After a series of previews here, Spearhead has broken out of the motor pool and is rampaging through your local software store. We've been curious to see how the tank game that tries to appeal to both twitch and sim gamers would finally turn out.

Spearhead does indeed score on a few points, but there are a number of other things that would make players simply shake their heads and ask themselves, "Why?"

Spearhead offers training missions, single missions, a very linear campaign in the deserts of Tunisia, multiplayer missions, a simple to use mission editor, and several levels of difficulty. The controls and basic motion are very simple to learn, and players should be able to engage in their first battles in after a very short period of familiarization.

Crew voices and mechanical sounds are quite good and very authentic-sounding. Your crew may not say much, but at least they sound much better than the grating voice acting from iPanzer '44. Better to do a little well than a lot poorly.

As for the mechanical sounds, Spearhead outdoes all the competition. The sounds for powerpack ignition, shutdown, and idle are all right on target. Treads make an awful racket once you launch into motion. The grinding sound from the turret serves as a reminder of the many tons that are rotating on the ring. The CITV's servos buzz and whine as you scan the horizon. The turbine whine from other M1's driving by is also nicely implemented. It's just a shame that the gun-related sounds (especially the commander's .50 cal) aren't as good.

The CITV is an exceptionally well done part of the game. While you don't have the typical CITV control screen as M1TP2 models, Spearhead does model the "meat" of what makes the CITV valuable. You can spot a target and hand it off to the gunner. The gunner will call out "Identified!" when he recognizes the target and from that point he'll track the target automatically, leaving you free to hunt another lucrative target. Unfortunately, the gunner does not lase the target or fire by himself. Indeed, you have to supply the range data for him from the CITV - which is rather odd considering that the CITV doesn't have a ranging laser. Just a couple steps short of greatness here.

Unfortunately, visible distances in Spearhead are dreadfully short. Spearhead appears to have a maximum horizon of 2500meters. That means that the entire horizon is well within the engagement range of the M1's gun. Furthermore, it puts players uncomfortably close to enemy vehicles - not a good place to be as one of the facets of the M1's survivability is being able to outrange its opponents. In practice in Desert Storm, M1's frequently engaged targets as far out as 3500 meters. Not only is the enemy always well within your gun's range, you are also always very close to their effective range against you.

Compare this with the incredible depth-of-field in M1TP2. Against stationary targets, M1TP2 players have occasionally managed to hit targets just shy of 6000 meters distant. Furthermore, the battlefield is visible over quite a long distance, sufficiently far enough to allow the possibility of spotting units before they move into range - 8000 meters. Perhaps the thing to keep in mind here is that Spearhead really falls into the lite-sim class of game, where such details are usually winked at.

While the visible area may be very small, the drivable area is not. This is a very significant advantage. In M1TP2, you quickly learn that the safest way to reach your objective when you're on the offensive is to skirt the edge of the map and therefore have to guard only one flank. Spearhead's maps are so large that this tactic simply isn't practical. Indeed, one can spend quite a long time driving from one end of the map to the other.

The IVIS is a clear example of something that's a really good idea in theory, but just didn't work in practice. The idea was that rather than have the normal "strategy map" to switch to for planning and giving orders, just emulate the commander's actual tools. So your IVIS is very similar to what a real M1A2 commander would have in the real tank. In practice though, the strategy map of most tank sims are designed around the fact that players don't actually have voice communication with allied units and that allied AI is usually not good enough at working as a team if left to its own initiative.

These weren't design issues in designing the actual IVIS, so the result is an interface that is very cumbersome to use and limited in scope and flexibility. Ground warfare sims simply require the fastest, most flexible strategy map possible to make up for that lack of a radio and sophisticated AI. However, one key point to the makers' credit - in escort missions you can order vehicles being escorted to form up on you so you don't have to race after them while you're supposed to protect them. This is something all too often overlooked in even some of the most well respected games.

Spearhead features what is arguably the most realistic driving in a tank sim. It features all the commonly used transmission settings, an ignition switch, a parking brake, and an engine governor override. Hills and terrain can create quite a bit of fluctuation in your speed. Various kinds of soil are modeled, including the fact that soil at lower elevations tends to be softer - slowing you down. You can even roll down a hill if you don't set the brake.

One of the most frustrating things is the game's inconsistency. Some of the obvious problems are so basic that one can only wonder why other areas received so much attention. Driving can be done by rudder pedals or keyboard, but the steering is so ponderously slow for keyboard users that your tank can hardly dodge a glacier - why have realistically modeled driving then? The gun stabilization system appears to be very well modeled and the fire-control computer seems to work reasonably well - yet wire-guided missiles act more like heatseekers (they still track on their target even if you kill the launcher).

The strangeness goes on. Commands as fundamental as the smoke grenade launch button and engine governor switch were left out of the key reference card. There are no formation commands. The range of orders you can give to allied units and tanks is terribly limited. Enemy units don't seem to behave with any semblance of cohesion or follow any combat doctrine. The AI doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the words "hull down". In fact, they seem to do only whatever the mission originally told them to do - then they just turn their turrets at you and fire if you get spotted - is the good mission editor actually acting as a substitute for missing AI? Furthermore, why put infantry in the game yet completely leave out the coax machine gun?

In all fairness, even as our previews hinted, the part of the game that had the most merit is the multiplayer support. While multiplayer campaigns are unfortunately not possible, Spearhead's SIMNET-based multiplayer technology does an admirable job allowing players with even humble 33.6 modems to play rather smoothly over the Internet.

Even this has serious flaws. Unfortunately, all the 2D-based screens, such as the chat screen, engine displays, and IVIS, all ran at one frame-per-second on the test machine. There is no provision for chatting while you fight. You must switch to a chat screen while the battle rages - in the meantime, your tank is totally helpless until you return.

There is also no provision for regenerating after you die - the game simply boots you right back to the main chat room. Here you sit until you can join another game, reload the mission data, and start over again. To make matters worse, in one engagement a T-72 took seven direct hits in the rear armor from an M1's gun at 2000 meters - from both HEAT and SABOT ammunition - yet sallied on completely unfazed.

Most "lite-sims" make up for the lack of subtle gameplay elements with plenty of eye candy to keep the more "action-oriented" gamer happy. Unfortunately, the graphics in Spearhead have a distinctly unpolished look. Many of the 3D models are hideous - the Apache and Kiowa are nearly indistinguishable from each other. The special effects from explosions, smoke, and gunfire all look very artificial. Even the framerate chugs along at times despite the modest graphics.

Spearhead is a special challenge for the reviewer. "Who is it for?" For tank sim enthusiasts, there are too many fundamental flaws for it to be worthwhile. The action gamer would lack the eye candy he's come to expect. The only sensible market, then, would be the tank sim players desperate for multiplayer gaming or action gamers who aren't very picky about graphics. Hopefully iMagic can salvage the multiplayer code and use that as the foundation for putting together a truly deserving ground combat sim. Spearhead shows moments of excellence, but these are isolated from the rest of the game. Sadly, the game as a package is hobbled by too many weak points.

Test Machine

• Celeron 266 @ 400MHz
• 96MB PC100 SDRAM
• Canopus Pure3D2
• CH Mach 1 joystick
• 33.6k modem

Ratings:

• Core: 35
• Gameplay:
• Graphics: 55
• Sound: 75
• Intelligence/AI: 30
• Interface: 50
• Fun Factor: 40
• Learning Curve: 2 hours
• Overall: 45