France '40 - first review

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
D

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,039
0
19,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

From the review:

" Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly meaningful
ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."

That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
> From the review:
>
> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
meaningful
> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
>
> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
>
>

no game playing friends? too bad.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:44:28 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
> no game playing friends? too bad.

Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
raving lunatic.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <ikXAQswvEku5tpHGSJ1SkFLJIfWO@4ax.com>,
fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...

> > no game playing friends? too bad.
>
> Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
> raving lunatic.

"Just?"

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
liberals."
- Karl Rove
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:39:44 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <ikXAQswvEku5tpHGSJ1SkFLJIfWO@4ax.com>,
>fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
>
>> > no game playing friends? too bad.
>>
>> Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
>> raving lunatic.
>
>"Just?"

I stand corrected.
 
J

jp

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
523
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
> From the review:
>
> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
meaningful
> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
>
> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
>

Same 'ole, same 'ole in the HPS/Talonsoft camp.

















>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
says...
> From the review:
>
> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly meaningful
> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
>
> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.

I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.

--

Epi

------------
It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
order to protect the symbol.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
 
D

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,039
0
19,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2a273b311e305c98972b@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
> says...
>> From the review:
>>
>> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
>> meaningful
>> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
>> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
>> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
>> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
>>
>> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
>
> I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.
>
> --
>
> Epi
>

True, I didn't expect the AI to be any good. I'm just still bitter that the
AI hasn't improved very much after Battleground Iteration XXX.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <doydnfhoU-gj913fRVn-1A@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
says...

> >> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
> >> meaningful
> >> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
> >> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
> >> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
> >> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
> >>
> >> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
> >
> > I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.

> True, I didn't expect the AI to be any good. I'm just still bitter that the
> AI hasn't improved very much after Battleground Iteration XXX.

Why should they improve the AI?

Improving the AI won't move them an inch closer to releasing the next
$50 game - but taking the same game engine and throwing together another
scenario will. Until their customers want more than just another $50
scenario pack - IE, show some disinclination to purchase another samey-
same $50 sausage - HPS will cheerfully supply the same engine and AI
over and over and over again.

And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?


--
Giftzwerg
***
"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
liberals."
- Karl Rove
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Mmmmmmm! Sausage!

Dirk

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2a3895416d372a98a0d9@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <doydnfhoU-gj913fRVn-1A@adelphia.com>, nospam@home.net
> says...
>
>> >> " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
>> >> meaningful
>> >> ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it
>> >> plays
>> >> defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to
>> >> be
>> >> allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
>> >> scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
>> >>
>> >> That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
>> >
>> > I just thought that was how their AI was supposed to work.
>
>> True, I didn't expect the AI to be any good. I'm just still bitter that
>> the
>> AI hasn't improved very much after Battleground Iteration XXX.
>
> Why should they improve the AI?
>
> Improving the AI won't move them an inch closer to releasing the next
> $50 game - but taking the same game engine and throwing together another
> scenario will. Until their customers want more than just another $50
> scenario pack - IE, show some disinclination to purchase another samey-
> same $50 sausage - HPS will cheerfully supply the same engine and AI
> over and over and over again.
>
> And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
> positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?
>
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts
> the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops
> in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of
> liberals."
> - Karl Rove
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:24:30 -0400, Giftzwerg
<giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:

>And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
>positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?

I was actually surprised at the positive sloant, since the author
recently posted a bit of a rant here recently about these games being
cookie cutter games, with no real advances, etc.
 
D

David

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,039
0
19,780
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Michael A. Oberly" <kitch@SPAMOFF columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:i2s0c1pm8c8daguroqj89uq5343kn1i060@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 17:24:30 -0400, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
>>positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?
>
> I was actually surprised at the positive sloant, since the author
> recently posted a bit of a rant here recently about these games being
> cookie cutter games, with no real advances, etc.

I'm not surprised at all. This is Jim Cobb, after all.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg schreef:
> Why should they improve the AI?
>
> Improving the AI won't move them an inch closer to releasing the next
> $50 game - but taking the same game engine and throwing together another
> scenario will. Until their customers want more than just another $50
> scenario pack - IE, show some disinclination to purchase another samey-
> same $50 sausage - HPS will cheerfully supply the same engine and AI
> over and over and over again.

Things might be changing - apparantly the peasants are starting to
grumble a bit and in response Glenn Saunders posted this :

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28930

Notice that they worked *a whole week* on changes in the engine :)

> And why shouldn't they, when they receive "reviews" like this one that
> positively *gloat* over the fact that it's just another sausage!?

