Reseñas

• gamedeal user

  Mar 23, 2017

  So like me you probably enjoyed Vietnam '65 and wanted more of the same in a modern environment, but then you saw the price tag and kvetched internally and quietly sighed "Slitherine again." The good news is that this is Vietnam '65 made more advanced with different supply functions and a redeveloped take on the FOB system. Rather than building firebases and transporting artillery to them, you get basic mortar teams with FOBs on build. You can also customize FOBs to your liking as to whether they come with field hospital or not. Outside of a historical issue (an MRAP in November, 2001 training scenario?), Afghanistan '11 seems to offer at least twice the options than Vietnam, and for that, the price is somewhat justified. e: The game also concludes with Neptune Spear. If EverySingleSoldier produced a Rhodesian Bush War DLC for this commendable effort and base game, I would buy it instantly.
• gamedeal user

  Mar 24, 2017

  I haven't played the Vietnam '65 game so this is a "fresh look": This is a different sort of strategy game and it's clear from the start. Military dominance is a necessary but not the only and often not even the most important key to fulfilling the mission. After playing for a few hours the game seems to be solid, both in the lack of bugs and crashes and in the actual gameplay. After initally foraging into a game I realized I didn't know what I was doing so I went back and did the tutorials which are simple but challenging. Now I have a clear idea of what the game is asking me to do to succeed. I also know what a simple IED or a insurgent attack at the wrong place or time can do to my careful plan. A different kind of war game for a different kind of war. But the most important question a game has to answer is "is it fun?". Well, I think it is. Give it a try.
• gamedeal user

  Mar 24, 2017

  Afghanistan '11 (A11) improves no Vietnam '65 (V65) in everyway. That being said, those people who didn't enjoy V65 or never bought it because they thought it wasn't for them, probably won't enjoy this game. This review is kind of a comparison between V65 and A11. TL:DR There are substantial changes to pace of the game, the PP system and support and many other smaller changes have a positive impact on gameplay compared to V65 ensuring that not only is this game not just a reskin of V65 but is a completely seperate game in its own right, and worth the price increase from V65. The pace slows down quite a bit by introducing an expanded logistics and supply system. Forward Operating Bases (FOB's) Now need to be provided with supplies to repair units, refuel units to max Rations or Fuel instantly, and provide shells for Artillery, which is all provided from your main base. Helicopters were the mainstay of V65 but now they are expensive and easily destroyed because they travel over the areas that the enemy literally spawn from, so they take a lot of hits (The chances of the enemy hitting is reduced in my experience, with a chinook taking 5 shots in one turn and only getting damaged) Instead ground vehicles have come to the limelight, as a cheaper and less hazardous alternative. Mines, now IEDs are far more common, but the PP reduction from enemy base structures has been removed as far as i have seen, instead replacing them with Opium fields which provide funds to the enemy. All round, the PP system has been improved. You have an income per turn which can be increased by building waterworks in villages, and this helps to balance out the game on lower difficulties (Haven't yet tried higher difficulties) There are turns when my PP is up in the 7000, then in two turns i take staggering casualties because a convoy hit IEDs and were ambushed which plunged it back down to 4-5000. It generally rises turn by turn unless i see a Taliban offensive (Marked by elections or sometimes just random) where i will lose a lot of PP ferrying troops to combat or rescuing damaged units with escorts. The last big change is the support, in the form of drones, airstrikes and supply drops. The PP requirement to use these has been removed, and instead there is a cooldown the length of which depends on who is elected. This makes these life savers and far more worth using in ordinary situations. From scouting out mountains for Opium crops with drones to having an advanced scout position consistently being re-supplied by air, they take some of the weight off your poor grunts' shoulders. There are many other smaller changes which make the game far more playable, for example the increased number of things to do mean longer games aren't such a slog, some units being either impervious or highly resistant to IEDs, adding extra health to Taliban units so there is the threat of them returning are but a few, and it has already led to some memorable scenarios in the short time i have been playing, and there are sure to be many more. I'm not knocking the people who haven't enjoyed this game, but there are a few things that i want to point out to readers that have been mentioned in other reviews i have read. Firstly there is no bug in the fourth tutorial, you have to open the command eye to see the objective. Secondly, there are very few bugs that i have seen (the only one i remember being the radio on one model being skinned to the head not the body so the radio floats around with the head rotation) and no crashes to desktop. Lastly, people who are complaining this is impossible to win due to everything being killed are not playing it with enough careful planning. Rushing into anything usually results in casualties, but thorough planning combined with the support assets can limit even the most dangerous mission. This game really pushes you to think outside the realm of normal strategy games.
• gamedeal user

  Mar 30, 2017

  Having fought in Afghanistan as part of the 10th Mountain Division (in 2011, no less), this game is just as frustrating as the actual war...and that's a good thing. It has just enough depth to keep you engaged while not being too monotonous. The elections and security handover in the game help to keep the monotony at bay while providing a tactical challenge that brings me back to sending out HUMINT teams and helicopter recon elements during my time there. The controls are similar to Vietnam '65, though the base expansions, ability to train more than just local infantry and the waterworks projects add a sense of nation building to the mix. A great turn based game that captures the frustrations of trying to find the taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan while not being too overbearing. Thanks to Slytherine for a great game - "Climb to Glory!" (10th Mountain Division Motto)
• gamedeal user

  Apr 1, 2017

  I was in Helmand Province in 2012 when I was in the U.S. Marines. This game is dope, it hit's the nail on the head. 10 points to Slitherine!
• gamedeal user

  May 7, 2017

  I so, so wanted to love this game. A game about logistics, territory control and counterinsurgency with unique and innovative mechanics? Sign me up! Unforunately, the implementation has been so botched that it's impossible to recommend at this time. I will detail my issues point by point below. 1: Performance Issues While my computer may not be beastly, I run a fairly powerful gaming setup. I can run Doom 2016 or Overwatch at fairly high graphics. This game however, suffers from serious FPS drops and stuttering during certain actions. Clearing an IED, ending combat, and trying to place an FOB or a building all cause significant, noticable pauses or FPS drops. This is completely unacceptable in a small indie game of this size. My computer science brain is telling me that is because the game is scanning every hex on the map during these actions (probably more than once for the FOB case), so some code optimizations could solve the problem, but it's still appalling that this problem is present. 2: Movement Issues Ok, units have action points. Infantry and air units move using one action point per hex, simple enough. However, vehicles move more than one hex per action point when on roads, and move one hex per point when off roads. Not the best implementation of increased move costs, but I can handle it. The problem is, when you move a vehicle the game does not tell you where you use each action point. The game gives you a route, but does not tell you how many action points will be used during the move. This is hell if you are trying to do less than a full move, or go from on road to off road, or in any number of situations. This could easily have been fixed in a myriad of ways, but was not. 3: Micromanagement A lot of this game consists of moving convoys from one place to another. It's a game about logistics, it comes with the territory. Problem is, the game makes managing a convoy incredibly tedious. First, you have to move your mine clearing vehicle out to clear mines. But you can't move it too far, because you might run into enemy troops. So then you have to move up your combat vehicle to sweep for enemy troops. But you can't move too far up because you might run into a mine. So you move your mine clearing vehicle up again. Then your combat vehicle. Then your mine clearing vehicle. And so on and so forth until you run out of action points. And each of these moves you have to count hexes, because the game isn't telling you when you're going to end up using a second action point on this move. Only after repeating this cycle several times can you then, one by one, move the rest of your vehicles along the path you have cleared. The manual contains reference to a "Convoys" system that is supposed to avoid this tedium, but the section simply reads "Coming Soon". 4: Stop Wasting My Time! When XCOM 2 was released, one of the most popular mods was the "Stop Wasting my Time" mod because all of the animations took forever. This game has that problem far worse than XCOM 2 ever did. Every time you move a unit, you have to sit through a slow animation where the camera is locked on the unit that is moving. The point of this is that movement is supposed to be tense, that you never know when you are going to run into an enemy unit you never saw and get your unit creamed. However, it just comes off as annoying. There is a reason that games like Civ 6 and XCOM give you the option to speed up or even skip movement animations. 5: Combat This is the worst of my complaints. This is supposed to be a game about counterinsurgency. Where one side has the firepower, the technology, and the force, and the other has stealth and surprise. You're the US army, you have the best trained troops, the most advanced technology, and the most powerful weapons. The other guys are bloody dirt farmers. So why are my odds in combat never better than a coin flip? Seriously, US infantry versus Taliban infantry is never better than a coin flip. The story is the same with Apache gunships, howitzer and mortar artillery, airstrikes, and every other weapon in your arsenal. You aren't fighting a stealthy guerilla enemy, you are fighting a race of superhumans who can shrug off every weapon in your arsenal and become invisible the second you blink at them. It is incredibly frustrating to spend resources, time and effort to find and fix enemy troops, only to be completely unable to damage them after throwing your entire arsenal at them. This may sound like complaining about missed shots in XCOM, but in XCOM there are things you can do to improve your success rate, like flanking or destroying cover. In this game, there is nothing but throwing more stuff at the wall and hoping some of it will stick. This could be fixed easily enough by weakening enemy units, potentially adding more of them, and cutting the amount of political power you get from defeating them. All in all, I believe that Afghanistan '11's problems are solvable. I will come back to the game after further patches and see if it is improved. However, given that we are already 9 patches in and these problems are still present, I am not hopeful.
• gamedeal user

