Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AnyOne Playing this?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> World War II: General Commander >> RE: AnyOne Playing this? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/14/2009 2:45:12 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4107
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GIveloper


quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Victor.  I also read your very good guide about the game and I have a very similar wargaming background to you, so I see all of the things you are achieving or trying to achieve with your design.  I think it's great so far, and I hope you get enough positive feedback from other players to keep you 100% motivated! 

One key thing I believe you have to decide is whether you are trying to address the (mostly) older board gaming market or the (mostly) younger RTS market.  I don't think you can win with both groups.  So far, I see the direction you are taking as a boardgamer's approach, but adding the real time element and the isometric views for realism, while avoiding the RTS click-fest.  Obviously, I like that direction myself, but I wonder where the market will pull you?

An example of how I would like to see the game evolve is in the crucial Air component - how to model the critical effect of air without the RTS-style air attacks currently in the game?  I would suggest that Air should be more abstracted and statistically modelled, with a focus on attrition of all unit strengths, reductions of efficiency and general interdiction of supply, based on who has air superiority, the weather, allocation of mission types, etc.  The players should use sliders or some similar device to define their strategy (% allocated to CAS, Interdiction, Recon, etc.) while air supply values are set by the scenario designer to reflect limited numbers of suitable aircraft.  Units can then be given supply priority by players and have a chance of receiving airdrops each turn if they cannot trace a supply path.  Air drops can also miss and go to nearby enemy units.  Random chance and target detection status (spotted, time since last sighting, etc.) should determine the chance and impact of air strikes.  CAS should have a random chance of hitting adjacent friendly units as well - a common problem.  You might want to consider a separate Air Operations Map, where the players can set their geographic priorities for air operations, so that, for example, they can focus all their assets on the most dangerous enemy movement.  Also, it should be possible to strike bridges and supply dumps to interdict/reduce supply efficiency.

Osprey - I would say that this game is somewhat ahead of where the original Crown of Glory was.  It does need more work, but it's already a fun and educational game if you can look past the flaws, IMO.  CoG never did grab my attention.  maybe I should look at the latest addition again.

Markus



Markus.... well... I need time to read your email. We are really moving to the core of "How to simulate Operation games w/o died traying it"

For me WWII:GC is a pure evolution, I was convinced that introduce the time variable on a Operational game is needed, on turn based I was loosing something, I know RTS = clickfest, but becouse nobody has trying something different, or adding the element for make it easy... example: if you play online but with many Timeout, it is a turn based game!!

But I know the people can not recorgnize our game with anything existing, and that is the problem. Problem for us and the sales ;)... but we did it, knowing the consequences..

Another question:

What element we want to control during the game... in that case Supplies, the Air attack etc... We simplify, Air Attack is a pure support unit to reduce the efficience of attacked units (GC is not a RTS , the battalions are not destroy by an air attack... ). Talking about audience... if we include all, the game is very hardcore, too much. So we decide to simplify, perhaps the best would be to create different game mode, with alternative for gamers that want to control everything and other that just want to play different global strategics... not focusing in every detail.

Another question is. really the Generals had this controls of units.. supply etc during the combats? I do not think that, you say FoW was severe, you have to imagine in those days!! One day I would like to simulate the exactly atmosfere of HQ during the combats... radio message, notes comming from footmen messangers, wrong informations... well a nightmare...

I will back to you regarding supplies, it is quite interesting subject.

Victor.






Hi again - I was travelling...

I understand your points and I agree that you have to pick a development path that can realistically be followed.

On the FoW point, that was a compliment :) I think the FoW is excellent - enemy divisions previously unknown emerge from the mist on my flank along an unguarded road - great! (This just happened to me).

Observations from another couple of hours play:

1. The ping of death came again but this time it was right after I alt-tabbed to read an email. I don't think the adware alert is the cause; it's somehow connected to coming out of the game (due to alt-tab or pop-up dialogue) and then going back in. Game freezes right after every time.

2. The AI plays different strategies each time, am I correct? When I replay the same scenario the AI sometimes defends, other times attacks my foremost units, one time with armor along this road, the next game with armor on the other side of the map. I'm loving it.

