Shattered Union impressions?

Turtle · Post by **Turtle** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:57 am

Anyone getting this on release day? I've been looking for a good turn based game for a while now and this could be it.

Anyone know if there's play by email for multi?

abr · Post by **abr** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:46 am

I'd also be interested in some impressions. Play is shipping the game since yesterday, but without a review, I'm not quite willing to take the plunge.

So please step forward, honored guinea pigs!

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:24 am

There's PBEM if I've read everything correctly.

Charlatan · Post by **Charlatan** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:03 am

Let's push this to page two so we can get some actual impressions...

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:04 am

I preordered this one. I like PopTop, Panzer General, and Advance Wars plus the American civil war setting sounded pretty cool. I hope it's fun.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:16 am

Is this really due out this week? Day-am. This is a game I have been pining for. Count me in for some PBEM.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:40 am

Hmm yeah, this snuck under my radar, but it looks pretty interesting. EB has it listed on their website as available, but does anyone know if it's in stores yet?

s

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 10:41 am

I like the setting. Ever wanted to bomb Texas? Well now you can! (eagerly waiting for impressions too!)

Bullwinkle · Post by **Bullwinkle** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:25 am

plus the American civil war setting sounded pretty cool.

I'm assuming your lack of capital letters was intentional, rmorton, but just in case someone pops in without knowing about the game, it's not the American Civil War, it's a modern civil war in America (or really slightly in our future).

abr · Post by **abr** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:34 am

Sepiche wrote:Hmm yeah, this snuck under my radar, but it looks pretty interesting. EB has it listed on their website as available, but does anyone know if it's in stores yet?

s

At least for the UK, it apparently is ...

Benhur · Post by **Benhur** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:38 am

My copy is in transit for an afternoon delivery to my house, so I'm going to assume it will be in stores today. I order online now since EB and Gamestop have been very fickle about B&M PC game deliveries lately.

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:52 am

Bullwinkle wrote:
plus the American civil war setting sounded pretty cool.
I'm assuming your lack of capital letters was intentional, rmorton, but just in case someone pops in without knowing about the game, it's not the American Civil War, it's a modern civil war in America (or really slightly in our future).

Yeah, that was misleading of me. Thanks.

This ain't the Civil War:

Gizah · Post by **Gizah** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:58 am

Wow. Tanks are a lot bigger in the near future.

The Preacher · Post by **The Preacher** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:03 pm

Gizah wrote:Wow. Tanks are a lot bigger in the near future.

They know Godzooky is getting older.

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 1:27 pm

The Wargamer wrote a preview posted yesterday if anyone wants some background on the game

Lockdown · Post by **Lockdown** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:18 pm

I got it at lunch, but it sits in my car unopened for now.

I will give some quick impressions after playing tonight.

I can tell you that the box was on the light side and the cost was 29 buck-a-roos for the pc version. (xbox version was 39 I think).

LD

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:18 pm

Picked it up at the local EB over lunch. Kind of surprised me, but the price tag on this one is only $30. If you're on the fence I'd say go for it based on price alone.

Game has 2 discs and a thin manual. Nothing special there, but I wasn't expecting much. I'll give some more impressions tomorrow most likely.

Manual doesn't have anything in it about PBEM, but I'll know for sure tonight.

s

dfs · Post by **dfs** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:32 pm

If you're on the fence I'd say go for it based on price alone.

You think the price will go up?

You think at some unspecified time in the future they will patch the game to make it worse than it is now?

Seriously...Why buy now? I mean...I like Phil and all that. He seems like a good guy, but he isn't there anymore and the games they've made are games that I feel I should have liked, but I've never found them really engaging. I don't mean to pee in anybodies cheerios or anything, but...Why buy now?

Because it looks a lot like Panzer General? ....Funny thing about that is that ...after the first one I didn't really like those games either. They never were able to catch that lightning in a bottle feel the first one had.

I hope it's a great game, and that sometime in the next 12 months I pick it up and love every minute of it, but....I'll let somebody else do the reviewing/debugging.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:46 pm

dfs wrote:
If you're on the fence I'd say go for it based on price alone.
You think the price will go up?

