|
I was wondering how they put it out so fast (I think they were showing alpha screens a few months ago), but then read the reviews which basically said 'this is an updated AACW with a slightly less confusing interface and better graphics.'
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
Well of course, AGEOD's thing is making largely interchangeable games built on marginal iterations of their incredibly lovely and slow engine. They are basically the EA of wargames and should not be encouraged.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Are the turn times at least better than other AGEOD games? (I'm guessing not really) Jutland / Distant Guns question: I'm giving this game another shot to follow along with while I read through Castles of Steel, but I always mess up giving orders/course changes when commanding more than one ship at a time. As far as I know, the procedure should be: 1. Left-click the ship once to select it 2. Left-click the ship again to select the whole division 3. Right-click anywhere to bring up the context menu 4. Left-click the course change button 5. Your mouse will now lay out a path on the map. Point it in the direction you want and left-click 6. When the context menu comes back up, left-click on the "ships turn in sequence" button to preserve the battle line instead of "ships turn simultaneously" But for some reason, this always causes just the lead ship to turn and the rest to wander off in the original course. I've instead resorted to sending the lead ship to take the new course, then issuing a "reform the line" order afterwards to get the rest to follow suit. Help with this interface?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Help with this interface? There is none, This is the worst interface known to Grog. there is no way to get a battle line to turn as one, it seems to work as you describe. the next problem is when you want to get more than one squadron to do this - you have to give them orders individually! its a real shame, its a great game when you're not slamming your head into the brick wall of an interface.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 09:22
|
|
|
So the "ships turn in sequence" button essentially does nothing? poo poo. I had already accepted that the interface is worse than HPS's Naval Campaigns, but then THAT game has such simple graphics and seems to be intent on hiding information from the player: There's no way to find out how far a ship is and damage is just this simple percentage-health metric unless you score a critical hit that blows up you/your target instantly. And there's no random battle generator. On the other hand, the camera controls on Jutland are all on the right-hand side of the keyboard with no way to remap them, and you can't see firing arcs directly on the main view.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
I have seldom had any problems getting a squadron of ships to turn in sequence in Jutland (haven't played Distant Guns). Selecting the first ship and not the rest of the division and ordering it to turn usually works (I think) and "Division Turn By Succession" has worked just fine for me. If you want me to I can boot up the game after work and maybe see if I'm forgetting something important that you're also missing, but that'll probably have to wait until 5 PM Eastern.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Kickass Harpsichord posted:I have seldom had any problems getting a squadron of ships to turn in sequence in Jutland (haven't played Distant Guns). Selecting the first ship and not the rest of the division and ordering it to turn usually works (I think) and "Division Turn By Succession" has worked just fine for me. If you want me to I can boot up the game after work and maybe see if I'm forgetting something important that you're also missing, but that'll probably have to wait until 5 PM Eastern. Hey, thanks! This works perfectly!
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
I was in Civil War 2 beta and oh my god I had to correct the english on everything. Nice folks though. The tutorial is good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
I owe people turns they will be sent tonight. Sorry I am idiot who forgot to play them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Hey, thanks! This works perfectly! Glad to hear it! I knew there was some trick to doing it right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
So I just got Commander: the Great War. Would anyone be up for a PBEM game? I don't have PM's, but my email is in the spreadsheet in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 11:00
|
|
|
Morholt posted:So I just got Commander: the Great War. Would anyone be up for a PBEM game? I don't have PM's, but my email is in the spreadsheet in the OP. I'll take you up on that. Jakse just owned me again (  ) so I'm looking to start a new game. Will email in a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Well now I have a dilemma. I got a $20 discount for Command:Modern Air Operations which comes out tomorrow because I participated in the beta. Except my participation consisted of setting up an FTP program and then going "lol, no" when the dl rate was 5kb/s. So people who did participate: is this the Command Ops of the Air or... not?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
