Quote:
Originally Posted by Waraddict";p="
Believe me it feels VERY different from Generals, first of all the game is mainly urban, General's cities are nothing in comparison to AoW's, the buildings even have positional damage.
second, battles are a bit more small scaled then Generals, rarely is it a good idea to even build more then ten tanks, you end up mixing units a hell of a lot.
third, infantry die from tank shells.
fourth, despite the third point, infantry are extremely useful in AoW, why? well they can take cover in shrubbery to be camoflauged and given a weapons bonus, they can not only garrison buildings but shoot from roof-tops too, and infantry are the best solution to clearing enemy garrisoned buildings as well (makes a lot more sense then how Generals did it).
fifth, planes are not directly controllable, they work like purchasable special powers, but they're very powerful.
I could go on for ever, the only true resemblance in gameplay between AoW and Generals is the near-future theme.
|
but is it moddable?
as for the 'third part' infantries die from tank shells too in generals....after 1000 rounds tho
and....i hate urban wars....i like desert/snow whatever wars....not just urban.
and im just reading reviews of it and i found one thats really interesting
Quote:
If you look for a well done RTS with great gameplay and cool useful units, which is also fun in multiplayer, get Generals Zero Hour.
If you're looking for a long boring single player part with overdone graphics, hours of boring video mission briefings and little gameplay quality get AoW.
|