You think at some unspecified time in the future they will patch the game to make it worse than it is now?

Seriously...Why buy now? I mean...I like Phil and all that. He seems like a good guy, but he isn't there anymore and the games they've made are games that I feel I should have liked, but I've never found them really engaging. I don't mean to pee in anybodies cheerios or anything, but...Why buy now?

Because it looks a lot like Panzer General? ....Funny thing about that is that ...after the first one I didn't really like those games either. They never were able to catch that lightning in a bottle feel the first one had.

I hope it's a great game, and that sometime in the next 12 months I pick it up and love every minute of it, but....I'll let somebody else do the reviewing/debugging.

Umm.... because I like the idea of companies releasing games at lower price points and purchasing said games is a way of showing support?

Get up on the wrong side of the bed there chief?

s

dfs · Post by **dfs** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 2:54 pm

Get up on the wrong side of the bed there chief?

Yeah...It sounds like it doesn't it?

Me back hurts. Too much to do. Hey, you kids ! Get off my lawn.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:07 pm

dfs wrote:
Get up on the wrong side of the bed there chief?
Yeah...It sounds like it doesn't it?

Me back hurts. Too much to do. Hey, you kids ! Get off my lawn.

No worries mate. Back pain gives you a free pass in my book.

s

SlyFrog · Post by **SlyFrog** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:22 pm

Sepiche wrote:Umm.... because I like the idea of companies releasing games at lower price points and purchasing said games is a way of showing support?

Get up on the wrong side of the bed there chief?

s

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'll admit, I'm always confused at people who express a desire to "support" the game industry, as if it is some warm and fuzzy creature just dying to be loved.

It's a corporation, out to make cash. The sole question should be whether it is worth $30, or whether it makes more sense to wait for it to drop in price. The latter statement is dependent in part about how quickly you think it will drop, etc. His statement seemed perfectly reasonable.

Whenever I buy something for $50 (or $30) that does not turn out to be popular, such that the price drops to $10 in a couple of months, I never think, "Oh, I'm so happy, I supported the gaming industry." I think I'm an idiot for not having some patience and getting a better deal.

Your milage may very, I just don't think that other people expressing the same opinion means they are grumpy.

Velvet Elvis · Post by **Velvet Elvis** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:31 pm

In this case I would look at it as supporting the part of the game industry that takes a gamble by releasing a turn-based game.

If enough people buy it, somebody might make another one.

SlyFrog · Post by **SlyFrog** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:47 pm

Velvet Elvis wrote:In this case I would look at it as supporting the part of the game industry that takes a gamble by releasing a turn-based game.

If enough people buy it, somebody might make another one.

I agree with that to an extent, but only to the extent that I am genuinely interested in that turn based game (which by extension means that I think it is probably worth $30). But I assume that if the game is good enough, it will hold its price point for awhile, and I will not be able to pick it up cheaply, and will buy it early. If the game does not look that interesting, I will not buy it just because it is turned based and I hope they will hit the target next time.

Sepiche · Post by **Sepiche** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 4:48 pm

SlyFrog wrote:
Sepiche wrote:Umm.... because I like the idea of companies releasing games at lower price points and purchasing said games is a way of showing support?

Get up on the wrong side of the bed there chief?

s
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'll admit, I'm always confused at people who express a desire to "support" the game industry, as if it is some warm and fuzzy creature just dying to be loved.

It's a corporation, out to make cash. The sole question should be whether it is worth $30, or whether it makes more sense to wait for it to drop in price. The latter statement is dependent in part about how quickly you think it will drop, etc. His statement seemed perfectly reasonable.

Whenever I buy something for $50 (or $30) that does not turn out to be popular, such that the price drops to $10 in a couple of months, I never think, "Oh, I'm so happy, I supported the gaming industry." I think I'm an idiot for not having some patience and getting a better deal.

Your milage may very, I just don't think that other people expressing the same opinion means they are grumpy.

