Point of Attack 2, any opinions of it good or bad

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I am looking at and giving some thought to buying Point of Attack 2 by HPS
Simulations. Does anyone have any gaming experience with it?

MikeT
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"miket6065" <miket6065@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KnCLd.25941$iC4.18874@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> I am looking at and giving some thought to buying Point of Attack 2 by HPS
> Simulations. Does anyone have any gaming experience with it?
>
> MikeT



Grabs popcorn, sits down........
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

JP wrote:
> "miket6065" <miket6065@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:KnCLd.25941$iC4.18874@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > I am looking at and giving some thought to buying Point of Attack 2
by HPS
> > Simulations. Does anyone have any gaming experience with it?
> >
> > MikeT
>
>
>
> Grabs popcorn, sits down........

Cobb vs. Giftzwerg - the rematch presented to you by Don King :)

Ok, we had our fun, the original poster had a legit question so I'll
try to answer it : opinion is devided on this game but here are some
facts pretty much all agree on :

- 4 scenario's provided, limited equipment - HPS counted on users
creating scenario's - that didn't pan out too well - only a couple
extra are up at the HPS site.

- Very high system demands

- Scenario editor is included, but for a map editor you'll need to buy
ADC 2 (aide de camps). Even the scenario editor is limited as it won't
let you edit the weapons table among others.

- ... and a developer saying things like "I do not frequent the boards,
so anything you write there will not get to me." isn't really assuring
that your problems or questions will be addressed.
Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1107241229.556926.118900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > Grabs popcorn, sits down........
>
> Cobb vs. Giftzwerg - the rematch presented to you by Don King :)

HPS is releasing "builds" of POA2. The latest is something like Build
190.

Hmmmm. This suggests a couple of questions:

(1) What phase of software development is generally characterized by
releasing "builds" to users on a regular basis?

(2) How much should a tester pay to participate in a developer's design
process?

If our answers are "beta," and "zero," I think the essential truth of
POA2 is patently clear.

Over at warfarehq.com, a fellow named Cougar_DK posted the following:

http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8501

"Hi guys, Scott allowed me to post the changes since build 72 so you can
see how far this game has come:"

....and the enormous list of bugs fixed in the dozens of builds is simply
hair-raising. See how far the game has *come*?!? More like, take a
tour of how painfully buggy and unqualified for public consumption this
product was on the day of release.

We need to keep in mind that this is a commercially-sold, relatively
expensive product - not some open-source tinkerware that a group of
enthusiasts are building in their spare time and making available to all
comers to create new enthusiasts. For $60, I do not expect to be pining
away for another "build" so I can use my software.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> But you're exactly right. If we limited our software use to products

> which were good-to-go in v1.00.00, we wouldn't get far. So POA2
Build
> 190 (or whatever) should be evaluated on its own merits.

This whole point turned out to be pretty academic after reading Mr.
Pollard's post.

> The trouble is, all this "building" hasn't even touched on my central

> criticism of the product, which is that there are precious few
scenarios
> and little likelihood of seeing more of them. I just stopped by the
> warfarehq scenario forum for POA2, and ... well, I'll be there's more

> action on IBMs OS2/WARP forums; it's a friggin' ghost town. At
> wargamer.com ... well, they do have six scenarios for WOODEN SHIPS &
> IRON MEN, but I can't find a single one for POA2.
>
> The game has been in release ... how long, now? Exactly how many of
the
> scenarios the game's proponents assured us would be forthcoming have
> actually appeared? How long will we wait, before we at long last
> conclude that the naysayers had a point here?

Well, that's a personal judgement - I'll give it another year before
declaring it dead - mostly because I liked the *idea* behind that
engine.

> Indeed, I think the only reservation I had about POA2 that didn't pan

> out was my theory that other $59 scenario packs would be appearing
Early days there too :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

ROBERT POLLARD wrote:
> I'm willing to bet it was coded with either
> Borland Delphi or Borland C++ builder - just too many hints in the
UI.

Delphi 7.0

.... which happens to be my favourite IDE as well :)
Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1107279126.469561.76930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> HPS may have rushed the POA engine out the door - their first new
> engine since ... well ... prehistoric times - and may thus have burned
> and buried it totally, but the fact remains that the engine has
> evolved, so maybe it warrants another look.

My first concern, then, would be that our "another look" not be taken by
the same misguided folks who thought it was a viable, useful, and
worthwhile product *in the first place*. Having told us that v1.00.00
was a fine product and worthy of our $60, they can hardly expect to be
granted any credence if they claim ... well, what *can* they claim?
That their Thumbs Up was based on a build that would appear over a year
after their review appeared?

