Please stop this madness!!

[DesertRanger]

I'm going to try and be brief (I sincerely doubt this will make it to the developers anyway!) I am a long-time fan of this franchise. I still play SHoWW2 and FoW. I was one of the staunchest defenders of this franchise when it was up against CoH. In other words - I'm not a newbie. That said, I fear this franchise is well on it's way to extinction.

This franchise has always been obsurdly overwhelming but Soldiers and FoW at least offered some tactical and strategic options along the way. The MoW series is even more obsurdly overwhelming and offers almost no tactical or strategic gameplay - wave after endless wave of enemies is neither tactical or strategic! CoH is an arcade clickfest with a relentless, overwhelming enemy. MoW (Assault Squad included) is even more of an arcade clickfest than CoH and, quite frankly, as far as arcade clickfests go - CoH is more fun.

Now maybe this has been your intent all along - to make MoW more like CoH - and if so, then I congratulate you - you're almost there!! But as you consider further ways to butcher a franchise that had/has so much potential and make another "me too" game, let me remind you of where CoH is today - it's dead, and it's dead in large part to the fact that SP is an overwhelming arcade clickfest that is often frustrating. Yes, MP only sustains a game like this for so long!

OK, I could go on and on with examples of how the MoW series (Assault Squad included) is just aweful gaming, but I'll spare you my rant. I also fully accept that this is my opinion and that there are gameplayers who think MoW is one of the greatest franchises ever. But, I think this is a dwindling group and I think alot of gameplayers are going to be unhappy with Assault Squad. Maybe I'm wrong and frustrating overwhelming frantic clickfest micromanaging nightmeres are what the majority of gamers want these days. If so, Assault Squad is well on its way to becoming a best seller.

For my part tho, I'll beg one last request - please get this franchise back to what it could and should be - a fun tactical and strategic game......PLEASE!!

[psycho pigeon]

it's the same as all the other MoW games, stop moaning. CoH is nothing like this game. Also, why are you moaning about single player? MoW has ALWAYS BEEN for multiplayer. Always.

[Nokturnal]

This franchise has always been obsurdly overwhelming but Soldiers and FoW at least offered some tactical and strategic options along the way. The MoW series is even more obsurdly overwhelming and offers almost no tactical or strategic gameplay - wave after endless wave of enemies is neither tactical or strategic! CoH is an arcade clickfest with a relentless, overwhelming enemy. MoW (Assault Squad included) is even more of an arcade clickfest than CoH and, quite frankly, as far as arcade clickfests go - CoH is more fun.

Sounds to me like you aren't playing the game right if it feels like a clickfest in SP missions, because it's never felt that way to me and certainly doesn't seem to be designed with that in mind - Don't forget, there is the option to slow down the pace of the game, making it anything but a clickfest. If you still can't handle the pace on a speed of 1 (default being 3), perhaps you should try turn-based games instead?
To be honest it seems like you just don't like the fact the game now features more than a dozen units under your control at once - So instead of adapting, you claim the game has lost it's tactics in favour of a "clickfest" when in reality it hasn't changed at all other than the size of your forces.
Yes it can seem overwhelming to have 20+ units to order around, but nobody said you have to issue an order for each, every second.

It's true on some missions there are a lot of enemy units constantly attacking, but that doesn't make it a clickfest. You decide how to deal with the threat, it's not up to the game to explain to you the tactics available, be creative, excessive clicking is never required, if it were, i would of lost interest long ago.
The terrain, various pieces of cover, wide assortment of weapons available, hold fire/movement orders (and all the other commands) all make the game far, far more tactical than any arcade game such as CoH with it's simple "move here, attack this" approach.

For example, lying men in wait and giving the hold-fire order can result in devestating ambushes. Or setting up an arc of cover fire with MG units and/or vehicles while you assault a position. Or moving individual units forward and into cover in small groups in a leap frog fashion. There's also the ability to control a unit yourself, which in many of my games has made the difference between victory and defeat. I've lost count of the times i've had a massive assault planned out with units ready and in range to toss a grenade into the enemy before the s__t hits the fan - It's a far more rewarding way of playing the game than simply treating the game as another CoH clone and merely telling unit A to attack unit B and then going on to issue orders to others.

To say it isn't tactical is simply wrong, and i wonder what you actually mean by "tactics"? You still have all the options available to you as you did in the original titles, the only notable difference (apart from setting/story) would be the inclusion of more units at your disposal. But once again, nobody said you have to order them all around constantly - It's your own fault if you treat this game as a clickfest, because i certainly don't and i thoroughly enjoy fighting huge battles. (even when it gets a bit stressfull)

I do have to agree that Assault Squad feels more designed for those hyped up on red bull, but what do you expect? It's an MP game and in basically every MP game since the dawn of MP gaming, a fast hand and quick thinking is always going to win. (Think Quake, Starcraft, C&C, Diablo, the list goes on...)

The original MoW, and Red Tide too, are filled with numerous possible approaches to a mission. While some may work better than others, a quick read around these forums will show you that it's rare to see two people using the same tactics on a specific mission.


