<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Worthless
Review: This game is a prime example of people just wanting to make money out of a cheap product.This game is deplorable: This game is overrated by the few who play it. If you want a more fun game check out the panzer campaigns or the modern
campaigns by hps simluations. The Operational Art of War has a terrible interface, terrible game play, even worse support. If you have XP dont waste your time or money. Incompatible.
Rating: 
Summary: How to nuke one another
Review: when playing this game one should remember to force the opponent back far enough to win but not so far to get nuked. However playing a person is more fun then the computer because you can curse the person not the computer and it is more interesting!
Rating: 
Summary: It has it's moments but .....
Review: While I enjoy "The Operational Art of War" series immensely, I was partially disappointed with this version. Several of the scenarios seemed uninteresting. For example, "Bulge 2000" was in my opinion the worst of the lot. I was assuming with such a title that it might be a remake of the original Battle of the Bulge with modern weapons, which to me sounded good. Unfortunately it was a HUGE (slow computer users need not bother) scenario with fictional towns and likewise fictional "US" and "USSR" units and just happened to be called "Bulge". Generally military gamers want historical scenarios or those based (ala WW3) on likely potential conflicts. Another scenario that's worth passing by on involves the rise of the New-South in the USA. While the alternate history written as background seems implausible enough, the real scenario proves to be a snooze. Each side has an equal number of units and equipment tallies and territory and the result is just ..... boring. Why not have one side start out larger than the other and give the initially weaker side greater reserves or replacements or theater options? Certainly some things could be used to give the players more of a challenge while still allowing for some excitement and play balance. Also, where is a Falkland Island scenario or something dealing with the threat of US involvement in Nicaragua? How about if the Panamanian Army decided to resist in 1989? How about South Africans in Angola or the French battles in Algeria in the 1960s? If we wanted to play hypothetical wars, why not Argentina vs either Chile or Brazil or even better, how about the China vs Taiwan scenario that we keep hearing about and yet never get to see? How about an Arab-Israeli conflict that doesn't cover the entire war but just a theater of it or (if we must) how about a NATO-Warsaw Pact battle that occurs mid-war and covers a NATO counterattack to retake lost territory? On the positive side, many of the scenarios are small enough to use the normal game engine. Battalion and company level engagements abound and the scenario pack contains a few gems; a playable Desert Storm scenario featuring the US Marines, a similarly enjoyable attempt by the North Koreans to take Seoul (or burn the planet trying), an excellent NATO-Warsaw Pact engagement and battalion scale, and, for alternate history fans an invasion of North Vietnam in 1969 by the US military, a very interesting what-if. One more gripe is that we are not allowed to edit these scenarios, unlike the ones originally included with the game, what's up with that? Another thing about military gamers is they like to see the what ifs; what if the reserve Tank Battalion was able to exploit the breach in the line? What if we had slowed down or sped up the procurement of M-1s and Bradleys by a few years? Grognards like to tinker and the fact we can't with this batch of scenarios seems strange, considering the freedom we've been so far given to write our own scenarios and distribute them freely over the internet. Finally, while update 1.03 is available and is a major improvement to the system, it's successor, 1.04 is already available on Talonsoft's webiste, free to download along with a new Middle Eastern scenario written by Norm Koger himself. 1.04 is everything that 1.03 is and a little more and worth going to get if you haven't already.
