Rebirth of SC

[aesopo]

Hubert,

We know SC2 has occupied your time but a lot of us old timers do appreciate the simplicity of the orginal SC as it also has the feel of a boardgame. Can't you release an updated editor or something for this? A lot of players would even pay for an updated SC.

Thanks!

[jon_j_rambo]

3 years later the same request. Nice job, kid. Now get back to SC-2!

[Hubert Cater]

aesopo, believe it or not I am still very happy to see players enjoying SC1

All I can say for now is who knows what the future may bring

[Alexanderthe_OK]

Nice to hear from aesopo again - I agree with you 100%. Indeed an updated SC1 (with hexes of course) sounds like a great idea. I still play SC1 with 5 opponents and all of us would love to see an upgrade. Good that Hubert still reads the SC1 forum

[Mr.Dozer]

I love sc1 just wish the editor wa better, some extra units like paratroopers and engineers. To have the option between sc1 and sc2 techs.

Anything would be nice and i would easily fork up cash to get an update.

[Qyusson]

sc2 is worked out perfectly, but that means also more work each turn. Thats why i never play the game online, takes ages between turns. I like it as solo game though. I think more people feel like me and would definitely like to see some kind of upgrade to sc1. Some ideas: insertion of the diplomacy system, extanding the map, more customization options in scenario editor, maybe the possibility of playing with more than 2, some ai tweaks (like trying to make it attack in the best order, not planes first). Like aesopo already told, a lot of pple would like to reward any attempts in this direction.

I still play sc1 with 3 friends in hotseat or online. We all believe sc1 is a better multiplayer game than its offspring.

Greetz

[Mr.Dozer]

for sure sc1 is amazing multiplayer game. What i would love to see is

1.Total custimizable map, place my own hexes just like sc2 editor.

2.New units like para troopers

3. Desert needs to be a tiny bit wider.

4. Every magor can be played by a human seperatly with selectable sides. Have a selector like dogs of war for this (the pre game now known as axis and allies) http://www.the-underdogs.info/game.php?id=3128

5. Option of weather affects

6. Diplomacy option

7. Better ai like attacking in full force as germans in russia, even when i gave AI to much they would only send piece meal forces to attack moscow. everything before that was fine for the most part.

Thats all i can think of for now, still an amazing game.

[El Jeffe De La Madre]

I really like SC1. Some things I have found missing or underdone;

1. The US role is very much underemphasized. US prodution is less than Italy's usually. Also, there is no Lend/Lease or Murmansk/Archnagel transfer of goods to the Russians and this was a major aid to them.

2. The UK production is undermodeled. How could they have produced the navy they have with such pitiful prouction #'s ? They can't produce armor like they did, (never enough MPP's).

[JerseyJohn]

I've just noticed this thread or I'd have posted to it months ago.

As so many of us said during the years before SC-2 appeared, SC was great -- except it needs more of this or less of that etc and some of the key points came up again in this threads earlier posts.

Much of what I personally asked for has appeared in SC-2, principally the vastly expanded scenario editor. -- Don't like the narrow Atlantic, draw your own etc. I was very happy to see all of that, but in many ways SC-2 is a basically different game from its predecessor. Both are fine, I see a lot of people really love SC-2, which is a great thing, but I'll always prefer the original game.

Principal disappointments, as I recall, were:

Very weak and predictable AI opponent.

Map & Weather--

*Atlantic too small;

*Sahara too narrow N --> S;

*Impossible to sneak German naval units past Scapa Flow;

*The Low Countries too prone to a Thermopolae-type bottleneck, one of the reasons so many of us wanted both stacking and advance/retreat after combat actions.

*Winters not severe enough

*No Russian Winter -- gets into a detailed discussion, of course, maybe should have an on/off toggle.

*Amphibious Landings wrong, no allowance for a nations ability to land troops, weather doesn't seem to be a factor as they can be done even on northern shores during winter months! Large land units able to sail around indefinitely looking for landing opportunities, leading to many absurd situations such as Italy conquering the United States! (see next issue).

*Huge amphibious landings conducted on the same turn as the DOW.

*MUD seasons not a major factor -- a major factor in Italy and Russia.

