Scott Hamilton responds to article

[wodin]

Scott from HPS has responded to my article and to forum posts about the article...I've published it on the blog

LINK TO SCOTTS REPLY

[Qwixt]

Edited based on Wodin's post below.

[budd]

Seems like a stand up guy to me, things don't always go as planned and if he refunded everybody that asked i dont see the big deal as that doesnt seem to be an industry standard. I've been following it for awhile and it sounds like its pretty stable, my only concern is about player aids and help getting into the game through tutorials and said player aids. I read the manual, while i appreciate a lot of detail and depth ease of use is important too. Its a game i should love, just worried about opening it up and staring at it and not knowing what to do. Some game play videos/lets plays and maybe some tutorial video to promote the game would probably help.

[wodin]

Whoops..I got into abit of trouble as I was impatient and as I hadn't had a response from Scott about me publishing it I went ahead as I thought it would help the situation a little..Wrong move. Scott really wanted to prepare a statement actually aimed at TU owners and future owners.

He is worried it may make things worse etc ..

So as long as it doesn't I should be OK:)

I shan't do that again.

[AndyG1]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Whoops..I got into abit of trouble as I was impatient and as I hadn't had a response from Scott about me publishing it I went ahead as I thought it would help the situation a little..Wrong move. Scott really wanted to prepare a statement actually aimed at TU owners and future owners.

He is worried it may make things worse etc ..

So as long as it doesn't I should be OK:)

I shan't do that again.

If it helps, if anything it made me want to purchase because clearly it's a game that is not being left alone but worked on, and that always impressed me. I've looked at it several times the past couple of years and not taken the plunge. Neatly there now

[Rosseau]

I purchased Tigers Unleashed on release and then put it away for a few years in frustration. Then, in mid-Sept. 2016, I was sent a beta patch. The game works!

I am running a halfway decent system (i7 3.6, 16 gigs ram). In a game with about 70 composite units per side vs the AI and limiting spotting to about 3,000 meters, the turn times are acceptable. Not as fast as Panzer Corps or Order of Battle obviously, but definitely doable. I have probably put about 45 hours into it without a crash.

Typically, I will set maneuver groups for orders and check the MOE at the end of the turn. So am not really obsessive about all the data available to the player. I greatly enjoy the ability to create custom OOBs in the DataView program, which contains hundreds of weapon systems. I would like to edit Weapons, but that doesn't work yet - at least for me. As far as maps, there are now plenty, compared to the original.

I always change the AI deployments before each scenario to my liking, and sometimes set up its maneuver groups. While this may spoil a few surprises, I use the game more as a test tube of WW2 combat than a game that you "win." It appears you can only set one "real" objective and others are fake ones, AFAIK. I would like to see multiple objectives possible to help guide the AI. However, it's quite possible I just don't know how to do it yet.

Overall, I am finally pleased with my purchase and can recommend the game to people who understand what they are getting. Main thing is that it works!