3. One negative about the AI; in the Bastogne scenario it once advanced the 101st Airborne straight towards by Panzer Divisions with no tank support and left Bastogne undefended behind it. I think a few tweaks are needed to make it a bit less aggressive when defending.

4. I notice that as the scenarios get more complex (Bastogne Corridor onwards) the battles become longer, e.g. the units sit and slog away at each other for a much longer period than in the earlier scenarios. I think some rules are needed on unit behaviour once certain casualty levels are reached (e.g. 10% losses and an attacking unit stops to regroup or 'Hold'. 20% losses and a defender withdraws 1 km, etc.) I guess there are such rules in the code already, but some of the AI units are just attacking to the bitter end. I'd like a bit more ebb and flow, some pauses to regroup and re-position, etc.

Still think this is a truly great design - just want to see it get even better!

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 31
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/14/2009 2:56:53 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4107
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

Back to the discussion of future features, or how to improve GC... We need to see the product like a game that try a zoom out management, more to macromanagement than micro.. spell74 said well in another thread we usually play tactical games or high level strategic games, but few non turn based Operational Games.. Those operationals have a BIG issue: the volume of unit to manage (we are talking about WWII..).
So any new feature must be adapted to and easy and automate way to handled it, or player will die trying that.

Independent or hardcore/soft gamer, the most is the time you have to play game.. probably 2 or 4 hours per week (average). A medium scenario should be playable in this time frame or most of you will be insatisfy.. and I do not say 2 or 4 easy play hours, I mean a "brain game" of 2 or 4 hours scenario...

So basically what could be your average expectation:

- No hiding rule pls, clear and intuitive.
- 2/4 hours by game.
- "Brain" pls, not just click-click.
- Historical context and simulation.
- If I could play online with my friends... it will be great.
- Nice presentation.
- A challenge...

What do you think? ..... I am far away?

Victor.


Hi Victor,

Actually, we are saying the same thing. What I was trying to suggest (with too many words) is to simplify the Air component. No clicking of air units. No selection of targets and plane numbers, etc. Just some sliders and a map - set the balance between types of air op, chose the areas of focus and target types, and click 'Go'. Then it runs and runs until you change the settings, with maybe a few strike reports to remind you that it's there.

Totally abstracted, simple as hell :) Let the player focus on the land war.

Markus

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 32
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/14/2009 2:58:26 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4107
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
Hey - I just got promoted from Recruit to Trooper after playing Matrix games for a decade!!!  (Note to self - must post more text lol)

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 33
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/15/2009 2:01:18 PM   
GIveloper

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 11/24/2008
Status: offline
Hi Markus,
 
We include in the AI parameters to decide when to do some counterattacks even if its mission is defensive.. if not the attack army can just concentrate their troops and let’s go, knowing the AI never is going to attack its flank.. so you need to protect all the perimeters and cities even your are the attack army or you will have a surprise… In Bastogne perhaps we should include some more constraint to the defensive army… but if we know what the AI is going to do… (to defense Bastagne) what could be the challenge of this scenario?
 
Air force: I understand now, it was included in the initial design: we called “opportunity areas”, also we did the same for fighter groups, we called “protect areas”, and working as you say by probability. In any case the mission option must be kept as we need to understand the airforce as support unit. Finally as always we have been forced to decide, and airforce gameplay was sacrificed. I believe these options can be included in the new design if we arrive to find a really good interface, the management time for airforce must be controlled or the global game will be impacted, it is quite similar to heavy artillery management.
Regarding the objective selection: Yes and No, if we include the FoW, the bomber should not know where the enemy is, or if you want to destroy a bridge… I see it like a group of airplane looking for objectives, pending of the enemy’s unit (each unit have a different level of %to be located) the will have a % to find them and of course the area size.
 
Supply: Hey Mark, that is a serious topic, if you limit the supply… well, how many gamers we will lose in the first match… 50%. Lost in Combat. Absolutely realistic, many of the decision were taken based on that, but it must be included as option in the game start options, we can increase the gamer workload so much that it can be boring. And the secret will be the interface of course… intuitive, clear and with main decisions, no micromanagement. Something like you said (priorities) could be nice.
 