Well if that's your take on it, that's fine. Personally, I use the only voice I have when companies do things I like or don't like, and that's by purchasing or not purchasing their products. Admitedly it's not much of a voice by itself, but it has worked well for generations past, and thus far our economy is still running.

If I sounded dismissive in my post it's only because I made what I felt was an off handed comment indicating my delight that a new game was being released at $30 instead of the usual $50 and was greeted with what I viewed was an unwarrented attack. I responded to it, as I have your post, but I would prefer to not derail this thread any further.

s

Queequeg · Post by **Queequeg** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:18 pm

Just an FYI for those thinking that Phil Steinmeyer was involved in this game - Phil left Poptop almost a year ago.

Edit : Bah! Nevermind - I see somebody mentioned this above.

Jow · Post by **Jow** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:19 pm

Eagerly awaiting the impressions on this one. I hit a local EBgames today looking for it and didn't see it on the shelf, so decided, instead of impulse shopping, to actually wait for some positive buzz before I pick it up.

Vinda-Lou · Post by **Vinda-Lou** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:45 pm

Please to be having impressions.

Lockdown · Post by **Lockdown** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:25 pm

Very brief:

1) Multiplayer options listed are LAN, Internet, Hot Seat.

2) No support for my native resolution of 1280x1024, which really bites. But there is one widescreen support (I think) res. supported. It was some wierd number.

3) Three tutorials that are more like instruction videos. Campaign, Unit Stats, and Beginning Combat (or something like that). Pretty basic, but they convey enough information to play.

4) Units are divided into classes, then within the classes you get a few choices. One example is Infantry Class with choices of Engineer, Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Commandos, etc...

5) Unit Costs seem to be well balanced. Heavy Armor > Medium Armor > Light Armor > Infantry. Etc, etc...

6) Units have quite a few stats. Attack rating vs. Infantry, Armor, Air. Range. Spot distance. Defense, etc...

7) Skirmish setup is pretty basic. Choose sides (2 only), choose map, choose starting money to pick your units, choose attacker/defender, choose AI difficulty (5 levels I think). I was expecting more here, but it's functional.

8) If you free the camera, you can zoom in and out alot, as well as change the pitch from top-down to almost horizontal. Maps are real-US locations. Objectives on the Colorado map are places like Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, etc...

9) Political Reputation is a very cool concept. Depending on where you fall in the "scale" will depend on your special powers you can call in during the encounter. If you are a more "defensive" player, your scale will slide that way, and you will be given powers that tend to be more defensive in nature. Same goes the other way, regarding offensive powers.

10) Graphics are fine. Animations are fine. Sounds are fine. Could be worse, could be better.

11) Repair units between encounters is a cool option. Much cheaper than buying new ones. Units can gain experience during battles, although I haven't seen it yet. Ups the stats apparently.

12) Feels like a tactical type board game to me. I like it so far. Remember the game M.A.X. ? - Sort of reminds me of that, although I haven't played that game in a loooonnnnggggg time. It's certainly future, but very near future, so you will reckognize nearly all units.

I haven't played very much at all, so the chances of me answering questions are slim, but feel free to ask.

LD

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:31 pm

Looks like People's General to me. Am I wrong? For $30, I'll pick it up eventually, but Diplomacy will hold me until Civ IV next week, and between that and The Movies I can't see myself devoting any time to it right now. Maybe after the first, during the "down" season.

Lockdown · Post by **Lockdown** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:35 pm

I would say an updated People's General isn't too far of a stretch.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:52 pm

Lockdown wrote:I would say an updated People's General isn't too far of a stretch.

And that wouldn't be a bad game at all if true - I loved People's General - it was a very underrated game.

Lockdown · Post by **Lockdown** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:19 pm

Played a bit more. I'm not too sure just how "deep" the game is. I need to dig some more, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear people say it is not really different enough from anything out there already (minus the pretty animations and the special powers thing). One of the things I really liked about M.A.X. and Fantasy General was the ability to "upgrade" units before an encounter. I'm not seeing any of that in this game... not that I should have expected to see it mind you... but once you taste that customization thing, it kind of sucks not having it. How sad am I that every time I play a game like this, I think about Missionforce Cyberstorm and remember what was a truly great Turn-Based-Strategy (Tactical) game...

