Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aesopo

Rebirth of SC

Recommended Posts

JJ, you've said a lot in SC+ thread I'll need to contemplate.

Not only that, I'm not sure I concur with a revisit. I was never one that played SC on line, always PBEM, and my schedule was not conducive to many sequential hours of game play at one sitting.

I like the mental exercise, I need the mental exercise, but I do like simplicity of the UI as Les related to.

IMO, it(the UI) is absolutely the most important aspect of a wargame, it should be very intuitive, and SC1, as well as SC2, has it. You should be able to play by "feel".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Sombra, define fun.

I thought that was a bit bizarre too, but I'm giving Sombra the benefit of the doubt. ;)

Historically the French didn't have a chance, although no one presumed that at the time. So if you wish to make it "fun" then I presume the French will have a chance to delay to the point of stagnation for the western front which deviates from history.

Can we all accept such a possibility of historical deviation to this degree?

Further, that means an early, potentially game ending defeat for someone, most probably the Axis, is that acceptable?. ... Anyone else?

Jeez, SM, don't put it like we're waiting in line to take you on bare knuckles -- I don't fight anyone a foot taller than myself anyway. :eek: :D

French general Andre Beaufre, who died in 1975, had some very interesting thoughts on the French campaign. He was a full colonel at the time who served on their general staff. Later he was arrested by the Vichy government, escaped and fought for the Free French.

Beaufre saw the collapse of the French Army in 1940 as the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. His reasoning: if they'd held the Germans, or at least held them off for a year or so, all of Hitler's plans would have become unravelled. Stalin might have launched a preventive war across Poland, there would never have been a Hollocaust and the parts of Europe subjagated by the Axis would never have gone through that time in hell. Additionally, the chances are post war USSR would not have become the golliath it was historically.

In an interview for The World At War he had many interesting things to say (though not the above, which I read elsewhere). He placed valid remarks on the failure of the French Army, and of France itself and, regarding the British, he said, "It is okay to be a little selfish, but in the event, the British were very selfish."

I've always felt that way too. Their role, instead of making a run for the coast, should have been to attack south along with the remnants of the French forces in Belgium, across the tail of the German panzers, to rejoin the main body of the French Army. Had they done so, and this was both Hitler's and von Runstedt's greatest fear, the entire course of the war might well have been altered.

-- On the other hand, the French to the south might have been required to link with the breakout attack, and, with Billote dead in a car accident and the French in Belgium disoriented, there's reason to assume the main body of the French might not have succeeded in such an operation.

My guess is that the breakout would have been successful and the subsequent defense of the French homeland would have been considerably stiffer. The main thing is, of course, if they'd gotten through the summer they might well have held till the following spring at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post Part II --

JJ, you've said a lot in SC+ thread I'll need to contemplate.

Not only that, I'm not sure I concur with a revisit. I was never one that played SC on line, always PBEM, and my schedule was not conducive to many sequential hours of game play at one sitting.

I like the mental exercise, I need the mental exercise, but I do like simplicity of the UI as Les related to.

IMO, it(the UI) is absolutely the most important aspect of a wargame, it should be very intuitive, and SC1, as well as SC2, has it. You should be able to play by "feel".

Fair enough, SM. Glad you like the ideas; as is obvious, they're mainly concepts borrowed from games like HiCom and CoS.

As I said, it's mainly something to bring finality to my thoughts on all of this, not something I really expect Hubert to pick up on. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SeaMonkey supported some of my comments (not 100% but that would be creepy).

So I will reinforce some of his. Maybe not with the same emphasis but I'm not in his head either.

"Remember SC1 AI left much to be desired"

The SC AI was basically a retard, if you win against it keep the cheering down, no one that plays real wargames cares.

The trouble is, too many wargamers would rather play their masturbatory style of wargaming, just them and the computer.

Frankly I have seen all the wargames on the market worth the term wargame, and the AI in ALL of them suck the second you compare them with a real brain.

