Tom Clancy's EndWar - demo on 360

I did a search and couldn't find a topic for this...

Has anyone tried out the EndWar demo avail on the 360? The demo allows for 1v1 skirmish against AI and 1v1 MP - anyone try the MP yet?

I played a little bit last night (two skirmish games against the AI), and I have to say that I am impressed with how solid the voice command system was. Especially once you enabled the advanced command options which opened up your command palette. The tutorial spins you up quickly, and by the first skirmish I had the system down pretty well (though I didn't quite understand how to use upgrades or tactical aids effectively).

However, I am not sure if the game play by itself is enough to make it a purchase... I'd be curious to hear/see how it plays in a MP environment. Anyone out there with feedback?

Ohhhh, nice. Thanks for the heads up! I gotta pull that down.

It runs nicely enough, but I'm finding the voice commands pretty unwieldy for putting together any tactics beyond "X unit attack Y enemy." Sure, you can move the cursor around and tell units to move to specific locations, but the camera controls aren't very intuitive. I especially don't like the way it sticks to one unit at a time and you can't freely move it around, and that you can't freely change the camera height. A few of the voice command options the game describes I don't think it fully recognizes either; if I remember correctly, one of the pre-mission tutorials said you could say something like "Unit 1 plus 2" and it would select both and let you order both or make a group, but it didn't register any of the times I tried it. I still think it was fun, though; sort of analogous to Civ Rev as far as the watered down aspect goes.

I do agree on the camera issues - that was an issue for me as well. You can change the setting to improve the distance from the camera. I want to play a little bit more to see if the issue is something I can overcome as a player (i.e. see it as an artifact to how am I used to play versus the best way to play.

Peronthious wrote:

A few of the voice command options the game describes I don't think it fully recognizes either; if I remember correctly, one of the pre-mission tutorials said you could say something like "Unit 1 plus 2" and it would select both and let you order both or make a group, but it didn't register any of the times I tried it. I still think it was fun, though; sort of analogous to Civ Rev as far as the watered down aspect goes.

In order to the do the unit 1 plus unit 2 thing requires you to enable the advanced voice commands. That also allows you to quickly setup control groups and issue orders to teams of units using voice.

I really need to explore the game a little more to offer up more feedback, with MP being a big unknown right now.

HedgeWizard wrote:

In order to the do the unit 1 plus unit 2 thing requires you to enable the advanced voice commands. That also allows you to quickly setup control groups and issue orders to teams of units using voice.

I really need to explore the game a little more to offer up more feedback, with MP being a big unknown right now.

Ah, I didn't even notice that. I played a bit of the multiplayer, and it's quite entertaining. A bit chaotic, but I suppose it gets easier as you get used to the controls and build up core strategies, like in any RTS or RTT.

I downloaded but haven't had time to fire it up. Can you send parallel commands through the controller and by voice at the same time? I saw a movie of one of the devs demoing the game and noticed that when the sh*t hit the fan he stopped saying commands and just reverted to the controller.

Yea, you don't have to use the voice commands at all if you don't want to, but they certainly do make things a bit more streamlined.

Voice control works amazingly well. I'm kind of iffy on the game besides that though, it almost seems as if the entire game was built around voice command, which has hindered the game from much depth. I was basically fooling around with the voice commands, send units to places, having them attack, etc, while not really paying any attention to anything other than the minimap; yes I won every time as well. Thats the kind of death-by-simplicity I'm referring to. I'll have to give the demo a go a few more times to make any kind of solid verdict, but for now it seems like a neat execution in voice command and not very substantial as far as RTS games go.

I liked what I played so far. Seems very simple so far, but not boring. I didn't have a problem with the camera, I like that the game doesn't give you unlimited access to the battlefield. It's not the tradition RTS god-camera, though, it's tied to the units. The voice commands worked quite well for me, but for about 2 minutes at the start of one match it wouldn't recognize anything I said. Otherwise it hung right in there, even understand when I changed commands in mid-sentence. Time will tell if the game has legs, though.

