RTS: Job well done

Andre Bolkonsky
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:46 pm

Post by Andre Bolkonsky » Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:43 am

No, Imperious Leader, I am not missing the point.

You are.

I am sorry if the absence of a good Sub-Stall debate has stymied your AnA sensibilities. But you are truly being unfair in your judgement of this game.

Using an Axis and Allies gameboard, theatre-level combats are fought at the army-group level via a RTS gaming engine.

The game being sold is RTS.

Corps level combat.

Victory at the Corps level translates back up to the Axis and Allies style overview map.

Not RTS, not Axis and Allies; Axis and Allies RTS.

That is the game, not Axis and Allies II/Pacific/Europe; or any of the MYRIAD of variants and sub-variants there-of.

And, to be honest; I REALLY like this game. I hope the guy you sold it to on E-Bay likes it as well.
War is but an extension of politics, by other means.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Post by Imperious leader » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:18 am

Andre you still are mixing the RTS game as being the same AS the "world war II" mode that everybody is bagging on. They are seperate catagories. The world war 2 mode is turn based and the RTS is another undertaking alltogether. PLease stop posting that the AI in the turn based mode which we are commenting on has any intelligence to its play . Please stop telling me that its corps level based and this and that and i hope the guy you sold it too will love it. please spare this indignity. accept the facts regarding the TURN BASED PORTION THAT WE ARE COMMENTING ON.

1)AI sucks
2) no naval or air pieces
3) board sucks
4) they wasted too much space on the screen with silly icons and things that help nobody.
5) music is very similiar regardless of which nation you play
6) Bugs ( cant move to adjacent territories even on a new turn in about 20% of the time).

Just play it in world war two mode and THEN you can have some credibility on this topic. This forum amoung other things is to present our experiences with axis and allies products. Sometimes their is failure and sugarcoating things will not bring about a bright tomorrow. If the game was good and improved axis and allies franchise i would be the first to congratuate and praise its inception.

now those are facts
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:42 pm
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: What we have he'ah is a failhure to communicate . . .

Post by Atlantikwall » Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:51 am

Andre Bolkonsky wrote:I think AtlanticWall is using the game as an AnA engine. Nothing wrong with that, AnA has come in a variety of formulas over the years.
I´m certainly not a bad A&A player, but it does NOT take long experience to follow these strategic guidelines:

1.) Protect your captital well: It´s really an incompetent computer AI if it attacks an allied army in South Europe while I have a strong russian army in East Europe that can only take the german capital because the AI was that stupid to attack the "poison pill" in SEU and remove armies that he desperately needed to defend Germany. Same with two computer players. UK has enough units to protect itself but it is walking to Gibraltar and "inviting" the huge german army at Frech Coast to an invasion.

That`s imcompetence in any strategic way and ther`s no way to "defend" that!

2.) Don`t leave own armies in deadzones.

3.) Or at least: Never walk with expensive units in deadzones. Here you can protect them with an cheap inf-army, as you only loose one unit in combat. But the computer AI is so stupid to even walk with singe air-armies next to huge enemy armies.

Imho, the computer AI in WW2-mode sucks against players of any skills!

Furthermore, I even think that making all these small RTS-battles in the WW2-mode will become boring. And as Imperios Leader has pointed out: nobody has complained about the RTS-campaign yet.

Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Alberta

Post by Orillian » Sat Nov 13, 2004 2:09 pm

The do what most of us that bought the game did. Bought it for the RTS portion and NOT the Turn based mode. The turen based mode was there I think moreeso as a method of linking the board game, not so much as a full game unto itself. And besides it was NOT the focus the developers had for the game. If they make changes to the turn based mode that make it better, great, if not...I'll continue to play with friends via TripleA or in real life. :)


PS: the RTS portion is a very good game, and since it's WW2 it's even cooler! :P Woot!

Andre Bolkonsky
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:46 pm

Post by Andre Bolkonsky » Sat Nov 13, 2004 11:16 pm

Leader, the only salient comment I have to add at this point I have is now that you have sold the game, we can enjoy it once again without listening to you flog the dead horse.
War is but an extension of politics, by other means.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

something for andre...