Well, I liked the review - especially when you combine these 2
paragraphs :

"Given these considerations, a good game design can provide a system
where players can change Allied doctrine and tactics in a believable
way. The latest entry in HPS and John Tiller's Panzer Campaign
series, France '40, tackles this daunting task with an
extraordinarily fine assist by David Guegan."

"The German superiority is shown by giving units a higher morale number
balanced against a short time from for victory and dwindling local
supply values as the spearheads advance. The Allies' bad training and
doctrine is seen in their usually low morale value."

This gives you exactly the information you need, nothing is hidden. I
don't mind if a reviewer has a liking for a particular engine/system as
long as he's clear about the facts.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:
(snip)
> Things might be changing - apparantly the peasants are starting to
> grumble a bit and in response Glenn Saunders posted this :
>
> http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28930
>
> Notice that they worked *a whole week* on changes in the engine :)
>(snip)
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Even though I've given up on the series due to non-existant AI and
grandtactical oddities in the operational framework, I checked out the
thread.

Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.

One 'improvement' stands out though:
" When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard
vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption
effect is twice that of normal."

So indirect (artillery?) fire is more effective against hard vehicle
(than v soft targets) and hard fortification (than v soft or no fort?).

"Incoming shells! Quick, everybody out of ze Panzer!"


- von Schmidt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> > One 'improvement' stands out though:
> > " When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard
> > vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption
> > effect is twice that of normal."
> >
> > So indirect (artillery?) fire is more effective against hard vehicle
> > (than v soft targets) and hard fortification (than v soft or no fort?).
>
> I do not have the game, but maybe the disruption effect is doubled *instead*
> of causing losses.

IIRC fire can cause both losses and disruption in the series.
Mayhaps a Hard target does not suffer (hardly) any casualties and the
disruption effect is changed to offset that.

Still, having the disruption effect being twice as much on HT as on
'normal'(normal = indirect on soft and hard target? or direct fire on
soft?) does not make much sense.

Surely the major effect IRL of indirect fire on soft targets IS
disruption?
And surely the major reason for hardened shelter is to protect against
losses and disruption?

Reminds me a bit of the effect of >155mm in a TOAW patch, which would
increase in effectiveness as the entrenchment level of the target
increases.
It does not compute.

von Schmidt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
>
> "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
> news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
> > From the review:
> >
> > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
> meaningful
> > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
> > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
> > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
> > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
> >
> > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
> >
> >
>
> no game playing friends? too bad.
>
>


fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the constant
crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think many
who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid to
lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes is
asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is just
a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important than
any AI as almost all my place is against a human.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Frank E" <fakeaddress@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XFLAQlfpjPhUl3XO3kSZDDQlzS4O@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 14:39:44 -0400, Giftzwerg
> <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ikXAQswvEku5tpHGSJ1SkFLJIfWO@4ax.com>,
> >fakeaddress@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >> > no game playing friends? too bad.
> >>
> >> Congratulations, you just crossed the line between mere fanboy and
> >> raving lunatic.
> >
> >"Just?"
>
> I stand corrected.

i'm sure you stand corrected quite often, i guess you have no game playing
friends either.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> One 'improvement' stands out though:
> " When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard
> vehicles or units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption
> effect is twice that of normal."
>
> So indirect (artillery?) fire is more effective against hard vehicle
> (than v soft targets) and hard fortification (than v soft or no fort?).

I do not have the game, but maybe the disruption effect is doubled *instead*
of causing losses.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <PaSdndlq3L3uP1zfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
>
> "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> >
> > "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
> > news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
> > > From the review:
> > >
> > > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
> > meaningful
> > > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it plays
> > > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to be
> > > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
> > > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
> > >
> > > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > no game playing friends? too bad.
> >
> >
>
>
> fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the constant
> crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think many
> who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid to
> lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
> are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes is
> asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is just
> a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
> for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important than
> any AI as almost all my place is against a human.

It may be easy to find someone for PBEM, but it's not nearly as easy to
keep them.

--

Epi

------------
It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
order to protect the symbol.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Noted, EPi. Will send file tomorrow.

