Act Of War: Direct Action

Without games like Act of War, the traditional RTS genre may have been good as dead. War related games of today provoke gamers to an increasing gameplay complexity. With brands like Total War, Sudden Strike or Nexus the classical real time strategy has miraculously survived thanks to both the zeal of Starcraft fans and the ingenuity of the men behind the Command and Conquer games (the most recent, Generals and Zero Hour).

Act of War: Direct Action remains true to the good ol' genre and, unlike many of its predecessors, it plays its card right.

Concept Each and every one of the Eugen Systems' bad-ass programmers and artists deserve a five second French kiss for their evil scheme to take over our lives through computer games. Well, it didn't really succeed in brainwashing any of the RTS fans, but by carefully mixing some excellent aspects from many different such games this project managed to revive a dying genre and set new grounds for its future.

Also notable is the care invested in the single player campaign. Leaving aside the somewhat loose acting, - ok, I admit the actors have no talent whatsoever -, it is admirable how well was the cinematic footage interlaced with the game itself. As soon as the story catches you, you will feel as if watching a war/techno-thriller movie. And this is something that has never been done in a RTS game before. Moreover, many of the live action scenes have been shot outside, with a reasonable number of figurants. Some could say the Blizzard's RTS games have shown some well-drawn plots as well. It may be so, but not at this scale. The techniques of story-telling in Starcraft or Warcraft 3 resumed to some exquisite 3D rendered movies and a few lines changed between the main characters. In Act of War, the objectives (primary or not), the tech tree and the unit types have a reasonable level of consistence with the plot. For example, in urban combat you are usually given command over the U.S. troops, which fit rather well in the landscape. On the other hand, in the missions with open battlefields you are given command over the more advanced, but much more expensive Task Force Talon. In addition, your access to some units or upgrades is restricted by the accomplishment of your objectives. Though not as complex as it sounds, every campaign map is full of dynamism, something that all the other RTS lacked.

Story The story behind "Act of War" is inspired by the homonymous novel written by the former Air Force Captain, Dale Brown. If you fancy techno thrillers like those of John Le Carre's or Tom Clancy, Act of War may also prove delightful, complete with international intrigue, double-crosses, and plenty of high-tech and military jargon.

However, there are some loose ends in the story. One that bothered me most was the lack of any information concerning the Consortium's background and some biographic information about its members. I surely hope the expansion pack will light these gloomy aspects as they are a great draw-back to the overall quality of the story, greater than the muddy acting.

What little crude (raw materials) there is on the market is selling at usurious prices. The energy companies deny responsibility for the price inflation. In their view, the global economy has overwhelmed any efforts at price controls. By this logic, it is the customers' rampant demand that is setting the price. Some may ask, what happened to the market competition? One company, TransGlobal, presents itself as a small light at the end of the tunnel. TGE engineers have developed a new technology that, if successful, will unlock the Egyptian oil reserves previously thought too expensive to extract. In an effort condemned by other oil conglomerates as predatory pricing, TransGlobal is pricing its crude at 10% below the set commodity price of $75 a barrel. This scenario holds its own dangers. If TransGlobal succeeds in pushing other energy companies out of the market, competition disappears - and with it, the built-in market mechanisms that keep prices competitive.

The President has authorized the creation of an elite counter terrorism unit (Task Force Talon), one authorized to operate outside of international authority. Historically, even covert units have obeyed standards set by the United Nations during the Cold War. However, this time, terrorism around the globe has been united under Consortium's flagship. And they are not just hitting hard on the TransGlobal's facilities, in their boldness they have declared war with Russia and swore to bring the U.S. in its knees.

You assume the role of Major Jason Richter, commander of the Task Force Talon and embark on a crusade against "centralized" terrorism that will eventually succumb to the Nuclear War that they will blindly commence.

Regrettably, the campaign will last for only half a day. And you will learn this grim truth in the most displeasing way, the moment you felt thing were just heating up.