Supply, road network; Indeed the supplies have the importance in the game not based in a restrictive model, it is more to focus the gamer in finding the strategic points that are linked with the supplies distribution and the fast troops movement (by roads)…
 
All the best, Victor.

_____________________________

WWII: GC Designer

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 34
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/15/2009 2:25:31 PM   
vonRocko

 

Posts: 1205
Joined: 11/4/2008
Status: offline
Victor,
You got my interest,and in a week or so,will get my money. This looks like it is worth a try!
Thanks

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 35
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/15/2009 2:32:48 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4107
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GIveloper

Hi Markus,
 
We include in the AI parameters to decide when to do some counterattacks even if its mission is defensive.. if not the attack army can just concentrate their troops and let’s go, knowing the AI never is going to attack its flank.. so you need to protect all the perimeters and cities even your are the attack army or you will have a surprise… In Bastogne perhaps we should include some more constraint to the defensive army… but if we know what the AI is going to do… (to defense Bastagne) what could be the challenge of this scenario?
 
Air force: I understand now, it was included in the initial design: we called “opportunity areas”, also we did the same for fighter groups, we called “protect areas”, and working as you say by probability. In any case the mission option must be kept as we need to understand the airforce as support unit. Finally as always we have been forced to decide, and airforce gameplay was sacrificed. I believe these options can be included in the new design if we arrive to find a really good interface, the management time for airforce must be controlled or the global game will be impacted, it is quite similar to heavy artillery management.
Regarding the objective selection: Yes and No, if we include the FoW, the bomber should not know where the enemy is, or if you want to destroy a bridge… I see it like a group of airplane looking for objectives, pending of the enemy’s unit (each unit have a different level of %to be located) the will have a % to find them and of course the area size.
 
Supply: Hey Mark, that is a serious topic, if you limit the supply… well, how many gamers we will lose in the first match… 50%. Lost in Combat. Absolutely realistic, many of the decision were taken based on that, but it must be included as option in the game start options, we can increase the gamer workload so much that it can be boring. And the secret will be the interface of course… intuitive, clear and with main decisions, no micromanagement. Something like you said (priorities) could be nice.
 
Supply, road network; Indeed the supplies have the importance in the game not based in a restrictive model, it is more to focus the gamer in finding the strategic points that are linked with the supplies distribution and the fast troops movement (by roads)…
 
All the best, Victor.



Hi Victor,

I agree that the AI should be allowed to make local counter attacks - to keep us guessing. That is very important.

But a full counter-offensive by the USA AI with all its forces right at the start of the scenario? I think that takes us out of historically-based wargaming and into something else.

Best regards,

Markus

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 36
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/15/2009 2:38:54 PM   
GIveloper

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 11/24/2008
Status: offline
Hi Mark,

Which scenario you are talking about?

Victor.

_____________________________

WWII: GC Designer

(in reply to redmarkus4)
Post #: 37
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/15/2009 3:52:13 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4107
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
Hi,

This was KG Pieper.  I am trying to add a screen cap I made but I can't see how to do that here.  'Add image' just asks me for a URL...  I will try to IM it to you.

Mark

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 38
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/15/2009 5:26:24 PM   
Slick Wilhelm


Posts: 1594
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Rochester, MN
Status: offline
Hi Victor,

Even though I'm not a huge fan of the Battle of the Bulge, your new game does look interesting to me. I'm not sure if I'm going to buy it yet, but it's a possibility. The most important part of a game for me is being able to get into it initially, by having a good tutorial and good documentation. Coming second on my list is a competent AI.

Also, could you tell us if GC is fixed at a certain video resolution?

Thanks.

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 39
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 7/16/2009 12:21:32 PM   
GIveloper

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 11/24/2008
Status: offline
Hi Slick,

Matrixgame.com provides a very good documentation regarding the game, that is for sure.
And resolution:
"The game runs in 1024x768, but your video drivers will generally allow you to adjust how it scales to your monitor." Erik has some notes about that in the Tech threads.