Jim Cobb

"Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d2b927e5849fc27989731@news.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <PaSdndlq3L3uP1zfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
>>
>> "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
>> > news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
>> > > From the review:
>> > >
>> > > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
>> > meaningful
>> > > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it
>> > > plays
>> > > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to
>> > > be
>> > > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
>> > > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
>> > >
>> > > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > no game playing friends? too bad.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the
>> constant
>> crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think
>> many
>> who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid
>> to
>> lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
>> are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes
>> is
>> asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is
>> just
>> a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
>> for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important
>> than
>> any AI as almost all my place is against a human.
>
> It may be easy to find someone for PBEM, but it's not nearly as easy to
> keep them.
>
> --
>
> Epi
>
> ------------
> It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
> wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
> order to protect the symbol.
> ------------
> http://www.curlesneck.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <2Nlwe.704$Si3.352@fe06.lga>, bismarck71@charter.net says...
> Noted, EPi. Will send file tomorrow.
>
> Jim Cobb
>
> "Epi" <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d2b927e5849fc27989731@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > In article <PaSdndlq3L3uP1zfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, roh@comcast.net says...
> >>
> >> "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:aIGdnYb30K9ysV3fRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > "David" <nospam@home.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:V9idnZd30faWhF3fRVn-2Q@adelphia.com...
> >> > > From the review:
> >> > >
> >> > > " Unfortunately, the AI is not good enough to give players truly
> >> > meaningful
> >> > > ways to handle their side's advantages and disadvantages. While it
> >> > > plays
> >> > > defense well in the shorter scenarios, the computer opponent seems to
> >> > > be
> >> > > allergic to assaults on vital objectives. On the campaigns and larger
> >> > > scenarios, the AI seems completely stultified."
> >> > >
> >> > > That's all I need to know to give it a pass.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > no game playing friends? too bad.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> fanboy? i wouldn't buy a tedioustiller game for anything. but the
> >> constant
> >> crying about AI here gets tiresome, find people to play with. i think
> >> many
> >> who only play AI are afraid to play real people because they are afraid
> >> to
> >> lose or they have found they aren't quite the napoleon they imagined they
> >> are. it is easy to find pbem buddies , i've found some here, all it takes
> >> is
> >> asking for opponents. no AI is ever going to beat a human. to me AI is
> >> just
> >> a tool to familiarize myself with game play before i really begin to play
> >> for real , that is against a human. pbem is to me much more important
> >> than
> >> any AI as almost all my place is against a human.
> >
> > It may be easy to find someone for PBEM, but it's not nearly as easy to
> > keep them.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Epi
> >
> > ------------
> > It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
> > wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
> > order to protect the symbol.
> > ------------
> > http://www.curlesneck.com

It's OK. I wasn't really thinking about you when I said it. My
experience is why I asked you if we were still playing once.

--

Epi

------------
It seems quite amazing to me that so many people
wish to harm part of what a symbol stands for in
order to protect the symbol.
------------
http://www.curlesneck.com
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
>

Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to player
feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than the
rants that tend to accumulate here...

Dirk
 
J

jp

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
523
0
18,980
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Dirk Gross" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:wzowe.23015$7X1.11601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>
> > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
> >
>
> Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
> the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to
player
> feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
> those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than
the
> rants that tend to accumulate here...
>
> Dirk
>


cough. Who's ranting ?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Dirk Gross wrote:
> > Laudible that JT is adapting the engine based on player feedback.
> >
>
> Are you serious? The game series has been continually evolving ever since
> the first release. Most all of the optional rules came about due to player
> feedback as well as the myriad rules updates. But then he does listen to
> those who actually play the games and offer useful critisism rather than the
> rants that tend to accumulate here...
>
> Dirk

Well, yes I am serious. No smiley, see?
I think it is a Good Thing that a dev takes on board suggestions as
long as they fit within the system and his overall vision of the game.
And instead of listening to existing players, listening to potential
customers might not be a bad idea to increase the sales figures...

I would *really* like if some love was given to adding an AI to the
series instead of adding even more rules which are nice for PvP but
stump the AI even more.
With some luck the series might 'evolve' from the intelligence of an
amoeba to that of a monkey (I am not holding out for Human level AI).

Let me try and offer some useful criticism then: the gamesystem is
quite decent and offers a wide choice of battles. I like the graphics a
lot since they are crisp and allow for easy overview of the strategic
situation.
However, in comp wargames it is the norm to have a functional computer
opponent to allow enjoyment of the game and prepare for possible PvP.
The PzB AI does not offer any challenge at all. No trolling intended,
but I cannot remember a wargame in the last 5 years with a worse comp
opponent.
I cannot remember a scen I did not win at first go (apart from the
stacked ones where the player is supposed to take a certain side).

So: if, instead of adding even more rules and new battles, there is a
mediocre AI added to the series and retrofitted I promise to purchase a
minimum of 2 games from the series.
There you go: feedback and a promise of reward.

If not, I won't lose any sleep - but I do reserve the right to uphold
PzC as a myopic series which keeps rolling off the assembly line and
cannot hold a candle to the 'evolution' and AI of its competitors in
the operational field: SSG's decisive battles and Panther's HTTR/COTA.

All the best,

von Schmidt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom