UK PC Gamer review

[MikeBrough]

Spotted a review of CotA in the September issue of UK PC Gamer. Didn't have
time to buy it or read it properly (I'm late, I'm late for a very important
date...) but I think the score was 85-ish. Excellent.

Anyone got more detail?

[Banquet]

Here's the review;

'Having explored the Red Devils toughest test (Arnhem) in both of their last two wargames, it only seems right that Panther Games recreate the Green Devils stickiest op this time out. Operation Mercury, the German invasion of Crete, was the first time Kurt Student's elite Fliegerkorps had bee nused en masse. Inadequate preperation, compromised plans, and determined opposition meant it would also be the last. Many of the paras and glider troops that fell to earth on May 20, 1941, did so right on top of camouflaged Allied positions. The resulting slaughter was horrendous, the desparate drama extraordinary.

I know what you're thinking: those screenshots up there aren't exactly shouting 'desperate drama' Conquest of the Aegean, like it's brilliant predecessors, is grim faced strategy of the old school and as such requires a fair bit of imagination and background knowledge to be enjoyed fully. Make the effort, see past the spartan maps, the sparse sound, and the square counters, and you're rewarded with one of the most believable battle simulations ever created. The credibility comes primarily from two sources: an AI the equal of which I've yet to encounter in ANY strategy game, and impressive modelling of the military command chain.

Take another looks at the pics. Each one of those counters is attached to an HQ, which in turn has it's own HQ further up the ladder. If you want to you can micro manage individual companies, or - and this is the way the game is really meant to be played - you can act like a real general, issuing orders to subordinate CO's who then devise and execute their own plausible plans. Need an airfield taken ASAP? Select a nearby battalion commander, slap an attach marker on the objective, modify it with route, losses, and rate of fire instructions, then go attend to something else. The assigned leader will be smart enough to organise reserves, arrange artillery support, select a suitable forming-up point and coordinate armour and infantry during the assault. Dashed clever stuff.

Apart from 30 new scenarios covering battles on Crete, mainland Greece and Malta, the main differences between COTA and it's predecessor, Highway to the Reich, are a new supply model that makes things much tougher for cut-off units, and a new movement system that factors in gradients and vehicle-impassable terrain (an extra headache for CPU CO's planning combined arms attacks). Although these ingenius refinements are very welcome, personally I would have perferred Panther to have spent the last 3 years implementing a 3d map and some form of campaign system. 'Reading terrain was never much of a problem in Holland; in hilly Greece, even with new LOS tools, it can be a right pain in the rear echelons. Maps and scenario durations have grown since HTTR, but the shadows cast by victories and defeats are still disappointingly short.

Summing up;
The connoisseur's choice.

IT'S: Clever. Convincing. Pausable continuous time.
IT'S NOT: Hexy. Atmospheric. Available on the high street.

Mercurial

Rating: 84%

For a mainstream mag that's not a bad review at all![:)]

Nb, If I shouldn't have typed that out due to copyright can a mod delete it please?

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Banquet
Nb, If I shouldn't have typed that out due to copyright can a mod delete it please?

Just call it "an extended quote" [;)]

And to put it all in perspective : it's a review by Tim Stone who gave Cossacks 2 - Battle for Europe a 60% in the same issue. With Bill Trotter gone and Bruce Geryck reduced to half a column, Tim Stone is the last surviving grognard/reviewer at a major publication. 84% is a big score for PC Gamer UK - the same issue sees Civ 4 - Warlords getting a 85%. In fact, I don't recall any wargame ever getting such a high score in PC Gamer. And no, RTW is not a wargame [;)]

And to round it all off : another major magazine has published a review of COTA, this time it's the French language PC4WAR and the reviewer is none other than the guy known here under his "JeF" nick.