But you're exactly right. If we limited our software use to products
which were good-to-go in v1.00.00, we wouldn't get far. So POA2 Build
190 (or whatever) should be evaluated on its own merits.

The trouble is, all this "building" hasn't even touched on my central
criticism of the product, which is that there are precious few scenarios
and little likelihood of seeing more of them. I just stopped by the
warfarehq scenario forum for POA2, and ... well, I'll be there's more
action on IBMs OS2/WARP forums; it's a friggin' ghost town. At
wargamer.com ... well, they do have six scenarios for WOODEN SHIPS &
IRON MEN, but I can't find a single one for POA2.

The game has been in release ... how long, now? Exactly how many of the
scenarios the game's proponents assured us would be forthcoming have
actually appeared? How long will we wait, before we at long last
conclude that the naysayers had a point here?

Indeed, I think the only reservation I had about POA2 that didn't pan
out was my theory that other $59 scenario packs would be appearing - and
I'm not anything like convinced that these failed to materialize only
because the release code was so painfully unstable that the schedule was
seriously upset.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c693e4cc0fed6b998a159@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <1107241229.556926.118900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > Grabs popcorn, sits down........
> >
> > Cobb vs. Giftzwerg - the rematch presented to you by Don King :)
>
> HPS is releasing "builds" of POA2. The latest is something like Build
> 190.
>
> Hmmmm. This suggests a couple of questions:
>
> (1) What phase of software development is generally characterized by
> releasing "builds" to users on a regular basis?
>
> (2) How much should a tester pay to participate in a developer's design
> process?
>
> If our answers are "beta," and "zero," I think the essential truth of
> POA2 is patently clear.
>
> Over at warfarehq.com, a fellow named Cougar_DK posted the following:
>
> http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8501
>
> "Hi guys, Scott allowed me to post the changes since build 72 so you can
> see how far this game has come:"
>
> ...and the enormous list of bugs fixed in the dozens of builds is simply
> hair-raising. See how far the game has *come*?!? More like, take a
> tour of how painfully buggy and unqualified for public consumption this
> product was on the day of release.
>
> We need to keep in mind that this is a commercially-sold, relatively
> expensive product - not some open-source tinkerware that a group of
> enthusiasts are building in their spare time and making available to all
> comers to create new enthusiasts. For $60, I do not expect to be pining
> away for another "build" so I can use my software.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
> We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
> If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
> kill them."
> - Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter


Ah, HPS. Sold your soul to the TS apple in the garden, and now you're
paying the price.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,
I've had this game since it came out. The original release version was
terrible and was barely a pre-alpha build (should never have been released
in this state imo). It would throw c++ errors pretty much all of the time.
It does get patched very regularly and although not quite there yet, it is
now remarkably stable.

Some facts:
1. There are currently 12 scenarios + 1 tutorial.
2. The game needs a hefty systen to run well, although there is now an
option to reduce combat fidelity to increase game speed.
3. The fog of war system is superb on full realism and even models the
fog of war between yourself and your own troops! You spend a lot of time
trying to get together all the reports to make a coherent picture of what is
actually going on, just like real life.
4. Has built in scenario editor.
5. Maps are very difficult to make for it. Although I think this is
being looked into.
6. Weapons data and stats are now non-editable in the Db. The first
release didn't have this restriction, it was added due to the military
contract that orginally procuorde it.
7. There are TOEs for the US, Uk, CIS, Iraqi, German, French, Israeli,
China and Australia. Also includes civillians and terrorists.

I personally like the game and have played through it quite a lot. If you
can stomach the price and the fact that it is really an advanced beta at the
moment, then you cannot go far wrong.

You might want to look at his forum:
http://www.war-forums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=52

Regards
RobP


"miket6065" <miket6065@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KnCLd.25941$iC4.18874@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>I am looking at and giving some thought to buying Point of Attack 2 by HPS
>Simulations. Does anyone have any gaming experience with it?
>
> MikeT
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <rPPLd.23892$n9.3010@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk says...

> If you
> can stomach the price and the fact that it is really an advanced beta at the
> moment, then you cannot go far wrong.

