Llyranor

Shut the crap up, RP.

A good developer + coop could make me consider this. Hmm.

So my brother just bought a copy. He likes RTS games, so that's his cup of tea. Given that a coop campaign was on the feature list back when I was paying attention to the game, I quickly looked it up to see what's up with that. So they removed the coop campaign. What the bloody heck?

Depends how much you enjoy fairly conventional RTS games.

Battle 4 went very well, leading to a major victory. My resources were spent on replenishing my previous losses, as well as getting a bit luxurious in terms of numbers. The setup was similar to the previous battle (exact same map, after all, I just need to hold it longer). This time, though, my setup was more Eastward, with the bulk of my infantry in the Eastern village for fire support. I managed to get two of their tanks, and they suffered many more losses than me, given that I had a pretty good field of vision/fire. In the end, the losers requested a truce. I could have held on longer, but I accepted, because I'm nice like that. I also simply wanted to cut my losses to a minimum. Next battle will be the last of the first scenario of the campaign. This time around, it'll be about holding the area against one final German push. With very little losses this round and more reinforcements on the way, I'm hoping my chances are good. Jerks.

I'm quite enjoying the scarcity of resources so far, and I think it'll help me appreciate when I actually *get* those resources later on, even if it means more tank-heavy battles. The game is hard on Veteran ;_; but it's all part of the charm.

Hehe. Second battle turned out to be a total disaster. Not only was I barely recovering from the losses from the first battle, but reinforcements were meager at best (I obtained a few AT rifles, which didn't turn out to be of much use. I should have probably gotten a mortar, though that would have been even less effective against armor - not that I was in any way effective, anyway). I did what little I could to try to stall the German advance, but that turned out rather counterproductive as my new green units quickly went the way of gobble gobble. Upon pulling my remaining injured broken units to relative safety, I ordered a tactical retreat so that they may fight another day. Third battle involved the final stand before the enemy would arrive at Lvov. My orders were basically to hold at all cost. I had more resources this time around, and tanks were available. I could, of course, not afford a single one of them (unless it meant crippling my infantry support, which would have been quite bad). I snatched up an AT gun and 2 AT rifles. Hiding them behind hills and setting up flank positions, I then set up my infantry and MG's to scout ahead, pulling back whenever things would get hectic. To be honest, my infantry didn't get too much done, but they did get a few kills, and they managed to (for the most part ) stay alive. More importantly, though, they were my spotters. Mortar support was very appreciated this time around, and played an essential role in holding back the enemy. The screenshot below shows Hill 101, where most of the fighting took place (as well as the houses to the West - where I had positioned some infantry initially). I had placed a few infantry to the North as well, in the bunker, just in case the enemy would attack from there. It didn't happen, and the enemy only had a tank there. I had no choice but to pull back some units, which led to the pile of corpses you see between the bunker and Hill 101. I had managed to get the rest of the team to safety, though. I had doubts about using the bunker in the first place, since it was surrounded by clear terrain. Oh well. As the ****y tank tried to advance more, though, it fell into my trap, where my AT gun/rifles awaited on both sides. I took down two of those jerkfaces, including the one blowing up in the screenie. Some mortar fire eventually forced me to (try to) pull back, but the last straw was the advance of enemy flamethrowers. One of my AT rifle teams was grilled on the spot. I quickly ordered a rapid retreat to the village to the East, with some mortar support to stall the enemy. I managed to pin the flamies down while my infantry got to safety and helped with suppression from afar, where it was safer. The AT gun, though, didn't really budge. Or if it did, I didn't even notice it. But it was too late, anyway.By the time I'd be able to turn around and try to run, enemy infantry would come up and attack it. The last few mortars and my secured infantry helped to pin down the enemy as my AT gun team stood their ground (more out of necessity than bravery). They got a few grenades off and some of them weren't bad with the rifle. The AT gun itself finally turned in the direction of the enemy and I managed to blow up a few. By then, being suppressed from multiple fronts, the flamies surrendered, while their cronies pulled back. I held my ground as the enemy tried a few other times to unsuccessfully get back on the hill. As time finally went up, it was finally my first victory in the campaign, after a close call in the first battle and a humiliating defeat/retreat in the second. I dealt more casualties, including 2 tanks. One of my reserve infantry went KIA early on (which I could have prevented, bah) and one AT Rifle team grilled to a crisp, but overall things went well. Major victory. Those jerks won't get to Lvov. So, er, yeah. I'm liking the game.