Some quotes from this review (translated) :

"COTA is a splendid evolution of the airborne assault series"

"COTA is more than a strategy game, it's a beautiful example of a
command simulator"

"A true to life historical simulation"

Score : 8 (out of 10) - and to put it again in perspective : Strategic Command 2 scored 7 and Take Command : 2nd Manassas a 9 in the same issue.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Banquet]

The only slight issue I've have is calling the map 'spartan' which I guess is probably because it's not 3d, pixel shaded and what not - I think the map is fantastic and most people here seem to think so too. But often wargame maps get called a lot worse and I suppose anyone reading the review might buy it as a first wargame and so might consider it a bit dull compared to the latest 3d graphics if your not used to the subtleties of a nice wargaming map.

Also, although I agree with the wish for a 3d map, I think expecting that AND a campaign game is a bit optimistic - maybe he forgot not all devs are the size of EA! [:D]

Just nit picking really, overall a great review for a mainstream mag - PC Gamer is the only printed mag I can think of that still gives wargames a fair shout.

[Short_Sarafand]

ORIGINAL: sterckxe
Tim Stone is the last surviving grognard/reviewer at a major publication.

It's all down to the regular monkey gland injections and a wonderfully open-minded Commissioning Editor. (Still trying to convince him we should review >railway signalling simulations< and >hardcore fishing sims< but otherwise anything goes!)

I don't recall any wargame ever getting such a high score in PC Gamer.

On my watch there have actually been a few that have done slightly better: CMBO 90%, CMBB, 86%, CMAK 86%) 84% is still a fat score though. More than twice as much as GI Combat got [;)]

Just for the record, the phrase in the review "is grim-faced strategy of the old school and as such" (start of paragraph 2) was added without my knowledge. Apparently the 'body ' was a few words short and someone in the office slapped it in at the last moment thinking it fitted. A bit annoying considering I've spent years pointing-out to readers that AA is one of the most progressive wargaming systems around, but these things happen.

ORIGINAL: Banquet
although I agree with the wish for a 3d map, I think expecting that AND a campaign game is a bit optimistic

I guess I'm just getting impatient [:)]: From my RDOA review, Dec 2002

"AAs most significant shortcoming will be blindingly obvious to all those who didn't lose the top half of the magazine in a frenzied dog attack on the way home from the newsagent. Despite the cleverness, the originality, and the realism, play can be pretty soulless thanks to the spartan [there's that word again!] Ordnance Survey graphics. With 3D terrain, modelled unit counters, and better sound this unassuming title could have won fans outside the grognard ghetto. As it stands, recommending this to anyone who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool wargamer would be highly irresponsible."

I've always felt that the AA had the potential to be Combat Mission-big, Panzer General-big, even Close Combat-big if it had been developed in a certain direction (more attention to aesthetics, atmosphere, immersion...) While I completely respect Panther's chosen path and love new features like the improved supply model there will always be a part of me that pictures a pretty, popular (and realistic, naturally) AA mingling confidently with the likes of Civ and Total War.

Not that we haven't ended up with a fabulous game!

Thank you Panther!

Tim Stone

[Rooster]

ORIGINAL: Banquet

The only slight issue I've have is calling the map 'spartan' which I guess is probably because it's not 3d,

Mebbe he's using Spartan in that Greek sense - you know Thermopylae... [;)]

[Marc von Martial]

Hmm, it might be a language thing but "spartan" is not necessarily a negavtive adjective.

[mefi]

Spartan in this context carries the meaning that the graphics are not as luxurious as they could be.

I suppose a 3d engine would bring in more sales. Although I think the game would be obviously going in the wrong direction if too much attention was spent on 'bloom'

[Tomus]

I agree with him that the game does lack a bit of atmosphere. Sometimes i feel I am moving boxes around rather than companies of troops.

[Banquet]

In terms of atmosphere.. I would love it if the game subordinates gave you feedback as to their progress. So 1st battalion might send messages like we're taking heavy casualties, we see enemy units retreating, enemy tanks spotted on the road, we're crossing the river, sir.. etc, etc.

Also, reports of significant casualties caused like, we've taken out a tank, or the enemy MG coy is retreating.. This kind of thing would add a lot in my opinion. There's so much going on it would be nice to have some of it presented in this way, both for atmosphere and to let some of the detail going on under the hood shine through.