Ever old mega classics like Steel Panthers has an easily demonstrable total lack of brains in some aspects of the design. Steel Panthers in Battle mode is totally worthless against the AI.

So lets stop comparing various forms of retard, and just get over it, if you play the AI you like playing retards. Deal with it or deal with getting off your butt and playing a human. And no, I don't want to hear your whiny reasons like real life limitations or location based problems. YOU are not a good basis for designing a game's pointless AI.

I don't care how many of you fools with money to burn claim to be the decisive numbers in making the choice, the truth is your AI dependency is a waste of cash.

I would rather wargame designers gave us one of two choices, play both sides ourselves, or play a human. The day they stop making worthless AIs the sooner we can stop debating the magnitude of retard in each game.

They defined the French well in A3R. Use were assumed to be the USA player, as the French in a routine game weren't expected to be there in 42. Sorry to sound like a slag on the French but in WW2 your larger military was chewed up and spit out. Your victory is based on whether the real leaders of the time sucked more than you did.

If the Germans can blitz France in 40 for love of money, the design is off somewhere.

It's a WW2 wargame, not Red vs Blue. Deal with the sides being unbalanced. In WW2 it was just that way.

"I'm sorry, I'm not buying into this nostalgia of SC1 being better"

I am not myself worshiping SC1. I am just saying given a choice of it solo, or SC2 solo, I'd rather not have to look at SC2 at all.

Some of SC1's warts were fairly ugly. No nostalgia here (in my case at least).

But a lot of the warts were also directly the fault of the AI (which never should have existed).

I seriously wanted a game that improved on SC1 directly. I didn't want it replaced, I wanted the few things wrong with it fixed.

Now I can't sit here and know ALL of the code that made SC1 the game it was though, so no point being totally inflexible.

But SC2 was not what I was waiting for. Which largely explains why I'm not satisfied playing it.

While SC2 was busy failing me, I discovered Commander Europe at War.

For whatever faults CEAW might have, it was better than SC2 (for me at least).

But I don't want to do the dog chasing tail effectively. So I will try to eliminate covering old ground twice.

Wargame designers are not thinking outside of the box much, aren't using KNOWN ideas that work much, and are pandering to requirements that will never succeed most notably lousy AI concepts.

Here's today's thought. A wargame with an easy as sin interface for going online, and playing the wargame live online in wego mode with an ability to save at the conclusion of any full turn sequence. A gamer's lobby where gamers can meet to play their games live against real opponents. Doesn't matter WHAT type of game.

I'd pay to play if the service was a monthly charge for ANY of the company's games.

And if that is NOT enough for the business to afford the service, then frankly it's time to get OUT of the business.

I'd require that all members were thus registered users. I don't have time for anyone else.

And you can sure bet you can shove that Battlefront elicense too I don't mind adding.

I don't have trouble with Matrix Games and Digital River at all. I prefer the file to be mine to do as I wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, you can't tell game designers to throw out AI because it isn't good enough because if they don't work on it as part of the game it will never get any better.

And there are many of us who only want to play solitair against the computer. I'm not schizophenic enough to have a good time playing both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, JJ is right. As much as I agree with you, in principle, about AI play, you cannot alienate that segment of potential buyers. Remember this is about money, however trite, convoluted that may sound, that's the motivation and the catalyst for even having this discussion, else we wouldn't have even SC1.

Its the incentive for Hubert to continue and you can't deny him that reward for his hard work and especially....with emphasis... especially the criticism he's had to put up with for it. To tell you the truth, I would've reacted with a "you can take flying leap up my"....well anyway I'm obviously absent with some character of humanity in this regard....cudos to HC.

I respect you're a purist Les, an idealist, that's good, me too, but my idealism has been tempered by reality and as good as your ideas may be, you will not be recognized for them unless you present them in a reasonable light, much less get them implemented.

Do not forget, I baited you into SC1 and HttR, I posted as James Taylor over at Matrix for awhile. I knew you were a purist, I knew you could contribute, I knew you would help me.....and here you are.

