The Uber Warhammer 40,000: Armageddon Thread!

[JasonPratt]

That might explain why my infantry are still the same size and still have lasguns -- I haven't started a new campaign, and haven't spent money upgrading from one infantry to another and back again. NEITHER AM I GOING TO!  ::) (Though that does bring up the question of what will happen if I buy new units from scratch.)

Which is okay: I prefer my mortar team with lasguns for a little defense. :) Though I'd like to have a larger basic infantry. But I'm happy with my command squad: fewer infantry but more hp per figure, and they have melee capability and grant a command bonus to any nearby units. Basic infantry ought to have more firepower, but I'm not entirely sure how weapon fire is connected to numbers of figures in a squad.


This is all assuming Steam updated the game with the new patch. Which may not have happened yet anyway.

[Jarhead0331]

I got an update on steam this morning. 1.02 I think.

[Jarhead0331]

Wow. What a lame end to a very long campaign. Seriously.

is it safe to say youve now come down on the 'its not that good' side of the fence?

Well, it held my attention through what, at times, felt like a never ending campaign. Although the in between mission narratives were mostly uninspired, they did foster a curiosity to see where the story leads.

Gameplay overall is, as I stated a few pages back, disappointing overall. There are just not enough tactical options and the maps are too small for any real maneuver. It all comes down to buying as many of the biggest guns as possible, massing your firepower and killing off the Ork units, which really utilize no cohesive strategy, as quickly as possible. This formula works in each scenario so it becomes a matter of play, rinse and repeat.

I stand by my earlier comments that it was still enjoyable at times and that any warhammer 40k fan will most likely not want to miss out on it. But, if you're just a strategy gamer looking for something  new, you could totally pass this one by and not feel like you missed anything.

[Grimnirsson]

http://www.matrixgames.com/community/blog.asp

Don't know about you, but I find this a rather embarrassing post on the Matrix Games site. Like all such postings when a publisher, a developer, a designer etc. of a game, be that boardgame or videogame or PC game, reacts to reviews they don't like. Some of these folks are going to silly extremes for example to tell the gamers not to read the reviews before playing the game themselves or even talking about threats of legal action (whatever that may mean in such a case, it happened to us once when we published a boardwargame review on our Homefront site). The comment on the calmdown.com site is obviously from the same guy, of course he posts there anonymously.

[Pinetree]

What's so embarrassing about it? He's just pointing out inaccuracies in a review.  Comments like "turn-based RTS" make the reviewer sound like he's talking out of his arse

[Zonso]

IMO any apologist piece is embarrassing. The bit about whether a reviewer should take into account the feelings of the people making the game especially so. But maybe that is the new paradigm in today's world? I find the linked review at Calm Down Tom to be fair and accurate, and pretty much sums up my feelings on the game also. I did not see the "turn-based RTS" reference so that may have been edited, but even so to throw the baby out with the bath water because of that one item smacks of a little bias methinks.

To add some more to the criticism of the article: Yes there are numerous 'units' modelled and on first blush you think 'awesome' but after playing you are left wondering why? You will never, ever use the majority of the units. There is absolutely no reason to. The UI post patch is still sorely lacking in useful information - they replaced the numerical value for strength points with a silly 'health bar' making it more difficult to determine at a glance not easier. They removed the number of hitpoints per strength so determining the toughness of a unit is more difficult, etc.

But the biggest problem I have with the game is the gameplay itself whether in the actual battles, which to be fair have a couple interesting moments, or in the overall strategic campaign. It just seems to fall flat, unfocused and seems really uninspired. It ends up being a slog and chore of the same old, same old. Even the tried and true design choice of carefully building up and nurturing your core force to 'stay motivated' is missing as you will end up chucking the majority and starting fresh with new units throughout the campaign, removing any sort of attachment you may have. I guess that is why there is no renaming of units, or special perks earned.

In the end, criticism is a tool for learning and in this case I think warranted. Instead of apologist pieces, the developers should be taking notes for improvement. Warhammer is such a rich stage and this game could clearly have been so much more.

[Grimnirsson]

What's so embarrassing about it? He's just pointing out inaccuracies in a review.  Comments like "turn-based RTS" make the reviewer sound like he's talking out of his arse

Well, what I read is "turn based strategy game"...perhaps the author changed that after making a typo, mistake or whatever. You did read the whole review didn't you? What he actually is doing is pointing out aspects of the game he didn't like, what he considers flaws and it seems that pretty much points in the same direction of issues that were discussed here in this thread by those who played the game, even by those who like the game. What is embarrassing you ask? That a company seems to see the need to comment on these, like Bungie did with their "don't believe the reviews!" when Destiny came out. Reviews are one individuals opinion, everybody has the right to write one, everybody is entitled to their opinion. Several reviews, several opinions form a score others can possibly trust. There is no need for those who bring out the games to take countermeasures of any form, or to justify their game - a game speaks for itself, the design is done and the money is paid by those who play the games, so let the reviews come in. If you don't like a review think about the possibility it's perhaps not the big shot you want it to be but that there could be a few things that need some polish and that something can be learned by a negative review to make your product better. Nitpicking on one term "oh, see it's no RTS, you know nothing John Snow!" while ignoring the real points brought up in the review is downright ridiculous.