These messages could then be stored in the general message log, or maybe only displayed in the message log, so you could review that page, but wouldn't be overrun with messages appearing everywhere.

[Hoyt Burrass]

At least he didn't call it 'Trojan' [:'(]

[Vance]

Tim Stone

84% is still a fat score though. More than twice as much as GI Combat got

Hee, I've got that one too. And yes, what a brain dead AI it has. But it has a 3d map.

[Short_Sarafand]

This shot is from a wargame some probably remember - the flawed-but-far-sighted Universal Military Simulator III (1995) The camera system was very primitive but the use of 3D maps was rather effective.

When I think about a 3D AA I picture views a little like these (with more varied terrain/textures obviously). The perspective makes reading topography much easier and opens up some fascinating info display possibilities. 3D counters and semi-transparent footprints would make it possible to present unit data like combat power, rout status, task etc. *simultaneously* within the map screen. 3D unit models would mean data like deployment and strength could be displayed naturalistically; they would also add bucketfuls of atmosphere and visual interest to engagements. Naturally fogies would also have the option to play with counters and a fixed 2D top-down view too.[;)]

[Short_Sarafand]

Here's another 'inspirational' UMS3 shot

[Arjuna]

Short_Sarafand,
&nbsp;
Thanks for the pics. Yes I agree I would like to zoom around in a 3D battlefield. It's on our wish list. But it is a BIG job and so we need plenty of sales to fund it. Spread the word. [:)]

[sapper_astro]

...And I suppose 'health bars' would make it more easily accessible to the ritellin crowd as well eh?[;)]

Honestly, I have seen 3D. Take Close Combat and add 3D, what do you get? Eric youngs squad assault.....Nice try, but the AI is clearly inferior, the UI is clunky and annoying and to tell the truth, the game itself doesn't even look as good as the CC games (IMO of course).

3D has done nothing much for gaming apart from pushing computer specs up. True I enjoy some of the Total war mods for Rome, and the battles are quite fun, but I can't really see where 3D would make a big diff with COTA. CM and its followers have added a little but still aren't up there with the CC games imo.

Honestly, if more options and estabs keep coming, along with some linked campaign games (the more, the longer, the better), just little improvements, this series will grow. With COTA I haven't had as much fun playing a wargame since Carriers at War and the Close Combat games. Thats a big call for me.

One more thing....The WW2 scene for the 'casual' gamer is overloaded to hell. The amount of times I see the words 'Not another WW2 game!!! Groan' in casual gamer forums is far too high to count.

Just keep on keeping on. Your on a winner if you give the fans what they want with this series.[;)]

[lyceum]

Great to see you on the boards Mr Stone&nbsp;[;)]

Whenever I get PC Gamer I flick straight to the sim column in the news bit and really appreciate your enlightening sim reviews later on. Also agree with you on the 3D issue[;)]

Hope you stick around.

Kind regards,

Thomas.

[Arjuna]

Welcome Tim. I didn't recognise your forum ID. Thanks for the review BTW. [:)]

[Fred98]

I too have no interest in a 3D type game.
&nbsp;
But better shading of the map would make it much easier to see the folds of the ground in C.O.T.A.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

[Banquet]

Man, UMS3 - that brings back some memories (mostly of frustration, but if it had worked, it would have been awesome!)

One way to implement a 3d map in COTA without ruining the great map graphics we already have, and a way I think would work well.. would be similar to what Memory Map do with their maps.

You have the top down, 2d, map which you can scroll around and would be exactly what you have now - but you have a 3d button that would turn whatever part of the map you're looking at into a 3d representation. Now, whether you make the 3d map playable or not depends on how much resource is available. I'd imagine it would be easier to have a 3d map so you can judge terrain, and then switch back to continue playing. I'd be more than happy with this approach as I don't really want a 3d to play on so much as one I can refer to.. others may think it's a waste of time having a 3d map if you can actually play the game on it.