There are many here, JJ, JJR, Sombra, A234, Retri.....god so many...I could never remember how many great suggestions abound here from so many different people, you can't discount any of them. Even the most mundane, idiotic position, however many times repeated has the moment of possible idea incitement in someone else, you cannot therefor ignore it.

Each of us think we know what we want, but if you have lived for even a short time, you also are aware those wants change, know that... it is inevitable.

And besides, if you're not aware, can't comprehend the impossibilities of being possible, then how will you even know that you missed it, but you did.....and it didn't matter...right! Wrong!

All I'm saying is open up your mind and use positive suggestions and the creativity will flow, we can deduce what will work and what will not.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste!:P:D;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realities.

AI's are worthless :)

Opponents needing worthless AIs are dreadful wargamers :)

Companies are in it for money.

God just once I would love to hear how a game maker made a typical bland AI and when people said it was bland the designer responded with "You insisted it had to have an AI, you already knew there was no such thing as an actual Artificial Intelligence, so I gave you what you demanded because in the end, you insisted I sell it to you".

But the AI issue is just a piece of the big picture.

I love my hexes, but I'd love even more playing an opponent online.

And in the absence of wego there is less reason to wait for an honest game, than there is a capable AI.

Humans are humans every bit as much as AIs are just what they are.

AI's cheat because it's a designed in feature, and humans cheat because they are weak.

You say "oh surely not everyone cheats".

Truth is I have fudged rolls of the dice in my day, and I have seen scores and scores of normally decent people cheat in games. It's as I said, "human".

So while some of us are lamenting how SC1 didn't evolve into the SC2 we would have liked. And some of us are hoping we can coerce Hubbert into making an SC3 which might never turn up. Myself, I'd like to see the ultimate WEGO grand strategy title played primarily online.

Because if I'm going to grind some schmuck into the dirt under the heel of my boot.

1. He's going to be a registered player with a rep for quitting if he always finds an excuse for not finishing a game.

2. He's going to be playing WEGO and will have no gimmicky moves he can blame the game for when he loses.

3. And the word cheat won't be an option.

Even if I can't play it on hexes, or with unit stacking like I prefer.

And I sure ain't going to allow the asumption that "I" was cheating to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, enough about the AIs and put downs of people who use them. We don't all want to play against ourselves -- unless you're a full-blown schizo it's kind of hard to pull off a trick. And we don't all want to play for more than a half hour, nor do we all want the obligation of playing till the other guy feels like quitting etc & etc.. My experiences with live play in SC weren't good. When I lost I admitted it. When I was beating the other player the connection suddenly went dead -- or the other guy suddenly had to leave and the game was never resumed. Same with most PBEM games, and in half of them I knew damn well the other guy was reloading but I never made a big deal about it. So, all things considered I'd rather have a half-assed AI that I can keep a game going against while I'm writing or looking or something up, and if that makes me a wimpy excuse for a game player than that's the way it goes. Like I give a flying @#**%! :eek:

In any case, AIs have to be a part of all future games, or they don't sell. So it would be better to find something else to either comment about or ***** about that doesn't involve put downs of half the people who buy these things.

-- Aside from which I saw all of that already with chess. When those programs and chess playing machines first came out (machines in the late-70s, and they were Mattel toys) they were a joke; any lousy chess player could play them and register as a master. Those days are long gone, now chess playing programs -- for the PC! -- actually do play at very strong master levels. That day will come for wargames too, maybe later and maybe sooner, and any game designer who ignores that is putting his program with the old AH imitations minus AI player of the early 80s that nobody sees anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John you just argued for WEGO and just aren't aware of it.

WEGO = good luck cheating. Sure go ahead and save your turn, but the fact is the turn doesn't resolve till both players say so, and then all you can do is watch and hope the "plan" worked. It's not like you can reload it.