Victor.


_____________________________

WWII: GC Designer

(in reply to Slick Wilhelm)
Post #: 40
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 9/20/2009 10:21:19 AM   
Alan Sharif

 

Posts: 419
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline
I have purchased this game and just got around to playing it. Thus far I have only played the 7th Pz Army and Pieper scenarios.  I was not always sure what I was doing ( might be my fault always keener to play a game than learn how) but I have found this an enjoyable experience. I won both scenarios,on the standard setting, neither easy or hard, so might question the AI's ability. Remember, I really was not sure what I was doing, at least initially. However, when all is said and done this is a game worth looking at. I am generally NOT a fan of real time but this is no click fest and I would recommend it to WW2 fans at least. Would like to see more, France 1940, North Africa and the Eastern Front spring to mind.     

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 41
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 9/21/2009 2:41:56 PM   
Alan Sharif

 

Posts: 419
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline
Ooops...........ignore my mentioning I was using the standard AI in my previous post, getting confused with Operation Barbarossa which I am also playing.

Have played this title some more and find much to enjoy about the game. However, I am getting used to either defeating the AI without much of a challenge, or, in a couple of smaller scenrios, being defeated without actually doing much at all. In one of my early games an Allied airstike destroyed enough of my units for me to lose the game without actually encountering any Allied Ground forces what so ever.

I have also played a couple of games as the Allied played on defense whereby I dug in everywhere prior to being attacked by the Axis and after a few turns I was informed I had won said scenario.

I suspect the smaller scenarios are useful only for learning the game on. I will try the campaign game before the weeks out, I hope, as this title is currently competing for more of my time with both Operation Barbarossa and Takeda.

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to Alan Sharif)
Post #: 42
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 9/28/2009 5:04:42 AM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 1071
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
To answer the question, I think they're all playing Time of Wrath...A much better game that is easy to mod as well.

I dropped $100 for the original CEAW and the Napoleon spinoff. The latter set the record for shortest time on my hard drive. I really tried to like it, really tried to mod it, and it was a no-go. Graphics and upgrade mechanics were nice, but gameplay is oh so boring.

I see Conquest Realms isn't selling like hotcakes either. My experience with Slitherine games is not good, and I've paid for it the hard way.

Having a pretty good time with Op Barb, which proves a simple wargame doesn't have to be so brain dead as these other two.



(in reply to Alan Sharif)
Post #: 43
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/1/2009 3:29:21 PM   
Alan Sharif

 

Posts: 419
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline
Hi Rosseau, I think we are talking about different titles here. Time Of Wrath is very much on my 'to buy' list after I played the demo.

With regards to General Commander I must add the AI needs some serious work. At present I win easily. Have not played the Allied Bulge Counter Attack scenario yet but otherwise my comment re AI hold fast.

Are there any patches in development which might address this?

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to rosseau)
Post #: 44
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/1/2009 4:11:39 PM   
GIveloper

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 11/24/2008
Status: offline
Hi Alan,

We are working on it, we have very few resources but we try to deliver something as soon as we can.

(in reply to Alan Sharif)
Post #: 45
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/2/2009 12:04:48 PM   
Txema

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 5/9/2003
From: Basque Country
Status: offline
I am very interested also in the patch to fix the AI problems. You have done a very interesting work on this game, but the AI patch is necessary. Please, develope a good patch to fix the AI flaws... this nice game deserves it !!


Txema

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 46
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/3/2009 7:45:19 AM   
Alan Sharif

 

Posts: 419
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline
I agree totally. This is a very interesting game and you should be proud of the work you have done thus far. A better AI will make this a much better title. I would like to see further games using this system. One day I hope.

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to Txema)
Post #: 47
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/4/2009 6:50:10 PM   
msickle

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 10/4/2009
Status: offline
I actually like this game and I think it brings some new approaches to wargaming.  I will be watching future releases from you GI.

Having said that, I found some very rough edges that make it difficult to enjoy the game in it's current state.