  May 23, 2017

  Full disclosure upfront: I loved Vietnam '65. It was, for me, revolutionary. A wargame less about the minute details of combat and more about the higher-level methodology, the "graduate-level" of warfare that was less about "how do we win this fight, here?" and more telling players, "Yes, you can win here, but will that support accomplishing your objective?" The command decision of why and when to fight was just as important as the how, something only sparingly attempted in wargaming. Rather than trying to find the narrowest slice of the conflict where the opposition could present a credible peer to the player, Vietnam '65 instead engaged with the idea that American forces, properly supported, were almost always assured of eventual victory but American forces, properly supported, couldn't be everywhere, all the time. So when I discovered sometime last year that Afghanistan '11 was in the development, I was ecstatic. Overview: Afghanistan '11 (A11) represents the same small scale counterinsurgency strategy wargaming as its predecessor, Vietnam '65 (V65). The game is turn-based, playing out across what amounts to a randomized hexmap representing various regions of Afghanistan. Unlike other wargames, victory isn't achieved by territorial control or varying degrees of annihilation of the enemy. In a nod to the real counterinsurgency strategy employed, victory instead requires the player win the hearts and minds of the population. To do so, they must secure the people from Taliban intimidation, grant them entry into the wider economy by way of highway access, attend to their needs with waterworks and UN aid and maintain a steady presence. While a number of wargames have gone the route of exhausting detailing and simulating the capabilities of various bits of militaria, Afghanistan '11 goes the opposite direction. Instead of a laundry-list of vehicles, weapons and technologies, the player is presented with a trimmed down selection that each represents a different counterinsurgency role. You have your basic APC, present in only two flavors -- the highly capable but politically costly American MRAP and cheaper, numerically limited ANA ASV. There is one attack helo, the Apache, useful as a "flying battery" of fire support to isolated units. There are Blackhawks and Chinooks, supplemented by Afghan Mi-8s. Then there are route clearance Huskies used to sweep for IEDs and Buffaloes for constructing roads, waterworks, and new bases. Supply trucks are supply trucks. Artillery functions as exactly one would expect. But the enemy has their own toys, with RPG-equipped militia and hardcore Taliban fighters. The latter are established from the proceeds of opium sales, making destruction of the drug fields a serious priority lest they grow to credible threat to the player's units and bases. The AI is capable of IED-initiated ambushes, bobby-trapping villages, knocking out waterworks and (if sufficiently powerful) succesfully assaulting under-defended bases. They will let heavily-armed and armored MRAPs pass their ambushses, instead attacking soft-skinned trucks to decisive effect. They will lure US/ANA forces into fights around the opium fields and take advantage of booby-traps to isolate and harm units. The Bad: One legitimate criticism that can be leveled at the game is that the early-game can be quite volatile. Events unfolding within the first fifteen turns can set the tone for the entire rest of the game, which can be good, unfortunately they can be utterly random. In one example, during the middle of a highly complex assault on a den of Taliban activity, my supply trucks were all disbanded due to "shoddy maintenance," and I was forced to withdraw everything back to base while wasting political points (the game's currency) delivering air-dropped supplies and paying for (very expensive) Chinook flight time. By time I was done recovering my forces from across the map, there were anti-war protests brewing (on account