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/45797 There are no words. ... Though, actually, has Irrational ever actually done a TB game? The 'most highly influenced by X-Com' Freedom Force certainly didn't have any of that. Hmm.

Alright, I'll keep an eye for that. Given that it's the first map, I doubt I had any support. And yeah, I'm aware of the lack of infantry/support segmentation. Jerkface was complaining about that too.

I'm glad I'm losing and the AI seems at least competent. I want a challenge without the AI cheating too much (I'm playing on the default Veteran). To be honest, I like these maps with scant resources and more emphasis on infantry. Tanks are nice and all, but I don't really want them to dominate the game (which, unfortunately, seems to be what CC3 may consist of, which is fine, for one game in the series). How do artillery strikes work? You mean off-map rocket artillery support, or are they just units?

Well, I've stopped playing single battle and started the (original) Grand Campaign. It turns out to be the Barbarossa map that I played a little earlier. The difference is that I'm stuck with green reserve conscripts. The enemy had a Pz38, which my only AT dude couldn't manage to flank, given that it was defended by accompanying German troops. As the tank and its buddies marched past the ford, I could do little more than just let them claim it. I managed to hold the bridge for a while, but mortar support ran low and they completely overwhelmed me in firepower and numbers. I had to pull off a retreat with some smoke for cover. By then, I had one half-broken 'squad' (by which I really mean 4 guys) and the commander trying to hold the last victory location. The enemy tank quickly closed in, and we were powerless to letting it capture the final spot. As I was trying to limit my imminent losses, I had been requesting a truce for a while. They only accepted it upon taking all the victory points. Jerks. I managed to kill about 5 of them and wound 6 of them. I had the exact same losses, with 3 prisoners in addition to that. Their sheer superiority in numbers and firepower made this a lost cause, but I suppose I could have held on for 2 more minutes had I done a few things differently. But oh well, on to round 2. It was nice to see the AI from the ford (from the north) try to flank my defences to the south (just east of the bridge, those two houses) with a MG. Very nice indeed. Bring it on, Germans.

Tanks vs infantry

It doesn't have to be easy and quick, but why does it have to be frustrating and tedious? I do enough level grinding in real-life for real-time gold

I agree. I've never played a flawless game. But wiping out a goblin cave can be quite fun and enjoyable even if there is little or no larger context for it. There's no real connection between a subjective thing like fun and enjoyment and any sense of a flawed game. Something isn't neccesarily flawed simply because it doesn't interest them. Which is fair, of course. Choices and all. The question, then, is why CRPG design dictates that this be implemented into the 'story' despite said relative lack of context. Heh. Guess so. I'd have less of an issue with long dungeons if I found the combat systems compelling enough to warrant it. I seem to notice this applies a lot more to the more recent one. Its that darn real time with pause! Heh, probably. I'd have enjoyed the combat parts of NWN2 a lot more (despite some of the dungeons areas being fairly repetitive) had the game been TB. Heck, most of my issues with the game's pacing would be moot. I don't even have a problem with real-time, much less real-time with pause. Heck, many of my favorite combat systems are real-time. It's just the way they've been implemented in recent CRPGs that irks me, even more so post-IE (which weren't gems themselves in that area). To each their own.

Heh. Guess so. I'd have less of an issue with long dungeons if I found the combat systems compelling enough to warrant it. I seem to notice this applies a lot more to the more recent one.

Just because one can enjoy RPGs doesn't mean one can't call out the flaws that infest a lot of them. Again, learning != tedium. Did wiping out that goblin cave really contribute in any way to developing the protagonist roleplaying-wise?