Well, you can go *very* far wrong if you're one of us misbegotten souls
who feel that "price" and "beta" are mutually-exclusive terms - and who
dislike paying to test someone's software for him.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"ROBERT POLLARD" <RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rPPLd.23892$n9.3010@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Hi,
> I've had this game since it came out. The original release version was
> terrible and was barely a pre-alpha build (should never have been released
> in this state imo). It would throw c++ errors pretty much all of the time.
> It does get patched very regularly and although not quite there yet, it is
> now remarkably stable.
>
> Some facts:
> 1. There are currently 12 scenarios + 1 tutorial.
> 2. The game needs a hefty systen to run well, although there is now an
> option to reduce combat fidelity to increase game speed.
> 3. The fog of war system is superb on full realism and even models the
> fog of war between yourself and your own troops! You spend a lot of time
> trying to get together all the reports to make a coherent picture of what
is
> actually going on, just like real life.
> 4. Has built in scenario editor.
> 5. Maps are very difficult to make for it. Although I think this is
> being looked into.
> 6. Weapons data and stats are now non-editable in the Db. The first
> release didn't have this restriction, it was added due to the military
> contract that orginally procuorde it.
> 7. There are TOEs for the US, Uk, CIS, Iraqi, German, French,
Israeli,
> China and Australia. Also includes civillians and terrorists.
>
> I personally like the game and have played through it quite a lot. If you
> can stomach the price and the fact that it is really an advanced beta at
the
> moment, then you cannot go far wrong.
>
> You might want to look at his forum:
> http://www.war-forums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=52
>
> Regards
> RobP



Hmmm.....no offense, but if you like paying for a beta fine. Not me.
Whole thing reeks of an HPS mindset (along with the latest Tiller
Battleground games) of "You know, we need some *serious* cash flow to
finance these non-public military projects we have going..............idea !
Sign up Tiller et al to press some cookies, er, cds, and throw this POA pos
out the door as is."

Not that unlikely a scenario, with the current state of HPS imo.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Depends if like me, you are seriously into modern sims and there ain't many
of them around. I think I pretty much have all of them at the moment. POA2
definetley brings enough of its own toys to the party to make it worth
keeping.

BTW I have been playing the new Flashpoint game and I'm getting quite
engrossed. As Russians the most I can score is Marginal victories, but as
the Americans I kick butt! I have to say I like the game, but from one or
two of the features I have seen I'm willing to bet it was coded with either
Borland Delphi or Borland C++ builder - just too many hints in the UI. As a
useless example, you can zoom in the graph on the F6 page by left clicking
and dragging left, then unzoom by dragging right. If I had coded it I would
have disabled this feature 🙂

RobP

"Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c69a446acc0800698a15b@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <rPPLd.23892$n9.3010@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
>> If you
>> can stomach the price and the fact that it is really an advanced beta at
>> the
>> moment, then you cannot go far wrong.
>
> Well, you can go *very* far wrong if you're one of us misbegotten souls
> who feel that "price" and "beta" are mutually-exclusive terms - and who
> dislike paying to test someone's software for him.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
> We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
> If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
> kill them."
> - Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <LkRLd.33979$B5.25650@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
RobertAPollard@blueyonder.co.uk says...

> Depends if like me, you are seriously into modern sims and there ain't many
> of them around. I think I pretty much have all of them at the moment. POA2
> definetley brings enough of its own toys to the party to make it worth
> keeping.

That's really the only reason I was interested in POA2 in the first
place; there's not a whole lot of up-to-the-minute wargames.

> BTW I have been playing the new Flashpoint game and I'm getting quite
> engrossed. As Russians the most I can score is Marginal victories, but as
> the Americans I kick butt!

So far as I can see ... FG might have a wee bit of a play-balance issue,
at least in terms of a few scenario designs. Maybe. I'm still
wondering if perhaps I'm just not sufficiently up-to-speed on all the
options available to the WP side.

> I have to say I like the game, but from one or
> two of the features I have seen I'm willing to bet it was coded with either
> Borland Delphi or Borland C++ builder - just too many hints in the UI. As a
> useless example, you can zoom in the graph on the F6 page by left clicking
> and dragging left, then unzoom by dragging right. If I had coded it I would
> have disabled this feature 🙂

<shrug>

Show me a good wargame, and I don't care if they coded it in COBOL.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:


> - 4 scenario's provided, limited equipment - HPS counted on users
> creating scenario's - that didn't pan out too well - only a couple
> extra are up at the HPS site.

Actually there are a total of 12 scenarios provided - 16 if you count
that 4 of them have free set up versions.

>
> - Very high system demands

True - my 3.2Ghz hyperthreading P4 can take 10 to 15 minutes to do a
turn on the brigade sized ones. It'd run faster if it had been
programmed to take advantage of the P4's hyperthreading ability but when
I look at the task manager and check the CPU tab only one is used the
other sits at 0% usage.