Damn you, ubi, I was planning on skipping Tom Clancy this xmas.

Asz wrote:

I was basically fooling around with the voice commands, send units to places, having them attack, etc, while not really paying any attention to anything other than the minimap; yes I won every time as well.

Did you play skirmish on expert AI difficulty? It gets much more aggressive.

Voice Commands yes, everything else, no.

Incidentally I think the 'back' button brings up an overhead map that can be rotated and zoomed.

I tried it last night and thought it was really good. I actually like the fact that the camera is tied to specific units, and you just can't zoom around the battlefield. I found the voice command worked really well, and it did make me feel like I was actually commanding the units as opposed to just pressing buttons.

A cool moment for me last night was when I had accidentally moved my gunships into range of the anti-air transports. They started to take major damage so I said "Unit 4 retreat", then immediately following "Unit 3 (my tanks) attack hostile 1". In just a few seconds my gunships had scrambled away and my tanks start to roll through some trees and shred the anti-air transports. I thought afterwards how much faster it was to do those commands vocally, then using the controller instead.

I need more time with the demo (hoping to do some 1 vs 1 soon), and to put the full game through its paces, but End War is starting to convince me that perhaps voice is one of the best ways to do RTS's on the console.

Downloaded this - will give it a go over the weekend, sound intriguing.

Danjo Olivaw wrote:

I downloaded but haven't had time to fire it up. Can you send parallel commands through the controller and by voice at the same time? I saw a movie of one of the devs demoing the game and noticed that when the sh*t hit the fan he stopped saying commands and just reverted to the controller.

You can't issue different commands via voice and controller at the same time; once you select a unit with either method you must issue a command or cancel out of it.

I ended up playing one more quick 1v1 skirmish game last night with the intent of not using the controller at all. It was completely doable. Though when I was in the map overview/sitrep, I did use the controller to move the cursor around to highlight enemy units so that I would know who to target. But all commands were issued via voice. It was my third game, and I felt like I had a good mastery of the commands and options.

I absolutely feel this is the way for future RTS game to go. I was able to quickly navigate all over the place and issue commands on a whim. However, I am not sure the game has legs...

The strategy part is very simplistic rock-paper-scissors style. There is very little tactical depth - no flanking, positioning is virtually irrelevant, cover outside of infantry in buildings is not included, etc. I do tend to prefer games with a lot more tactical meat to them (CoH being one of my most favorite examples of fun/playable with tactical depth).

That being said though, it was kind of fun being able to relax a bit on the micro-dept and just throw units at other units. I get the feeling that good MP matches will be frantic, semi-chaotic bouts which might make for a fun RTS-lite experience.

I don't get a chance to play often or for very long (part of being a new dad), but feel free to hit me up for some demo 1v1 action. Word of warning: I suck at all MP games.

HedgeWizard wrote:

I absolutely feel this is the way for future RTS game to go...

... for casual gamers.

Have you ever seen a serious/pro RTS style match? These people can issues hundreds of commands through hotkeys and clicks a minute. Only a professional rapper could talk that fast, and fingers don't need to breathe... This may be a cool, gimmicky way to control and play an RTS, but voice is not responsive enough for serious players, and there's a huge competitive market, just like sports and FPS games.

Think about why we don't all use text to speech to write everyday. The technology's there, but fingers move faster and are less disruptive to surrounding people (and aren't subject to noise in the environment). Every office would sound like a call center if we used text to speech for everything. Games aren't completely comparable, but the principles are the same. This would be fun for about 10 minutes in my house before my Wife decided to kill me.

Shoal07 wrote:
HedgeWizard wrote:

I absolutely feel this is the way for future RTS game to go...

... for casual gamers.

You're right, I should have stipulated for Console RTS - which by definition I think will tend towards the casual precisely because you don't have all of those quick input methods like mouse + keyboard (yet).