I won't bother adressing the rest of your rant as that seems to be all it is, just a rant. Perhaps you should just try replaying the SP missions of MoW, at the slowest available speed, and try different approaches to the missions. There is no shortage of tactics or strategies available, you are more or less only limited by your imagination.

Before you label me as a MoW fanboy, lately i've spent more time with Theatre of War and Combat Mission while i wait for Vietnam to release. Both have their strengths but also have their weaknesses. However, none of them are a click fest if you play with patience and in the right frame of mind.



it's the same as all the other MoW games, stop moaning. CoH is nothing like this game. Also, why are you moaning about single player? MoW has ALWAYS BEEN for multiplayer. Always.

Just wanted to add - I strongly disagree with this statement - MoW has NEVER been about multiplayer for me, and i know i'm not alone. Never touched it, never will.
While i'm sure some have fun with MP, if the game is ever a "click-fest" it's in MP, where the player with the faster hand movements will always win (not saying that's new of course, see my comment above).
In SP however, the design of the missions allow for planning and strategies to unfold, a clever arrangment of units laying waste to an oncoming enemy, or a single unit tossing a grenade into a group of enemies before the others open fire - The SP missions are, for me, where this game truly shines.
This is why i've only bothered playing the demo of Assault Squad and will pass on the full game and instead wait for Vietnam to get my MoW fix.

[KnightFandragon]

I see where you can get the clickfest idea...missions like Vernon, Sevastopol, Evacuation....just wave after wave....yeah that does get boring...but this game is far from COH...I like this game way more. Its the different functions rather then maybe the actual gameplay. The Direct Control sold me on this game and when I do play CoH i feel like im going back in time a few hundred years. The ability to break squads down and control just a single guy instead of a whole squad. The riddance of "health" on tanks and for the most part on men, they die very fast. It does have quite a few realisitc things in it I love. Gameplay online is kinda the same ol' after awhile but the Editor also makes it awesome.

[mmaruda]

I don't get the whole CoH, MoW comparison... I also don't get the "clickfest" term. One game is an RTS with base building and resources, the other is a tactical game. These two titles have nothing in common except the setting. In terms of clicking CoH requires much less of it - just get any application that counts your clicks and play an online match.

I play both titles and they both deliver a completely different experience. I'm beginning to get sick and tired of these "hardcore tactics versus arcade" threads in gaming discussion. Totally pointless and mostly implying that one group of gamers is better than the other because of their personal tastes.

[Ziji]

The reason CoH and MoW are compared so much is because they are WWII strategy games.

It's almost criminal NOT to compare them.

But I digress, the OP has a point, in my opinoin. Assault Squad feels like it was trying too hard to be CoH and the SP is just MP maps with bots it seems like.. I loved the traditional MoW missions (only reason I played MoW was for Co-Op and SP, I am not a fan of the MP at all) and I bought AS thinking that even though the missions were just CAPTURE THE POINT, GET MORE RESOURCES, BUY MORE UNITS (sound familiar?) that it'd have some fun with it.. and it does. It's not a bad game at all, and it really streamlines the interface and gameplay of MoW and I love it. However, I still wish it had more traditional MoW missions. Red Tide was the epitome of great in this aspect, and I loved it; it will stay my favorite MoW game for a long time to come. With AS, well, I guess I'll learn to love the MP and deal with constantly respawning enemies.

[Fotheringill]

This is my first post here, having just purchased MoW and Assault Squad. However, I HAVE been playing CoH since its beta, over four and a half years ago. They are two different animals. This game and its controls appear to a newcomer to be much more complex and trooper or squad oriented, while CoH is more of a player and team oriented game. I may stand corrected once I start playing AS or MoW in multiplayer games, but right now, that is what it appears to be to me.

[totte1015]

This is my first post here, having just purchased MoW and Assault Squad. However, I HAVE been playing CoH since its beta, over four and a half years ago. They are two different animals. This game and its controls appear to a newcomer to be much more complex and trooper or squad oriented, while CoH is more of a player and team oriented game. I may stand corrected once I start playing AS or MoW in multiplayer games, but right now, that is what it appears to be to me.
+1

[mmaruda]

The ironic thing is, that with Tales of Valour, CoH tried to be like Men of War - missions were based on small squads and hero units, direct control was added as well as the non-competitive online modes.

However, I doubt that Assault Squad swapped the campaign mode for the skirmish with flag capturing because it wanted to be like CoH. In my opinion, they just went the easy way - no scripting, no trigger glitches, more flexibility to the player and less effort from the developer so they could focus on tweaking realism and balance.

Still, this discussion does not lead us anywhere. I bought the game and I'm quite happy, though I'd prefer a solid campaign instead of those unconnected skirmishes. There was beta and a demo, people had the chance to check if they like the game or not and decide on their purchase.

If someone played the beta, played the demo, didn't like them and still bought the full version only to start whining about it... That's just immature.