|
KILLING
FOES FOR PEACE
First
column of the new year and it appears the powers that
be have decided to give me a 'comer' of my own. It makes
sense really, as I've been doing specialist strategy
reviews and essays for a few months now and it seems
they've gone down relatively well. As I've stated in
previous issues, there are plenty of good strategy games
to review. Eventually, I hope to get to see some SSI
titles via US Gold but that depends on whether Mr Penn
can remember to get on to his contacts there during
the next month (hint). In the meantime, there are a
couple of new games to take a look at, these being Falklands
82 from PSS and Argus Press Software's The Evil
Crown.
One
of the more interesting things I came across this month,
was the suggestion in the Sunday Press that Falklands
82 was distasteful because there is a possibility
that the Argentinians might win. Now, you can discover
my own views on the game later in the column, but more
importantly, my own views on the game -- and indeed
anyone else's, should not be based entirely on whether
one side or another could 'win'. Certainly, if the case
was that one or another side constantly won, that would
be a valid reason to criticise a game. But the fact
that over the past few years, strategy games have earned
a certain degree of respect that has largely eluded
other games, makes me surprised that the news feature
took the tone it did. Do the majority of people in the
mass media really want us to believe something just
because it is important to them? I suppose the answer
must be yes.
If
the majority of the public as a whole believe such --
after all, what we read does affect us to some
degree -- then how exactly does that microcosm of society
known as the Strategy gamer, feel? Is there that feeling
of wrongness because performance in a particular game
was poor? Or is it that one just has to win to gain
some sense of achievement in a genre so evidently a
test of one's logical capabilities rather than the speed
at which a joystick can be waggled? I sometimes wonder.
Problems
with any kind of strategy game or indeed hints and suggestions
for play are always welcome (I don't get a lot of mail,
being into this specialist stuff, you see). If there's
enough response, I should be able to print a useful
reference column. So get pen to paper. If you're reading
this, then the chances are you're interested at least
to a small degree. I'm interested in what you have to
say, so let's hear it... Until next issue, have fun.
.
|
|
The
new year brings with it one of the most controversial
games since PSS's Theatre Europe. Again the game
is a modern strategy simulation and again the company
concerned is PSS. This time however, the conflict is
in no way a hypothetical vision of the apocalypse. This
one has already happened -- in recent years too. Falklands
82 is PSS's attempt to recreate the brief but relatively
bloody war fought between Argentina and Great Britain
only three and a half years ago.
Many
have felt that the subject was 'too close to home' and
some felt that PSS's own tendency to include arcade
type sequences into their wargames would somehow trivialise
the affair. In fact, this is the first game the company
has released without even the option of arcade sequences.
Instead, a fully fledged wargame solely dependent on
its ability to simulate the actions of what many have
called the last of the Imperialistic wars, has been
released.
The
game comes packaged in an unusually small format for
PSS, being only a conventional cassette slip case rather
than their 'traditional' bookcase cover. Inside is a
comprehensive instruction book, which is well presented
and highly readable. The instructions themselves are
not complicated and, as seems to be the norm with English
strategy software, it's designed with the beginner in
mind (whilst still catering for the more experienced
gamer). The instructions detail all the information
supplied with each unit and how it affects play, victory
conditions, and all the other game-related material,
with a directness and clarity which is fast becoming
one of the strongest points in PSS's presentation.
Basically
then, the game takes place in the northern part of East
Falkland Island, beginning with the actual British landings
on the Island. All the sea-sea and air-sea parts of
the conflict are skipped (except for certain reports
which will be elaborated upon later). Across the section
of Island are ten settlements that need to be liberated
by the British forces within a given number of game
turns (the exact number of which depends on the difficulty
level set by the player). British and Argentine forces
are split up into different kinds of units of varying
strength. Unit capabilities are Aggression Factor, Defensive
Factor, Movement Factor and Range Factor, expressed
in purely abstract terms. Units themselves are displayed
in the form of redefined character blocks.
The
screen shows only that part of the Falklands covered
by the game with terrain markers, major settlements
and installations (such as the airfield) and the four
possible landing sites for the forces. Once the landing
site has been selected and the forces have embarked,
gameplay is incredibly simple, being a case of following
prompts and making uncomplicated decisions. Airstrikes
can be summoned in good weather (as can support from
the task force) and the Argentinian airforce will occasionally
break through your air defence and strike against one
of the land units (an announced strike is not necessarily
successful) or the task force itself.
Enemy
units are hidden until scouted by advanced allied units
or engaged in combat. One of the options for the SAS
and SBS units available to the player is the Reconnoitre
option, which will spot ranged enemy units. However,
once play commences, things become worrying. Combat
can be with any other unit in range. However, the way
it is handled by the computer, using, say ,an SAS unit
to back up conventional infantry against an Argentinian
infantry unit, has no effect at all. Instead of recognising
the kind of sabotage and confusion a specialist unit
would cause while the main force kept the large proportion
of the enemy occupied, the computer simply goes off
attack factors and happily wipes out the SAS and commences
combat between the other two. This reduces your special
forces to the level of recon troops -- not the most
realistic of evaluations by any means.
Proximity
and Zone of Control can also have weird effects if a
cluster of units is located in a small area. Allocating
fire missions from artillery works fairly well, but
some of the randomisation factors for damage results
must be unreliable when on a clear day, an Argentinian
unit is attacked by air, sea, land and indirect fire,
in clear terrain -- and comes out unscathed! When handling
orders for a particular unit, if an enemy airstrike
occurs (no matter whom it is directed against) that
unit loses the ability to accept orders for the rest
of that turn. Why?
However,
considering the game requires the recapture of ten settlements
and the successful defence of those settlements one
full game turn after their capture, there is no reason
why, if this is achieved, the game should have to he
mechanically played out for the required number of
|
