From: mpeck@erols.com
Subject: East Front: Initial Review

I've been playing East Front for about 24 hours, and here's my initial
advice. Don't put away your Steel Panthers games just yet. There's a lot
of interesting things to this game, but there's a slew of problems and
questions. In essence, the game is not a Steel Panthers done right. It's
really closer to a cross between X-Com and a platoon-level board game
like Panzerblitz. That's neither good nor bad in itself, but you should
keep it in mind when you evaluate the game.

Here are my thoughts on East Front:

1. Turn sequence. I was shocked to see that EF is an IGo-UGo system.
After all the deserved bashing of Steel Panthers for using that set-up,
I thought EF would be something different. Now, within the context of
sequential play, EF does it well. Opportunity fire, for example, seems
more consistent and realistic than in SP. Units are also given action
points to spend between fire and movement as they choose. It actually is
reminiscent of X-Com, and it works well. Sequential play never bothered
me too much, and if you don't mind its reality shortfalls, you'll
probably like this system.

2. Graphics and speed. Right off the bat, EF demands 16-bit rather than
32-bit color for optimum play. Now, I'm not addicted to eye candy. But I
would like to finish Panzer General 2 (an excellent game) while I play
EF. That means I'll have to switch graphics settings and restart my
computer each time, or play PG2 with inferior visuals. As for speed, the
game is slow. Period. It can take several minutes for the computer to
make its move, and that's on a Dell P200 with 32 megs. Setting your
display for 16-bit will speed it up substantially. As for the graphics
themselves, they're attractive 3-D renderings. My only complaint is that
unlike the bright uniforms in Talonsoft, the green and brown colors of
Soviet and German units blend much too easily into the terrain. It's
often easier to work from the abstract 2-D strategic display to get a
sense of where everyone is.

3. Game mechanics. There are a lot of questions to this game, many of
which could and should have been answered by one of the skimpiest
manuals I have ever seen. The first question is at the heart of any
modern tactical game: Does moving reduce the effect of my shooting? The
manual doesn't say, and I can't tell from the game. My impression is
that it doesn't and you can move and then shoot (or vice-versa) as long
as you have action points remaining. Now, if this is the case, it's a
very, very interesting design decision. Perhaps freely moving and
shooting doesn't make a difference over a six-minute game term, but it
just seems strange in a platoon-level game. Also, as far as I can tell,
EF doesn't distinguish between your chances of hitting a target, and
your chances of doing damage. Put your cursor on an enemy unit, and you
see one combat number which the manual doesn't explain. So if I don't do
damage, was it because I couldn't hit a target at that range, or because
my shells bounced off? In a board game like Panzerblitz, it seems more
practical not to make a distinction. But I would think a computer game
would easily be able to handle it. Incidentally, as far as I can tell,
there's no defense strength listed on any unit stats. It makes it harder
to compare weapons.

3. Manual. As I've said, the manual is execusable.  The game mechanics
are basically described in six pages, which makes the manual of SSI
games look encyclopedaic. There's not even a detailed tutorial
walk-through. Not only is it insufficient in terms of explaining game
play, it also doesn't satisfy the natural questions that crop in an
intensive tactical simulation. For example, what are the effects of
entrenchments? I don't need detailed formualas, but some details would
be appreciated. As for artillery, it seems like any hex can be attacked
with indirect fire as long as someone can spot for it. Does this mean
that the rifle squad can call in artillery as quickly as regimental HQ?
Platoons are rated for morale. What does morale mean? Is it like
experience levels in Steel Panthers, which affect fire accuracy? Or does
it just reflect a unit's chances of retreating?

Display. The EF interface is fairly similar to Talonsoft's earlier
Napoleonic and Civil War games. Too bad that World War II demands
something a little better. For example, there's no unit roster a la
Steel Panthers that gives basic unit stats. That lack wasn't so bad in
Talonsoft's Napoleonic games, where you only had infantry, cavalry and
artillery. But there's a lot more unit variety in EF, and some way to
quickly survey the essential details of your troops is sorely needed. In
addition, there's no Target button to cycle among the various targets
that a unit can shoot at. Steel Panthers and Tigers on the Prowl had
this option, so it's nothing new. But it would speed up EF immensely.

Conclusion. I've focused on the negative aspects of EF because it was so
ballyhooed on the Net that I expected something a lot more polished. In
reality, the game looks interesting and it looks like something that a
lot of attention was lavished upon. In fact, it looks like a game
designed by grognards for grognards, with the assumption that players
would know enough about World War II armored combat to figure everything
out themselves. But the be-all and end-all of tactical games? I don't
think so. There will be a place on my hard drive for EF. But I'll still
save space for Steel Panthers III.

Mike