Oh well. I'll dig in deeper later in the week.

Vinda-Lou · Post by **Vinda-Lou** » Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:52 pm

Would comparing this to Advanced Wars be far off the mark? At least the tactical decision-making aspect?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:07 am

Lockdown wrote:I think about Missionforce Cyberstorm and remember what was a truly great Turn-Based-Strategy (Tactical) game...

god, i loved that game. lost many, many hours to it....

Incendiary Lemon · Post by **Incendiary Lemon** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:26 am

No plans for a Demo?

Rincewind · Post by **Rincewind** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:58 am

Incendiary Lemon wrote:No plans for a Demo?

Veloxi · Post by **Veloxi** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 2:08 am

hepcat wrote:
Lockdown wrote:I think about Missionforce Cyberstorm and remember what was a truly great Turn-Based-Strategy (Tactical) game...
god, i loved that game. lost many, many hours to it....

Indeed, MF:C is one of those games that always has a place on my hard drive. I even enjoyed the sequel.

abr · Post by **abr** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:10 am

A "few" questions:

1. How is the strategic part of the game, i.e. what kind of decisions can you make?

2. Are you only moving troops around or can you also improve your territories?

3. How do you aquire new units? Do you simply buy them or do you need certain resources?

4. Does the strategic part do a good job of joining the battles together?

5. I understand that in the tactical battles, your goal is to capture a number of cities. What happens if you fail to capture all of them within the set turn limit? Does the attack fail as a whole or can you continue the attack from the current situation in the next (strategic) turn?

6. Are there any other goals besides capturing cities and destroying enemy units in the tactical battles?

7. Is there diplomacy?

8. How good is the AI at handling strategic decisions/tactical battles/diplomacy?

9. Finally, is the game fun?

Is there something you don't like?

Thanks to anyone who is willing to take a shot at answering these questions!

Lockdown · Post by **Lockdown** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:06 am

abroctopus wrote:A "few" questions:

1. How is the strategic part of the game, i.e. what kind of decisions can you make? Not many from what I remember. Start turn. Watch AI try to attack different "states". Either it changes color or it doesn't, letting you know if the attacker or defender won. Then you pick a "state" and attack it. Goes into tactical mode. Pretty damn basic from the little I played.

2. Are you only moving troops around or can you also improve your territories? You aren't really moving units around at all from what I can tell on the strategic map. It's not like Risk. You have a standing army and you choose which pieces to bring into an encounter/skirmish.

3. How do you aquire new units? Do you simply buy them or do you need certain resources? You simply buy them. Or you aquire them from the tactical map in certain situations.

4. Does the strategic part do a good job of joining the battles together? I am not deep enough in to answer this yet. Sorry.

5. I understand that in the tactical battles, your goal is to capture a number of cities. What happens if you fail to capture all of them within the set turn limit? Does the attack fail as a whole or can you continue the attack from the current situation in the next (strategic) turn? I don't know. My guess is the attack is considered a failure and you have to try again from scratch. But that is a guess only.

6. Are there any other goals besides capturing cities and destroying enemy units in the tactical battles? Not significantly. There are special tiles in specific areas that do grant overall bonuses. Think of RoN. If an area has an airfield and you take that "state" - the cost of your air units will go down. Stuff like that.

7. Is there diplomacy? No idea. I don't remember seeing it though.

8. How good is the AI at handling strategic decisions/tactical battles/diplomacy? Haven't played near long enough to make any type of determination on this, sorry.

9. Finally, is the game fun? Is there something you don't like? There is alot I don't like. But the game is fun for what it seems to be. Too early to make any type of concrete decisions yet. It really reminds me of a tactical boardgame type thing with a superficial campaign thrown in to string some objectives together. But it could be much more than that, and I just haven't gotten near far along enough into it to tell.

Thanks to anyone who is willing to take a shot at answering these questions!

You are welcome. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.