TacOps was supported at one point, but as has been mentioned, there was no interest. To be fair the modern wargame boards only got really active when the developers started posting (CPTs Lunsford and Proctor respectively). I'm sure MajorH would like to post, but he has no time with the List and the BF boards.
but be sure Don has the right intentions. He's yet to dismiss any wargame he hasn't himself played ;)
I don`t want to get into a pissing contest on Tac Ops, and I appreciate that it has it`s hardcore fans, but I do want to support Don`s position since I think his points are valid
The reality is that the VAST number of people buy and play wargames ( and other PC Games ) to play against the AI. This is the basis for any problems that folks have with TO.
I believe that when Bob Mayer of the late CGOL Boards and the Mag. ( which he edited ) did a survey the numbers were around 75-80% buy & play against the AI. Those are huge numbers in a small Market. While those who play online in any form tend to be very vocal and high profile on the various boards, they are a small group compared to the AI players.
I like TO, I bought the first version some 5-6+ years ago, bought Version 2.0, and 4.0 as well is on my harddrive. The Major is a genius at getting great traction out of a now very old Game engine, and he sold me 3 copies. :nuts:
The issues Don brought up are IMO fair, we are still playing the same old Scenarios on the same Maps. For a Tactical Platoon/Squad level game, the lack of C&C and morale is a serious issue, as is the 2 map levels.
This is not to say TO is bad, it`s fun, rewards intelligent tactics,and has IMO a good interface. The issue is it`s getting old in too many ways.
Point of Attack 2 is somewhat more complicated than most other wargame offerings, but that doesn't mean it's better or worse in and of itself. The engine seems to incorporate design elements from a number of different simulations, yet remains different than all the rest.
How do you feel POA2 stacks up against other modern wargames such as Decisive Action, BCT Commander, TacOps, Fulda Gap '85, and Divided Ground? Do you like the feel of the interface and the way data is presented? What's the game missing that it should include?
I think, no I know ;) that POA2 will live or die on the level of envolvement that Scott puts into public support on this or the unoffical HPS forums that Rich H. runs. By that I don`t mean using Don here as a pipeline for questions and fixes. Scott`s public support on the old Prodigy Boards in Game Support is what gave TOP/PITS any success it had.
Clearly the Game has big issues, not the least of which seems to be a very complex interface that almost no one understands. I guess I will have to buy the Game if I keep posting on it, but I`m waiting untill it becomes stable.
The Pnz. and Modern Campaigns prosper because a large number of public guys like Rich. H. Glenn, Lee, etc. have a deep understanding of the system, as well as it`s limitations and Tillers mind on what`s do-able and possible. They provide excellent support to newbies and vets alike.
BCT is supported by Procter, and othe guys here in depth.
DA died when Lunsford disappered from the public Boards.
Don Maddox
07 Feb 04, 14:18
I think, no I know ;) that POA2 will live or die on the level of envolvement that Scott puts into public support on this or the unoffical HPS forums that Rich H. runs. By that I don`t mean using Don here as a pipeline for questions and fixes. Scott`s public support on the old Prodigy Boards in Game Support is what gave TOP/PITS any success it had.
BCT is supported by Procter, and othe guys here in depth.
DA died when Lunsford disappered from the public Boards.
I agree we need as much support from HSP staff as possible right now. I also understand their official position is that support for the game will come in the form of email, not the various forums. Why? I don't know. HPS has never had a forum for their products for some reason. At any rate, I don't mind using Warfare HQ to fulfil the need the community has. In fact, that's exactly why this webpage was created: to improve the flow of information and help support the wargame community.
It would be nice to see the HPS staff use this as a "home away from home," but I guess we will have to make do with as much support as we can get. If I find scraps of information in other places, I will not hesitate to use this forum to share the wealth.
I'm not sure why J. Lunsford disappered for so long from the public eye. I know he was still working with DA and it is still be used as an "unofficial" training toll in the Army, however, his absense didn't help the system to get much traction in the civilian market. That's too bad because the system does have some strong points.