The argument against that is that learning shouldn't *have* to involve tedium. Just claiming that is really a crutch. Just use a compelling approach to it instead of just doing what everyone else does and ranting about it, Mr. Vogel. No offense. How does fantasy have ANYTHING related to tedium?

I'm all for player-skill based gameplay if done right. Such a system could easily be integrated into a game in which meaningful choices in interacting with the world and characters can still be of prime importance. Problems can arise when you try to mix player-skill and character-skill in such a way that it becomes an awkward hybrid in which both sides of the coin are relatively shunned. If we look at, say, Bloodlines or Oblivion, the combat mechanics are pretty lackluster. From a player-skill perspective, they're pretty dumbed down and don't really require much skill. From a tactical combat perspective (via using proper character builds and fine-tuning ability selection, etc), it's pretty simplified as well. When such a large part of the gameplay involves combat, that can make a large chunk of the game relatively uninspiring. The main thing I value from a roleplaying perspective is the ability for said interaction with the world/characters/environment, and applying choices that lead to real consequences in all of those. Whether it's tactical combat or based on player-skill doesn't really mean much for me. I can enjoy an action game based purely on twitch reflexes and love it, and I can enjoy a fairly deep wargame with an overwhelming amount of micromanagement. The essential part is that gameplay has to be compelling. Either test my reflexes or test my wits, but don't make me just click my way through endless hordes of baddies via simplified combat mechanics because it's supposedly the 'best of both worlds'. It's not. Or if you're going to make a hybrid, erm, make it good. It can work, it just needs solid design. Don't just implement action components because it's the 'in' thing. The traditional fans will shun it, and the action fans will expose it for it being lackluster. Let's use an awkward example in Gears of War, which most people can enjoy. It's essentially an action game, but the devs implemented cover in such a way that the player has to try to 'outthink' the enemy, going for flanking maneuvers, suppression, etc. There's certainly a fair tactical component to the game. The action gamers can appreciate that, since the action component isn't being compromised (such as by making you unable to actually aim proper at your opponent because your skill isn't high enough), and in terms of action requirements, it's fairly easy to just aim at the enemy, so less skilled players can certainly get into it (and even be successful if they implement a good set of tactics). It's pretty solid design. One can argue that not being to aim properly is a requirement for RPG systems, since the character invested in other types of skills instead. A diplomatic character shouldn't be a good warrior, after all. What I don't like about this particular school of game design is that once you make your character a particular type, you suck at the rest. Not necessarily a bad thing in itself, limitations can be good, but the problem arises when (since this ISN'T PnP) the game forces you into a particular set path. You can't make your own, after all, the devs have to design it. If you make a diplomatic character and the game only allows ONE real diplomatic route through the game, you're basically being railroaded. Yes, you chose that path, but you're not really making any more significant choices along the way. I'd much rather have the CHOICE throughout the game to make decisions based on whether those decisions are adequate or not given that particular situation, rather than choosing a particular path because I know my character is 'diplomatic'. Again, the problem wouldn't apply much in PnP, where you would actually *have* that choice, but in current RPG design, the relative lack of choices makes it pretty apparent. This is why I'd rather have a good combat system AND roleplaying system (which, of course, don't have to be mutually exclusive). Another solution could also to invest in actually implementing all those extra choices for each character 'type'. Go hyperbole.

You just have a short attention span.

You can zoom in a bit. I don't see the point of it, though.

Hehe, Barbarossa map. Last 5 min as both sides converge into a bloody standstill to capture the ford. I eventually got those jerks into requesting a truce, and I succeeded in holding my ground. Though, I had some heavier losses, mainly attributed to the loss of my AT gun early on and that stupid Stug breaching through my lines of defence (see Exhibit A at the far right, which I forced into surrender after some heavy losses).

This is really why the whole 'lol NWN2 is 20 hrs only sniff sniff sob sob' was all BS to begin with. Finishing NWN2, it could have benefited from being half as long.