Gameplay Severed from its narrative, Act of War doesn't fall too far from traditional RTS games. The game works on those four "ancient" components any serious gamer expects from a respectable RTS: resource gathering, headquarters building, tech development and unit recruitment.

Resources: cash and oil are the raw material of today and tomorrow. The gathering mechanics combines the vespene gas extraction system from Starcraft (here too, the oil pits eventually dry out) and another two, totally new, that requires you to capture Banks or take prisoners. This is where Act of War truly shines. Whereas in games like Sudden Strike or Blitzkrieg, where you could capture buildings and just arrange your units inside for a better view or better protection (without knowing their exact placement), in Act of War, infantry units can literally wander inside buildings, while you are able to keep an eye on what exactly is going on inside at all times. Moreover, for anti-aircraft defense or sniping vantage points, infantry units may also take position on building rooftops (dropped by a helicopter if the situation on the ground is too hot). Infantry units fortified inside a building can bring mayhem amidst armor or cavalry detachments. The developers from Eugen went even further, making building assault possible. There is no need to turn buildings into rubble, because enemy units fortified inside a building may be flushed out with ease using your own infantry. Act of War redefines the concept of urban-chaos (even if reduced to a game scale).

On the other hand, any battle ends with less casualties but with a great number of injured. Infantry or vehicle, helicopter or airplane crews have a great chance to survive a battle, sometimes badly injured (they cannot move or shoot). Injured infantry or crews may be captured providing your war effort with large amounts of cash (keeping prisoners guarantees a constant flow of U.S. dollars). There is, of course, a drawback as the enemy may also capture your disabled troops and it's also painfully expensive. Having a MEDVAC unit (Black Hawk) or a transport (of any type) close to a conflict sector is a healthy and most inspired option, not to mention the gaming experience that it provides.

Factions and faction structures and units: there is no strategy a game without sides, good and evil, light or dark, them or us. Although there are three factions in the game, only two are playable in the single player campaign. Moreover, they won't be available as a whole but rather as something in between: the good guys gather the Task Force Talon and the U.S. Army (or National Guard), while the opposing force is also a mix, but in this case of Consortium, American and Russian (mostly tanks and fighters, unavailable in Multiplayer) forces.

The Task Force Talon, a high tech, elite U.S. force resembles Zerg of Starcraft in terms of structure building. You do not need electricity as the U.S. Army or the Consortium do, but as you need more space for your structures, you will need to build base extensions (something like the Protoss psi-pylons or rather the Zerg creep colonies, because these extensions must be built inside the effective range of others). In addition, your builders are assimilated by the structures as soon as they become operational.

Unlike the Zerg, the Task Force Talon has the best units in the game, and they are usually multi-purpose, fighting well against any unit type. Their downside is their price. Therefore, the Task Force Talon works on the principle: force to be reckoned with, but unable to recover in case of major losses.

The U.S. Army is a collection of "the best in their trade" unit types - very similar to the Starcraft's Terrans - and usually unable to fight against any threat "outside their field of expertise". Unlike the Talon, the U.S. structures do not have placement requirements but they are bulky and need electricity - provided by lots of power generators. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the Americans; an electricity shortage can disable - excepting the barracks - the entire base. And this includes its immobile anti-tank/anti-aircraft/anti-tactical weapons defense - a disaster directly proportional with enemy awareness (aerial or tactical bombardments can level a base at an incredible speed, a single raid or missile launch of reasonable numbers is usually more than sufficient).

The Consortium is a remainder of the way things worked in Tiberian Sun or Red Alert 2. Structures cannot be placed too far from one another, and the most advanced buildings (including the defensive ones) require electricity. The Consortium units depend both on their cloaking abilities and their reduced cost of production, but their overall strength and endurance is - except some rare cases - outmatched by the U.S forces and Task Force Talon. In the single player campaign, they feel extremely powerful not only because of their carefully chosen strategic position, but mostly because of the Russian tanks and planes or American (non-Talon) forces, of almost all types. The strongpoint of the Consortium is the type of its builders (helicopters), a fact that really simplifies things. The other devastating capability is building similar to the Zerg's Nydus Canal, called the Sleeper Cell.