I agree we need as much support from HSP staff as possible right now. I also understand their official position is that support for the game will come in the form of email, not the various forums. Why? I don't know.
I`m not sure why J. Lunsford disappered for so long from the public eye. I know he was still working with DA and it is still be used as an "unofficial" training toll in the Army, however, his absense didn't help the system to get much traction in the civilian market. That's too bad because the system does have some strong points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the EMail support route is good if you like answering the same Game Play questions 2733 times.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too am disappointed by DA non surpport for Game enhancements, whatever the cause, be it Jim`s non interest, a lack of sales, or a lack of interest in a non Tiller product at HPS.
I had a few EMail conversations with Jim long ago and did a bit of work on DA scenarios and Maps, I think the Game has huge potential, and even in it`s current state it is very sophisticated in the Data Base, as well as C&C, Morale and Supply, and just " feels " right as a Modern Combat sim. It is also Fun, and after the steep learning curve easy to play against an excellent AI.
It garnered excellent Fan support from Vince , and others, out of the box.
It has the best in game scenario editor I have ever seen, allowing very complex AI programing keying off the human players moves. Unfortunately this was compromised by a very klugey map making system I could never master.
Also, unless something odd is at work in the code we don`t know about, I see no reason that a WW II version could not be easily modded into the current DB, or at worst produced as another Game using the system. Someone was working on this awhile ago but that seems to have died.
Jim states in the game notes that it is a Corps/Division Sim and would not model smaller unit combat well.
My experience was that you could create scenarios using Companies & even Platoons and it would work fine and deliver reasonable and accurate results, as long as you were prepared to understand that the Game abstracts ( really well IMO ) combat power and movement in all unit sizes.
what is Lunsford working on in regard to DA ?
P:S: I really do like my Pic, it`s Old Me :)
My personal ranking of modern games would have TacOps at the top, then I'd probably put DA a wee bit ahead of BCT simply because I still play DA, while BCT is currently in the "I'll get back to it" pile. ATF is next because I only played the demo, and while it didn't really grab me it was - at least as far as I can tell - bug free. I suppose I could squeeze Steel Beast in here as well, although it really is a different genre.
Currently POA2 is at the bottom if for no other reason than stability. Most of my games end in crashes or lock-ups. Then there's the bug factor: many of the scenarios I have played to completion had silly bugs like helos being unable to move.
I'd have to add my vote to those who say the game was not ready to ship when it did. Either QA was a low priority, or things that had worked in earlier betas hadn't been re-tested later.
Whether the game ever lives up to its potential is an unknown at this point. Certainly HPS are putting a great deal of effort into addressing user concerns. I've sent a few bugs and suggestions through, and Scott has replied to each email, and will incorporate a couple of my ideas. Whether the game should have shipped or not (and I've given my opinion on that) it has shipped, and all HPS can do at this point is fix it.
Actually they can do something else - temporarily withdraw the game from sale until the issues are fixed. I can't see that happening for a range of business reasons which I won't address here.
Now once I have a version that doesn't fold on my 2/3s of the time and that works as advertised I'll be able to evaluate it properly. Certainly there is a lot in the design that appeals to me - sophisticated command and control, fog-of-war, user created scenarios against the AI, variable levels of terrain, and more - but it isn't delivering yet.
Also a direct comparison between POA2 and TacOps isn't quite appropriate. Both games have fundamentally different design concepts, as does BCT for that matter. I won't go into a detailed discussion here other than to note that complexity isn't necessarily better than simplicity, and every game designer eventually needs to determine how much precision you need in a game.
For example with terrain: MajorH developed a model for dealing with more than two levels of terrain, but he hasn't implemented it yet because he argues that two levels is sufficient for the level of command TacOps is considering. BCT goes to the other extreme, and Pat Proctor have very cleverly created an engine that can resolve to 1m variations - clever, but do we need that much resolution in a brigade level sim? For the record POA2 is closest to my personal preference, but that doesn't mean it's right. It just means I agree with Scott's take on this particular issue.