[JudgeDredd]

He does actually say this

It's a turn based strategy game...

Whether it's been changed by the author or not, I have no idea

[JasonPratt]

In regard to the vastly huge unit options: I read that as allowing 40K fans to play the missions with the particular kit they want. Does it make a big difference in the end? No, but that's true for most Panzer General huge option lists. If you prefer one kind of tank over another, use it -- they all do have notable differences, and being a stat optimizer I can't imagine building a corps with anything other than X tank and Y scout and Z arty, but that's only one way to play the game. The flavor makes a difference but (maybe) not a game breaking difference.

I find it completely baffling that code wasn't activated to allow renaming units. The interface slot for doing so is clearly there, since the game actually names the units (a perfectly generic name). But I can accept there are three campaigns where you move from fighting type to fighting type rebuilding the core every time -- that's true in the FW/EL game, too. (And probably true in the boardgame on which this game is based, though I'm only guessing there. I still want to see evaluations from people familiar with the boardgame pro or con.) Admittedly, in FW/EL the switch in campaigns means more because of the radically different storylines available, and at least in the final missions your previous crew may come back for deployment.

On the other hand, I also understand the appeal of the original Panzer General (and Fantasy General) games which brought the core units along (following not-Rommel) through every change in campaign, even if that didn't make much historical sense.

[Cyrano]

I am going to regret this...I just know it...

It's been a really long day and it isn't over yet and there's this other thing that's not relevant here that's under my skin and because it is I should walk away and not do this.

That blog post, however, tears it.

I knew I shouldn't, but I bought the game.  I've got time in now.  Fair chunk I think.  I could write it all down in paragraphs, but, frankly, JH et al. have enumerated many of the maddening features of this fracking PZ RE-SKIN...wait...I was yelling...that's not helpful...sorry...let me try something different...

Please watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfV0Cpm0Dw

The above game was released 17 years ago.  It is the better of the two games by a running distance.

Why do I care?  Dunno, exactly...but I do.  It may well be how much the developers protest, and this latest cry of the heart, posted above, doesn't make matters one whit better.  It only makes me believe -- for believe them I truly do -- that they have labored mightily and brought forth a mediocrity.  Many parents sit on the sidelines of soccer games (association football to some) and come to the same conclusion.  It happens.  And we move on.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[LongBlade]

SSI FTW

Again.

[JasonPratt]

Well, to be fair the two games are adapting two quite different boardgame systems. War-mageddon isn't table top (Epic or otherwise); it's trying to take the hex-and-counter 40K:Armageddon boardgame and adapt it with a highly modified version of the Panzer General system; whereas FinalLib was trying to port the Epic tt rules directly (as far as I can tell, having only seen it and not played it).

The end result could still be that FinalLib plays better as a game overall; I only mean that the "it" they were trying to "do" wasn't an adaptation of one of the table-top figurine systems.

I feel like I'll get my money's worth of entertainment out of it eventually; it has several problems, but I'm not unhappy with it. But it admittedly helps a lot that I'm fond of both the properties (40K and PG), and I went in expecting what I got: an adaptation to (a new type of) PG rules with a lot of ticky 40K bling (at least on the ground).

Though people (especially paying customers) who aren't having as much fun with it certainly have a right to complain about that, too.  :-\

SSI FTW

Again.

Heh, notably SSI designed the original Panzer General system around the same time, too! So SSI was going to win that comparison either way.  ;)

[PipFromSlitherine]

He does actually say this

It's a turn based strategy game...

Whether it's been changed by the author or not, I have no idea

Without wanting to comment on the broader issues...

+ Yes - it has been changed since the original review.
+ Still states that the iPad version has been released, which is just wrong.

Cheers

Pip

[Skwerl]

Final Liberation is a really fantastic game, even by modern standards.

[Zonso]

You know, even knowing old games are generally viewed with rose colored glasses, Final Liberation is a freaking masterpiece compared to the tepid mush of Armageddon. After watching that video, I'm reminded of the many things that were done to make it feel 'right'. And that guy recording is priceless!  :) It is too bad the devs didn't spend more time learning from that game instead of insisting on minor points in a review article. 

Bit of a rant this morning but I sat down to continue my campaign and after playing part way through I thought not for the first time 'is this it?'.  I couldn't continue. This is so disappointing that this is what we have been given for a WH40K game today. There is no inspiration or passion here. Nothing Epic about the battles, not even any semblance of sophistication in the combat mechanics at all. Almost everything was done better 17 years ago, whether in Final Liberation or in the General series with People's General. No Scout move? No Air units in the same hex as land units? No destructible terrain? No partial spotting? The list could on and on...

Time to move on.