Slitherine

http://www.gamingunion.net/reviews/batt ... --291.html

http://www.outofeight.info/2010/08/batt ... eview.html

Both pretty disapointing to be honest. Feel free to post your comments on their forums correcting explaining the error of their ways

One guys says the game is too easy and offers no challenge - all I can ssume is he played the first few desert scenarios! He also doesnt understand how probability works

The Out of 8 reviewer was the one who gave CMSF an 8/8 on release. Though much improved now it was a buggy mess at that time. So don't take him too seriously.

I agree with his point about the MP experience, however; often there's no sense much of the time in attacking. The forces are equal and the map lacks objectives. These are not WW2 battles.

I've had a few hours of amusement with the game but it needs 'more'; especially- this is a personal opinion- a bit more realism and an additional layer of complexity to maintain my interest. And the enhancements in this direction should come from the top down not through 'mods'. Otherwise everyone's playing a different game.

James Allen is a respected reviewer and I think his review is pretty accurate and fair at 6/8. It is a very fun game, but there is a lot of room for improvement, whether UI or gameplay. The second reviewer 'Nelson' obviously didn't like it at all and seems more biased, 5/10 seems pretty low overall, though I can sympathize with his 'chance' complaints somewhat.

I guess this guy doesn't know that all games run on random numbers and probability, the only reason he bring it up is because you guys show us what that probability is, in some game you fire and miss and he would say "oh well i guess i just happen to miss" but what happened behind the scenes is his number didn't come up. You could say the same thing about D&D, this game is stupid because all I do is roll a dice and see if my number comes up, well i that is just how it works.

Dont really get the reviews the game is seriously fun, I love the presentation and the artwork. The interface is about the best I have ever used, the game is fast paced. The system is one the developers can run with for a while. Sure I would eventually like to see hex's, TOE's,dynamic campaigns, leaders and ASL like detail, but in the mean time this is the most fun I've had with a wargame in ages. As for the cost if you were to build all the 1/72 scale models in this baby you would be out a fortune. Computer reviews dont get wargamers.

THIS GAME IS ABOUT AS CLOSE AS YOUR GOING TO GET TO A REAL MINIATURE WARGAME.PLUS IT REMINDS OF SQUAD LEADER A WHOLE BUNCH.

I completely agree with the Out of Eight review. I have the same thoughts.
Scripted singleplayer and limited multiplayer maps is my main concern.
Otherwise the game is fun.
The score is decent... it even beats Victoria II.

I, for one, find this title worthwhile. Having bought, and shelved, many wargames in the past BA was one that I cannot stop playing. As a semi-grog light, there is plenty of realism to keep things plausible to me and an incredible amount of nail-biting action in every scenario. Is there room for improvement and a need for some correction? Sure. But that is true of any game. I was on the fence, but am sure glad I jumped in feet first as I have had a blast with it so far. My hope is that there will be a decent mod following and maybe some more added features from the developers in time. As it stands, I have gotten every penny worth so far and that seems to be increasingly hard to do in this day and age.

I do agree with a few of the negative things written about in aforementioned articles and think 8/10 is a pretty good score, but I have to strongly disagree with most parts of the Gaming Union's conclusions.

mo reb



Edit: Look, I'm a peasant. If this economy doesn't improve soon that pic of me might not be far from the truth. More of a hunter than a gathererer.

paulolszanski2 wrote:THIS GAME IS ABOUT AS CLOSE AS YOUR GOING TO GET TO A REAL MINIATURE WARGAME.PLUS IT REMINDS OF SQUAD LEADER A WHOLE BUNCH.

It's remarkably close the the UK ruleset published by Peter Pig known as Poor Bloody Infantry II, in fact.

In PBI, the table is divided into 64 squares of three terrain types (and is always an attack/defense type game) and there is no measuring involved for movement, fire etc. It's all done by the squares. Max four units/square at any time. Despite the apparent restrictions of this type of movement the game gives very good results, has things like opp fire, off board artillery, etc and generally allows the player using the proper/best tactics to win.

The only ruleset that does no measuring (combined with completely free movement and no I-GO-YOU-GO) better is Arty Conliffe's CrossFire.

I anyone has Xbox 360, there's a great game called Panzer General: Allied Assault that I really enjoyed. It's turn based, single and multiplayer, and it even adds in elements of a collectible card game into it - you can build your own army and tactics. Check it out if you're interested, there's a demo and it's only $15 to buy, I think maybe even cheaper now.

jomni wrote:I completely agree with the Out of Eight review. I have the same thoughts.
Scripted singleplayer and limited multiplayer maps is my main concern.
Otherwise the game is fun.
The score is decent... it even beats Victoria II.

ditto....james allen review right on. i actually think his review is pretty positive. i think 6/8 is the right score. if you had more features in multiplayer (i.e. objective based maps, different modes rather than just annihilation), and some german missions in single player, the score might be higher. but this at least gives you the opportunity to bring out expansions! love to see some german missions for single player, new multiplayer modes, and the EASTERN FRONT!