I also believe there are so few modern wargames everybody should hope that every designer can bring enough new ideas to make it worthwhile to pick up all of the games. I really hope HPS gets POA2 over the line, and I think there is a 95% chance it will be a keeper on my hard drive.
End of pontification.
:cheeky:
Don Maddox
09 Feb 04, 10:57
For example with terrain: MajorH developed a model for dealing with more than two levels of terrain, but he hasn't implemented it yet because he argues that two levels is sufficient for the level of command TacOps is considering. BCT goes to the other extreme, and Pat Proctor have very cleverly created an engine that can resolve to 1m variations - clever, but do we need that much resolution in a brigade level sim? For the record POA2 is closest to my personal preference, but that doesn't mean it's right. It just means I agree with Scott's take on this particular issue.
:cheeky:The simplistic terrain model used in Decisive Action is directly based on the generalized categories the US Army uses at the war college for simulating combat at this level. Bear in mind that DA is a product that was born of Jim Lunsford's desire to have a quick and dirty training tool to help students at the school to better understand the basic concepts of modern warfare at this level. It wasn't developed as a true combat simulator. Having said that, the sim sports enough detail that it does a reasonable job of abstracting a given situation as long a the scenario author sets it up properly. Combat in DA is very abstract and is handled useing percentages for everything rather than individual equipment types like in TOAW. The simplistic terrain model goes and in hand with this philosophy.
TacOps, on the other, hand, is being used to model combat at the tactical level. While military forces may be using it as a training tool for company commanders, wargamers are using it in essentially the same way we would use Combat Mission -- to simulate small, tactical engagements. At this level, a detailed analysis of terrain is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary! Terrain has a huge impact on combat operations from the perspective of the company or battalion commander. As I understand it, Major H. is working on adding a much more detailed terrain elevation system to the sim, and in my opionion he is wise to do so. I don't see how a tactical combat simulation can not have a detailed terrain model.
Does ATF perhaps have more detail than is necessary? Perhaps, but I don't see how one can argue that the increased detail actually harms the simulation's realism in any way. Yes, it does drive up the system requirements and makes map creation a tough chore, but that's a whole different subject.
I suppose I could squeeze Steel Beast in here as well, although it really is a different genre.
While reading through this topic, Steel Beasts did cross my mind as well.
While a modern tank sim, the 'playing from the map' option with the ability to call for artillery and set fall zones, assign units to different 'player/commanders' etc, gave it a bit of a 'wargame' feel at this level.
I think the lack of airpower and a limited unit database however were issues.
Mace
The simplistic terrain model used in Decisive Action is directly based on the generalized categories the US Army uses at the war college for simulating combat at this level... The simplistic terrain model goes and in hand with this philosophy.
TacOps, on the other, hand, is being used to model combat at the tactical level... At this level, a detailed analysis of terrain is not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary! Terrain has a huge impact on combat operations from the perspective of the company or battalion commander...
Does ATF perhaps have more detail than is necessary? Perhaps, but I don't see how one can argue that the increased detail actually harms the simulation's realism in any way. Yes, it does drive up the system requirements and makes map creation a tough chore, but that's a whole different subject.
Agree fully with DA.
As for TacOps, although I personally agree that more detail would be helpful, MajorH argues that the two level terrain is largely sufficient for most purposes at the level of the sim: military crests, chanelling and screening forces, LOS and others (I'm sure I'm not doing the argument justice as it's been some time since I've read it).
Now you may well say more detail is absolutely necessary, but there are military organisations in at least three countries (US Marines and Canadian and Australian Army, although TacOps is still in deveopment for that client) that find it sufficient.
As I say I'm partial to more detail myself, but even so it seems odd to say more detail is necessary when the professional users don't find it necessary.
As for BCT I must respectfully disagree, increased realism does harm the simulation. A brigade commander should not have to ask a tank to move 10m to the north to maintain line-of-sight on an objective, nor should he have to micromanage a recon unit up the side of steep hill. In a vehicle or platoon level sim, sure, but that is not a brigade CO's job.
Don,
Have you played a scenario in Tacops V4?
