Article Type: Review
Article Date: April 03, 2002
Product Info
Product Name: Fortress Europe
Category: Real-Time Strategy
Developer: Lamb Soft Games
Publisher: Matrix Games
Release Date:
Min. Spec: P500MHz, 64MB RAM, 4MB Video, Soundcard, 350 MB HDSpace, 8X CDROM, DX 8.0
Rec. Spec: >P500MHz, 128 MB RAM, 32MB 3D Video
Files & Links: Click Here
* * *
For players, games are good, bad or mediocre. Reviewers have another category, intriguing failures. These games start with good ideas but, several places down the trail, they misstep to the point where we throw up our hands in frustration. Their redeeming grace is that they can serve as a foundation for truly solid products if the designers take their lessons to heart.
In the case of Matrix Games’ Fortress Europe, the game, right out of the box, falls into the “bad” category—unbelievably bad. The graphics were garish in the extreme while the skimpy six-page Adobe manual gives merely the basics of the interface; the “how” to do things, not the “why”. A gamer could learn every control and still sit at the screen and say “Now what?” Fortunately, patch V2.0 is almost a complete re-write and allows a glimpse of what this system could be if Lamb Soft could get a sense of perspective.
A Tale of Two Maps
The new 33-page Adobe manual finally gives a clear picture of what the game is about. The concept of Fortress Europe is intriguing and could have been a very successful approach to historic RTS play. The four scenarios cover the Normandy landings, a possible landing in Calais, the beginning of the Cobra breakout and the liberation of Paris. This game lays out all of this on two maps: the main (or tactical) and the strategic.
The tutorial Readme file suggests that players start on the strategic map with pause initiated—a fine idea. The strategic map covers all or parts of Northern France down to south of Paris. Various filter buttons highlight or hide trees, city names and area controlled by either side. More important, other options can show infantry, armor, artillery and air units. If the player doesn’t mind cluttered maps, each company and air unit can be shown; the number of enemy units visible is dependent on the level of difficulty chosen. The primary use of this map is to direct divisions.
Clicking on a division shows its health bar and, using the information button, the number and status of its companies. Available reinforcements can be seen on a sidebar and be dragged onto the map. Their actual entry is dependent on their initial location, weather and enemy air power. Orders to move are given by clicking on objectives. Air strikes and paradrops can also be given here but should actually be done on the tactical map. Playing on the strategic map is sensible and most satisfying mode of play. The player has the feel of an overall commander making logical strategic decisions at a reasonable pace. Weather forecasts aid in the type of decisions as do pre-set ammunition and fuel capacities. Fortress Europe is an enjoyable and intelligent game at this level. Unfortunately, play must go onto the tactical level much of the time.
 |
The landing zones are set strategically with the companies of the first British wave shown.  |
 |
| With the beachhead secure, Allied troops move out. |
”If This is D 1, We Must Be in Caen”
Even patched, Fortress Europe breaks down at the tactical level that is supposed to be the heart of the game. On the surface, everything needed for a serious wargame is here. Companies are rated for movement, resistance (defense) and shots (offense). Artillery can be limbered and unlimbered with ranges matching weapon size. Range attenuation is modeled through inaccuracy over distance. Hospital and supply units allow battered units to regain strength. Movement and combat are affected by the fourteen different kinds of terrain and weather.
Specialty units like paratroops, armor units equipped with specific tank types and veteran or green units appear to reflect the historical capabilities of their real-life counter parts. Naval units can support Allied assaults near beach heads while strategic bombers hit specific areas (tiles) and fighter bombers can be called in to attack specific units or buildings. A German player can place mines and barrage balloons.
Clicking on three different officer icons highlight units in divisions, regiments or battalions. Multiple units can also be ordered through the usual “cursor lasso”. Movement orders are delivered through clicks and attack orders are issued hot keys and cursor combinations. Specific orders for timed attacks and orderly withdrawals are possible. With a slower level of play, this interface system is one of the saner approaches to real-time strategy. Three different levels of play introduce fog of war and faster AI reaction. All the variations of on-line gaming are provided. Every element for a fine game is present in this product. So what went wrong?
Oddly enough, graphics get in the way of gameplay. The NATO symbols over the 3D icons contain division identification and the usual unit values. The font is so small that the numbers are indecipherable so players must rely on the trusty, if gamey, “health bar”. Further confusing the issue is the scale of towns, bridges and units. Even with the revamped graphics, buildings and bridges are all out of proportion to the amount of territory they cover. Armor and artillery units seem giant-like as opposed to the ant-like infantry. Although targets and objectives are clear, the spatial relationship between units and locations seem unreal. For instance, Caen appears so close to Pegasus Bridge that the British should be able to march in long before the 12th SS Panzer arrives. Of course, they don’t but the reason why isn’t obvious when looking at the map. Another graphical problem is the status of bridges. Both sides should like to see them blown at different times for different reasons. Unlike other structures, bridges don’t appear to be damaged by bombing or artillery. Given the apparent level of accuracy in other areas, this omission is odd.
 |
| The paratroops go in! |
 |
| The Big Red One hits Omaha beach. |
 |
| American and German troops mix it up in the streets of Paris. |
Another bet missed is the lack of command and control restrictions. If different organizations can be highlighted, limitations on units co-ordinating attacks between different regiments or priorities on road use should have been implemented. Instead, the usual RTS “thundering herd” approach to movement is used. Spearhead with mobile units, secure with infantry and keep artillery to the rear is the formula here as it is in Warcraft. All of these elements are handled well in the Close Combat series so the designers of Fortress Europe evidently thought these matters secondary to cute explosions.
Fitting a Product to a Market
The major flaw with Fortress Europe is that the scenarios are too large to play on the tactical level. The player must pause, switch from strategic to tactical and move all over Northern France to micro-manage the companies of several divisions. No flow in gameplay can be established and the player feels like a playground monitor with fifty 7 year olds running around. Play becomes tedious and physically demanding instead of intellectually stimulating.
The victory conditions don’t help matters. Each terrain tile has a value and the side with the highest tile value wins. Given the high value of urban tiles, a German force could be pocketed in Paris and environs, totally cut off from supply and reinforcements, and still win on points. The game turns into a race of spreading ink spots of control. The game does not make a concrete connection between tactics and strategy, leaving players to wonder why they should bother with either.
This failure is inherent with marketing confusion, The designer wanted to make an RTS game more accurate than Sudden Strike. Admirable as this goal was, the audience they attracted was not the RTS clickfest fans but picky wargamers. Wargamers immediately noticed the warts, not the possibilities. Marketing with a historical title like Fortress Europe instead of, say, Allied Thunder scared away the intended audience while attracting those buyers that would resent the game’s short comings.
The system has many nice ideas. These ideas could be better implemented with smaller, well-defined scenarios instead of amorphous campaigns. Lamb Soft needs to understand that the strategic and tactical level can’t lay equal claim to the player's attention. One must assume a secondary role and Lamb Soft is the entity that must make that decision. Until the scope and purpose of the series gels—and until both designer and publisher strengthens quality assurance, Fortress Europe and its progeny will remain failures, interesting to reviewers but irritating to gamers.
Resources
Articles:
Files:
Official Sites:
