I'm not so sure about ATG

[rich12545]

Actually I was hoping for some AI improvements in what is an entirely new game, not an expansion. Like having the AI capable of using carriers and airborne and smarter at blowing/repairing bridges, stuff like that. It looks like existing scenarios will work with the original game that will be included but not gold so I see no improvement there although there will of course be gold scenarios in due course. The new random engine looks nice but kind of generic. ARHS works well and I don't really see much of an improvement there. Just a couple of bells and whistles. Of course I never play multi and mostly random games so I'll be in a minority with this post but unless there's more info that I'm interested in I'll probably pass and save the $30-40. Just my opinion fwiw.

[Grymme]

Actually all AT scenarios should be directly loadable in Gold, so you are wrong there, if that makes any differencer.

[edit, reread your statement], i am not sure but i do think some of the ATG improvement such as diplomacy, giving of hexes and units to alies, etc will be available when you load an old scenario in ATG, but i am not sure

[Arditi]

For me, it plays like an entirely new game.
  Respectfully, Arditi[:)]

[Tac2i]

Check out my ATG AAR here: wargamer.com. If you like AT, you'll almost certainly enjoy playing ATG.

[Jeffrey H.]

I have to agree with Rich on the disappointment factor. But ATG looks like it's going to be closer to the ideal and maybe via modding it can be imporved ? Hard to say right now. ARHS mod was a modest improvement but even by Zaratoughda's estimatation, the AI was not substantially improved by any tweaking of the existing parameters.

Nice AAR Roy, the game is looking much improved.

[rich12545]

Sometimes mods make the game. Imo ARHS is one of those. I'm thinking of tinkering with other areas like maybe the pacific theater or vietnam. I haven't looked at it closely but it seems what I'd need to do is replace units and terrain mostly. If it's not too difficult I might do it and open up a whole new random game situation. The random game in the original is very moddable. Looking at the start page for gold it looks kind of closed. We'll see how it is when published but at this point I'm not too excited.

[tweber]

Some of the biggest and most obvious changes are:
 
- Allies as a new diplomatic relation.  You can give units, territories, travel over and draw supply through allies
- Use of fuel to contrain certain types of units (e.g., tanks, plains)
- For those that like graphics, there are 2 new sets of unit pics
 
Some of the biggest and not immediately obvious changes are:
 
- Much better mechanism to handle regime variables.  It makes scenarios like the new WAW possible. 
- Much better way to model pre modern warfare.  You can make a sleeping regime allies to all sides and you then take away land position.  This does a better job at modelling pre modern warfare where armies only controlled that land that they immediately occupied.
 
 

[cdbeck]

As AT is my favorite Matrix release, I don't mind paying them again for a significant upgrade to the game. IMHO, you don't get any more bang for your buck than with AT - the random map generator means that you constantly have a new experience every time you play. Adding resources, a much nicer and cleaner tile set, and really clean counters is even more icing. With all the other additions on top of that, I'm fully expecting ATG to continue to be the best wargame in my collection.

Just my feeling. Looking forward to release!

[Josh]

I think I have to agree with Son of Montfort here.
Sure it looks like AT, but then again you could say the same from the Civ series. All the Civ series look alike... sort of, they're a bit different each new game. Yet they are not treated as expansions but as complete new games. Some critics of the Civ series say exactly that, hey it's the same game only a bit different, why should I buy it?
So, IMHO, same holds true for ATG, many improvements make (almost) an entirely new game. New enough for me to buy.

[rich12545]

I guess I didn't explain myself very well. (Actually I did but it looks like some people didn't bother reading and understanding what I wrote.)

I didn't say the game wouldn't have some nice new features. It does. What I said is I generally play a random game against the AI, I don't ever play multi. So considering that, right now, I don't see enough new to get me to part with $30-40. I was hoping for AI improvements as explained above but they didn't happen. If they had, they would have made my game style much better and this would be on my must buy list. But it looks like, for me, it's taking a step backward because it looks like, and this could turn out to be wrong, the random game won't be very moddable the way it is now.

I'm not knocking ATG. It looks very nice. Just, at this point, not enough new for what I'm looking for.

[Grymme]

the random game will be very moddable, even more moddable than before. I think there is something like 100+ new checks and execs.

Also there is some small improvements to the AI/AI moddability and major improvement in AI speed.

For the record, i read your post sloppily the first time & edited my response.

[Westheim]

To get in line with the AT Gold sceptics - I'm not convinced of it, either.

The first visible change are the graphics. Which I don't dig at all. I loved the original AT's default graphics a lot. Simple, functional, no unnecessary glitter stuff, plus the real life unit pictures were just so charming. Those are both gone, apparently.

As a single player (single as in has-no-friends) I play 90% random games (which seem to be improved here and there with the odd or two new option), and then some scenarios here and there occassionally. I have no use for sparkling multiplayer scenarios with hundreds of new design possibilities. If the AI can't handle it, I won't handle it. And with each city in a random game being able to produce for only a specific regime, random games break for me as well.

Seasons with mud and snow seem to be much more variable, which is about the only thing I would be interested in when looking at the features list on the product page.