Rating:
Summary: Worthless
Review: While I enjoy "The Operational Art of War" series immensely, I was partially disappointed with this version. Several of the scenarios seemed uninteresting. For example, "Bulge 2000" was in my opinion the worst of the lot. I was assuming with such a title that it might be a remake of the original Battle of the Bulge with modern weapons, which to me sounded good. Unfortunately it was a HUGE (slow computer users need not bother) scenario with fictional towns and likewise fictional "US" and "USSR" units and just happened to be called "Bulge". Generally military gamers want historical scenarios or those based (ala WW3) on likely potential conflicts. Another scenario that's worth passing by on involves the rise of the New-South in the USA. While the alternate history written as background seems implausible enough, the real scenario proves to be a snooze. Each side has an equal number of units and equipment tallies and territory and the result is just ..... boring. Why not have one side start out larger than the other and give the initially weaker side greater reserves or replacements or theater options? Certainly some things could be used to give the players more of a challenge while still allowing for some excitement and play balance. Also, where is a Falkland Island scenario or something dealing with the threat of US involvement in Nicaragua? How about if the Panamanian Army decided to resist in 1989? How about South Africans in Angola or the French battles in Algeria in the 1960s? If we wanted to play hypothetical wars, why not Argentina vs either Chile or Brazil or even better, how about the China vs Taiwan scenario that we keep hearing about and yet never get to see? How about an Arab-Israeli conflict that doesn't cover the entire war but just a theater of it or (if we must) how about a NATO-Warsaw Pact battle that occurs mid-war and covers a NATO counterattack to retake lost territory? On the positive side, many of the scenarios are small enough to use the normal game engine. Battalion and company level engagements abound and the scenario pack contains a few gems; a playable Desert Storm scenario featuring the US Marines, a similarly enjoyable attempt by the North Koreans to take Seoul (or burn the planet trying), an excellent NATO-Warsaw Pact engagement and battalion scale, and, for alternate history fans an invasion of North Vietnam in 1969 by the US military, a very interesting what-if. One more gripe is that we are not allowed to edit these scenarios, unlike the ones originally included with the game, what's up with that? Another thing about military gamers is they like to see the what ifs; what if the reserve Tank Battalion was able to exploit the breach in the line? What if we had slowed down or sped up the procurement of M-1s and Bradleys by a few years? Grognards like to tinker and the fact we can't with this batch of scenarios seems strange, considering the freedom we've been so far given to write our own scenarios and distribute them freely over the internet. Finally, while update 1.03 is available and is a major improvement to the system, it's successor, 1.04 is already available on Talonsoft's webiste, free to download along with a new Middle Eastern scenario written by Norm Koger himself. 1.04 is everything that 1.03 is and a little more and worth going to get if you haven't already.
Rating:
Summary: It has it's moments but .....
Review: While I enjoy "The Operational Art of War" series immensely, I was partially disappointed with this version. Several of the scenarios seemed uninteresting. For example, "Bulge 2000" was in my opinion the worst of the lot. I was assuming with such a title that it might be a remake of the original Battle of the Bulge with modern weapons, which to me sounded good. Unfortunately it was a HUGE (slow computer users need not bother) scenario with fictional towns and likewise fictional "US" and "USSR" units and just happened to be called "Bulge". Generally military gamers want historical scenarios or those based (ala WW3) on likely potential conflicts. Another scenario that's worth passing by on involves the rise of the New-South in the USA. While the alternate history written as background seems implausible enough, the real scenario proves to be a snooze. Each side has an equal number of units and equipment tallies and territory and the result is just ..... boring. Why not have one side start out larger than the other and give the initially weaker side greater reserves or replacements or theater options? Certainly some things could be used to give the players more of a challenge while still allowing for some excitement and play balance. Also, where is a Falkland Island scenario or something dealing with the threat of US involvement in Nicaragua? How about if the Panamanian Army decided to resist in 1989? How about South Africans in Angola or the French battles in Algeria in the 1960s? If we wanted to play hypothetical wars, why not Argentina vs either Chile or Brazil or even better, how about the China vs Taiwan scenario that we keep hearing about and yet never get to see? How about an Arab-Israeli conflict that doesn't cover the entire war but just a theater of it or (if we must) how about a NATO-Warsaw Pact battle that occurs mid-war and covers a NATO counterattack to retake lost territory? On the positive side, many of the scenarios are small enough to use the normal game engine. Battalion and company level engagements abound and the scenario pack contains a few gems; a playable Desert Storm scenario featuring the US Marines, a similarly enjoyable attempt by the North Koreans to take Seoul (or burn the planet trying), an excellent NATO-Warsaw Pact engagement and battalion scale, and, for alternate history fans an invasion of North Vietnam in 1969 by the US military, a very interesting what-if. One more gripe is that we are not allowed to edit these scenarios, unlike the ones originally included with the game, what's up with that? Another thing about military gamers is they like to see the what ifs; what if the reserve Tank Battalion was able to exploit the breach in the line? What if we had slowed down or sped up the procurement of M-1s and Bradleys by a few years? Grognards like to tinker and the fact we can't with this batch of scenarios seems strange, considering the freedom we've been so far given to write our own scenarios and distribute them freely over the internet. Finally, while update 1.03 is available and is a major improvement to the system, it's successor, 1.04 is already available on Talonsoft's webiste, free to download along with a new Middle Eastern scenario written by Norm Koger himself. 1.04 is everything that 1.03 is and a little more and worth going to get if you haven't already.
<< 1 >>
| 
