Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 13:18:53 TZONE From: DHF@BETA.SUNQUEST.COM Subject: Review of MAC games by SSG Here is the review of SSG's Halls Of Montezuma and Panzer Battles as requested. Both games use the "BattleFront system", so basically I will give a general review of the game system in general and then review the scenarios of each. OVERVIEW: ================ Each scenario can last anywhere from 1-99 turns. There are four turns to every day (am, noon, pm, and night). The basic fighting unit is battalion sized units. These are grouped into regiments, which is the actual unit that you have command control of. There is four regiments per division (up to three). Each division has four independent battalions you can attach to any regiment in the division to further augment a regiment. The game map is 40x40 heagons. The scale varies from scenario to scenario, ranging from 500 meters to 8 kilometers. There are 31 different unit/equipment types, and 16 basic terrain types. The objective of the game is to obtain the highest number of voctory points. This is done by capturing objectives, destroying enemy battalions, while preventing the destruction of your own battalions. In addition you are the commander of all units and all this entails. That means there is the uncertainty of command separation. You truly have little direct control over the location of battalions. Based on your orders, they will position as themselves as best they can. Also, as the commander you are responsible not only for combat but also supply and management of resources. You need to stay aware of unit losses, supply and adminstrative levels of each regiment and act accordingly. The basic display of the game will contain the battlefield/ map and a dialog box to the right with which you can see status info. on each division/regiment/battalion. It is also through this dialog box that you issue orders for each regiment to take. All of the commands are done via the mouse to select the regiment to give orders to, the action to take, as well as allocation of off-board support points. Each scenario varies, but most will have some kind of off-board support points (i.e. air, artillery, and/or naval gunfire). Also, you can either modify the existing scenarios (for play balance) or if you the creative sort, build your own scenarios. BASIC GAME PLAY: ================ The basic flow of the game is each side gives the orders (i.e. actions) for each regiment. Once this is done, you select the menu item to execute the game turn. The computer then performs all combat and movement. There are two types of combat in this game, regimental and minor combat. Regimental combat has an effective combat radius of 2 hexes, regardless of terrain type. Some units have effective ranges of up to 15 hexes. Because of the range limitation, it is very important to keep battalions from the same regiment as close together as possible. This becomes pretty tough at times dependent on the ebb and flow of the game. It is pretty easy for a battalion to get separated/isolated (i.e and then cut to pieces) if you don't pay attention. Minor combat occurs between adjacent enemy units. This combat does not take into account the off-board support points. Combat takes into account the following factors: 1. The experience of the unit (i.e. elite versus green-recruits, etc). 2. Supply state. 3. Adminstrative level. 4. Off-board support allocated. 5. Support from other regiments/battlions. 6. Combat bonuses. 7. Brittleness of a unit (i.e. whether a unit can continue as a cohesive unit as losses mount). Combat bonuses are probably one of the most important items to consider. Combined arms attacks (i.e. attack by artillery, armor, and infantry) gets a bonus. Off-board support is counted as artillery. This is an important combat bonus to have in this game unless you are attacking a depleted/routed unit. Other bonuses are: 1. Engineers improve defense. On offense they reduce terrain effects. 2. Recon units in an attack help reduce enemy unit defence. The movement of units is handled by the computer. It is based on the following: 1. Administrative level 2. Experience level 3. Supply level 4. Leadership level 5. Current orders (i.e. which hill to take) 6. Small random component. The movement is divided into pulses with no battlion moving more than 4 hexes per turn. A units rate of movement will depend on whether they control th terrain or not. They will move more slowy through terrain last controlled by the enemy. MY OPINIONS: ============ For the most part I like both games. I will break this down into the following areas: user interface, game mechanics, and scenarios. User Interface: *************** Very well done. There are a few things I would change such as the modal dialog box after each unit attack which requires a mouse click in the OK button. I would much prefer a default OK button that would just allow a carriage return. Other than that, every thing can be driven by the mouse (or key-board equivalent). Also, the modal dialog box pops-up all over the place. It should have a fixed position instead of making the user move their eyes all over the screen. Although the games will run just fine on an SE, you have to run these games on a Mac with a color monitor. The maps and terrain are very well done ! Game mechanics: *************** Here is where there may be disagreement by some. I like the multiple items that have to be managed. You can't just slug away at an opponent. It is as much an asset management game as it is a war game. But then, war really does boil down to the logistics of the situation. You need to watch unit fatigue, losses, supply lines and states. You need to give units rest/refit at the proper time. You need to keep HQ's close (but not too close) to the action to support the units. You need to maintain awareness of your supply and not perform unncessary attacks as these will drain your supply. I also like the fact that just because I order a unit to take Hill A, something (i.e. the enemy) might intervene to divert that unit. This can get frustrating at times though as units appear to go astray for no apparent reason. Some people will not like this feature. But I tend to think it adds a little realism. Equally frustrating and realistic is trying to dis-engage from a fight. Too many games I've played fail to take this into account adequately. This game does a good job as it may take you more than one game turn to get out of a tough situation. Others may detract from the "fog of war" element being missing. This is true, but then, not many games, computer or otherwise do this very well. Scenarios: ********** The scenarios range from even to outright hopeless. However, you can experience this from either side and have the computer play the other. If you are willing, you can edit the basic scenario (be sure not to over-write the basic) to give is more play balance. In Halls Of Montezuma, only two of the basic scenarios are really tough: Belleau Wood and Inchon. I have yet to beat the computer at Belleau Wood and have only done so a few times in Inchon. The early war scenarios for Panzer Battles heavily favor the the Germans. Fortunately there are many scenarios from the middle to the end of the war that are more balanced adn can go either way. Finally, you can create your own scenarios ! I have picked up two scenarios off of bulletin boards that are great. One is a hypothetical war between Warsaw Pact forces and Nato. The other really shows the flexibility of the gaming system as the author created a Wizards and Warlocks type of game by creating new terrain and combat types. Also, SSG has a magazine called "Run 5" that you can subscribe too that gives new scenarios or variants to existing ones. But please be advised that the game editor (called WarPaint) is not for the faint at heart. The big problem here is the poor documentation. It could be done a lot better, but that may be by design (hah !) - because of their magazine. Well, that's about it. If I have left any questions un-answered, please feel free to post querys to me. David Foard P.S. This is all IMHO of course. Also, I am not associated with SSG in anyway.