Superior WEGO leads to superior play. Again you just argued for it, you just don't seem to realize it. If you didn't have bad experiences of non WEGO, you'd not be overly concerned about online play, and rapidly, playing the AI, would end up always second best for your pleasure.

In referencing "sales" the truth is sales suck with the AIs. They suck without the AIs. Trouble is, most wargames suck for sales. Our biggest hits of the past, major successes like Squad Leader, heck if we offered the numbers up to a common console game title, we'd get laughed at. That's just how our demographic is.

Until we make the games engaging, reliable, approachable, and versus people, they'll always be the hopeless demographic they are unfortunately.

It's not like the non wargamers have it better, they just prefer to play people.

I've played games against the "bots" the non player adversaries in things like shooters. They're none too bright either.

Playing a run through in a game like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honour and playing offline against the bots sucks basically as well.

But people don't buy those games to play the bots.

Why is it a wargamer is content to play an AI? It's a wargamer that wants the greatest deal of accuracy frrom the game, thus burdening an AI like no other gamer, and yet still expecting the over burdened AI to excel.

I challenge the myth that a wargame can't succeed in the absence of an AI.

I'm perfectly happy to say we've blindly walked into this myth of our creation.

I think if SC1 had been designed as a great WEGO based game, and had a great online interactive option at it's disposal, and no AI option, it would have still been a great game.

I don't recall any of the buzz from SC1's heyday being from guys yammering about how they pounded the AI yet again. They were playing people.

Now imagine if SC1 had never had to go through those hellish days when the cheat scandals all but ripped the heart out of the game.

The big names likely wouldn't have walked out.

We rarely see a lot of the old names.

They might be around somewhere. But they don't seem to have remained.

I can play the AI and not be totally unable to be amused. But I can also know, in advance, that the win is likely going to amount to nothing.

Or I can just do what I have done for decades. Play both sides.

Take my best shot as the Germans. Play as good as I can think.

Then play the Allies, and give the Germans a stunning reply.

Rinse repeat.

Blows me away that people just can't do that.

Doesn't require a split personality, just a very unbiased analytical mind.

But it's also lonely.

Playing solo sucks.

I'm a human being, were inescapably social creatures. I want to be with people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les, first off, my apologies for coming on more strongly than I'd have liked.

My comments about reloading and having too many opponents who just stopped playing when they were losing were both in SC-1.

For me actual game experience in SC-2 is limited to just a few games, and they were when it first came out. One was as the Germans against Kuniworth when he was testing his Barbarossa scenario. We had a great AAR going and a terrific game, but it had to be stopped due to a flaw that made the Soviets virtually unbeatable.

Anyway, of course a game designer can put out a product without an AI capability. The question is whether, market-wise, it makes sense to do so. As SeaMonkey brought out, there are probably a lot more people who buy these things for games against the computer than those who see them as a sort of serious head to head contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t believe a wargame without AI would work. I remember a discussion at Stardock over Galactic Civ2 where the lack of MP was discussed and the producer came up with solid numbers showing that only like 10% of the players would use MP. ...On th other hands games like Starcraft etc. survive only due to MP.

Nevertheless the conclusion from Stardock was for an good AI you need to keep the rules simple. I think the same is necessary for a good wargame and MP game. Sure you can add layers and layers of complexity opening more and more doors for cheesy ways to beat the AI or the other guy. Trying afterwards to close these cheesy tactics with more complexity.

Regarding the AI in SC2 WAW I played 3 games...one to know the basics..2nd a full campaign...3rd playing D- DAY as Germans and asking myself : Wow why did Germany ever lose this war....

SeaMonkey you asked what’s is fun for me regarding the French campaign . Feeling a sense of competition and that I am can influence the outcome of the game at this stage depending on my skill and choices.

