Jump to content

pzgndr

Members
  • Content Count

    2,255
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pzgndr

  • Rank
    SC Beta Tester
  • Birthday 04/10/1961

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Check out http://grogheads.com/?p=5109. Jim Sterrett, who was very active during TacOps development, is starting to use FCRS for staff exercises. A v2.04 patch is due out soon and the next game in the series, Flashpoint Campaigns: Southern Storm, will cover the southern part of the West-German front in this ‘what if’ Nato vs. Warsaw Pact conflict.
  2. FYI, TacOps players will probably be very interested in a new game available at Matrix http://www.matrixgames.com/products/471/details/Flashpoint.Campaigns:.Red.Storm, if you haven't already heard of it. A v2.03 patch was just released that fixes a lot of the early growing pains most every new game seems to have these days. Ah, now, if we could only combine all of the best features of TacOps and this game, that would be really cool. Perchance to dream... :cool:
  3. You need to select the tiles for a country and then assign control of them to that country. Then the borders between different countries controlling territory will appear.
  4. flu, I understand about the balance issues. But what do you mean about a surprise attack? Axis can attack USSR at any time of their choosing, and nothing much has changed about that through the SC series. How is SC2 unplayable in your opinion, where SC1 was more playable? I don't get it...
  5. Join the club Rambo. We'll get Hubert to offer an AARP "Smack-Down" discount.
  6. I thought the Strategic Command series AI was already pretty darn good back in 2008 when I wrote an article http://www.wargamer.com/article/2526/Artificial-Intelligence-Part-I:-Using-Strategic-Command-2-AI-to-Play-Advanced-Third-Reich for Wargamer. But the AI just continues to get better and better! And Big AL and the other beta testers keep pushing the envelope to provide a truly formidable computer opponent to prove the naysayers wrong. (Methinks there are just folks that are scared to lose to a dumb machine...)
  7. I think the simplicity can be maintained. The major things that bugged me about SC1 were the economics (USA and USSR production increases weren't modeled well), research (too much, too fast sometimes), and limitations with the AI and event scripting at the time. A lot of that is 'under the hood' so to speak and could be implemented in an SC1 remake without losing that original 'fun factor' that we enjoyed.
  8. There's a big difference between luck (good and bad) and cheating. The +/-1 variability in combat calculations is one of the strengths of the game system that provides replayability. I'd argue to keep this off the table. If cheating is the concern, then there are other things to look at.
  9. I am hopeful that the new SC3 game engine will allow a remake of the SC1 original, with some enhancements based on the latest features but also with a keen eye on keeping the game simple and fun as it was in the beginning. All those new unit types do not have to be used, don't ya know? I enjoyed the heck out of the original game way back when, but deep down it always nagged at me that it was too abstract and failed to capture the historical accuracy essence that a classic WWII game should provide. The SC series has grown and evolved nicely but, as discussed, some of the fun factor has been lost along the way. Also, the community has become greatly fragmented with all the different game versions and forums. Not like the old days. FWIW, I'm pretty happy with my latest Advanced Third Reich mod using the Global Conflict Gold version. I'm not planning to update it again until SC3 and then I'll see what I can do with it. I also have ideas about an Army-level ETO mod, a la A3R-lite, that should be fast and fun.
  10. Latest gossip is that SC3 will be a faithful remake of Hearts of Iron I but with tiles and 3D anime by a new Japanese graphics designer. Should be super cool! :cool: Or, maybe not...
  11. Yeah, check the error file for insights. I would usually save all turns, so that way I could go back to the turn in question and watch exactly what was happening at time of crash. If it's reproducible and you can't figure it out, Hubert can.
  12. The Strategic Command 2 series is simply being extended under a Continuing Resolution. Hopefully Strategic Command 3 will not be affected by a Sequestration. But Hubert's in Canada where the rules are different, so perhaps he will get us through it all one way or another!
  13. A future option that could be considered would be to allow players to purchase partial strength units with a corresponding reduced build time. For example, buy a 2-factor BB with 20% production delay. That would get a unit on the map that could be slowly reinforced over time. Since we usually assume fleets of multiple ships for each individual unit, we can always assume the new unit is being built up around some existing ship(s), as an abstraction. It's a little less plausible for operational-level scenarios that assume individual capital ships. But hey...
  14. Hubert would have to clarify what the code is really doing. It may be that interceptions appear to be at strike range but are in fact calculated based on spotting range, in which case the display for where the air battle occurs may need to be looked at. I'm not sure offhand, but would agree that the reduced spotting range should be used.
  15. Two thoughts. First, modding/adjusting the CTVs can already rebalance things to a large degree. Carrier-based air can be made less effective against land targets, and vice versa, and this is what I did in my A3R mod. Second, there needs to be another unit type slot so you can have two carriers, heavy/fleet carriers and light/escort carriers. That would help a lot; hopefully we'll see some changes along these lines in SC3.
×
×
  • Create New...