In all seriousness I strongly urge you to try it out. The lack of more than 2 elevations is really not that big an issue, and is overwhelmed by all the GOOD things in the sim.
Setting SOPs for each unit (example: If fired on pop smoke, reverse 100m, or If fired on and hit stop, unload infantry, pop smoke) including helicoptors.
3 Different fire priority settings for each unit - which are not mutually exclusive but can be used complimentarily: Fire on TRP, Fire on Unit type, Fire on specific unit; each with a High/Low priority rating. A high priority rating means ONLY fire on whatever meets the condition, whereas LOW priority means fire FIRST on anything meeting the conditions, then fire on whatever is in range.
Range settings for each unit, including a complete hold fire option (Range 0) to determine when they open up.
And outstanding LOS tool that works both with visual and thermal/IR sights, and tells you if you can actually see the UNIT in the area, and not just the area like POA2. This also works with helicoptors in the air.
Helos have three altitude settings, and all range/SOPs/firing restrictions apply to them as well. Transport helo ops couldn't be easier - rock solid coding throughout.
Outstanding Unit Information screen that gives you everything you need to know in one spot. True one-stop-shopping for player SA.
Waypoints can display the time of arrival, so you can time the movement of units - this I have not seen in any wargame other than H3. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.)
In-game resupply using either abstracted supply points or physical log packs located on the map.
Very good AI for single player scenarios with multiple plans - you don't fight the same AI every time you play. The AI reacts to fire and reacts to losses (per programming by the Major, not an actual AI engine).
Fantastic database including photos, with very good accuracy (no hummers with 2 TOW launchers and a .50 cal).
I honestly could go on and on, but that is a start. The terrain thing just isn't that big a deal - good tactics give good results. You have high ground and low ground and assorted terrain/vegetation. It works. And it works very well. Give it a serious try - the demo is FREE for pete's sake!
Don Maddox
10 Feb 04, 15:42
I have the TacOps 4 demo. I'm fooling around with it on the side.
Fair enough. Hope you get as much enjoyment from it as I have!
It has the best in game scenario editor I have ever seen, allowing very complex AI programing keying off the human players moves. Unfortunately this was compromised by a very klugey map making system I could never master.
Wow...I think have overlooked something major in DA. I love it, but I have not seen anything like what you describe in the scenario editor. Could you elaborate on how you do complex AI programming? I thought we were limited to the Initial and Final waypoints and Objective map markers...please tell me what else is available!
what is Lunsford working on in regard to DA ?
He has posted on the Yahoo group recently that a patch is forthcoming for the civilian market that includes heavy bomber "CAS" (B52/B2) which I assume means JDAM modelling. Helos will have the ability to stay on station at TAIs and wait for the enemy, so you don't have to plot a zillion waypoints to keep them near the TAI while the enemy moves. Artillery will have the ability to fire on-call during the action phase when a targeted unit enters a TAI, rather than requiring explicit targeting by the player. Interdiction fire will soon have 3 salvos, making it equal to SEAD and Counter Battery fire. And the last one I can remember is that SEAD support can be designated to specific sorties, so you don't have to place air strikes in the order you want SEAD to fire, but can tag an air strike for SEAD support.
I am looking forward to it immensely!
It been almost 3 years since I did the three linked " Red Dawn " scenarios that are still up on the HPS DA downloads Page " Kansas City Blues " , " Leavenworth " and " The Bear Cornered", and the details on manipulating the editor functions are a bit rusty.
Basically you are dealing in Illusions that are pre-set by the way you place AI units on the Map.....the OPORDS orders you write for the human player ( he needs to follow them ) and the values you set in the DB for the units .
However, in the broadest sense, you can program the AI to "key off" the Force Objectives Settings Tools 3 settings, i.e. the destruction of the human players units, the seizure or holding of terrain, or a withdrawal. This is a pretty powerful tool to simulate an "intelligent" AI opponent when combined with the March objective commands.