Unit Aspects --

No stacking;

No retreat;

No advance after combat;

Battles too much like WWI instead of WWII;

The Naval War doesn't ring true;

Shore bombardments too strong, again considering the size of the units and the size of each hex (2-3x the range of largest naval guns);

Subs pretty ineffective, not really worth the cost;

Carriers shouldn't sink as a result of a defeated air strike! -- there should be separate ship and aircraft loss/damage status;

Aircraft carriers too powerful, especially against land targets. I agree that in the European Campaign aircraft carriers rarely figured in actions against major land units, though in carriers vs surface units I think they were fine; Strategic bombers more effective against naval units than tac air fleets, we all agreed it should have been the opposite;

Air Units too decisive against ground units (considering each piece is a corps and army!);

Strategic Bombers cost more to repair than the cost to the enemy in MPPs from their strikes;

Rockets not very effective units -- I don't thing they should be, really, considering early 1940s technology, though they should have a great morale destroying effect when effectively unleashed upon enemy cities.

And many more points, sorry, I just don't recall all of them at the moment.

Anyway, it was my understanding that Hubert couldn't correct or change most of this within the game system he used for SC.

-- But even now my vote would be for a hex based game combining the best of SC, HiCom and Clash of Steel with a really good AI player. ** Throw in a really good editor and I'd be satisfied forever.

[Retributar]

Yes!!!...there are many-fan's of SC1...that might just need to be catered to...especially for 'Head To Head' play!.

Personally i prefer SC2 and it's Ongoing Continual Evolutionary-Improvement's & i have no-interest at all in 'HvH' gaming!.

However!,...for those to whom it is important!,...cannot they be accomodated?..."Jersey John" is certainly a thunderous advocate of making a 'New-Improved-SC1'!. So!...if your listening 'John'!!!...please 'Speaketh Forth'!!!.

~The 'Squeeky-Wheel' just might get the 'Grease'!.

[JerseyJohn]

Thank you, Brother Retributar, I'm most certainly listening and watching, though I don't post often these days because I'm bogged down in other (non-gaming) activities.

There are a huge number of old SC1 enthusiasts. Many have also gotten into SC2 and its offshoots but would still like to see a perfected SC1. I don't believe that's possible or Hubert would have done so. As far as I know the others feel the same so, failing that, the new word is SC-3, envisioned as the original SC but with the improvements so many of us advocated a few years back. Among those things would be a scenario/map editor on a par with the new ones being made by Hubert, but as easy to use as the one in the original SC classic system.

After thinking about that post two back from this one I realized I'd forgotten at least half of the great suggestions made so far back, but I'm sure Hubert has a list of them.

And so, here's hoping Mr. H. is thinking along tese lines (hexes etc) along with his other new game concepts.

[Kuniworth]

Yeah if it's possible why not make a sc1 enhanced version? With the great sc2 editor and possibility to change layout of the mapboard etc. They game is there just add these things and I would be so happy.

[justanotherwargamer1]

What I had problems with (where SC1 is concerned) was the Ireland of no return effect, and subs that never should have been counters on the board.

Sure some of the more exacting comments are likely valid, but they were never important to myself so much so I would have stopped playing.

In fact I have not stopped playing, and SC1 is still on my computer.

SC2 is unexpected to ever be considered seriously by me. Deal with it, I don't care that the editor is so much "better" I don't edit games I play games. The tiles sucked the last breath of life out my interest in this game. You can ramble on about 8 locations to attack from, I couldn't care less. The map is visually an eye sore.

And why should I be made to rely on unpaid volunteer efforts of fans and their creations?

In grand strategy the competion is

SC1 (A-) grade

SC2 - (F) failing grade.

Commander Europe at War - (A) grade

World War 2 Road to Victory - (B-) grade.

Hubert, you controlled the field with SC1, dropped the ball with SC2, let CEAW still your thunder, and more recently there is Road to Victory which while divisional, more turns and all, is not stellar by any stretch of the imagination.

All I wanted was Third Reich done better than the actual computer game of the actual title by that name.

There is a list of games as long as my arm (literally that long if I print it out eh), that contain stacking of units in near grand strategy levels of wargame design. Most notable being The Operational Art of War design.

