Jump to content

Kuniworth

Members
  • Content Count

    3,731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kuniworth

  1. Al, I'm glad you continue push for hexes. I agree with you that the sc2 series are great games but they could be so much better. Today there are no games of ww2 outthere that both give you scenarios as well as make your own. The big problem for sc2 is the lack of hexes, retreat rules etc that is seriously hampering the effort. I'm glad if Hubert incorporates stop on certain units until you says so. But I would also like to have the possibility of pre-setting a higer number of units on the map than the hard-build limit. That way I could simulate the soviet abolishment of corps-system and the introduction of tank armies.
  2. Big Al, as you adressed me I can only tell you that this cheer leading stuff aint gonna work with me. I've seen dozen of beta testers say the same things over the years. Fact is hexes needs a new engine to run as the current is built on tiles. Tiles are bad in several ways, they make encirclements hard, they require 8 instead of 6 units to surround units, they portrait supplys bad as both sides can have their supply lines crossed, they eliminate the ww2 feel of breakthrough and make it a slugging match for cities and they make it hard to estimate ranges. All in all tiles are inferior to tiles when you are discussing vital aspects to war games. I would love to remake my waterloo, battle for russia and nach stalingrad scenarios but i'm not sure that this version would make it worth it. There is huge potential for Hubert's game with this possibility to make own scenarios, however tiles are not the way forward. The sooner that is dropped, the better. But phasing out let me give you an example; during the initial stages of barbarossa the red army abolished the corps system in favor of the field armies. If you would like to simulate that it would be nice if you could start with russian corps but no chance to rebuild them.
  3. Also make it possible to start a scenario with higher number of units of a sort than the preset cap. So you can simulate the phasing out of unit-types.
  4. Hubert, you are on the right track. But seriously you got to dump the tiles and do it top down. There is lot of great looking top down maps out there. Retreat rules would be a step forward of course. I'd like it to be automatic retreat unless it is in cities. I think for the next game you should go for sc3, hexes, retreat rules and top down.
  5. why not include hexes and top down view. Top down looks nicer than isometric. But a question, what is different with ww1 engine and ww2 engine?
  6. and what about retreat rules? And hexes to simulate logistics correctly. Face it, this game engine is not made for modern wars.
  7. "Other items" mean the time schedule is at least some years away for sc3. More like earliest at 2013 or 2014 I guess. Excuse me for not singing hallelujah.
  8. You are probably correct. The only thing stopping your desire is a civil war or a space war game.
  9. PowerGmbH: Thing is this. I expect much more after sc1 and sc2. This is basically the same game as the last 6 years with some upgrades for each versions. For me this was the final nail in the coffin. It's quite obvious by now that Hubert either not posses the ability to create a new game-engine or else he don't give a damn. I don't know, I think it's 5 years now I've been asking Fury software for sc3. Me and Jersey and lots of folks asked at least for an improved sc 1 and Hubert hinted that he might surprise us with it down the road. Well apperently that is not the case and that surprises me. The way Bill Macon and Blashy a while back started to encourage claims to get hexes made me think that behind the curtain something was going on. But I was probably wrong. That was 2 years ago and with no signs of sc3 by now there is probably not much going on after all. And the reports that this version got game engine improvemen ts is a bad sign as it tells us what Hubert spent his time on instead of making sc3. Honestly I want a better game. Playing sc2 in different versions for 6 years would be ok if I believed in the original game mechanics. But the lack of hexes and retreat rules is killing the ww2 experience. Even if sc1 had tons of flaws the addiction of it kept it alive. I'm disappointed at the lack of initiative displayed. Instead of sc3 we get sc2 version 5(w&a, pde, pacific, world, ww1) I will nt buy this game. I have already made mods that take me to the civil war, waterloo, stalingrad etc with the current engine. I want greatness, I want my sc3
  10. I like some of the new features, but this is not what I've been looking for.