An example: If you give the Human player the " Mission" in the OPORDS of advancing to a certain Map location, a AI unit or units, set up nearby, will attack, hold or retreat when the human player comes " in range " I found that the " quality ", that is morale & supply, of the AI unit will affect it`s combat and reaction ability. You can add to this by the placement of AI`s TAI`s which will effect how the AI uses it`s Air and Helo assets.
In addition, you have the ability to bring AI units onto the Map, at various turns, not just on the edges, but at _any hex location_, at any turn, so you can simulate rather large Para Drops, Air Mobile or Special Forces insertions well into the rear areas. This is a biggie IMO.
There is much more, but in all honesty, it`s been a long time away from the Editor, and I don`t want to BS about what it can actually do. I`m starting to play with it again tho... :nuts:
The thing is, for it to look good, you need to spend endless hours playing it against the AI, and then tweeking both sides to get it to look reasonable as a Scenario.
I like the Game so much that if Jim releases the patch I`ll probably go back and finish either the 3 linked Desert Storm scenarios or the 3 ACR Rgt. in Viet Nam scenarios I was playing with.
I always felt DA was under-rated. Despite a few quirks it is an outstanding operational level sim. The only system I prefer is Matrix/Panther Games Airborne Assault/Highway to the Reich system.
If only they would do a modern combat version.
Ivan Rapkinov
11 Feb 04, 07:06
I always felt DA was under-rated. Despite a few quirks it is an outstanding operational level sim. The only system I prefer is Matrix/Panther Games Airborne Assault/Highway to the Reich system.
If only they would do a modern combat version.
Rocky; post on the war-historical NG under the "Thanks to Arjuna" thread - Dave asks what conflicts people would be interested in seeing.
HercMighty
11 Feb 04, 07:18
The only system I prefer is Matrix/Panther Games Airborne Assault/Highway to the Reich system.
If only they would do a modern combat version.
I play this game a lot to. They have a lot planned for the next year and hopefully after that if enough interest is shown maybe they will move their system to more modern conflicts.
The reason why TacOps 2 elevations don't do into the way of the TacOps fans is that the TacOps terrain is actually much more sophisticated than that.
It has, and that is as ooposed to DA and BCT/ATF, trees/woods and cities.
That is a big deal. A Tacops map is actually very rich from a tactical standpoint. There are complex rules of LOS and cover/concealment for these terrain elements.
Helicopter wars in particular become very terrain-intensive because the trees, without the help of any elevation, do cover for helicopters. Furthermore, the helicopter's enemyies, AAA and SAMs, have complex additional rules, partly seperate from normal LOS and firing rules. Just as an example, the edge of cities has special rules for SAMs, simulating somebody standing on a building overlooking the terrain in front of him, and that is without within the same elevantion level. The second elevation level comes on top of it all.
I hope that doesn't sound too cocky, but if you think that terrain in TacOps doesn't have tactical implications then I challenge you to a game where I use a force that emphasized terrain features and you whatever you like. I am sure I can give a TacOps newcomer underestimating the terrain a beating that the other person will see rooted in proper usage of terrain, not familiarity with the game.
The reality is that the VAST number of people buy and play wargames ( and other PC Games ) to play against the AI. This is the basis for any problems that folks have with TO.
[...]
I like TO, I bought the first version some 5-6+ years ago, bought Version 2.0, and 4.0 as well is on my harddrive. The Major is a genius at getting great traction out of a now very old Game engine, and he sold me 3 copies. :nuts:
[...]
This is not to say TO is bad, it`s fun, rewards intelligent tactics,and has IMO a good interface. The issue is it`s getting old in too many ways.
I agree to all of this, and the Major does so, too, FWIW.
However, while TacOps has an AI with limited replay value, the AI actually plays good. I don't know of any AI that can give you such a tactically sound beating on the attack.
Once you played the supplied scenarios a few times it is over. But while it lasts you get a fight out of the AI that is better than anything I have seen elsewhere (for attacking AIs).
Ivan Rapkinov
12 Feb 04, 18:01
The reason why TacOps 2 elevations don't do into the way of the TacOps fans is that the TacOps terrain is actually much more sophisticated than that.