Though I will say, that if I had an equivalent in a game like CoH, I would use it - albeit infrequently. It would be precisely the situation where I was trying to issue different orders at the same moment.

HedgeWizard wrote:

It would be precisely the situation where I was trying to issue different orders at the same moment.

That's what was in my mind as well. Sounds like they've got more of a proof of concept on their hands than a full game.

I had a quick go of this last night, and really enjoyed it. I used to love playing RTS games on the PC, but have found console ports to generally be fiddly and unsatisfying to play. The voice command was very natural and fun to use, and I got the fright of my life when I gave my first 'unfollowable' order (telling a tank to occupy a building) and the robo-voice spoke straight to me through my headset 'SORRY SIR, CAN'T DO THAT'. I may give it a go when it's released, depends on what the reviews (here and elsewhere) are like. Good concept, need to see how much depth there is.

I cannot find a catch all on this, so I figured I would post it here:

Game Trailer's review is up.

They thought very highly of the game and praised it's polish and execution.

After the demo and their review, this became a must buy for me when I get home.

Nice review, now I have to try out the demo.
Damn enablers.

BadKen wrote:

Nice review, now I have to try out the demo.
Damn enablers.

Be sure to enable advanced audio commands in the options when you're tinkering with the demo. Then you can see more of the potential for the voice commands like ordering multiple groups at once or ordering a group to retreat.

Arise thread! I have spent the past few weeks putting this game through its paces and wanted to offer some impressions.

The big hook for this game is the ability to play it completely with your voice. A few posts back, I was harping about the voice controls and how it would become on the best ways to implement RTS control on a console. After spending a great degree of time with End War, I still stand behind this statement with a a slightly modified stance. The voice control is a great supplement to the standard controls. While you can control everything with your voice, it is often more efficient to simply press a button to issue a simple order, like bringing up the map. Voice control really shines when you use it in conjunction with standard controls to allow for more orders to be issued more efficiently. An example of this is when I have barricaded a capture point with a squad and am waiting to see what my enemy will throw at me while my reinforcements are landing. While keeping an eye on the horizon, I am notified that another of my squads have deployed to the field. Without having to go to the map and manually tell them to capture another point, I simply speak the command in and off my squad goes. After receiving notification that my artillery has deployed to the field, I bring up the map and manually direct the arty to a spot on the field that puts their range of fire into enemy terroitory, while keeping them away from the front lines. I receive notification that we have spotted enemy transports, so I manually snap the camera back to my entrenched unit. With the camera positioned over my entrenched squad, I see that the transports are in firing range, so I manually give the order to fire. While my squad begins to pick apart the transports, an anti-infantry squad opens fire from an entrenched position in the woods. At the same time, enemy armor begins to roll up on my captured point. With the camera still on my entrenched squad (who has destroyed the enemy transports) I issue vocal commands for my artillery to shell the enemy infantry, and for my gunships to attack the enemy armor.

What I expect to see happen is that expert players will make use of both voice and manual command inputs. Manual commands can allow you to do specific tasks quicker, but you will be able to perform more tasks in a specific amount of time if you use voice commands as well (if that makes any sense).

There is much more depth to the gameplay than I originally thought. While there is the basic rock-paper-scissors formula there, this can be modified in many different ways that will cause you to approach a situation with more strategy than simply rolling up with every type of unit. The two different types of infantry, riflemen and engineers, can significantly change the balance of power in any confrontation. Riflemen can move and capture control points faster than engineers, however the latter can upgrade points faster (you need to do this to get off site support like air strikes). They also have the ability to enter stealth (more on this later), mark targets for arty, perform deep strikes, and storm garrisoned buildings. In cover, riflemen can be surprisingly resistant to enemy fire, and can even take down gunships. Engineers are more heavily armored than riflemen, but move much slower. Once in cover though, engineers can counter any armor thrown at them. Often times, the only way to dig out entrenched engineers is through arty strikes, or with riflemen.