Technologic differences have a great strategic and tactical value. The U.S. will only have access to its elite units and defense systems only after it has researched both DEFCON levels in an orderly fashion.

The Talon, on the other hand may choose from SHIELD and DRONE technologies. The first one enables repair and medical and tactical weapon capabilities- the Mjolnir Howitzer, and also a super-heavy, extra-fast infantry unit called SHIELD that can be either repaired and healed and it may fight well against any unit type, armored, infantry, or flying as their success in battle depends on your ability to switch between their weapons. The second technology provides the TFT with defensive options against tactical attacks (probably the most advanced in the game as they are mobile units that do not need power supplies). In addition, the PROBE tech provides the TFT with air strike capabilities and the all-mighty probe tanks, the must durable and versatile units in the game.

The Consortium needs just one technological step to gain access to everything that its military power can provide. Although its main advantage is the stealth tech, this upgrade is called "Revealed".

All three factions have air strike capabilities and tactical weapons at their disposal. The only difference is that while the U.S. has specialized units for every task (F15 air superiority, A10 close air support and the B2 bomber), the Consortium has a multi-purpose, stealthy aircraft (Black Widow), while the Talon, the FA35 (anti-aircraft and bomber) and the Global Hawk with CAS support. There is no need to mention that the U.S has the best and the most expensive air power. However, you should be careful about the heights of your targets whenever you send in your bombers. The explosions - if too close to your aircrafts - may destroy them. In my opinion, this is an unforgivable bug. How is it possible for something like this to escape more than three "heavy" updates? The same with the nuclear bombardment: firstly, your defense system does not work against your own nukes; secondly, if you send to many rockets, too fast, you may have the surprise to lose most of them to the first explosion.

Most of the unit abilities you'll meet in AoW are something you already got acquainted in most of the other RTS. Utility units like repairing or healing vehicles work as they did in Command and Conquer: Generals or Wracraft III by casting a "healing aura" around them. However, some of them (the U.S. helicopters) have the ability to evacuate disabled units from the battlefield and return them to base. In Act of War, units that sustained heavy damage (either vehicles or troops) cannot attack or defend themselves, nor move.

Most of the infantry units may crawl or prepare ambushes. These commands give them limited stealth abilities while reducing their line of sight. Also, most units may attack while moving. Like stealth (stealth units cannot be attacked), mobility has a great defensive value as there are only few units with the "fire and forget" ability. Stealthy or fast units are usually vulnerable to indirect fire (artillery attacks). Designating the bombardment area works similarly to the catapults in Age of Empires or the howitzers in Sudden Strike. The light armor of the ultra-fast units cannot usually withstand artillery bombardment. In Act of War, the damage and defense varies. Depending on the armor and unit type, an attacking unit can make one casualty for every shot or shoot its way into eternity without causing any noticeable damage. Unfortunately, armored vehicles do not deflect bullets, therefore you will experience the unpleasant surprise of losing M1's to poor armed infantry units just because they fortified inside some pesky buildings.

The A.I. in AoW isn't the hallmark of strategy games, but it usually does a good job. Although the A.I. path finding may be wonky at times, units may be set to defend a sector, meaning that they can engage - by themselves - any aggressive forces outside their line of sight and then, if successful, they are supposed to return obediently to their initial position.

On the other hand, the strategic proficiency of the A.I. isn't brighter than what we have seen in Starcraft for example. It gradually unleashes its forces against your main headquarters, usually defying any of your secondary positions. And it always uses the shortest routes. For veteran players, this predictable behavior is extremely boring, if not plain annoying. Building a fortified position in its path is enough to keep your A.I. adversary at bay, while you peacefully prepare your avenging counterattack. Moreover, the A.I. usually forgets to use lesser units as soon as it develops their elite counterparts. Doing so, it rather cripples its offensive strength as, without cannon feed, even the best of the best cannot breach a human manned immobile defensive perimeter. Units that take hit after hit tend to freeze. This is shown in the candor expressed by any assaulting heavy tanks or helicopters that are popped out by your defenses, the same defenses that could never fend off scores of inexpensive infantry units.