It has, and that is as ooposed to DA and BCT/ATF, trees/woods and cities.
That is a big deal. A Tacops map is actually very rich from a tactical standpoint. There are complex rules of LOS and cover/concealment for these terrain elements.
BCT/ATF have trees :)
but, I agree, the two elevations ever really ever has me grinding my teeth in the way that say, ATF does with the LOS fan - excellent terrian modelling, but I trust my troops to be able to get to the best vantage point, without me having to pixel hop to find just the right spot - a bit of abstraction is welcome in a command level game ;)
edit: my major gripe with TacOps is the resolution - monitors nowadays go to 1600x1200 or whatever, yet I'm stuck using TacOps at 1024x728 (or smaller) if I actually want to see anything...more a symptom of the age of the program, but it would be nice :)
but I trust my troops to be able to get to the best vantage point, without me having to pixel hop to find just the right spot - a bit of abstraction is welcome in a command level game ;)
Yes.
What I would like TacOps to have, and that is in particular in the multiplayer games where you give orders under more time pressure than the normal wargamer can imagine, is SOPs that automatically keep a unit where I want it. SOP settings would be:
- "stay on road" (if a road is in short distance from plotted path)
- "don't go on high terrain" (in case I accidetially touch high terrain by a pixel when plotting)
- "stay in cover" (so that I can quickly tell a unit to advance to the edge of cover without having to microplot the edge)
- mounted infantry can be dropped on engagement via SOPs. Good. But even if there is cover within a few meters they stay put where they are. Since TacOps abstratcs 100m loading distance anyway I think you could abstract a "magic" move of infantry dropped on SOPs into the nearest cover if there is some within -say- 50 meters.
I also agree with your resolution point.
Don, will you post a review soon?
I'm realy interested in this game but I'm getting mixed feelings from various posts... :confused:
One problem is that I havnt played any of the other games mentioned in this thread... :o
Don Maddox
16 Feb 04, 10:11
Don, will you post a review soon? I'm realy interested in this game but I'm getting mixed feelings from various posts... :confused:
One problem is that I haven't played any of the other games mentioned in this thread... :o
That's a good question. I'm well aware that Warfare HQ is probably the place to get information on Point of Attack 2 at the present time. The review is 98% complete, however, in this particular instance I do not intend to release the review until I have had a chance to play with the first "official" patch. Why? Do I normally do this? No I don't normally do it.
At this point I think all of us are well aware that the release of POA2 was badly marred by a slew of fairly serious design issues and bugs. Most of the really odious things have been cleaned up or tweaked in the beta patches, but there are also some lingering issues that are still being dealt with. If these are dealt with quickly and the interface tweaked a bit further to make the sim somehwat more intuitive, then POA2 could have a bright future indeed. If, on the other hand, the bug problems continue and it becomes a really long and painful process to refine the system, then many potential players are going to be turned away (justly so).
At this point I think it's fair for me to mention that I have been (as most of you are well aware) quite active in assisting HPS with POA2 by giving them feedback, bug reports and suggestions on how things can be improved. I guess it's fair to say I'm not a completely unbiased reviewer as I do want the system to be a success. Having said that, I think my review will be hard hitting and fair.
The bottom line: if I do a review of POA2 as it came out of the box, we all know how that review is going to go. :eek: What real good would it do for me to release such a review? Everyone knows the game had serious issues out of the box, so in what way would that help anyone to make up their mind whether to purchase or not? I intend to write the review based on the officially patched version, although I will certainly mention the out-of-the-box issues.
I don’t think for one moment that anyone reading your forthcoming review will consider it anything but objective. They only have to look at your numerous previous post on POA2 to see that your motives in developing a close relationship with HPS is purely for the betterment of the game.
I’d sooner have an honest biased review of a game than the one that was published when the simulation was first released. The review bore little relation to what I found when I opened the box and installed the game. If it had not been for your forum and from what I know of the history of HPS I would have sent the game back.
I’m sure there are many potential buyers waiting for the first official patch and a straight talking review, warts and all, biased or not!
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.