AATF: The Manual...

Jarhead0331 · #1 December 20th, 2006, 09:27 AM

Hey there...

I'm seriously not trying to be a pain in the a$$, but how reliable is the information contained in the manual? It is filled with a surprising amount of typographical errors and incorrect descriptions/details (ie. the mini-map is not located at the top left of the screen).

Obviously, the actual software is more important than the manual, and so far AATF is proving to be a unique simulation of modern air assault operations, but the manual is still an important tool, especially to those of us who are new to the ATF engine...

Thanks, and sorry if I came across as a whiner...

Patrick Proctor · #2 December 20th, 2006, 10:51 AM

Sorry for the mistakes. If you send any glaring errors (like the mini-map) to us at:

[email protected]

I will ensure that errata is published and corrections are made for the next edition of the game.

Jarhead0331 · #3 December 20th, 2006, 11:05 AM

Well, I'll help out where and when I can but I bought the sim to play it, and not to edit the manual!

The mistakes are glaring and start at page 1...If the simulation is going to be marketed as a commercially available military grade simulation (as I think it should be), then it should have the appearance of one in-game and from cover-to-cover in the manual!

I would assume that this is definitely one of the draw backs of having a small development team...there is only so much time in a day and just so damn much to do! Some items end up being rushed, or saved for the end...better to be the supporting documentation than the software itself...

EDIT: But remember...image, presentation and first impressions are half the battle!

Curt Pangracs · #4 December 21st, 2006, 12:55 AM

I would ask that you also keep in mind that each member of the team has a full-time job and family - they do it for the love of it, definitely NOT the money!

The president of the company will be in Iraq for the next few months - should give you some idea of all of the CFT (Copious Free Time) they all have.

Jarhead0331 · #5 December 21st, 2006, 09:17 AM

No doubt...

And I was certain to acknowledge your point in my above post...

I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt to prove it...I'm a staff writer for a major wargaming/strategy website. I do it for free because of my love for the hobby...I do it for the fans!

Its always difficult to manage consistent, thorough, well researched, quality content articles with my real life responsibilities (ie. commercial litigation attorney and family) I've also been deployed so I know how that can "occupy" one's free time...

Anyway...the point has been made. The manual should be edited when time permits and I'll still try to help out as time permits, but you've got to credit me in the next manual version!

Stay safe and don't forget to duck and cover while you're over in Iraq, Patrick

Patrick Proctor · #6 December 21st, 2006, 12:21 PM

Jarhead.

I do appreciate the input. It is very hard to proofread your own work, as you seem to read over the same errors you type over.

I guess what I was asking was that if you find something that is glaringly inaccurate (contradicts actual game play), please drop us a note. I will get it fixed in errata and in the next edition of the game.

jimrad2383 · #7 December 23rd, 2006, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Curt Pangracs said:
I would ask that you also keep in mind that each member of the team has a full-time job and family - they do it for the love of it, definitely NOT the money!

The president of the company will be in Iraq for the next few months - should give you some idea of all of the CFT (Copious Free Time) they all have.

Understood but............. Understand that we are not talking about freeware but something people are paying for, so expectations are higher on the quality of the work. I understand where Jarhead is coming from. Presentation is everything when your trying to sell a product irregardless of how many jobs you have or if you do this part time. You can overlook many things when its done without a price, but when you charge people and sell something as a product, a lot of errors dont give a very good impression of the product. Dont get me wrong, the simulation itself is well done. If I have one complaint its the number of scenarios. Granted you can make your own, but not a lot of people have time for that. I would of liked to have seen more scenarios with a product in this price range. Most likely this will be my last ride in the series, I need to find something that gives me a little more bang for my buck so to speak. Ive bought every release of this product all the way back to the BCT days. More gameplay is needed in my opinion.

Curt Pangracs · #8 December 23rd, 2006, 03:13 AM

Sorry you feel that way. Thanks for purchasing the other games in the series.

Curt Pangracs
Designer of Raging Tiger and The Star and the Crescent.

Patrick Proctor · #9 December 23rd, 2006, 01:52 PM

Jimrad,

First, thank you for your purchase of this and our other titles. I am sorry you don't like AATF.

But I think your comment that it doesn't provide sufficient content to justify the price is unfair. You are the first ever to make such a comment about any of our titles. I think your opinion warrants some anaysis and response.

AATF contains 14 scenarios in 3 campaigns and one mini-campaign. This is identical in number to the content in ATF, our brst selling title to date. And I would say that the QUALITY of everyone of the scenarios in AATF is superior to those in AATF. First, all of the scenarios in AATF are exactingly historically accurate. And they are sprinkled with lots of actual historic artifacts, like the OPORD and AAR from the actual battle for LZ X-RAY and real military maps of Afghanistan. This gameis easily on pr or superior to all of our other games in volume and quality of content. AND it includes a full featured scenario builder. AND it is 100% compatible with scenrios from previous titles.

Compare this to other games in the industry. I love John Tiller and his work, but most games cover only one campaign, have no scenario editor, and are not compatible with other titles. MAJ H is a great game designer as well, but TACOPs scenario editor does not allow you to access the enemy AI to make single player scenarios. And neither designer has an engine that simulates combat to such a high, military-grade fidelity.

Again, I am sorry about the typos in the manual, and I am sorry you are unhappy with your purchase. But I think your analysis that AATF somehow does not provide sufficient "bang for the buck" is unfair.

jimrad2383 · #10 December 23rd, 2006, 06:22 PM

Gentlemen, I didnt say I didnt like AATF or any of the series to date, otherwise I wouldnt have bought them all. Its just I dont feel there is enough there to warrant further purchases although who knows what you may come up with next that can quickly change my mind. Regarding the manual, I am just agreeing with Jarhead that presentation is important when selling something on the open market. Now the scenarios I just feel could be more robust, its just my feelings on the matter. Disappointing is the campaign in my opinion, its basically the existing scenarios in order. I would of of liked to have seen a campaign independent of the existing single player scenarios. Possible something more dynamic with no real idea of which way the campaign would go.

As I stated, Ive been a very loyal fan since the BCT days, and all titles up to this point. I will throw myself into creating a few scenarios and see if that sparks the old flame I had for the series, and at the same time contribute to the community. I just feel at this time, it may be time for a change of direction for me. I would not want anyone reading my views as a reason not to purchase AATF. Its actually very good, and I would recommend both AATF and The Star and the Crescent as a starting point. The Falklands is quite good too but I enjoyed the 2 I mention very much.

Regards,

Jim