Anyway, the fighting - thanks to the map setting - becomes so intense at times, that the dimwit A.I. will escape unnoticed with the bulk of the forces you'll have to massacre in your quest for strategic supremacy.

There are no unit number restrictions, but there will not be too many units present on the map, in the same time. However, micromanaging both your production and your fighting force may prove overwhelming. It is a full 3d game after all, and you need to rotate the camera to see what's going on behind a building or to select a target hidden there. A pause option would have come in handy. Well, you will have to do without it.

Video The map design, the unit detail, the visual effects or the menus, all are very detailed and very sexy. The graphic engine reproduces with great virtuosity the sights of urban chaos: burning buildings, vehicles blown to smithereens, soldiers painfully dragging their guts across the streets?

The camera view has its advantages and disadvantages. Although you it is easy to manipulate and it has an overall good angle point, it may feel very restrictive as soon as you begin wishing you could navigate parallel to the surface of a street or see in detail how the fourth level of a building ignited after being hit by several artillery shells.

All helicopters have a problem with the auto leveling. They tend to fly low and you do not have any control whatsoever over this aspect. And whenever they encounter a tall building, they stop and try to progressively raise at higher heights in order to pass over it. In hot zones, especially when they try to fly over a building filled with unfriendly infantry, they begin to behave erratically. And, sometimes, they even refuse to open fire on those enemy positions.

Another persistent problem is the line of sight. Act of War kept a stupid legacy from its older counterparts: troops on high ground are harder to spot, and this includes flying units like helicopters. You have to get (almost) underneath a helicopter in order to spot it and shot it down? and this is dumb. Well the whole line of sight thing is dumb. Infantry merely spot anything at ten feet away while their attack range is even lower. At least in Sudden Strike any unit could fire well above its line of sight, here only artillery units have this ability. A well-differentiated line of sight and attack range would have provided a higher tactical value to the game. Sadly, Eugen System's developers have chosen the classical approach of the RTS: standardized, extremely reduced radiuses for both spotting and aiming to correspond to the reduced map sizes.

Audio The sound effects and sound themes are impressive at first. However, in time, the repetitive unit acknowledgements will - as usual - blow you down and your appetite for in-game sounds. What is so hard to make a unit scream, "I am under heavy attack by a T-80 tank from South-West", or "I've got sniper at five o'clock!" or "They are all-over me, get me out of here!"

Please do not force me to remember the lifeless voice acting!

Multiplayer Besides the skirmish mode where you can engage in combat with up to seven uninspired computer controlled opponents, you can choose from a not so varied range of multiplayer options: deathmatch and team deathmatch. The number of human players is restricted to a mere eight and not one more. And it feels like Starcraftish-Red Alertish-Generals all the way down: fast paced and straight forward. To be honest, I consider that tactical weapons are game disruptors. One nuclear launch is enough to drop inexperienced players from the game. People with no consideration for strategic thinking enjoy this exploit, and it saddens me to see games with such potential falling losing their playing value so easily.

Conclusion In my opinion, Act of War was one of the best strategy games of the year 2005. I have opted to review this game because Eugen Systems are working on an expansion pack, called High Treason, from which I expect to further improve the core of Direct Action.

Until Act of War, Eugen Systems were an unknown French game studio that after its founding in 2000 that produced two even greater strangers, Times of Conflict and The Gladiators: Galactic Circus Games. There was nothing to indicate they would be capable of something worthy to contest the grip of Command & Conquer over the traditional, military-themed, RTS genre.

However, if we look more carefully on the background of Act Of War, we will see that the influence of a company like Atari, the expertise of a ret. Battlefield General, Barry R. McCaffrey or the belletristic feedback provided by Dale Brown's homonymous novel must have had great influence on the outcome of Eugen's RTS game project.

Act Of War: Direct Action

key review info