wk0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wai Sung Kok) (05/31/90)
the following is from about a week of playing the game.
(1)there is a lack of control over the movement of your unit, what happen
is that they always go where you don't want them to go ,like right into
an ambush.
(2)since the program decide how your unit will move, you can't do simple stuff
like bypass or encirclement, e.g. there is 8 hex of desert between
your unit
and the place you want it to go, the program decide that going through 10
hex of road is faster , without taking into account that an enemy division
is sitting on the road., this error usually prove to be fatal.
(3)you cannot use your air support to attack enemy unit not in direct contact
with your unit. this feature is important to prevent reinforcement
from coming up to the frontline.
(4)you cannot choose which enemy unit to attack, the program does it for you,
which means you can't concentrate all you firepower on just one enemy unit.
(5)since you can't control the movement of your units, once they encounter
enemy forces, you have only two options ,attack or retreat, there is
no way for your to attempt a bypass.
I strongly discourage any serious war gamer from buying this game, at
the present moment it not up to Squad Leader 's standard ( make by
Avalon Hill ).
best regards
-wai
the above are just my opinion and my alone
-- time like this I wish I got a PC --
Panzer Battle and American Civil War are also made by the same company using
the same game system, so don't waste your money on themandy@gistdev.gist.com (Andy Warinner) (05/31/90)
wk0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wai Sung Kok) writes: >the following is from about a week of playing the game. I have been playing "Halls of Montezuma" (HoM) for about four months. If you can master a game in a week, you probably won't be playing it a month later. >(1)there is a lack of control over the movement of your unit, what happen > is that they always go where you don't want them to go ,like right into > an ambush. >(2)since the program decide how your unit will move, you can't do simple stuff > like bypass or encirclement, e.g. there is 8 hex of desert between >your unit > and the place you want it to go, the program decide that going through 10 > hex of road is faster , without taking into account that an enemy division > is sitting on the road., this error usually prove to be fatal. I don't want to start a big debate over realism vs. playability but HoM is a "realistic" game. You don't exercise direct control over each individual unit on the battle field. That does not mean you do not have no control over the units. You can bypass and encircle, try pulling the unit back in reserve (it will deploy near the HQ) then move the HQ. This will work if you have enough room. I have found that the "attack specific unit" order is also useful for encirclement. Pull a unit into reserve and then order it to attack a unit at the end of a line. It is not fair or accurate to say that HoM does not allow you control of movement or limits your choice of attack and defence. To play HoM well, you have to manage your units well, choose your attacks carefully, and place your HQs judiciously. If you are really frustrated by unit movements, edit the scenario and add new divisional objectives. Units move to divisional objectives. Maneuver is the most difficult aspect of HoM to master. When I bought HoM I was looking for a game that simulated the role of the commander on the battlefield. Controlling each individual unit on the battlefield is not an accurate simulation and also reduces the playability of the game. Strategic Conquest is a good example of this. You spend more time moving around units instead of carrying out strategy. >(3)you cannot use your air support to attack enemy unit not in direct contact > with your unit. this feature is important to prevent reinforcement > from coming up to the frontline. The off-board support simulates tactical support, not strategic or interdiction support. Strategic or interdiction support will not prevent the unit from reaching the battlefield, it will only inflict casualties on the unit. Also, it is extremely rare for strategic air support to be placed under the control of the battlefield commander. >I strongly discourage any serious war gamer from buying this game, at >the present moment it not up to Squad Leader 's standard ( make by >Avalon Hill ). >Panzer Battle and American Civil War are also made by the same company using >the same game system, so don't waste your money on them I would consider myself to be a "serious war gamer". HoM is the best simulation I have played (though Patton vs. Rommel is a close second). It strikes an excellent balance between realism and playability as opposed to Squad Leader which is so complicated it is almost unplayable. HoM is also a good value since it includes a complete scenario editor. I do have one caveat about HoM. Several of the scenarios are of the Marines invasions of Pacific islands (Okinawa, Iwo Jima). These scenarios are pretty much head-on assaults of continous defensive lines. These scenarios put a premium on management of units but there is little room for maneuver which emphasizes HoM's lack of direct control of unit movement. Panzer Battles has scenarios that emphasize movement. Buy HoM if you prefer head-to-head fighting, buy PB if you prefer maneuver. BTW: is anyone out there in netland developing new scenarios for SSG's Battlefront system? I am very interested in new scenarios. Andrew Warinner | "Semper ubi sub ubi" - J. Caesar GIST, Inc. | Standard | EMAIL: andy@gistdev.gist.com disclaimer... | {uunet, uiucuxc}!gistdev!andy
sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) (05/31/90)
In article <kaN=ujG00WBLQ3D1Ry@andrew.cmu.edu> wk0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wai Sung Kok) writes: >the following is from about a week of playing the game. Perhaps you better give it longer !! >(1)there is a lack of control over the movement of your unit, what happen > is that they always go where you don't want them to go ,like right into > an ambush. You clearly do not understand how to play a game at this level of control. I do not have problems with MY units getting ambushed. >(2)since the program decide how your unit will move, you can't do simple stuff > like bypass or encirclement, e.g. there is 8 hex of desert between Same comment as above. I can do all of those things with my battallions. >(3)you cannot use your air support to attack enemy unit not in direct contact > with your unit. this feature is important to prevent reinforcement > from coming up to the frontline. You are examaning the game on the wrong scale. This is a corps level game, not a small unit game. Besides, Tactical Air support is NOT for hitting units that are out of touch. And it can prevent reinforcements, assuming you damage the unit you are hitting. >(4)you cannot choose which enemy unit to attack, the program does it for you, > which means you can't concentrate all you firepower on just one > enemy unit. Yes, the realities of a corps commander pose interesting problems. But those are the realities, so live with them. In fact, it makes it more interesting in some ways. >(5)since you can't control the movement of your units, once they encounter > enemy forces, you have only two options ,attack or retreat, there is > no way for your to attempt a bypass. Not quite true. You can also hold them. >I strongly discourage any serious war gamer from buying this game, at >the present moment it not up to Squad Leader 's standard ( make by >Avalon Hill ). I strongly ENCOURAGE any serious war gamer to buy these. In fact I AM a serious wargamer and I love them. I am glad it is not up to Squad Leader standards (and who died and made them GOD ?). It is NOT a small unit tactics game, it is a corps level command game and does a DAMN good job. In fact, it is better than Squad Leader in terms of completeness and playability. If you do not like the level of command, that is your problem. Please do not slime a game simply because you can not play it effectively. >best regards >-wai >the above are just my opinion and my alone >-- time like this I wish I got a PC -- I play the games on a MAC ! >Panzer Battle and American Civil War are also made by the same company using >the same game system, so don't waste your money on them I have Panzer Battles, it is EXCELLENT ! I have seen Civil War on an Apple II and it is also very challanging. It is a very realistic simulation of the problems of command and control during that period. Having said all that, there are a couple of problems, but SSG is working on them. And if you do not like your units moving in a certain way, use WarPlan to disable divisional objectives, or put in more objectives. maurice sharp P.S. I do NOT work for SSG, I have no relationship with them except as a VERY satisfied customer. (Eagerly awaiting Civil War for the Mac). Maurice Sharp MSc. Student University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!sharp
wk0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wai Sung Kok) (06/01/90)
hello, I can see that this is going to be one of those Mac is better than PC type of debate. anyway, if I offend anyone, I am sorry. my point is that if you like to have control over your unit, like in most board game ( not just Squad leader ), than forget about HoM. try this on the Mexico scenario, use your HQ to bring one of your regiment close to your 3rd Div ( the stationary one), then order it to attack the fort that is in the middle of the swamp, you will see your regiment race backward on the road, and try to attack it through the swamp instead of attacking the fort through the city. it is correct to say that the corp commmander does not control the movement of the unit, but there will be time when corp commander will want to give specific movement instruction , like going across desert instead of using the road, don't forget that the quickest way to a place is usually the most heavy guarded as well. on the point about using Tac air on follow up unit, please read up on the US Army Airland Battle 2000 concept, current Nato thinking is to use both Artillery and air support to strike the secondary unit, and you can't do this in HoM, and please don't say that they don't do this in WWII, a wargame should let you try different doctrint. as for why you want to do this ( wasting artillery on secondary unit ), the goal is to weaken them before they reach the front, also to delay their arrival to the front, thereby giving you a better chance for a breakthrough. in all fairness, letting the program decide the movement is a good feature, useful when the unit is doing the standard march up and attack type of stuff, but I wish that SSG could include in a option whereby you can direct the movement of each regiment like the HQ unit, then in those time when you need fine control over their movement , you can use it. anyway, if you like the game , fine. As for me, I will try something else. best regards -wai
sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) (06/01/90)
In article <YaNMaRG00WAIE_ikUW@andrew.cmu.edu> wk0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wai Sung Kok) writes: >try this on the Mexico scenario, use your HQ to bring one of your As I pointed out, this is a problem of divisional objectives, not of movement control. Also, HOM 1.2 (PB 1.2) has new movement routines that work a lot better (and a lot faster :-) ). >it is correct to say that the corp commmander does not control the >movement of the unit, but there will be time >when corp commander will want to give specific movement instruction , >like going across desert instead of A corps commander has no such control of the small units. It is up to sub commanders in the chain to determine HOW to take an objective, it is up to a corps commander to tell them what objective to take and how important it is to take/hold an objective. >on the point about using Tac air on follow up unit, please read up on >the US Army Airland Battle 2000 concept, >current Nato thinking is to use both Artillery and air support to strike >the secondary unit, and you can't do this >in HoM, and please don't say that they don't do this in WWII, a wargame >should let you try different doctrint. >as for why you want to do this ( wasting artillery on secondary unit ), >the goal is to weaken them before they >reach the front, also to delay their arrival to the front, thereby >giving you a better chance for a breakthrough. Perhaps it would be neat to use some tac air on the rear units. Of course, the fact that the engaged units have no air cover and no artillery will help the enemy to blow them away more easily. But if you would like to see air support used that way, talk to SSG. They are quite good about talking to customers and adapting to their needs. > [stuff about different degrees of movement control deleted] It would corrupt the spirit of the game and the tactical level. It is like Squad Leader making you move whole companies, except in special circumstances. It does not fit the mechanics of the game. >anyway, if you like the game , fine. As for me, I will try something else. I agree. I do not agree that you slammed the game without a fair shot. I do not mind postings about bad games, but I also want to know why it is bad, and the slant of the poster. You did not give much of an idea of your slant in your original posting. You also might have prevented some people from buying the game. And with so few strategic game companies around, that is a bad thing. maurice Maurice Sharp MSc. Student University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 ...!alberta!calgary!sharp
andy@gistdev.gist.com (Andy Warinner) (06/01/90)
wk0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Wai Sung Kok) writes: >it is correct to say that the corp commmander does not control the >movement of the unit, but there will be time >when corp commander will want to give specific movement instruction , >like going across desert instead of >using the road, don't forget that the quickest way to a place is usually >the most heavy guarded as well. In Halls of Montezuma and Panzer Battles, the two biggest factors in unit movement are divison objectives and terrain features. Units will move to objectives by the quickest route. If you are really frustrated with a unit's movement, add division objectives to the scenario. You can also add "hidden roads" to further channel unit movements. >on the point about using Tac air on follow up unit, please read up on >the US Army Airland Battle 2000 concept, >current Nato thinking is to use both Artillery and air support to strike >the secondary unit, and you can't do this >in HoM, and please don't say that they don't do this in WWII, a wargame >should let you try different doctrint. Kind of like "What if the Germans had tactical nukes in Operation Zitadel?" (the assault on the Kursk salient) ;-). Actually, using off-board support on non-engaged units is an interesting idea. In practice, I don't think it is within the scope of the game. Tactical support is really just additional strength points as far as the combat calculations go. Simulating operational support would have to take into account if the support was artillery or air support. Operational artillery support would be pretty ineffective. Without spotters, the best artillery can do is stick a pin in a map and fire. From WWI to Vietnam, interdiction fire is minimally effective within the corps-level scope. Operational air support is another matter. It would be more effective but it would affect attributes like divisional supply and administration rather than casualties in individual battalions. Overall, I don't think operational support really fits into the corps-level scope of HoM and PB. Of course you can simulate the effects of operational support by reducing divisional supply and administration values. This would simulate the fact that operational or strategic support is not under control of the corps commander. Andrew Warinner | "Semper ubi sub ubi" - J. Caesar GIST, Inc. | Standard | EMAIL: andy@gistdev.gist.com disclaimer... | {uunet, uiucuxc}!gistdev!andy