> - Scenario editor is included, but for a map editor you'll need to buy
> ADC 2 (aide de camps). Even the scenario editor is limited as it won't
> let you edit the weapons table among others.

Scenario editor - needs docs - no one can figure out how to make the
thing work. Something as simple as placing Victory Objectives - huh?
Annoying to say the least. With docs this would be a very powerful
scenario creation tool.

> - ... and a developer saying things like "I do not frequent the boards,
> so anything you write there will not get to me." isn't really assuring
> that your problems or questions will be addressed.
> Greetz,
>

I sent in a bug report on Saturday about build 185 - Scott personally
e'mailed me on Sunday and a new patch was posted Monday.

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Werewolf" <nunya@no-way.net> wrote in message
news:wSWLd.12763$A_.11714@okepread03...
<snip>
>
> I sent in a bug report on Saturday about build 185 - Scott personally
> e'mailed me on Sunday and a new patch was posted Monday.
>
> --
> Werewolf
>
> Peace is Good.
> Freedom is BETTER!


It's not difficult to personally answer one of your customers emails, when
there's only a handful of customers for the game. Not like the email is
swamping him.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

James Cobb wrote:

> Say what you will about it,

oh, I will :)

> POA 2 wasn't pushed out the door. I kept in
> touch with Scott Hamilton throughout the last year of development and
he was
> tweaking for months.

There's a big difference between tweaking an engine and fixing major
game crashes. Strategic Command was pretty rock solid and playable in
the 1.0 version and then it was tweaked. POA 2 is *still* in what I
would call "regular development" and was pretty much unplayable when
initially released.

The blame for this must *not* be put on the developer, but on the
publisher. From what you're saying I gather it was not a case of the
publisher rushing it out the door, but more of a publisher not doing
the necessary quality controll. Same difference to me.

> Any game could be improved, regardless.
Now, here's something we all can agree on :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Werewolf wrote:

> Actually there are a total of 12 scenarios provided - 16 if you count

> that 4 of them have free set up versions.

Ok - my bad - was typing from memory

> > - Very high system demands
>
> True - my 3.2Ghz hyperthreading P4 can take 10 to 15 minutes to do a
> turn on the brigade sized ones. It'd run faster if it had been
> programmed to take advantage of the P4's hyperthreading ability but
when
> I look at the task manager and check the CPU tab only one is used the

> other sits at 0% usage.

Well, I can only say that - being a programmer myself - the whole
game-setup looks like a bad design. Needing a P4 3Ghz+ machine to even
run *that* slow. When designing a system you *always* take the
equipment your program will have to run on into account - otherwise
you'll end up with a Road to Moscow type of game : good ideas, lousy
execution.

> > - ... and a developer saying things like "I do not frequent the
boards,
> > so anything you write there will not get to me." isn't really
assuring
> > that your problems or questions will be addressed.
> > Greetz,
> >
>
> I sent in a bug report on Saturday about build 185 - Scott personally

> e'mailed me on Sunday and a new patch was posted Monday.

So, you're basically a beta-tester :) - don't get me wrong -
beta-testing a game-system you love can be a great thing - but it also
means that the game is still in beta - also documentation-wise - and
shouldn't have been released back then.

But "Not visiting the boards" is something else. It means that he's ok
with people sending in bug reports, but won't spend time listening to
feature requests or just answer plain support related questions - you
can also forget about creating a user community that way.

It's a mindset I don't like and which I think is counter-productive
too.

Of all the problems attributed to this game in this thread - this, for
me, is the worst.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx



Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Giftzwerg wrote:

> Scott Hamilton *is* HPS! He's the president of the company!!

Oops - didn't know that - doesn't invalidate my argument really, but
makes it look quite ironic :)

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1107328411.249460.188620@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > Say what you will about it,
>
> oh, I will :)
>
> > POA 2 wasn't pushed out the door. I kept in
> > touch with Scott Hamilton throughout the last year of development and
> he was
> > tweaking for months.
>
> There's a big difference between tweaking an engine and fixing major
> game crashes. Strategic Command was pretty rock solid and playable in
> the 1.0 version and then it was tweaked. POA 2 is *still* in what I
> would call "regular development" and was pretty much unplayable when
> initially released.
>
> The blame for this must *not* be put on the developer, but on the
> publisher. From what you're saying I gather it was not a case of the
> publisher rushing it out the door, but more of a publisher not doing
> the necessary quality controll. Same difference to me.

Even better. In this case, isn't the "developer" essentially the same
entity as the "publisher?" I mean, this is hardly a case where some
hardworking Joe Programmer runs afoul of Mr. Scheming Publisher who
rushes his brilliant-but-unready stuff out the door.