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:59 pm

this game rated a 6 on the 1-10 scale from gamespot: FAIR

RetailGameSpot Score6.0fairAbout Our Rating System Gameplay - 6
Graphics - 7
Sound - 6
Value - 7
Tilt - 5

Requirements: 256 MB RAM, 8X CD-ROM, 64 MB VRAM, 1.37 GB disk space, More Tech Information »

In addition to being a new real-time strategy game, Axis & Allies is a cult classic board game that pits the Axis powers against the Allied powers at the height of World War II. The new computer game is not the game of old, however. Developer TimeGate Studios, which recently produced the great Kohan II: Kings of War, has put a different spin on the concept so that battles are resolved in real-time skirmishes rather than with rolls of dice. Unfortunately, this different spin doesn't equate to a refreshing change. Incompetent artificial intelligence and some weak gameplay mechanics hamper what could have been an interesting take on the popular board game.

A huge Japanese army can't seem to take China.
Axis & Allies uses the Kohan II engine, so it plays very similarly to the fantasy strategy game released a little more than a month ago. You don't harvest resources in Axis & Allies; instead, you have a constant income of money, ammo, and oil. Ammo and oil are not hoarded. Rather, you have a positive or negative flow of these resources. You gain an increased rate of income by building ammo and oil depots, while a negative inflow of these two resources penalizes your money income. Meanwhile, money accumulates if you have a positive income, and you'll use this money to construct buildings, research technologies, and build military units. When you have no money and a negative income, then your units will begin to lose health until you overcome the deficit. All this actually makes it worthwhile to strike at your opponent's resource buildings to simultaneously cripple his or her economy and army.

Your military is also handled similarly to Kohan II. Instead of recruiting individual units, you'll recruit companies. Companies comprise squads of multiple units that act as single units. Injured companies are replenished automatically in supply zones generated by both your buildings and cities. As in Kohan II, this helps minimize the need for micromanaging a bunch of little infantrymen, tanks, and other units. In Axis & Allies, a company must be attached to a headquarters to be supplied. So if you build three armor companies from an infantry headquarters, those units will be supplied as long as the headquarters survives.

There are four modes of play in Axis & Allies: World War II, campaign, skirmish, and multiplayer over LAN or Internet. World War II mode is the one that's most similar to the board game. You pick one of the five world powers (Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, or the USA) and then choose a general for that faction. This turn-based mode is played on a world map divided into territories that are each worth a given amount of income. You'll use cash on your turn to research technologies and purchase armies, which are used to attack and capture territories under enemy control. The goal of both the Axis and the Allies is to capture two opposing capitals.

This is where the similarities to the board game end. Your three army types--infantry, mechanized, and armor--can only move one space (there are no mechanized units in the board game, and armor could move two spaces). There are no naval or air units, and you can't build factories, so moving new armies from your capital one space at a time can be tedious. The most interesting and potentially fun aspect of this mode is how conflicts are resolved. Instead of rolling dice, you can fight battles in the RTS mode. Armies on the map determine which types of buildings you can make in the RTS mode and how much money you start with. For example, a mechanized army means you can build infantry and mechanized units in the battle, but you can't build armor units. Unfortunately, the potential for fun is lost, because the computer AI simply isn't very good. So if you're a reasonably experienced RTS player, you'll be able to pull off victories even against overwhelming odds. You can also have the computer automatically resolve conflicts, but that's a simulation of bad AI versus bad AI, so you probably won't like the results...unless the odds are heavily in your favor.

The computer will attack the town, but it doesn't know how to hold it.
The strategic AI on the world map isn't very bright either. It will spend too much money on technologies early on rather than spending this money on armies. As the US, we were able to push back Japan with only infantry, yet Japan spent its money on antitank technology rather than recruiting armies to stop us. The AI also can't comprehend that you can pull off miracle victories (thanks to the stupidity of the AI in RTS battles). It would continue attempting to take our territories (calculating, say, that it had an 86 percent chance to win), even though we'd just keep repelling the AI's attack every turn. There are also fundamental flaws in how the map is set up, such as how Germany is able to take Russia's capital in two turns with ease. You can beat the World War II mode in only a few hours, even with multiple RTS battles. The flawed AI and broken map make this mode a disappointment.

The two campaigns in Axis & Allies follow each side's road to victory. The Allied campaign features some of the most well-known battles in World War II, including Kursk, D-Day, and Iwo Jima. The Axis campaign is more of a what-if scenario. For example, when you defeat Montgomery at El Alamein, Rommel takes the Suez Canal and meets with German forces at Stalingrad. There isn't much cohesion between missions. In fact, the ordering of the missions is confusing, at first. The Allied campaign starts with a cutscene in Russia, yet the first and second missions take place in El Alamein and Guadalcanal, respectively, without any sort of bridge to connect the missions. Only those knowledgeable in WWII history will realize that the missions take place chronologically, since nowhere in the campaign are you given any actual context for when they take place. The hodgepodge assortment of missions doesn't do much to make you care for any particular side, faction, unit, or leader. And, as mentioned, the artificial intelligence isn't going to put up much of a fight.

Page 2 of 2 »
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

roosters are coming home for andre

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:05 pm

Game spy reviews this game at gives it a "2" ( arent they the ones who are promoting this?)

Axis & Allies (PC)
Publisher: Atari Developer: TimeGate
Genre: Real-Time Strategy Release Date: 11/02/2004
ESRB: Teen More Info on this Game

By Tom Chick | Nov. 8, 2004
Timegate's Kohan goes to World War II and shoots itself in the foot.

Reader Rating: N/A
(Not rated)

» How Our Ratings Work Rate This Game Select 1 - Poor 2 - Fair 3 - Good 4 - Great 5 - Outstanding
» Discuss this Game in the Forums

Pros Cons
Based on Kohan's gameplay, does a good job of modeling supply lines. Bad interface; confusing and non-intuitive interplay among units; too much base management.

You'd never guess that one of this year's best real-time strategy games and one of this year's worst real-time strategy games were made by the same developer. With Kohan II, Timegate Studios established itself as imaginative, innovative, and talented developers with a keen sense for what it takes to turn a great design into a great game. With Axis & Allies, well, not so much. You could say the company has broken even this year.

What made Kohan one of the all-time great real-time strategy games is only partly carried over into Axis & Allies, a World War II-themed makeover of Kohan's basic gameplay. The most notable through line is the way you build and manage your forces. You build regiments rather than individual units (in Kohan, you could design your own regiments, but they're fixed in Axis & Allies). You then manage them as groups, setting their formations and moving them around the map. During combat, the A.I. controls the individual units on a tactical level. They fight battles until they've won, until their morale breaks and they flee, or until you give them orders to pull back.

As Kohan demonstrated, this works great for infantry battles. But when Axis & Allies throws the machinery of modern war into the mix, it becomes a messy goulash of combined arms. There's a soft-pedaled paper/rock/scissor interplay between infantry, armor, and artillery that basically comes down to damage modifiers buried under the hood. It gets hopelessly jumbled up once you introduce mechanized infantry, machineguns, recon teams, anti-tank weapons, anti-infantry guns, and various weight classes of tanks, often into the same regiment. It's particularly messy during the actual fighting. This is not the sort of game that lends itself to positioning your anti-tank weapons in the trees while covering your infantry's advance with artillery and armor. Instead, it comes down to just scooping up a whole mess of units and telling them where to go.


However, by virtue of the game design, the particulars of unit interaction aren't your concern, so your strategy is a matter of choosing what to build. And here's where Axis & Allies veers away from Kohan's clean elegance and hurtles headlong into the realm of bad game design choices with bad interfaces. Axis & Allies organizes its regiments into divisions attached to headquarters. Based on centuries of military history, this obviously works great in the real world. Based on how hard it is to keep track of everything in Axis & Allies, this doesn't work so great in an RTS, especially when the interface is so stingy with vital information.

The result is a sprawling base building sub-game, whereby you have to (1) unlock a headquarters by building its prerequisite headquarters and brigades; (2) then build it; (3) then drive it somewhere to deploy it; (4) then wait for it to unpack; (5) build its component regiments one at a time. It's just as rigid and obtuse as real-world military hierarchies. It's hard to believe these are the same developers who single-handedly solved so many of the traditional problems of unit management and base-building three years ago with the original Kohan.

The resource model is also tied into this sprawling base building sub-game. You earn gold from your headquarters, but you build ammo and oil depots to support your units, peppering the map with the mobile equivalent of Warcraft's farms. There are fixed cities on the map you can control for additional resources, but these are more significant for extending your supply.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

just one more for the road

Post by Imperious leader » Sun Nov 14, 2004 3:11 pm

Derek R. gave it a 5:

The premise of this game had a lot of potential. The notion of participating as commander of the armed forces in the greatest and most epic battle of humankind's recent history surely captured the imagination of RTS gamers, WWII enthusiasts, and fans of the original board game alike. Regretfully, the developers were not able to realize this potential. Sadly, the game is dissapointing. Specifically, the real-time battles are mediocre at best (falling short of the benchmark set by CDV's Blitzkrieg). The WWII mode is not bad but lost its appeal after I won the first few times. Sorry Atari/TimeGate, but you dropped the ball.
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests