ME

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Since the "grumbler musing" thread and after countless time playing multiple scenarios I am not having my opinion changed.

Believe me, I wish it was not so. I want my hours of play to really be enjoyable, win or lose. But, I believe the "team" and designers simply think something is fun that I do not.

I do not want a historical situation that is so "real" that it makes playing the scenario one sided no matter what you do. But, they still call it a H2H scenario?
It was made more difficult by the comments like; "well, you are playing wrong", "you just don't understand modern and are stuck in WWII thinking", "you must not have it installed right because those things did not happen during testing", "if you don't send the files we want, we won't or can't help you", etc.
Now I'll be told that they have a beta patch that if I just follow the twenty steps to install it into my game it will fix a lot of things, I was originally told only happened to me, that were wrong with the game.

I guess I am worn down by too much disappointment.
If everyone seems to like it, then it is just me not liking it. And, I so wanted to.

I sit here wondering, as I did when I first started playing the game, did I just waste my money and a lot of time. Money I got. So I won't be hurting there.
Time I will never get back. And, that is too precious to waste.

I do hope things will change going into the new year.



HSL

[Crossroads]

Happy New Year 2016 Ed! I hope all is well with you.

[Von Earlmann]

Since the "grumbler musing" thread and after countless time playing multiple scenarios I am not having my opinion changed.

Believe me, I wish it was not so. I want my hours of play to really be enjoyable, win or lose. But, I believe the "team" and designers simply think something is fun that I do not.

I do not want a historical situation that is so "real" that it makes playing the scenario one sided no matter what you do. But, they still call it a H2H scenario?
It was made more difficult by the comments like; "well, you are playing wrong", "you just don't understand modern and are stuck in WWII thinking", "you must not have it installed right because those things did not happen during testing", "if you don't send the files we want, we won't or can't help you", etc.
Now I'll be told that they have a beta patch that if I just follow the twenty steps to install it into my game it will fix a lot of things, I was originally told only happened to me, that were wrong with the game.

I guess I am worn down by too much disappointment.
If everyone seems to like it, then it is just me not liking it. And, I so wanted to.

I sit here wondering, as I did when I first started playing the game, did I just waste my money and a lot of time. Money I got. So I won't be hurting there.
Time I will never get back. And, that is too precious to waste.


I do hope things will change going into the new year.



HSL

Stick with WW II Ed............Happy New Year and hope you are feeling better health wise.

Earl

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Given the health thing a try Earl.
The game is on it's last legs with me. And, ridicule or feigned humor surely do not help.

HSL

[Kool Kat]

Hi Ed: 

You need to make the call?  

We, as players, make calculated "risks" buying into a new game platform. Hopefully, we read reviews, participate in the Forums, look at the art work / design, and do our "homework" prior to the game purchase.

And after we pull the trigger, buy and install it... then play a few games... I think players know if they are going to enjoy it and will stick with it.

In your case... it looks like you've made the decision?

As Earl suggested... and I would echo... stick with WW2 and CS. But, if you have become "burned out" from CS play, I suggest you take a look at the Panzer Battles Series - designers just released a new game in the series - Battles of Normandy.
 
https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...hp?fid=280

And if you are totally "burned out" from tactical scale games... then come over to the "Dark Side" and give operational games a chance!  I made the switch over to playing the Panzer Campaign Series back in July 2015 (Own Sicily 43 and just received Salerno 43 for Christmas) and have two very enjoyable campaign games underway with a dedicated opponent.) Really good stuff!

https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...php?fid=11


Life's too short... and our gaming time too precious... to "waste" it being miserable playing a game system that you find frustrating and no fun.

Ed - I hope your health sees much improvement in the New Year! Take care my friend.

[Scud]

I bought it, I'm playing it, but only a couple of games so far. On the downside the time period is really long, so, unlike WWII scenarios, you can't just pick any 'ol scenario and be somewhat familiar with the equipment. A tank like the Sherman seems to have been modified pretty drastically by various countries post WWII. So for me, hardly an expert, which one am I using? By the time I get my head wrapped around it in one scenario, it might be the total opposite in another.

Another negative for me is the terrain. Of course it's the dessert, I just don't find it interesting like I do the Eastern Front scenarios and the WF Europe scenarios. No fault of the developers, of course, just the way it is.

On the plus side, it's a new game utilizing the CS engine, and whatever improvements come out of it should help the future WWII games as well. I should add that the CS forum is a game forum, not a WWII forum. I suspect there are some out there who are interested in the history of the middle east post-WWII and can learn a bit playing out some of the historical scenarios.

Where I agree (so far) with Ed is that the historical battles are often not a lot of fun to play. The ones that are have usually been tweaked a bit by the designer with play-ability in mind, adding extra points for objectives, for instance. Way too early for me, but so far I haven't liked the scenarios I've played/playing. Just not much fun. I've said it before, the developer community need to take us away from these early stock scenarios and into something better.

So far, at least at the Blitz, most of the ME posts have been negative, though there were a lot of members initially buying the game and playing it. Where are they and why aren't they posting? Not even 50 reported games played, so far. Does anyone like ME? Who's still playing it and why? Who gave up on it and why?

Dave

[Big Ivan]

RE: ME

I have mixed feelings about ME. I do like the Mediterranean terrain in ME more than the desert. Then again the temperate climate terrain has always been more appealing and reminds me more of my CS gaming roots on the Eastern Front than running across sand in the desert.

I do not like the organization function of the game in that no named leaders were included in the files. In fact I had to mod the leader name files using the old names from DG so I could have a LtCol named Al-Falid instead of LtCol  named 22 Infantry. I find that no leaders being included in upper echelon units is bothersome. I got spoiled with EF & WF.

I'm currently playing 2 PBEM's and possibly a third. Both 1973 era. By JTCS standards they are small scenarios 2-3. They are not bad but they are not sweeping tank actions on the Eastern Front either. For one thing the weapon systems had evolved so much over the years that kill ratios escalated dramatically by 1973. That's bad in a small sized scenario because one mistake or one critical unit loss and your done...major defeat.

I tend to like the 1967 and earlier scenarios because the tank busting technology was not there yet. Even if you still made a mistake in playing you had a chance to pull it out. After 1967, it  seems likes its kill-a-go-go!

You all know that I have been a big critic of the A/I over the years. I've often said if you improve the A/I you gain a thousand fold. Let's face it some gamers don't like PBEM all the time. Some like taking on the computer in a quiet corner of their home sipping on their favorite beer and halving a drag from a Salem gold. I see some improvement in the A/I with the adaptive A/I feature but for me personally its not enough soon enough. Over the years I have dominated the A/I and racked up major win after major win. What I am waiting for is to have an A/I that totally cleans my clock by halfway through the scenario. With that I can analyze where I went wrong, then I can say OK HAL, the gloves are off baby and lets get down to business!

I do like some of the new gaming features like Extreme Fog of War in that recon becomes very important with this optional rule. I also like the 2D graphics a bunch and a lot of work has been put forth to get them there. They are outstanding and I cannot wait to see what WWII will look like. I am not a 2D player by any means but the 2D graphics are pleasing to the eye. I may become a 2D player eventually if this excellent work continues forward.  A number of the in game highlighting features are a plus too. Like the new cursors, counter style, enhanced labels and elevation delta. These I feel are all positives.

I haven't given up on ME. I do generally believe for this game engine it is a step in the right direction. Sure there are some teething issues but one thing is for sure, there is a hell of a development team out there that is second to none. I can't wait to see what they will do with WWII. Will it ever out class East Front or West Front for me, I doubt it. My gaming roots go back to late 60's and early 70's when World War II was all that was available. I tend to gravitate back to where I am comfortable.

John

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Well guys, it is my opinion and glad to see some agree.
I do not want to be so analytical.
The game is nice to look at. I like the desert. Always have, and played a lot of WF desert scenarios.

For me it is the scenarios themselves. As Dave pointed out, to me the historical ones, even listed as H2H, are  mostly crap. They "just have to" repeat the historical outcome. My mind says "OK, so why are they listed as versus humans"?
And, it did not help that when I mentioned one earlier I was ridiculed because it was designed to be played against the AI.
And, when I pointed out that there was a problem with off board artillery I was put through the ringer. "No, you are the only one with the problem. It must be your machine, or your download." The feeling I got was not alleviated later by someone on the team even having the same problem, along with others who did too, but reported it later.