Scott Hamilton *is* HPS! He's the president of the company!!

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <6PTLd.33$rm5.2@fe04.lga>, bismarck71@charter.net says...

> Say what you will about it, POA 2 wasn't pushed out the door. I kept in
> touch with Scott Hamilton throughout the last year of development and he was
> tweaking for months. Any game could be improved, regardless.

Well. Here's an opinion that's gonna flap, all alone, atop the Forlorn
Flagpole if Silly Statements. Come now, not even the game's strongest
proponents and staunchest members of the POA2 user community are willing
to argue that it was "good to go" on the day it was released.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1107348381.035167.74360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> > Scott Hamilton *is* HPS! He's the president of the company!!
>
> Oops - didn't know that - doesn't invalidate my argument really, but
> makes it look quite ironic :)

Your argument stands tall, not that Mr. Hamilton can find any shelter
behind it; if anyone "rushed" POA2 out the door, it was *him*.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"We have freedom now, we have human rights, we have democracy.
We will invite the insurgents to take part in our system.
If they do, we will welcome them. If they don't, we will
kill them."
- Rashid Majid, Iraqi voter
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Wasn't that sold to the US Army or US Air Force before it went
commercial? I hope they got the patches (assuming the patches patch).
I bought it, but I just don't have the time anymore after installing
numerous builds of the first patch.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Nicholas Bell wrote:

> Now don't laugh too hard, but the military loves POA2. Puts there
existing
> simulators to shame (now that's a scary thought!) Mind you - they
don't
> _PLAY_ POA2, they use it as a testing simulation. So good, HPS has
received
> additional contracts.

<drops from chair> - well, just when you think you've heard it all :)

> Anyhow, the WW2 version of POA2 is in the works....sigh. And all we
really
> wanted was Tigers on the Prowl graphically updated and useable on
windows...

Any hint on a name or release date ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> Hmmm.....no offense, but if you like paying for a beta fine. Not me.
> Whole thing reeks of an HPS mindset (along with the latest Tiller
> Battleground games) of "You know, we need some *serious* cash flow to
> finance these non-public military projects we have going..............idea
!
> Sign up Tiller et al to press some cookies, er, cds, and throw this POA
pos
> out the door as is."

No, no, it's really the other way around. The USAF contract actually paid
the expenses for the public version of POA2. Seriously!

I can't argue with much of what has been said in this entire thread - but
you can't blame me - I only did the maps and unit graphics <g> (and yes I
agree they are a bitch to make). I did tell him it wasn't ready from prime
time, but Scott does things for reasons that Scott knows best. And he's
still in business after, what 14 years, which is more than most wargaming
publishers.

Now don't laugh too hard, but the military loves POA2. Puts there existing
simulators to shame (now that's a scary thought!) Mind you - they don't
_PLAY_ POA2, they use it as a testing simulation. So good, HPS has received
additional contracts.

Anyhow, the WW2 version of POA2 is in the works....sigh. And all we really
wanted was Tigers on the Prowl graphically updated and useable on windows...

Nicholas Bell
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Nicholas Bell" <nbell@icdc.com> wrote in message
news:110icdqj96708be@corp.supernews.com...
> > Hmmm.....no offense, but if you like paying for a beta fine. Not me.
> > Whole thing reeks of an HPS mindset (along with the latest Tiller
> > Battleground games) of "You know, we need some *serious* cash flow to
> > finance these non-public military projects we have
going..............idea
> !
> > Sign up Tiller et al to press some cookies, er, cds, and throw this POA
> pos
> > out the door as is."
>
> No, no, it's really the other way around. The USAF contract actually paid
> the expenses for the public version of POA2. Seriously!
>
> I can't argue with much of what has been said in this entire thread - but
> you can't blame me - I only did the maps and unit graphics <g> (and yes I
> agree they are a bitch to make). I did tell him it wasn't ready from
prime
> time, but Scott does things for reasons that Scott knows best. And he's
> still in business after, what 14 years, which is more than most wargaming
> publishers.
>
> Now don't laugh too hard, but the military loves POA2. Puts there existing
> simulators to shame (now that's a scary thought!) Mind you - they don't
> _PLAY_ POA2, they use it as a testing simulation. So good, HPS has
received
> additional contracts.
>
> Anyhow, the WW2 version of POA2 is in the works....sigh. And all we
really
> wanted was Tigers on the Prowl graphically updated and useable on
windows...
>
> Nicholas Bell



Hehe, ok, thanks for the info..............although TOP updated was my
wish too.





>
>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom