Hell, if you want light and cartoonish tactical level gaming, theres always ATS..............:cheeky:mkirschenbaum said:I have no problems with a lite, cartoonish WWII game. But this strikes me as an example of what's good in a game is not being new and what's new not being very good.
Yes - it l ooks like one of the game pieces from StrategoGJK said:I sure hope that they find a better graphic for the satchel charge once they move it from the playtest mock-up graphics to the final version....
What you describe is NOT "design for effect", it's "lazy design"! I think "design for effect" is a good thing, preventing players from doing something ahistorical but "within the capabilties" of a unit. If you model rare events in your design, they become common.mkirschenbaum said:It seems driven by gamey chrome and design for effect.
Well I am interested in the game, but there are limits to my tolerance for design elements meant to fix a problem. The above example sounded kinda lame. I would not be inclined to consider that work around acceptable.mkirschenbaum said:I've been following the development of the game on CSW. I'm not impressed. It seems driven by gamey chrome and design for effect.
Here's an example. If you take a shot at an enemy unit only to find the LOS was blocked, your own firing unit breaks. This is supposedly due to "friendly fire" and boosters of the game celebrate it as exactly the kind of thing that can happen "in real life." Yet here you're taking the kind of event that should be sudden, shocking, and unpredictable and yoking it to a specific mechanical situation (LOS check) that one can always avoid either by having a good eye for LOS or simply not taking risky shots. Realistic? Would that it were that simple in real life.
When pressed a little further, the designer revealed that there was an another motive behind the rule: there was a hole in the game system whereby a unit could take a shot it knew was blocked but use the opportunity it to discard an unwanted card from the player's hand. Rather than delve into the system itself and create a fix for this sleeze from the inside out the solution was to break any squad that takes such a shot and then call it friendly fire. Presto, instant chrome. See how realistic Combat Commander is? It even accounts for friendly fire!
I have no problems with a lite, cartoonish WWII game. But this strikes me as an example of what's good in a game is not being new and what's new not being very good.
I was more suspicous of the counter layout. But I gotta say, MMP / AH does not hold the copyright on 'Open Ground', 'Woods', 'Hills', etc. "Breaking" is a term common to many tactical games.Pitman said:The thing that has irritated me the most about this game is the blatant and wanton wholesale copying from ASL. If you look at a list of the terrain types, virtually all of them are the exact same terrain type with the exact same name as in ASL. If you look at the game terminology, most of it is stolen directly from ASL, even including units "breaking."
It is a card-based system, so the underlying game engine is not a complete rip-off. However, way too much is lazily copied from ASL to make me happy about it.
It's not a legal issue nor an ethical one.Pitman said:This is not a legal issue, it is an ethical issue.