of having negative political points) at the same time elections were turning against me and the Taliban were assualting my farthest flung outpost. That led to a death-spiral which culminated in a relatively early-game loss. While that outcome isn't typical, it is certainly possible at any time, due to the randomness of events and variable severity. However that can be written off to the fortunes of war. Certainly no wargame is complete without some degree of Clauswitzian friction and A11 definitely isn't the worst in providing a variable challenge. The other notable downside is less excusable, on the other hand. To put things bluntly, A11 is a more complex game than V65. Whether or not you see this as a good thing or bad thing, it is undeniable that playing through A11 is more "work." With the additional mechanics and depth, there is more to consider, more to calculate, more to manage, more to look at, more to plan, plain more to do. Whereas I could easily tear through two games of V65 in a serious night of gaming, A11 generally limits itself to a single playthrough before I run out of time and mental energy to continue. Part of this is due to the mid- and late-game being heavily influenced by the management of logistics: the flow of beans and bullets to where they are needed. As you achieve more map control, the logistic requirements to support all the necessary bases expands at what could be considered and exponential rate. Each artillery battery eats ammo. So does each bases integral mortar platoon. You also need supplies for the base to heal/repair units and resupply nearby units. Each time a Chinook hooks up a pallet of rations for your Special Forces listening post in the mountains, you'll flinch as you recall the need to send out a vulnerable supply truck sooner rather than later. It isn't unusual to forget portions of the map as particularly complex operations eat up brain cycles with their demand for exhaustive planning to conduct successfully. There is some relief in the form of bases automatically supplying nearby units with rations and fuel at a click of a button, but that still leaves you to manage the delivery of supplies to the those bases. The Good: The UI, with one or two minor exceptions, does a wonderful job of presenting options the player without overwhelming them with numbers, figures, dials and gauges. Icons are largely self-explanatory and easily understandable at a glance. Hex-based mapping makes movement a snap to figure out. The graphics are functional, improved over V65 and quite wonderfully complement the UI. If a player is so inclined, they can zoom to watch as Mi-8's haul howitzers, Special Forces call down A-10s on unsuspecting Taliban trucks, claymores detonate into village militia, ANA soldiers limp back into base carrying their wounded and other actions. The vehicles are an array of what some might see as "fighting vehicle porn," MRAPs, Buffaloes, Huskies, C-130s dipping down low to drop pallets of supplies off their ramp, F-16s releasing JDAMs, M777s recoiling as they send rounds down-range, etc. There is a definite flow to the game, internally consistent and logical. Taliban come from the east, whereas you start in the west. Expand your network of bases in order to put "eyes" in as many places as possible. Pursue a strategy of maintaining a tight cordon around your "safe" villages or aggressively place units on the border and in the mountains to kill Taliban and militia, respectively, at the source. Overall: A11 doesn't try to be down-to-the-button realistic, but it has what so many ultra-realistic wargames lack when dealing with counterinsurgency: verisimilitude. Easy to learn, replayable, challenging in a consistent fashion and highly entertaining for the price. I heartily recommend to anyone interested in counter-insurgency or military history in general. Gearheads might not be as onboard but understanding the context of conflict might be a winner there.
• gamedeal user

