Is it worth getting this game?

[James]

I have been exited for this game for months but now that its out I don't know if I want to get it. here are some of the pros and cons I've heard from reviews, and seen in the demo, tell me if they are accurate or if the game is better than it seems.

Pros: in depth tech tree, interesting setting, and, adaptive battlefields that change and evolve over the span of the game.

Cons:
bad graphics: this game looks like its from 2014 which is unacceptable from a game studio when independent creators are making games that look almost real.

Cheating AI: AI cheats which can ruin otherwise fun rounds. they can see through fog of war and their units have more health than yours.

the adaptive battlefields aren't actually so adaptive and will revert everything but trenches, destroyed buildings, and large craters between battles, which is unacceptable when the adaptive battlefields were the biggest selling points of the game.

from what I've seen this game had great potential but comes out unfinished, unpolished, and practically just a crappy total war game. I would get the game if it were from an independent creator but from a studio, this level of unpolished is just lazy and not worth my time. tell me if I'm wrong, i would love to be because i was genuinely exited for this game.

[Yuithgf]

Wait for when the game is out, see the reviews, maybe wait for a sale, keep in mind you can try a game for less than 2 hours and refund it.

[Sakbullets]

I pre-ordered and I like it. People put too much into graphics. The content is great and the graphics are just fine. I agree that the AI is a little bit on the robotic side. The second I move troops they have arty on my guys and it’s perfectly called in. Calling for artillery is never as accurate as this game depicts, even if the guns are registered. Typically you have to bracket your target but here it’s right on you and the call for fire is instant. Which kind of bugs me because they didn’t use radios back then to communicate with their arty yet their arty walks their assaulting force right into my suppresses troops.

[HistoricalGamer]

Originally posted by Valiant Cat:

I have been exited for this game for months but now that its out I don't know if I want to get it. here are some of the pros and cons I've heard from reviews, and seen in the demo, tell me if they are accurate or if the game is better than it seems.

Pros: in depth tech tree, interesting setting, and, adaptive battlefields that change and evolve over the span of the game.

Cons:
bad graphics: this game looks like its from 2014 which is unacceptable from a game studio when independent creators are making games that look almost real.

Cheating AI: AI cheats which can ruin otherwise fun rounds. they can see through fog of war and their units have more health than yours.

the adaptive battlefields aren't actually so adaptive and will revert everything but trenches, destroyed buildings, and large craters between battles, which is unacceptable when the adaptive battlefields were the biggest selling points of the game.

from what I've seen this game had great potential but comes out unfinished, unpolished, and practically just a crappy total war game. I would get the game if it were from an independent creator but from a studio, this level of unpolished is just lazy and not worth my time. tell me if I'm wrong, i would love to be because i was genuinely exited for this game.

I don't know if its true that the AI sees through the fog of war. I have fought 5 battles in my campaign so far and I have not felt like that is true at all. I do get the sense that it may cheat a bit on supply, not sure its as much as some of the most negative folks here have laid out, but at least some advantage for the AI on supply seems likely.

I don't actually think the graphics are bad? Just my personal opinion... but I play a lot of wargames... which look worse so... shrug, to each their own I guess.

[Master Chief]

I've got like 20 hours in it. I'm absolutely loving it. I think that there is a steep learning curve, and the AI can be very difficult. They will swamp you in defence and hammer you with artillery (it's literally WW1 this is what happened. Where I disagree with everyone that the arty is OP, you can do the exact same thing as the AI and bomb the crap out of there MG's etc. The counter is literally tech e.g concrete bunkers and concrete MG nest, literally nearly everything you can think of has a concrete version which is immune to arty. and people complain that the AI has to many resources E.g they will throw 20 division at a single part in your trench line... counter to this is literally having three lines of trench instead of one (also having a good flow of reserves and new reinforcements is crucial so make sure you plan that into your trench network), or if you want to be able to field more troops build logistics hubs to field more resources for your troops. I think the AI is difficult but when you work out strategies you can overcome it (that's why i play strategy game you know to strategies lol). I've been destroying the AI this campaign, and to be honest i haven't had this much fun in ages, trench warfare is challenging but there is so much you can do in this game. Although be prepared for a meat grinder and to lose thousands of troops and i mean it. Everyone has there own opinion so try it for yourself. I think everyone is exaggerating how hard to AI is and how much it cheats.. They could improve a few things but it's in a lot better state then what people are saying lol. Anyway have fun. (also one thing it may be repetitive for some who don't like the era cause it's literally tench warfare, so take that into consideration)

[Zimmermann]

Originally posted by CheekieBreekie:

I've got like 20 hours in it. I'm absolutely loving it. I think that there is a steep learning curve, and the AI can be very difficult. They will swamp you in defence and hammer you with artillery (it's literally WW1 this is what happened. Where I disagree with everyone that the arty is OP, you can do the exact same thing as the AI and bomb the crap out of there MG's etc. The counter is literally tech e.g concrete bunkers and concrete MG nest, literally nearly everything you can think of has a concrete version which is immune to arty. and people complain that the AI has to many resources E.g they will throw 20 division at a single part in your trench line... counter to this is literally having three lines of trench instead of one (also having a good flow of reserves and new reinforcements is crucial so make sure you plan that into your trench network), or if you want to be able to field more troops build logistics hubs to field more resources for your troops. I think the AI is difficult but when you work out strategies you can overcome it (that's why i play strategy game you know to strategies lol). I've been destroying the AI this campaign, and to be honest i haven't had this much fun in ages, trench warfare is challenging but there is so much you can do in this game. Although be prepared for a meat grinder and to lose thousands of troops and i mean it. Everyone has there own opinion so try it for yourself. I think everyone is exaggerating how hard to AI is and how much it cheats.. They could improve a few things but it's in a lot better state then what people are saying lol. Anyway have fun. (also one thing it may be repetitive for some who don't like the era cause it's literally tench warfare, so take that into consideration)

The AI is not difficult. it just have more of everything. like its STUPID, like really Stupid, but they just have more of troops arty whatever, and if you ok with that then fine. but if you like me then no dont get it, it feels cheap to have to cheese the stupid AI to win.

[Buntkreuz]

It really looks super outdated.
Stuff like objects, structures etc. look even older than 2014. They have Children of the Nile quality and thats from 2004.
Which is weird, since their previous games had solid quality, because they were stylized.

I feel like they should have gone with a similar graphical approach as Ultimate General Gettysburg.
It looks timeless, polished and manages to fit many units on a screen.
Actually pretty similar approaches in terms of presentation, but even Ultimate General Gettysburg is from 2014 and looks better.
Far better.

This was a major push back actually and together with the not so good feature of ongoing battlefield changes, the reason i decided to wait until i get it cheap on sale.
Petroglyph being Petroglyph they drop support of this game at that point already anyway (typically after roughly 3-6 months post release), which typically means lower prices.

[Your Friend Remi]

Originally posted by HistoricalGamer:

Originally posted by Valiant Cat:

I have been exited for this game for months but now that its out I don't know if I want to get it. here are some of the pros and cons I've heard from reviews, and seen in the demo, tell me if they are accurate or if the game is better than it seems.

Pros: in depth tech tree, interesting setting, and, adaptive battlefields that change and evolve over the span of the game.

Cons:
bad graphics: this game looks like its from 2014 which is unacceptable from a game studio when independent creators are making games that look almost real.

Cheating AI: AI cheats which can ruin otherwise fun rounds. they can see through fog of war and their units have more health than yours.

the adaptive battlefields aren't actually so adaptive and will revert everything but trenches, destroyed buildings, and large craters between battles, which is unacceptable when the adaptive battlefields were the biggest selling points of the game.

from what I've seen this game had great potential but comes out unfinished, unpolished, and practically just a crappy total war game. I would get the game if it were from an independent creator but from a studio, this level of unpolished is just lazy and not worth my time. tell me if I'm wrong, i would love to be because i was genuinely exited for this game.

I don't know if its true that the AI sees through the fog of war. I have fought 5 battles in my campaign so far and I have not felt like that is true at all. I do get the sense that it may cheat a bit on supply, not sure its as much as some of the most negative folks here have laid out, but at least some advantage for the AI on supply seems likely.

I don't actually think the graphics are bad? Just my personal opinion... but I play a lot of wargames... which look worse so... shrug, to each their own I guess.

Dev's have already admitted to AI's spy balloons being placed aggressively and when they're shot down they can remember the whole entire layout from before the balloon was shot down which is cheating

[Yuithgf]

It's not cheating as much as it's near impossible for human players to replicate. Their targetting should be less accurate when they dont have direct vision.

Some people have claimed to have evidence that the AI shoots outside of balloon range, sadly they didnt record any of it so far

[HistoricalGamer]

Originally posted by Zero Fox Given:

It really looks super outdated.
Stuff like objects, structures etc. look even older than 2014. They have Children of the Nile quality and thats from 2004.
Which is weird, since their previous games had solid quality, because they were stylized.

I feel like they should have gone with a similar graphical approach as Ultimate General Gettysburg.
It looks timeless, polished and manages to fit many units on a screen.
Actually pretty similar approaches in terms of presentation, but even Ultimate General Gettysburg is from 2014 and looks better.
Far better.

This was a major push back actually and together with the not so good feature of ongoing battlefield changes, the reason i decided to wait until i get it cheap on sale.
Petroglyph being Petroglyph they drop support of this game at that point already anyway (typically after roughly 3-6 months post release), which typically means lower prices.

Ultimate General uses 2D sprites fwiw. Its not that high fidelity. Love the game mind you.

[HistoricalGamer]

Originally posted by 2006 Nissan Altima:

Originally posted by HistoricalGamer:

I don't know if its true that the AI sees through the fog of war. I have fought 5 battles in my campaign so far and I have not felt like that is true at all. I do get the sense that it may cheat a bit on supply, not sure its as much as some of the most negative folks here have laid out, but at least some advantage for the AI on supply seems likely.

I don't actually think the graphics are bad? Just my personal opinion... but I play a lot of wargames... which look worse so... shrug, to each their own I guess.

Dev's have already admitted to AI's spy balloons being placed aggressively and when they're shot down they can remember the whole entire layout from before the balloon was shot down which is cheating

I don't think that's cheating personally... if I lose a balloon, I for sure will remember some of the locations of MGs. I'm just not a computer so I wont have perfect memory. But you can bet I'll remember the stuff that I'm focused on.

[HistoricalGamer]

One of the other things to remember when you're playing... MG nests always have to go at the end of a section of trench... use that info to your benefit if you're not sure where enemy guns are. At least I think they have to go at the end, that's where the joints are to attach them.

[Buntkreuz]

Originally posted by HistoricalGamer:

Originally posted by Zero Fox Given:

It really looks super outdated.
Stuff like objects, structures etc. look even older than 2014. They have Children of the Nile quality and thats from 2004.
Which is weird, since their previous games had solid quality, because they were stylized.

I feel like they should have gone with a similar graphical approach as Ultimate General Gettysburg.
It looks timeless, polished and manages to fit many units on a screen.
Actually pretty similar approaches in terms of presentation, but even Ultimate General Gettysburg is from 2014 and looks better.
Far better.

This was a major push back actually and together with the not so good feature of ongoing battlefield changes, the reason i decided to wait until i get it cheap on sale.
Petroglyph being Petroglyph they drop support of this game at that point already anyway (typically after roughly 3-6 months post release), which typically means lower prices.

Ultimate General uses 2D sprites fwiw. Its not that high fidelity. Love the game mind you.

Thats the technical side.
I mean that they should possibly have picked a style that doesnt so explicitly show its shortcomings but is more timeless.

[xMGDx]

Yes it is