So I decided to buy TOAWIII during the sale last week. Are there any essential patches/UI changes/whatever I should be using other than the AA patch? Is there any decent tutorial of the system?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well now I have a dilemma. I got a $20 discount for Command:Modern Air Operations which comes out tomorrow because I participated in the beta. Except my participation consisted of setting up an FTP program and then going "lol, no" when the dl rate was 5kb/s. Not in the beta but I have been a little bit obsessed with this game since Baloogan told me about it on the last page. It really does look pretty ground-breaking. Here's a recent post about some of the lengths they've gone to: http://www.warfaresims.com/?p=1873 The thing is I've never bought a hardcore wargame before so I'm pretty sure it's gonna be the first time I experience that "it costs how much?!" feeling. I probably won't be able to afford it for a while.  And it's not like games like this have steam sales. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Is there a price yet? The Matrix page doesn't even have a release date. e: This is the best blurb I've ever seen on a Matrix game page: quote:Modern warfare with all its technicalities scaring you away? Your staff & tactical AI sweat the details so you dont have to. Aircraft position themselves to deliver their warloads optimally; Ships and subs maneuver on their own to reach out and touch the enemy (including winding their way around islands, landmasses and even known mines) and everyone tries very hard to save his skin when bullets are flying. Manage the big decisions and let your virtual crews get to the details and still intervene whenever you want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
uPen posted:Is there a price yet? The Matrix page doesn't even have a release date. I'm expecting the discount to take the price down from 'go gently caress yourselves, Matrix' to 'this is a massive punt I'm really unhappy about taking without a demo'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
You've got a beta to demo with!
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
uPen posted:You've got a beta to demo with! No, I never downloaded it because it would have taken a year! I'm perfectly willing to treat a beta as an actual work thing and not a free demo, but Matrix want to pretend that the internet hasn't changed since the 90's (as well as everything else). Alchenar fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
The game comes out tomorrow apparently, price TBA. I should stop following this thread, all it does is introduce me to games I can't afford to buy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
uPen posted:The game comes out tomorrow apparently, price TBA. Matrix Games posted:$79.99 download, $94.99 box + download And I'm considering buying it despite this 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Ugh, I knew it would be something like that, but I guess I was hoping maybe they'd see some sense. Oh well, maybe it'll go down in a couple years (and be a better game by then?). I know it's old news but I really think their business strategy is totally flawed. If they sold it for $15-20 and tried some kind of "hey how about trying a different kind of game, why not?" marketing campaign I bet they would make a killing, and find a whole new audience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:11
|
|
|
fuf posted:Ugh, I knew it would be something like that, but I guess I was hoping maybe they'd see some sense. I'd probably snap it up for $50 but $80 is ridiculous, especially without a demo or even the manual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Damnit. The first time a ridiculously hardcore simulation wargame thing has grabbed my attention and it's so expensive I want to write Matrix Games a letter that says "Go gently caress yourself!" and spit in the envelope. This is stupid. Really stupid. Guess I'll buy it in a couple years then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
Haha, I actually signed up just so I could get all righteous about the price in this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3397540&mpage=3&key=� Obviously a waste of time, but I think we should all do it anyway. e: oh hey, upen already did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
fuf posted:Haha, I actually signed up just so I could get all righteous about the price in this thread: It's not a battle we're gonna win but I don't have work this morning so gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
If you need testimonials, tell them I only jumped into Cross of Iron when Alchenar said it was on sale. (And that that one is actually surprisingly easy to play--it's not that far a jump from more mainstream RTS/RTT, controls and UI wise.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:If you need testimonials, tell them I only jumped into Cross of Iron when Alchenar said it was on sale. That's because it's a hideously overpriced (by PC games market standards) remake of Close Combat 3. The original Close Combat games were made by Atomic Games and they were sold as regular PC games at regular prices for the time. Then they disappeared and Matrix got ahold of the rights and basically acted like an evil version of gog.com - repackaging games that are a decade old and selling them at full AAA new-release price. Close Combat III/Cross of Iron remains the best of all Close Combats, covering the most ground and with the best gameplay, so if you only buy one Close Combat game (and you should), get Cross of Iron. e: oh god, once I start taking a pop at the Matrix guys I just can't stop Alchenar fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:17
|
|
|
I bought Distant Worlds and its first two expansions on a Christmas sale when it was 3-for-a-little-over-1.5. Otherwise I was NEVER going to buy it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
I'm honestly surprised so many users on Matrix forums turned against their evil overlords. On the other hand, I'm not surprised that Matrix immediately retreated behind the "Our pricing is based on empirics" defense. Apparently every other distributor ever got their data terribly wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:That's because it's a hideously overpriced (by PC games market standards) remake of Close Combat 3. I have no experience with CoI, but the original CC3 was terribly balanced. Tanks ruled supreme, even in Stalingrad, and in most eras there were some über tanks that would sweep the floor with all opposition. And the scale was small enough that just one indestructible Panther or KV could decide the battle and there was no air support system to get rid of them by a Stuka/Sturmovik strike. Of the original pentalogy A Bridge Too Far (2) was the best one, as it had a well designed campaign and exciting battles that were seemingly lopsided yet amazingly tight, both against the AI and in LAN. In comparison The Russian Front (3) suffered from the aforementioned imbalance as well as teethless infantry (in addition to everything being too lethal even against dug in infantry, Soviet soldiers would frequently just rout upon seeing a panzer). Battle of the Bulge (4) and Invasion Normandy (5) had crappy Total War like campaign systems that didn't fix any of the shortcomings in the tactical portion of the system, especially the lackluster AI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Well I was planning to make some effort post about Command but I still haven't bought it. Its really quite expensive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
I thought A Bridge Too Far was the best of the CC series too - all the key maps/battles of Market-Garden (Cross of Iron needs about a dozen more maps to even begin to scratch the Eastern Front well) while keeping the simple campaign format that Bulge and Normandy made too complicated. I learned more about small-unit tactics with Combat Mission, but CC's campaign system is a huge draw too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Dark_Swordmaster posted:Damnit. The first time a ridiculously hardcore simulation wargame thing has grabbed my attention and it's so expensive I want to write Matrix Games a letter that says "Go gently caress yourself!" and spit in the envelope. We are talking about a company which sells 10 year old games for full price. Your best chance will be the christmas sale, where it might go down to 50 bucks. Honestly, if they did a sale of buy 5 games for 50 bucks I'd be all over that. They need to get to steam levels "But its such a deal!" prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
If the SSG games were going for 10 bucks instead of 20 I would probably buy all of them and not play them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:We are talking about a company which sells 10 year old games for full price. Your best chance will be the christmas sale, where it might go down to 50 bucks. They literally believe that developers are discovering that the Steam model actually screws small developers (because Steam is all about selling lots of copies and not about profit for devs, supposedly) and that therefore they are morally justified in their high prices because it helps make more money for the devs. This is a thing they literally bought up before as a defense for their prices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Well I was planning to make some effort post about Command but I still haven't bought it. Its really quite expensive. Well I hope someone buys it, just because it would be nice to get a reliable goon opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
Tomn posted:They literally believe that developers are discovering that the Steam model actually screws small developers (because Steam is all about selling lots of copies and not about profit for devs, supposedly) and that therefore they are morally justified in their high prices because it helps make more money for the devs. It has gotten to the level of religious dogma. In an interview, they even claimed that lower prices lead to lower sales (millions of economists go "wat"), and that a high price is necessary to make people work through the terrible UIs. Because if you buy a game for ten bux and it turns out to be poo poo, you shelf it. If you payed 70 bux for a game and the UI seems incomprehensible, you nonetheless keep working at it in order to wring some enjoyment out of it. Meanwhile, the guys who made Unity of Command are quietly giggling to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
To be fair, if you are trying to peddle the absolute crap that is 1/2-2/3 of the Matrix Catalogue then most of the time lower prices will mean lower revenue. It's that with the recent range from Panzer Corps/Unity of Command to Command Ops etc they actually have something they could take to the mainstream market. The fact that they've gone to Steam and Valve have said 'sure, you just need to sell at this price' and they've walked away from that and assumed that Valve have no idea what they're talking about is ridiculous. e: and yes, their sales strategy is literally based around pushing customers into a sunk cost/stockholm syndrome fallacy. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:43 |
|
|
Their customers are grognards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 23:02
|
|