The line of sight rules are frustratingly stupid. I don't care what the developers think about that. It is part of the idiotic mindset of "well it will help the game be more real". My mind goes to "BS", it is put there because you want it there.
And, when I look at what the developers do and say when they give us an AAR. "Hey here is the 2-D look that we are moving toward and spending our time on. And, I know it is a H2H scenario but it kicked my butt anyway." My mind goes to scenario design itself. What do versus the AI scenarios have that H2H do not have? I shake my head. Seriously? A developer/programmer?

I just sent an e-mail turn to an opponent. We have been playing a 30 turn scenario. Ten turns in and I just wanted to end it. But, I decided to give it a few more turns in case it might turn into something. Two more turns and we will be two thirds the way there. The eight turns of torture so far has simply generated disgust.
Oh, my opponent is having a great time. Artillery firing endlessly, tanks that seem to grow in the desert (at least twenty times the amount that I have and they are better tanks), along with only two roads to advance upon.
Me plodding along with infantry (the majority of of my force is infantry, that can move one hex forward into withering opt fire and then get pounded by enemy artillery the next turn because the enemy has plenty and my route of advance is predictable.)
Great scenario ... yeah!

I guess I have to be a 'realism trumps all' kind of player. Or, a believer in 'historical scenarios have to have a historical outcome' player.
I'm sorry. NO! And, hell no! There is no joy in playing a game where all the "joy" comes from recreating the historical outcome. "Hey, great game you played. And, my Egyptians lost just like they did in 1973! Whooo Hooo!"

I wrote to my opponent, "ME feels like a car that looks pretty but does not run". I'd like to drive it but can't.
When can't becomes won't, I'll be done.



HSL

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I parked the car on the side of the road.
Just started to play the turn and after ten moves simply gave up and reported my opponents major victory.
Awful experience. Totally awful.

I'm down to two strikes against. The next PBEM game of ME will decide if it is my last.

And, believe me, I really did not want it to go that way.



HSL

[Crossroads]

I bought it, I'm playing it, but only a couple of games so far. On the downside the time period is really long, so, unlike WWII scenarios, you can't just pick any 'ol scenario and be somewhat familiar with the equipment. A tank like the Sherman seems to have been modified pretty drastically by various countries post WWII. So for me, hardly an expert, which one am I using? By the time I get my head wrapped around it in one scenario, it might be the total opposite in another.

Another negative for me is the terrain. Of course it's the dessert, I just don't find it interesting like I do the Eastern Front scenarios and the WF Europe scenarios. No fault of the developers, of course, just the way it is.

On the plus side, it's a new game utilizing the CS engine, and whatever improvements come out of it should help the future WWII games as well. I should add that the CS forum is a game forum, not a WWII forum. I suspect there are some out there who are interested in the history of the middle east post-WWII and can learn a bit playing out some of the historical scenarios.

Where I agree (so far) with Ed is that the historical battles are often not a lot of fun to play. The ones that are have usually been tweaked a bit by the designer with play-ability in mind, adding extra points for objectives, for instance. Way too early for me, but so far I haven't liked the scenarios I've played/playing. Just not much fun. I've said it before, the developer community need to take us away from these early stock scenarios and into something better.

So far, at least at the Blitz, most of the ME posts have been negative, though there were a lot of members initially buying the game and playing it. Where are they and why aren't they posting? Not even 50 reported games played, so far. Does anyone like ME? Who's still playing it and why? Who gave up on it and why?

Dave

Thanks Dave. Regarding the historical battles: this indeed is a difficult era to portray with many of the battles having historically been lopsided. Tweaking victory conditions is one way to alter the balance as far as the history conditions go; other aspect that hopefully will help is the Adaptive AI. As scenario designers including ourselves become more familiar with it, it will be possible to further adjust a scenario to reflect the battle it portrays. 

In the meanwhile, Blitz Ladder with its reported games offer the players a very good tool for feedback. In addition to rating the scenario, all detailed feedback is appreciated. I will post a separate message to encourage this, hopefully.