  11. Ok guys just post now to make my point. Nice to see that the sc series can find new wars to explore. The sc2 game engine is definately capable of depicting ww1 and it will be a great game I'm sure. However I can't help to feel a bit disappointed. Maybe that is because I've been around here since 2002 and many new guys have not seen all the earlier versions. Or perhaps is it because everyone here is fine with how it works right now. What I see from looking at the pictures is basically the same game as sc2 and the following expansions. Most of the stuff looks the same just with updated units. Even the city-images are reused from the sc2-series. I'm sorry but where is the groundbreaking ideas that made the original sc1 and sc2? I see no signs that this version will include retreat rules, hexes or other stuffg we have been talking about. I mean is this it or do you keep working on a future project?
  12. Hello, any news of sc 3? Or did the project collapse all together?
  13. Back in black I hit the sack It's great to be back! I've been let loose from the noose that kept me hanging around! So now I'm back again. I see there are some discussions of sc3 going on, that's great that people start discussing this. We all know the benefits of the sc2 engine, now we like it formed into sc3. The unpredictability you talk about Seamonkey is pretty much taken care of if you cvan evolve the political game. Putting chits in for different country is a way bit too simplified to simulate the 1930s-1940s. If the political diplomacy could get more attention it would lead to more interesting games. As far as intelligence etc goes, the main principle should be to keep it simple. The more predictable combat is the more liekly we will get back the old chess feel of sc1. Focus should be on strategy rather than luck.
  14. Been getting a lot of questions and at this point I just want to clearify to any newcomers: Panzerliga is not, I repeat NOT, a circle jerk for nazi-necrophiles. They play games. Move along folks.
  15. Glad you enjoy playing a true world war! I would like to stress to everyone reading this that Geofighter's enjoyment of the game in no way mean he is a goose stepping nazi. So GeoF, keep playing and if someone says you are a nazi I will be there to point out that this is just a game. Also if someone thinks Geofighters name is weird, that does'nt mean he is a necrophile. >>> keeping the forum sane. Doing my job.
  16. Well as I said, Rambo is not all that bad. As I said I would defend him against anybody accusing him of beeing a necrophilia! So If anyone plan to spread any rumours I will be upp there on the baarricade. I would also like to stress that Hubert Cater is not a nazi. >>>>>>>>>getting things right, doing my job
  17. Sure Rambo says some stuff that offend some but I never heard him say he is a nazi or a necrophile.
  18. Well Rambo raises a question, should the game be tested more under competitive play conditions? Btw Rambo is it true that you actually are Lucky Zebra?
  19. More: - You should perhaps add Petsamo in the north of Finland as a mine to be annexed by the soviet union after the winter war.
  20. Hm good to know in case I decide to buy it after all Btw, in the demo I see you have given Norway some mines, Kiruna N is the name of one of them. Kiruna is a swedish city built around mining, got nothing to do with Norway...
  21. Hey mr H, as I said I'm not out do disrespect the global game. Im sure it's great but just not what Im looking for as I said many times in the past. SC1 is still in my book in many vital aspects superior to the sc2 games. Does'nt mean I'm not supporting Fury software, battlefront or the strategic command series, after all these years I'm still standing here right? For me SC3 is the way forward. With the sc2 games we pretty much built up a lot of features that will come in handy with the evolvment of sc3. I'm not sure I agree with Xwormwood about a global scale, back to Europe would be logical for me, aiming for ultimate playability(sc1) with lots of depth(sc2) to it under the hood. If you are planning this Hubert, as you perhaps hinted earlier, dont forget sea mines, perhaps even land mines for tactical scenarios. Hexes of course, and solve static front lines with retreat rules. A simple rule to remember; outside cities- units retreat, defending city - no chance of retreat. More over: - don't be sloppy with historical facts(remember debate over command ratings) to early on silence history buffs, good example was matrix games ww2 grand strategy game that left out Malta - not a good way to build confidence among the grognards. - And avoid "short cuts" if possible as Xwormwood posted. - Give Bill Runacre lots of freedom he is fantastic, but tell him to aim for historical accuary as much as possilbe, without risking playability. Sometimes I feel the abstractions could have been fewer if Bill had gone for it like Poland scenario(Im basically the guy that sit here wonders where are the missing carrier in SC Pacifics order of battle for the attack on Pearl Harbor?). btw what happened to Blashy and Edwin?
×
×
  • Create New...