Yeah, I can understand your frustration. I always breathe in and out before posting here after I am annoyed by OoB. But after I checked the credits and realized how unbelievably small that team is, I always feel like giving them a little break. That schedule must be hell.kverdon wrote:I will agree with Andy that some of the criticism, mine to the forefront, has been harsh but it is borne out of the frustration with the series. It has turned a bit ugly in that the people developing the OOB series appear to be oblivious to any feedback, and as a result, it has gotten more pointed. Each follow on DLC has gotten worse, not better in it's content. What we all seem to be coming back to is that, somewhere in the background there appears to be a good game system in OOB that just needs some kinks worked out of it. That game system gets lost in really, really, poor scenario design. I am not sure why it has to be that way. It could be for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. The scenario designers just don't get how to design scenarios for historical games and the target audience of the series.. Though I am a proponent of historical accuracy, in this type of game what I am really wanting is historical context. What I mean is that individual units should function similar to their historical counterparts in terms of efficacy and the scenarios should reflect a historical context. The idea is not to recreate history but to examine "What if...". Your (Andy2012) ideas for a breakout scenario are JUST what I am talking about. THAT should have been the nature of the game. Neither the scenarios in Blitzkrieg or Kriegsmarine recreate the historical context of "feel" of their subject matter. Often they appear to be parodies of the subject matter, hence the parodies of the names.
2. The scenario design has actually been crafted to hid some glaring deficiencies in the game system. I.E., they tried to put together something that looked right but then found that it fell apart when tested against the game system. They then created odd scenarios with artificial victory conditions in an attempt to make them more challenging. I have this sinking feeling this is the case but then Erik seems to have crafted some pretty good scenarios and even a campaign that is far superior to the original so maybe there is hope.
As to Halder's comments I would first thank you for your service, that does mean a lot. The intent with these games is not to "Play War" but to use them to explore the history of the subject matter. Given a well designed system, it can be used to follow along and understand the decision making used by the commanders of the day and to also see what happens if a different strategy is employed or a mistake not recreated. Does the outcome change? If so how? Yes, these are historical events that are being portrayed that folks of both sides fought and died for, it is thus fitting to try and at least make an effort to recognize that. My only argument with your statement is in that NOT following the historical context, you are actually just "Playing War".
My message to the devs would be: "Study your subject matter and understand the background of the subject you are trying to portray. Then create a series of scenarios that explore that subject matter and allow for the exploration of "what if...." to come to play. Secondary victory conditions should play into that as well as guide the player into meeting historical conditions. Having a game that follows a historical context and is also fun are not mutually exclusive conditions. Panzer Corps did it well, I believe OOB could as well.
I also agree with your statement about mission design spoiling OoB's potential. I always think 1-3 months more (if they had them) would have made this great and evened out all the kinks. Sometimes, I think they are kind of doomed to obliterate their own customer base and then being knocked out by Panzercorps 2 (which has a bigger brand name, probably a bigger team and better financing and thus more time in development).
BTW, I tried 'Surfarce Raiders' a third time and took the northern route. (Wanted those two points for merchant vessels I missed the last time.)
I broke through their screen easily (in the north), sank 4 merchants and was actually clear to enter the Atlantic (the original mission goal here and back then). However, I was forced to sink 3 BBs. Which forced me to go back, lose three DDs and then dash away from their King George BB. Those Hipper class cruisers were very useful, their torpedo barrage does 3+damage to BBs and BCs. Finished now in 33 turns. I think this drives home that this mission is kind of broken and/or botched and that some units need to be rebalanced. (For Singleplayer. Multiplayer is a whole new affair.) I mean, my core is just Hippers and DDs plus a supply ship now. Oh yeah, three recon.