Problems:
1. Crashes... every.. time...  I have never been able to make it thru a scenario once without it crashing somewhere along the line.  Well one time I did, I just sat back and sped it up and let the AI roll over me just to see what it would do.  It seems to not crash if I don’t give orders or move the map.

2. Resolution, UI.  I know this has been covered elsewhere, but limiting it to such a small resolution makes it look terrible.  Running it in actual rez is tiny and also unreadable.  (I have a 1920x1600)  The game map is a bit dark, although it seems that that is related to control?  Either way there is a lot of dark, black, shadowy terrain and it looks gloomy.  There are lots of buttons on display at all times. Unit facing is hard to see, esp. on infantry.

3.   Units lack the ability to do anything on their own.  This means that you actually do need to micro manage every single move.  The auto formations are ok for putting a regiment in the right area.  But if they are defending against a massive onslaught, then it won't work.  Unit's don't auto fortify, and they don't do tactical retreats.  They sit there and get hammered until they shatter.  Now, for handling a division or two in one area that is not a problem, because the game system is well done.  But take the 7th Panzer attacks scenario...  You have 3 different battles going on, and if you need to manage one area carefully, you need to drop the time multiple to almost nothing or else risk getting steamrollered on one of the other two.  So the game crawls... all that would be ok, but just really slow, except the crashing thing.

So the game does not feel like a RTS clickfest, no, but due to the need to micromanage so many units across such a huge area sort of has the same basic result.  And mind you – I have only played the size one and two scenarios – I have not even touched the 3s and 4s.

4. Armored units have no ability to fall back as they fight.  They stand and die like static infantry units until you order them to go somewhere else or run.  On the offense, you can set them up to attack in a complex path but on defense it’s all manual.

5. Armored infantry is way too powerful.  They can run right into towns and defenses and all of their halftracks are just fine.  They are like tank units with 400 tanks instead of 40.  They steamroller everything.  They suffer no ill effects from being fired on from above even though all of these vehicles in this timeframe were open topped.  Tank and AT units damage them but not like a bunch of halftracks.  I've had them run through gauntlets of fire and keep on rolling.  Just a few of them in a group can smash anything in the path.  I'd say the only reason I kill them much at all is artillery and the AI running them right into defending units and parking them there. I can imagine that making mounted infantry have to mount and dismount, and then managing the transport separately would add a lot of complexity to an otherwise simple system.  But – motorized infantry, in trucks?  That would be even more suspect in this current system.

Side note here - AT guns, what the heck?  They get shredded on defense, but can roll up on offense and hammer away.  Here, they roll around like 45mm cannons on lawnmowers, moving over hills with the greatest of ease.

6. No real zone of control.  Sometimes units will stop and battle it out, but if there is any extra room they will slip around everything, and fast.  A straggling pack of infantry battalions will be 3kn down the road behind your defensive line in a flash, even if they are surrounded on all sides by dug in units.  Artillery with manual targeting can slow things down a lot - but this is a full time job if you have 3-4 arty units to manually target.  That works only if you don't need to interact with your other forces, such as when everyone is hunkered down in defense.

In one run of the 7th panzer scenario I pulled everything on the left back with only a small screening force and fortified 2 solid lines of defense with tanks, infantry and AT guns.  (1 armored and 1 infantry division.) They were fully fortified by the time the Germans hit them.  Waves of mostly halftracks came in and basically started swirling around, just running up and down the defensive lines, eventually shattering them.

7.  Zooming in and out is very inconsistent.  I tried many different mouse wheel settings, and it does not seem to make any difference.  Sometimes it zooms in a LOT and usually it is slow.  Zooming in and out to place units takes many, many rotations of the mouse wheel at the "normal" speed.

8. The maps feel constricted and more like mazes than maps.  Now, I imagine that these fit the Bulge stuff well, but it still feels boxy.  On that topic, the Battle of the Bulge has been done so many thousands of times, I was not inspired by this setting at all.  I decided to try it despite this.   I would love to see this tried with some eastern front action, with more of a mix of open and closed maps.

9. Battalions cannot be broken into smaller battle groups. For instance, an armored division is a pretty massive force... but in this game you can only use it for 1 big or 2 small defensive lines and that's about it.  Combine that with the weak zones of control, the super halftracks, and your division feels pretty small.  You can almost always be flanked unless the AI decides it WANTS to come thru you or is bottled by a bridge or river.  The ability to parcel out tanks and AT guns in smaller groups would be nice.

10.  Sound is low and not very rich.  A big battle with 200 tanks, a few thousand infantry and some artillery sounds like someone shooting pistols in the back yard.


Now - that might all sound harsh, I want to be clear that I do like this game none-the-less.  Here are some things I liked:

1. Real time operational never played like this.  The Panther games stuff is along these lines but it feels kind of clinical.  I think the 3D map is the main ingredient that helps it, it really helps visualize the battle as it shapes up.

2. Supply and road handling, very nicely done overall and it gives a much more interesting battlespace that feels more alive.

3.  The icons that display that allow you to jump to different main battles is nice. 

4. The basic controls, of looking at, moving, facing units is nice.  When you get the hang of the camera controls and start moving units, you feel like you can lay out the movement of a division or two very quickly and with a plan.  You can decide to use roads or go cross country easily.  

----

Well, overall I think in needs some work, but there is something to the core combo of real time, 3D map, and this nice interface for giving movement orders.  Plus of course the awesome supply handling.

Matt

< Message edited by msickle -- 10/4/2009 7:11:11 PM >

(in reply to GIveloper)
Post #: 48
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/4/2009 8:22:54 PM   
Alan Sharif

 

Posts: 419
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline
Nice Post Matt. I have to agree on most points ( game has never crashed on me), and I would love to see this game developed further. East Front and North Africa would be excellent, however, some of the more mobile battles of WW1 would interest me also. In fact, there are a lot of battles/campaigns/eras that this game system would really suit.

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to msickle)
Post #: 49
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/6/2009 6:46:43 AM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 1071
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
You're right Alan, I was talking about Commander - Europe at War and its Napoleonic half-brother!

I bought World War II: General Commander before Matrix had it up and liked it immediately.

My only gripe would be why no Light and Heavy tanks for the Americans (Stuarts, Pershings)? The game could use a bit more variety in unit types if possible.


(in reply to Alan Sharif)
Post #: 50
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/6/2009 9:06:54 AM   
Alan Sharif

 

Posts: 419
Joined: 8/1/2001
From: UK.
Status: offline
Hi Rosseau. Must admit, I have been tempted by the WW2 title, but never the Napoleonic one. The system seems totally wrong for that period.

_____________________________

A Sharif

(in reply to rosseau)
Post #: 51
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 10/7/2009 5:23:07 AM   
rosseau

 

Posts: 1071
Joined: 9/13/2009
Status: offline
Not to hijack this thread or tempt you further, but it's available here for $20:

http://www.slitherine.com/games/mh_ceaw_gold_pc

Don't know why Matrix is selling it for $50!

(in reply to Alan Sharif)
Post #: 52
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 6/10/2010 6:12:35 PM   
BigAnorak


Posts: 4673
Joined: 7/10/2006
From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
Status: offline
This is not the same game. Too many games with commander in the title.

(in reply to rosseau)
Post #: 53
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 5/12/2011 5:43:29 AM   
sabre1


Posts: 1928
Joined: 8/15/2001
From: CA
Status: offline
Anybody home?

This game looked like it had a TON of potential, and just faded away...

Too bad.

(in reply to BigAnorak)
Post #: 54
RE: AnyOne Playing this? - 9/12/2011 4:01:20 PM   
redmarkus4


Posts: 4107
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
I think the devs must have folded.

_____________________________

Cyberpower tower PC
Intel Core i7-3930k CPU, 3.20GHz processor
32 GB RAM
2TB HD
2xNVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 graphics cards, each with 4095 MB
Realtek sound card
Dell 3007WFP (running at 2560x1600) 32 bit monitor
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit O

(in reply to sabre1)
Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> World War II: General Commander >> RE: AnyOne Playing this? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.101