textfiles/games/REVIEWS/tank.rev

 TANK

 TANK is Spectrum HoloByte's simulation of modern armored warfare, the first
installment in their Electronic Battlefield System. That system promises to one
day allow gamers to command a number of different vehicles on one cohesive
networked battlefield. An exciting prospect, but for now the question is: How
well do these simulations stand on their own? The best way to answer that in
this case is to compare and contrast TANK to its closest rival, the
widely-acclaimed M1 TANK PLATOON from MicroProse. (This review is based on the
IBM-PC version.)

 A TANK game begins by selecting one of 15 missions in three different theatres:
Fort Knox (training), Central Europe, and the Middle East. The five missions in
each theatre are connected in theme but not in execution. There is not, as in M1
TANK PLATOON (hereafter M1), a campaign game where each mission outcome
influences subsequent missions. Offsetting this is the increased complexity and
detail of TANK's missions. M1's missions are generated by randomizing several
factors -- terrain, enemy and friendly forces, starting positions, time of day
-- to create more variety between them. The price you pay for such variety is a
rather simplistic mission structure. TANK takes a different route by giving you
a limited number of rich and extensively developed missions.

 After choosing a mission, you may select a difficulty level, time setting, and
control method. Difficulty level affects primarily the amount and accuracy of
information that you have available during gameplay, while the third and highest
level also increases enemy skill and AI. M1 is comparable in this area. The time
setting's greatest impact is of course on visibility. Night time provides an
element of stealth, but since it gives the same thing to the enemy, the type of
mission being undertaken has to be considered here. M1 makes a random
determination of its time setting. Finally, keyboard or joystick control can be
selected. Unfortunately, Spectrum has shown its accustomed inability to write
satisfactory joystick drivers. Control is jerky and frustrating at best, and
totally infuriating at worst. This is in direct contrast to MicroProse's usual
smooth joystick controls in M1.

 Moving to the armament screen allows you to load each tank platoon with your
preferred split of HEAT and Sabot rounds. M1 allows you to set this for each
tank, rather than by the platoon.

 Once the mission has begun, you may elect to play the game in a number of
different ways. If you enjoy the strategic side of things, an entire mission can
be played from the Operations map. This map shows the topography of the region
by using different colors to indicate varying ground levels. It also shows all
friendly forces in their respective locations, as well as any known enemy
forces. Commands are issued by moving through numerous levels of menus and
submenus activated by single key presses.

 This is where gameplay first starts to break down. The organization of these
menus is unnecessarily complicated, and moving through all of them in the heat
of battle can be a bit frustrating. Making matters worse is the sluggishness
with which the game accepts key presses. Apparently the keyboard is not being
polled often enough, and the result is that more often than not, it takes
several key presses before the game recognizes a menu selection -- and there are
plenty of selections to make. From this screen, you can: set movement paths for
your tanks (the ability to set multiple waypoints is a big advantage over M1);
control their speed and formations; call in air support; recon flights or
artillery; and obtain current intelligence information on enemy troops. You can
also zoom in and out on the battlefield, although movement of the zoom box is
another exercise in frustration.

 Remaining at this operational level, however, will deprive you of the single
finest element in the game: the 3-D polygon-fill graphics. Due to the slow
frame-rate required by a tank simulation, Spectrum was able to create 3-D
landscapes that really convey a sense of "being there." There are no flat
battlefields here, and that's a big plus over M1. The only negative side to the
graphics is the limited choice of colors in the EGA palette. You see these
graphics from a number of different perspectives.

 In what is the closest similarity to M1, you can move between different tanks,
and within those tanks, between several positions that your crewmembers occupy.
At all of these positions, it is possible for you to take an active role in the
game. From the driver's screen, you can take control of the tank itself; from
the gunner's view you can select and fire on targets, etc. By doing so, you may
reach the lowest level of the game -- that of the individual. But if such
arcade-like exercises don't interest you, the computer can handle these routines
adequately. In fact, that's probably good advice, since the interface
difficulties extend to these sequences as well. Driving the tank is not too
difficult, but aiming the gun is all but impossible.

 On a more general note, the tactics and strategies required to succeed in TANK
are quite accurate. The major omission in this area is that of infantry.
Infantry is a critical element of modern tank warfare, and it is conspicuous in
its absence here. M1 _does_ implement infantry.

 A mission can end either when all of your forces are destroyed or immobilized,
or when you attain the mission objective(s). The latter will yield a score,
referred to as a "FitRep" or "Fitness Report," the top five of which are
recorded for each mission. This score is determined by a number of factors,
including difficulty level, timeliness, and number of friendly forces remaining,
but it's generally a bit nebulous considering the time and effort that goes into
playing a mission. And speaking of time, TANK has _no_ time compression feature.
This has become something of a standard feature in this gaming genre, and is
sorely missed here. Waiting for things to happen in real-time can become quite
tedious.

 Development work on TANK is continuing, with several features being added and
changes made based on early users' suggestions. Version 1.1, which was available
for this review, adds a command to align the hull with the turret, a highly
useful command that M1 provided. Gun stabilization was a problem with early
versions, but has been corrected now. A new scoring system shows a detailed
breakdown of friendly units remaining intact and enemy units destroyed, along
with their associated point values and a brief comment on your performance.
Joystick controls have been improved, but are only marginally better than the
original. Mouse support has also been added, but it's not implemented very well.
Spectrum provides these updates of the program to registered owners either free
(for those having problems with bugs and such), or for a reasonable charge.

 TANK requires an IBM or compatible, with either a 286 or 386 microprocessor,
and 640K of RAM. More significantly, the disks included in the package require
either a 1.2Mb 5-1/4" or a 720K 3-1/2" floppy drive; 360K floppy disks can be
obtained with the "Disk Exchange Coupon," but the game cannot actually be played
from 360K disks: You must install the program onto a hard drive if you only have
360K drives. However, there's no copy protection at all on TANK, so a retailer
willing to do so could transfer the files to 360K disks. Graphics are EGA only,
and joystick control is supported.

 Incidentally, it's possible to play TANK head to head with another player, via
modem or direct connection. That feature wasn't tested for this review, but
reports are that it doesn't work very smoothly, and that it's quite limited in
scope.

 So which game do I recommend? M1 TANK PLATOON, without a doubt. And that's
unfortunate, because the potential in TANK is tremendous. However, the
realization of that potential requires a lot more development time. Moreover,
the major obstacle to enjoying TANK is its interface. This is becoming an old
story with Spectrum HoloByte. They need to take a look at how top game
publishers handle their interfaces and put some more emphasis on this in the
future.

 As it is, TANK's interface gets in the way of the game itself. Good interfaces
allow the player to think about what's going on in the game, rather than _how_
to execute specific actions. M1, with its keyboard overlay and smoothly
responsive controls, is excellent in this regard. With so many other aspects of
gameplay being similar or identical, it's easy to see that M1 is the more
engrossing and playable simulation of modern tank warfare.

 TANK is published and distributed by Spectrum HoloByte.

*****DOWNLOADED FROM P-80 SYSTEMS (304) 744-2253