That CEAW and the new Road To Victory also don't employ it is vexing to say the least.

But both CEAW and RTV used hexes, and did it just fine.

CEAW did a fine job of great graphics and kept the game simple. And frankly it runs circles around SC2 at all of SC2 supposed tricks. It's not perfect, no game is, but it earned the A grade.

I won't play SC2 for free, so asking me to pay for those expansions (what happened to it being a game with a great editor btw?), is just not going anywhere.

I would much rather you go with the original idea a lot of the SC1 veterans wanted, and that is SC1 with the few errors taken out and a slightly better editor for the editor demons amongst us.

That you expected us to pay for over rated editor creations by marketing them as expansions, clearly demonstrates you could have just given us the improved SC1 we all thought we might get.

That people are willing to buy the SC2 expansions, is indicative that you also could have just sold us a much improved SC1 and called it SC1mk2.

SC2 is NOT an improved SC1. They have nothing in common. It is NOT an evolved SC1.

And just because you made it, doesn't mean you can force me to agree that it is

I was once one of your SC1 hard core regulars.

When you dropped SC2 on us, I basically walked out.

I haven't really been involved since.

And while this might sound harsh, I don't care if SC2 dies. The sooner the better.

Then you can get back to giving thought to making that SC1 Improved or Enhanced, or MK2 we likely would rather have.

Well I know I would rather have it at least.

Thanks for the time to hear my thoughts.

[Kuniworth]

That was a great post justanotherwargamer.

[jon_j_rambo]

Wow, is there a trickle of blood in the water to bring back SC-1? SC-3? Hmmm, with the water & blood, are we going to get born again?

I wonder how important the big name players are for sales? Meaning, do you lose sales for going 'old school' so to speak? Is sales really that important? Relative questions.

I wonder how important the big name players are for sales? Meaning, do you lose sales for going 'old school' so to speak? Is sales really that important? Relative questions.

Must say, I'm having some flashbacks to the game. I was addicted to SC-1, I stayed up all night playing it before a golf tournament! I didn't even sleep. I shot 2-over on the front nine, then literally fell asleep after 3-putting on the #10 green.

Be true to yourself,

-Legend

[Hubert Cater]

Les,

I am always open to constructive criticisms and I would be more than happy to hear some more information and even direct comparisons vis a vis the game mechanics, game play, AI, multiplayer play, Editor etc., versus the other games you've listed and why you feel they are the better game. If there is an obvious shortcoming in any of these areas I am always open minded to improve the SC series as much as possible.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Hubert --- "Boy, my boy, oh my boy, it's been a long time baby" --- Elvis Comeback Special 1968.

Here's some takes why I loved SC-1

1) French Campaign was/is awesome! Don't know if you just got lucky or it was really planned...but that was really exciting. The Allies actually have options early on. As time progressed, the big name players would "slow play" France, but if you wanted to gamble as the Allies, there was opportunity to get some action.

2) Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. Minimal clicking. Granted, less options, but I ain't getting any younger, therefore I like to "sit-and-go"

3) Some of the goofy quarks of the game actually worked out. Many people complained about experience being too deadly, but that worked out. There were some goofy air rules, but with house rules &/or a bid system, things balanced.

Overall, what made SC-1 great was playability. Yeah, there were some defects, inaccuracies, whatever....but it was all about playability. Don't think we need to relive what I didn't like. It was just exciting, the game was like a boxing matching. It was fun & addictive

SC-2, what I liked:

1) The larger map

2) Naval stuff got better

3) Fortresses

4) Basic defects fixed for surrenders, recapture rules

5) African front

6) Diplo was cool

SC-2, what I don't like:

1) Sorry man, the squares ain't for me. It's harder to view the action on a laptop. Distances seriously got on my nerves.

2) French Campaign was blah

3) Weather was too strong

4) Combat was too mob mentality.

5) Buying new units was cheesey to me.

*** Disclaimer, SC-2 has a great editor, but I ain't an editor guy, so I'm sure things could be modified to fix stuff outside the Squares ***

Maybe SC-1 just got lucky in the "fun" category?

Frankly, I'd like a turn based Squad Leader game that is PBEM. I'm old school. Don't want the feature heavy crap. Nothing worse than a cluttered display, sort of like this Forum with 5000+ options. My life & brain are scattered enough, I want life simplified.

[SeaMonkey]

SC1 is ancient, it was fun, there were some really good dynamics, ie.simplicity, but its time to move along. SC2 is better, better combat interaction, better naval, diplomacy, better air and a really comprehensive editor.

There were some experiments with SC2 that perhaps are questionable, they've been mentioned and if we decide to go for SC3, then we can elaborate further. Priority, in my mind, is get the PTO aspects down, and this will require more experimentation so obviously the logical progression is to modify SC2.

Going back to SC1 features, other than the simplicity aspect is regression, serves no useful purpose, nostalgia not withstanding. SC2 represents a head and shoulders improvement, its wasteful to cast the lessons aside, the journey will continue, so get over it!

The naysayers will lose their contribution and will litter the path to the future. SC is not at a deadend, it may travel a few cul-de-sacs, but you vets that wish to hang on to the past.....well we'll put a gravemarker and flowers at the deadend we left you at. Goodbye!

[Kuniworth]

Les posted about anglo-german war over at Buntaland.

Look at the art-work on this map:

http://schwerpunkt.wargamer.com/AGW/agwscr2.htm

It still is 2d but I think it looks better than most 3d stuff outthere...

[Kuniworth]

SC1 is ancient, it was fun, there were some really good dynamics, ie.simplicity, but its time to move along. SC2 is better, better combat interaction, better naval, diplomacy, better air and a really comprehensive editor.

There were some experiments with SC2 that perhaps are questionable, they've been mentioned and if we decide to go for SC3, then we can elaborate further. Priority, in my mind, is get the PTO aspects down, and this will require more experimentation so obviously the logical progression is to modify SC2.

Going back to SC1 features, other than the simplicity aspect is regression, serves no useful purpose, nostalgia not withstanding. SC2 represents a head and shoulders improvement, its wasteful to cast the lessons aside, the journey will continue, so get over it!

The naysayers will lose their contribution and will litter the path to the future. SC is not at a deadend, it may travel a few cul-de-sacs, but you vets that wish to hang on to the past.....well we'll put a gravemarker and flowers at the deadend we left you at. Goodbye!

We are not looking back, we are looking FORWARD. We want to influence the coming games of Hubert not come nagging about it when it's too late.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey, I don't understand the hostility in your post. As kuni said, nobody is stuck in the past, we happen to like hexes better than tiles. Also, we all said there are many improvements in SC-2 etc & etc -- I gave it a good try, never said it was a bad game and I won't. What I said, and so have many others, is we'd like to see SC-2, essentially, with hexes. Anyway, I don't get this push people off to the side approach. If that's the case, the hell with it, I don't need SC, SC-2 or SC-50 for that matter so maybe it is a fine time to say goodbye.

[SeaMonkey]

No hostility JJ, simmer... It just seems this hex thing gets a paramount of attention when it is actually trivial to the overall gameplay, which is IMO more important. Its eyecandy, there are so many other things that deserve our focus, but we seemed to get sidetracked on this feature.

Emphatic statements of disqualification because of this feature are not productive, there in lies the basis for my post. I'd just as soon play with hexes as well as tiles, but its not a gamebreaker. I'd rather have had a PTO expansion then PDE, but its no big deal, I'm still in the camp now exploring the editor more extensively then playing.

That is the point, SC has evolved to such a level of subtle complexity it has become laborious to explore, refering to the editor. It takes a commitment to really evaluate it well and if you're not willing because it has tiles instead of hexes, then it is your loss not mine.

You as well as anyone, being an SC1 modder, should be taking a look at this editor. Didn't we clamor for it? I know I did and I've finally gotten around to appreciate what our positive input has produced.....have you? No excuses..... I know you have other more pressing issues...we all do....we have issues...

But hexes shouldn't be one them.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey,

Okay, I'm simmered. ;--)

The main point isn't over hexes, though it is a part of it. There are many other things, such as advance and retreat after combat; stacking -- even a small number of pieces would be good -- and various other things. Hexes are more than eye-candy, the game has an entirely different feel and plays differently. Whether one is better than the other is debatable but for me I really do prefer hexes.

Last time I tried the SC-2 scenario editor I got nowhere. I asked for advice on the SC-2 forum and it came out as writing script and instructions for the program. Sorry, I have absolutely no ability when it comes to giving instructions to machines. I feel Hubert's SC-1 scenario editor is great -- if more limited than anyone would like. Expand it a bit keeping the basic very friendly feel and it would be great; more advanced options can always be put in with a button saying ADVANCED FEATURES for those who want to deal with scripting.

One reason I posted to this thread when I saw it is because, admittedly -- and I've said it several times earlier -- I'm not active in any kind of gameplay at the moment. Never really was except for those few years when SC was really fun and being improved all the time with numerous patches. The only kind of game I'm looking for is solitaire that I can keep running in the background while using the computer to work on something else. Naturally that can be done with a chess program, but wargames are, or should be, more fun.

Another reason I posted here is because, if there is going to be an SC-3, it appears to be a few years off, and that's fine with me as it will be at least two years before I can get back into this hobby with even a little committment -- though I always enjoy making scenarios and it would be good to able to work on one now, but as I said, I just can't warm up to this system. It isn't my loss, or anyone else's, it just means I'm not making them at the present time. Not a biggie.

No one posting here is stuck in the past. We have SC-1, if we were stuck in the past that would satisfy us. What I'm stuck in is the vision I had of SC expanded with the suggestions the two of us, Shaka, Liam, Edwin, Kuni, Desert Dave and so many others were looking towards. I still feel like it's out there and, though SC-2 is a fine game, it just isn't the one I was waiting for.

If Hubert chooses to never go back in that direction that's his decision and it's fine with me. People are always sending me links to this or that hex-based wargame advising me that it's a lot like what I was talking about. And they have been. I don't know if they're good or bad because I haven't played any of them, yet. As I said, for me it's another two, maybe three years.

If there is another hex-based SC by then, preferably with stacking and advance / retreat after combat, a really good AI for the computer player, etc & etc, that will be great. If not, its absence won't cause me any great pain; as I said, to me these things are a form of solitair.

[SeaMonkey]

You know JJ, I knew that, I knew what you're after, and I am too! But let's don't let the hex issue get in the way, there are ways, different perspectives that will bridge that feel.

Example: Take stacking for instance, really all we need is a combat core force that can have assets added to it. The assets allow it to have different capabilities, ie combat factors enhancements. Those combat factors can be used in the degree of that characteristics(asset's) deployment, a portion of its overall strength and adds to its other inherent abilities by completing the "combined arms" signature.

Perhaps a little complicated to code and for an AI to deal with, but eventually, "why not"?

Advance and retreat are other issues, just remember we have an AI, and computing power at our disposal and even though a lot of good features came about from board wargames, let's don't get stuck with replicating "that feel" at the expense of features the new potential presents us.

And that means advanced solitaire capability, it's really in its infancy.

Like you, I'm looking down the road also...in our retirement years! :-))

[Kuniworth]

You know JJ, I knew that, I knew what you're after, and I am too! But let's don't let the hex issue get in the way, there are ways, different perspectives that will bridge that feel.

Example: Take stacking for instance, really all we need is a combat core force that can have assets added to it. The assets allow it to have different capabilities, ie combat factors enhancements. Those combat factors can be used in the degree of that characteristics(asset's) deployment, a portion of its overall strength and adds to its other inherent abilities by completing the "combined arms" signature.

Perhaps a little complicated to code and for an AI to deal with, but eventually, "why not"?

Advance and retreat are other issues, just remember we have an AI, and computing power at our disposal and even though a lot of good features came about from board wargames, let's don't get stuck with replicating "that feel" at the expense of features the new potential presents us.

And that means advanced solitaire capability, it's really in its infancy.

Like you, I'm looking down the road also...in our retirement years! :-))

This post made no sense to me.

You say you want the same thing but at the same time you just happy with what you get. It's like your reply to the Road to Victory game, where you said something like "oh boy not another one" instead of looking at the features. Tell me what you want in a SC3 - what would you like to see? It's time to step up, come on give me some sugesstions instead of I want what you want balooney.