Refund Request.

[Fred DM]

Originally Posted by NoneSuch

To be fair Thunder it's more like going in to mcdonalds and buying a burger you've not read the ingrediants of, and then complaining that it doesn't have what you wanted. You only have yourself to blame that you bought a game you didn't read up on, and it's ridiculous to blame the developers that it's not been suited to your exact prefrences.

It's not even the same studio which made Assault Squad. Digitalmindsoft, the guys behind assault squad, merely helped 1C with Vietnam.

this. from day one the game was announced as focussing on squad-based special operations throughout the campaign. they even published biographies of the squad mates you were to command on the official website.

i, too, find it disappointing that they didn't include at least a few larger scale conventional battles as single missions (perhaps the 5 S.E. bonus missions are more in line with this concept), but i've known from the start that the campaign would focus - exactly like the original Soldiers: Heroes of WWII - on a small group of elite soldiers behind enemy lines. in a way, Men of War is going back to its roots with Vietnam.

ideally, however, they should have mixed squad-based special operations with large-scale conventional battles. perhaps following both the exploits of an SOG detachment behind enemy lines and a Marine regiment pushing on in parallel. that would also have made the campaign a bit longer as 5 missions per side aren't much.

[bomblol]

I have to question why they would do that after coming off of the back of such an excellent game (MOWAS that is).
Granted, what they have developed is fair enough - but put some polish on it.

I have units with terrible path finding (especially when they go into the water). Units that die in a second - I do enjoy the missions where the AI has snipers and youve got no way of detecting them at all (yeah you see the aimer come up but thats it) until they've fired and youve lost 1/4 of your squad 30 seconds into the mission.
Definatley a game of trial and error.

But back to the AI.. armored vehicles do not operate in even a remotley similar fashion to MOWAS.
You would think they would have used the same AI if they were going to just reskin and release as an SP game.
I have armored vehicles and men mounted on the top MG's not even swivel to engage when enemy infantry are directly in front of the vehicle.
I dont mean standing on top of, I mean 10 metres out front in clear LOS.

Using the helo's on the SP missions is a bit of a hit and miss affair, you target point X and instead of even missing and say hitting point T, U, V or W (as in somewhere NEAR the point of target) - its going miles off and either half the map before or after.

I am an avid MOW fan, but this has just been one dissapointment after the next.
I will continue to support 1C as Im sure they can pull somthing out of their backsides, but why release a clearly incomplete product?

[bomblol]

Oh and I should also mention just the general infantry AI.
I have a 4 man squad, fair enough, but when it is set to engage anything sighted, why does it not engage a unit in front of it?

Often I am finding I am having to select my man, or unit and tell them to fire on enemy units when they are only a short distance away.

Id be happy to sit there and detail many more points, but would any of it be taken in to consideration anyway?