Not convinced at all.

[Tac2i]

Obviously a particular computer game will appeal to some and not others. For me, the variability of random map games is what drew me to AT. ATG is an improvement over AT in that regard. It is also why I like playing the Civilization series. The variability of the maps each time I play keeps the game interesting for me even though the AI can't beat me unless I raise the difficulty level. Re AI, both Civ and AT/ATG use the same basic technique. Each difficulty level just gives the AI more advantages. Almost every computer game I've played, maybe all of them, use this same basic technique.

I'm excited to see ATG released and I expect a lot of other gamers will be too. I even hope those who have expressed some misgivings find it to be a worthwhile addition to their game collection.

[rich12545]

One main question seems to form. With ATG how easy will the random be for different scenarios? Like changing units/graphics to other time or world areas similar to what ARHS does?

[Grymme]

Off course not everyone can like everything. I myself would have liked another era added for example.

That in mind i dont think anyone should refrain from buying this title because they think something they liked in AT is changed. Actually every option available in AT is still there.

Rich12545. Everything that was in AT will still be in ATG so it will still be as possible to change graphics & units to other eras. Actually it will be much nicer to simulate new areas because it will now be possible to change almost everything in the game. Say for example you have a SpaceRace scenario. It looks really boring to have buttons of artillery & other artwork in the main screen with WWII-style artwork. Now you will be able to mod that so that instead there are spacetypelike buttons in the mainscreen for movement, attack etc.

There is even an option to instead play a classic random game (im sure most people have seen it, but still)

[rich12545]

LOL. A space game. By your post I don't know that you understand what I'm looking for. My scope in playing AT is pretty narrow especially considering its versatility. I guess I'll have to wait until the game is released and watch the forums to see what's going on. Per typical MG I don't believe there will be a demo. More's the pity.

[sabre1]

I'm just hoping for a decent tutorial.

[Grymme]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

LOL. A space game. By your post I don't know that you understand what I'm looking for. My scope in playing AT is pretty narrow especially considering its versatility. I guess I'll have to wait until the game is released and watch the forums to see what's going on. Per typical MG I don't believe there will be a demo. More's the pity.

Rich, i answered your "main" question and merely gave an example. You really seem to have problem comprehending things.

[cdbeck]

Rich, I'm not sure you are communicating what you want very well, so I went back to the OP to see and respond.

ORIGINAL: rich12545

Actually I was hoping for some AI improvements in what is an entirely new game, not an expansion. Like having the AI capable of using carriers and airborne and smarter at blowing/repairing bridges, stuff like that.

I've done some reading and I don't know what the AI is or isn't capable of, but I also don't know how much it has been improved. I do know that the AI is restricted by the same resources as the player, so that is an improvement. As far as bridge busting and carriers, it would be nice to have that, sure.

ORIGINAL: rich12545

It looks like existing scenarios will work with the original game that will be included but not gold so I see no improvement there although there will of course be gold scenarios in due course.

From what I've seen, it looks like you can load up your original scenarios using AT Classic and then you will be able to load up new scenarios in ATG. When I bought AT, there were only a few scenarios available but this was quickly rectified. As you said, in "due course" this should be a moot point.

ORIGINAL: rich12545
The new random engine looks nice but kind of generic.

I don't think so at all. Generic in what way? The pics I've seen posted show pretty lively looking maps and fairly interesting land/water features. The original AT was pretty utilitarian in that regard, and the maps were not particularly pretty or "unique" but they worked well (no worse than a Civ or Empire map). So I guess I don't see this, but I suppose this is personal preference.

ORIGINAL: rich12545
ARHS works well and I don't really see much of an improvement there. Just a couple of bells and whistles. Of course I never play multi and mostly random games so I'll be in a minority with this post but unless there's more info that I'm interested in I'll probably pass and save the $30-40. Just my opinion fwiw.

I never used ARHS, so I can't comment there. I never played a multi game and stuck to the random game as well, and IMHO the random games are being heavily pushed in the ATG marketing. Which makes me think that this is a priority for Vic et al.

Where did you get the $30-40 price range? Just curious. I've not seen any talk about price, other than a pretty clear statement that previous owners of AT will get some form of a discount.

Obviously your opinion is valid to you, and is certainly understandable. But I don't know what exactly you wanted here and I don't feel like Matrix or Vic is hiding anything with this project - it all seems rather clear that this is a major overhaul of AT without being a completely different game.

[rich12545]

ORIGINAL: Grymme

ORIGINAL: rich12545

LOL. A space game. By your post I don't know that you understand what I'm looking for. My scope in playing AT is pretty narrow especially considering its versatility. I guess I'll have to wait until the game is released and watch the forums to see what's going on. Per typical MG I don't believe there will be a demo. More's the pity.

Rich, i answered your "main" question and merely gave an example. You really seem to have problem comprehending things.

When you start getting into unwarranted personal attacks, you lose me. You did NOT answer my "main" question. Likely you mistook a different question for what I was primarily interested in. No problem. I won't call your reading comprehension into question.