saber
عدد المساهمات : 1689
نقاط : 9347
السٌّمعَة : 10
تاريخ التسجيل : 27/02/2013
 | | موضوع: Tank Operations: European Campaign Review (PC) الثلاثاء ديسمبر 03, 2013 12:00 pm | |
| Tank Operations: European Campaign Review (PC) | Tank Operations: European Campaign by Linked Dimensions |  See editor's ratings |
 The good:
+ Some historical elements
+ Interesting use of naval assets
 The bad:
- No innovation
- Uninformative user interface
- Poor presentation
 Final score: 6 / 10
 Controller support: No
|  System requirements:
Minimum system requirements
XP or Vista or Windows 7
1.8 GHz single-core processor
1 GB of RAM
Open GL 2.0 compatible 256 MB RAM card
400 MB of free hard drive space
Recommended system requirements
XP or Vista or Windows 7
2.4 GHz single-core processor
2 GB of RAM
Open GL 2.0 compatible 512 MB RAM card
500 MB of free hard drive space |
|
 |
World War II might just be the most used setting ever in video games, regardless of genre, and it gets another outing in Tank Operations: European Campaign, a game that might appeal to some hard core history enthusiasts, but will probably prove too obtuse and interesting for the rest of the strategy-focused audience.
The title was created by Linked Dimensions and published by Kalypso Digital Media and I wish that both companies would have put some more time and resources into its development because it could have been an interesting update on the Panzer General formula.
The basic concept is relatively simple to grasp: gamers become the head commander of the Allied force, built mostly from American and British forces, who are leading the invasion of Europe and Northern Africa as the tides of World War II are turning.
They will have access to a variety of assets that include tanks, infantry, long-range artillery, air support and naval units, which need to be carefully coordinated in order to take out enemy troops, secure locations and destroy bases.
Tank Operations uses a classic hex-based turn system, with the player able to move his own units in any order he chooses before the computer does the same.
 |  | Landing ready | European war |
[color]
The first scenario deals with the Operation Torch, which served as a general rehearsal for Overlord, and there’s a solid chance that some gamers will never get past it.
The landing situation means that the Allied force needs to take out a number of reinforced artillery positions, while taking out other units that are rushing to the beach using limited assets.
Air strikes are present in the game, as they were in the real world, incredibly important because they allow a player to quickly take out bunkers and tanks as long as they are properly used.
Naval fire seems a little weak, especially considering how much the Allies relied on it, but it can still be a game changer as long as destroyers and battleships focus on the same target.
All units have a special skill that needs to be carefully considered when moving them around the map and solid scouting is necessary to make sure that the enemy is not preparing a powerful counterattack.
The AI knows how to concentrate its forces in order to take out the weakest player-controlled units, but it sometimes also launches doomed and unnecessary moves, like sacrificing aircraft in pointless attacks on aircraft carriers, a unit that also seems to lack its real-world weaknesses.
Maybe the biggest problem with Tank Operations: European Campaign is the quality of the graphics, which are barebones and not terribly informative.
The units are ugly, their movements stunted and weird, there is no effort to create an interesting presentation that would draw players in.
The earlier referenced Panzer General delivered a better experience in its third installment and it would have been nice to see the developer focus more on giving the experience a clearly identifiable style rather than the classic look of military strategy.
The sound design is equally disappointing and does not manage to convey the scale of the combat or the high stakes that are involved.
Tank Operations: European Campaign includes no multiplayer options.
The game is a solid example of an experience that could have delivered something interesting and engaging, but fails to progress past the core ideas of its genre and remains mired in the same ideas that have dominated it for the last 10 years.
I understand that smaller development teams do not have the resources, in terms of money and personnel, to create games with impressive graphics quality or high detail, but I expect them to try to innovate at least it one important area of the experience.
[/color] |
| |
|