  Jun 16, 2017

  I want to love this game. The developers clearly attempted to inject realism into a game addressing a long, largely forgotten about war that has defined or taken the lives of so many young men and women. Players will quickly notice that victory is not contingent upon battlefield factors alone, but rather intangibles like Host Nation morale and political support from the United States. The former is represented by the Hearts and Minds score, and all missions require that it rises or stays at a certain level as a victory condition. In true COIN fashion, players can win the battle by accomplishing all military objectives but still lose the war of Hearts and Minds. The latter, political support, acts as a form of currency. You obtain currency by killing insurgents, meeting handover goals (training and using ANA), or clearing IEDs. Losing soldiers, failing to meet handover goals, supporting a candidate in a national election, and buying or moving units will deplete political support. Ration them wisely. Thusly, much of the game sees players devote considerable capital in nation building efforts like delivering aid, constructing roads, and building water facilities in villages. The more successful you are at this, the more pro-American a village will become, and therefore less susceptible they are to Taliban influence and more inclined to share information with Coalition forces. When a village is willing to share intelligence with Americans, a little fire will appear and you'll have to send soldiers to investigate. Pro-American villages will display an Afghan flag, while anti-American ones fly a black Taliban flag. To this end, infantry is less a tool to kill baddies with and more a symbol of commitment. In most cases, I rarely sent regular soldiers out to kill insurgents. Instead, they hopped from village to village as fires appeared. I instead relied heavily on Special Forces to kill insurgents, who are more mobile and able to train ANA forces. Most of my capital was spent on purchasing road clearance trucks and engineering trucks, which can be used to destory IEDs and build FOBs/Roads/Water towers. Logistics is a bitter bitch in this game. Trucks are easy targets for enemy units, as are transport helicopters. You are constantly juggling a variety of responisbilities and making tough decisions. Do I send out a supply truck to deliver humanitarian aid or much needed supples to a local FOB? Should I construct another water tower that will inevitably be destroyed by the insurgents or build a medical tent at a FOB? Buy another SF or Engineer unit? Rely on Americans or Afghanis? It conveys the struggles and frustrations of Afghanistan well. Yet there are also flaws. National elections are important, yet there are rarely tough decisions to make when picking a candidate. Additionally, some of their traits can be counter-intuitively helpful for the Taliban. In one case, I think anti-corruption was associated with increased insurgent activity. Kinda simplistic. The games are long, slow, and boring. Don't buy this game if you are looking for big, badass battles. As I've said, it's not really a fighting game so much as a management simulation with gunfights thrown in. Afghanistan '11 a slow burn that gratifies players over time. Additionally, while I think this can be a useful learning tool, it also simplifies many dynamics of the Afghanistan war. There is no ethno-sectarian dimension, nor are issues like economic development explored at any depth beyond building roads and water towers. Ultimately, it's worth the buy during a Steam sale.
• gamedeal user

  Jun 23, 2017

  I bought this game few days after offical release and watching gameplay videos on Youtube and on Twitch. I have to say that this game is really amazing and number of (realistic) details in game is just surprising. For my opinion this strategy game is on whole new level and it really requires strategy thinking and planning, especially in logistic aspect of game (you must constantly supply military units on field with ammunition, fuel and infantry supplies for successful perform of their tasks and missions). Also you have to make a good impression on civilians living in local villages, otherwise you lose your home political support and trust of civilians. Developer updating game with improvements and new contents very often and they also hinted for more amazing new contents in future. I was also very surprised on their response to players and on their very active participation in discussions. Game has alot to offer and is definetly worth of buying, so I recommend it for all gamers who love to play strategy games on more complete and deep level.
• gamedeal user

  Aug 14, 2017

  As an OEF/OIF veteran I really want to like this game, truely I do. However, it isn't so much a wargame, tactical, operational or otherwise as it is a LOGCAP one. You'll spend more time conducting ReSupp missions to your FOB's and units in the field than actually engaging in COIN operations, which eventually becomes the sole focus of your playtime. I understand that this game mechanic is meant to be a sort of juggling act but it simply consumes far too much gameplay time. It would've been nice to have this system somewhat automated - Create a convoy with the required assets, supplies and predefine the departure time at a given turn to resupply the FOB's, the convoys could then do their thing. The player could then inject themselves back into these missions should there be any damage or losses. Perhaps the largest issue is that there is no way to conduct any sort of combat ops, large or otherwise to secure a village or town under Taliban or Militia control. Instead you're forced to do it via a rather abstract system of winning 'Hearts and Minds'. That's great and all for the locales that are neutral but not so much for those villages or towns that are firmly under enemy control (eg. Marjah/Op. Moshtarak). The Hearts and Minds aspect just doesn't work here and is simply a fundamentally flawed component as the time for building waterworks and delivering aid has long since past. I hoping some of these issues will be addressed in the future, especially that of enemy strongholds.