Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 12:28:47 -0700 From: "Steven J. Szymanski" Subject: COMP:TacOps initial reactions TacOps initial reactions Last night I received my copy of "TacOps" for the Mac, and thought I'd send out a quick review. Keep in mind this is based solely on about 3 hours of play last night in which I managed to play two medium sized scenarios up until the point at which I knew I was going to loose. I hope to provide a more thoughtful review later, after I have played it for a while. DISCLAIMER: I have no relationship with Arsenal Publishing and I was not a tester. I did meet the developers at Origins. This represents only 3 hours of play/testing. THE GAME: Modern (1994+) Tactical combat. US Army or Marines vs. "OPFOR" units that use Soviet equipment and doctrine. THE SCALE: * Each pixel is 10 meters (this is a real-space, not hex oriented, game) * Play is broken into 1 minute rounds * Units are generally teams, squads, and vehicle platoons; but units can be split and joined so this is not fixed. GRAPHICS AND SOUND: Eh. The graphics are 4 bit (16 color), and it uses rather subdued colors. The designer defends this decision 3 times in the materials, based on the game not needing flashy color and the performance cost of throwing more bits around. Personally, I question the decision on a marketing basis, but as a player he is right - I don't miss it a bit. The sounds are fairly good, with distinct sounds for every kind of weapon. This makes sound a useful source of information as opposed to just window dressing. GAME PLAY: Players give orders for how units should move/dig-in/pop smoke/etc. OK interface, but there are some things I think I will find annoying in the long run. For instance, it also you to copy orders from one unit to another (very nice), but there is no way to select a group of units to give orders to so the process can be quite tedious if you have a "stack" of assorted infantry units you want to head the same direction. Direct Fire is automatic (you don't have to give explicit orders), but you can influence _who_ you units shoot at based on a specific unit, a type of unit, a general location, or a range. The user also gets to choose from a set of "Standard Operating Procedures" for what the unit does when it comes under fire (Pop Smoke and Dig In, Back Up, etc.). Overall I enjoyed the play and found the tactical challenges interesting. The combat effects seem about right, and units behaved as I expected. I will know more when I get a chance to play more (that may be a while - WaW: Stalingrad beta is due to start soon!) ARTIFICIAL OPPONENT: Well, it beat me. On the other hand, I was new to the game and it was playing OPFOR who generally is given a stronger force. I'll see what happens when _I_ play OPFOR. Really, it is _much_ too early to make a guess on how good it is other than to say that it isn't completely dumb. QUALITY: I got one crash, but not in actual game play - when in setup mode I tried to get Unit Info for a unit that hadn't been placed on the map yet. I have tried to reproduce it, but if this is consistent it is certainly a bug in my book. However, it is also _very_ easy to avoid. Really, this is _much_ too early to tell. All I can say is that it isn't another Pax Imperia. OTHER PROGRAM FEATURES: * A limited form of "Design Your Own" - you have to choose from the existing set of maps and objectives but you can select the forces. * No copy protection. * Support for both EMail and real-time network play. * PC version in the works OPEN ISSUES: (these are things I don't think I have any feel for yet) *Just how good is the Artificial Opponent? How easily fooled is it? How predictable is it? * Does the game get monotonous after a while? Are there similar challenges for all scenarios? .szy