Another wrinkle that changes the gameplay mechanic is the ability to upgrade units as they gain ranks through experience. Whether you win or lose, you always gain credits at the end of a match. Credits can be used to unlock rank specific abilities for different classes of units (gunships, tanks, transports, etc.). You can choose to upgrade defense, attack, or unlock special abilities. The special abilities of units can help change the normal rock-paper-scissors formula (as the game says, special paper can beat scissors) into something else. The best thing about the upgrade system, is that each unlock is applied in a global fashion to all units with the required rank. Once a unit has taken enough damage in a fight, they are normally airlifted out of there to fight again in the next battle. Sometimes they are killed on the field, and are gone for good, which means you have just lost a unit that had access to better armor and weapons. However, you don't have to re-spend money on those perks again, you just have to have another unit can enough experience to get the required rank to take advantage of them.

There are several different kind of battles you can fight in the game. The standard annihilate the enemy, control over half the capture points, raids, and sieges. Sieges are particularly cool because the side on defense has to hold out for a set amount of time with a limited number units while the attacker tries to destroy a key structure. If the defensive side holds out for the required time limit though, they get a massive amount of reinforcements and then have to destroy all attackers.

Another interesting wrinkle added to the gameplay is when a battle enters defcon status. Once a side satisfies specific victory conditions (e.g. captured 50% + control points), a mission timer starts and defcon status is activated. Once in defcon status, the losing side gets to crash an uplink, which removes it from play, and are authorized to use their side's weapon of mass destruction (WMD). The catch is though, once the losing side uses it's WMD, then the winning side is granted authorization to use theirs. It can be tempting to drop a fuel air bomb on the guy who is about to win, but doing so allows him to use his massive orbital laser on you. This past Saturday, I had thought I had a match wrapped up tight. I was only 2 minutes away from winning with the majority of uplinks under my control and no reinforcements left for my enemy. Incredibly, he crashed one of my uplinks, removing it from play, and dropped a WMD on a central point which took out my occupying forces. He then waltzed in with a co-ordinated attack to secure that point while I scrambled to deploy more troops to the field. Incredibly, I then became the losing side and had to frantically try to secure more points. The match lasted another 10 minutes before I dropped my fuel air bomb on a cluster of his units and secured the remaining point to snatch back victory. Awesome moment indeed.

I'll close by discussing the ongoing Theater of War. You choose a side to play with in mulitplayer (US, European Federation, or Russian Spetsnaz), then a battalion (specializing in a certain combat role), and deploy the world map. Every day, Ubisoft tabulates the wins and losses in each terroitory, and re-draws the map according to whatever side had the most victories in that terroitory. They recently reset the Theater after the EF won. I enjoy this multiplayer game mode as it makes my wins and losses count towards a larger goal.

Overall, I am very much pleased with End War. Excellent strategy game for the console that probably deserves more attention than what it is currently getting.

Dr._J wrote:

Awesome review

Sounds like RTS heaven to me. After that review, I'm definitely giving EndWar a shot.

BadKen wrote:
Dr._J wrote:

Awesome review

Sounds like RTS heaven to me. After that review, I'm definitely giving EndWar a shot.

I concur. That was a great review/impressions post, Dr._J.

My recent run with the new Halo Wars demo got me really jazzed about playing a RTS on 360 (I'm not a PC gamer anymore). So while I'll be picking up Halo Wars day one, I still had the itch to check out another genre title while I wait for HW's release.

I did a little research and thought EndWar might be a good pick. It helps that I saw a new copy on eBay for $25 shipped. I was considering a Command and Conquer title, but it seemed too similar in design to Halo Wars, so I didn't want to bury myself with two of the "same" games consecutively. EndWar seemed just different enough to justify playing right now.

I sure am looking forward to giving it a go when it arrives, though admittedly I'm a little self-conscious about the prospect of playing it using the voice commands.

Anyone else have any post-launch impressions one way or the other?