Take the following comments with a grain of salt as I really like many parts of SC2 and WAW but still I would like to try to make my point (Besides I have played for sure 30-50+ MP games SC2 in )

- French campaign in SC1 : Using the 1:10:30 bids, games where balanced with round about 250 MP extra for the allied side. Germany was still sure to win the French campaign but the allied could look for his opportunities to make some good moves to give him a chance to win on the long term. Much of the game was decided at this stage depending on the skills of the different players. Different viable strategies for the allied players where possible: Aggressive ones like the Dutch double strike. or defensive like the corps defence. At least I had the feeling as the allied player I had a chance to do something.

-French campaign in SC2: Neither the German player nor the allied player can make much mistakes...it simply doesnt matter what they do (if they play not like a total NOOBs) the most influencing factor is the weather...good weather without rain etc and you take France in Feb- March....Bad weather and its delayed till Late May-June but as Terif mentioned in another discussion it doesnt matter a lot in SC2 either way for the Germans so the only real decision you have to take: Take the sure way marching the Germans over to the French front because I expect bad weather anyway or do I gamble for good weather taking the transport costs to have my troops in place... Its going through the moves :. Sure I can gamble money on diplomacy or technology etc… But my French armies are castrated and the best I can do is trying to hurt the Germans being kind of passive… The worst part is: I am mostly depending on luck to determine if I do good or bad. (Ok you can make stupid mistakes and sacrifice your units as I have seen other players out of “boredom”)

This sums up the whole game more or less in SC1 as the allied player you are looking for the whole time till Barbarossa and beyond to slow down the axis and try to create for yourself opportunities to win the game.

In SC2 well a good axis player in reality wont give you and chance to act before late 1943. Your skill as ally is building up your forces and slowly retreat and minimise your loses… => then one huge battle occurs in Rusia: To early you will be crushed and never recover, made right you will turn the battle. Unfortunately most allied players after playing 6 hours to get to the Barbarossa stage try to early to counter the axis and lose badly within 2-3 moves (kind of crappy return for the time nvested) Most of the time the allied player and German player is simply occupied fine-tuning his forces get the artillery cover just exactly right…. Move the anti air to just this spot…

So whats left as allied player in SC2: Fight for Afrika? ….it really doesn’t matter if you lose England you get great supply in the med and have many resources with the whole of Afrika under your control. Feels kind of cheesey for me but it’s the way it is. Its kind of stupid for Germany even to try to take England… (compare it I with the game deciding decisions to go for sealion if the allied player in SC1 overextend himself)

For me at least here in SC2 the game mechanics were broken to a point:

-If the German player was decided to go for a Sealion the allied player couldn’t do much to prevent it => design decision to make the sealion so unattractive that it isn’t anymore a real possibility (Skripts to move capital to Alexandria, supply goes up to 10 in Afriak etc) => opening up the allied player to move nearly all his forces to Afrika besides I hate the feeling that the game lost a touch of reality and seriousness of an: “what happened if simulation” ( kind the reason I like to play WW2 wargames: could I have influenced the outcome of the WW2 with my decisions) … Either way at least I felt to have been taken away an opportunity and be forced down a certain way to play…England don’t attack …US don’t attack : …even if the game mechanics nearly scream to do so. I feel cheated if I see an opportunity in the other players game and the computer steps in like a “big mother” as says you can´´t do that… I would have preferred that the game itself more subtly forces historic decisions on me: Why is the german fleet in SC2 strong enough to challenge the British anyway? why is the fleet so useless (at the beginning ) to stop a Sealion?

What I am trying to say is: SC1 had a fascinating balance of creating action and reaction… allied player overextends his ships => runs risk of an sealion …he doesn’t guard the Canadian coast => German invasion (even if not really realistic) at least choices had consequences and created always changing results.

In SC2 many decisions are made by event scripts and mistakes are covered by these events to keep things in check. … I don’t guard the US a US home army pops up… I cant lose as Germany in France , Sealion doesn’t happen ever because it doesn’t make sense… No matter what I do I will be forced to fight in Rusia in 1943 or 1944 to decide the game. End of story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Les, first off, my apologies for coming on more strongly than I'd have liked.

My comments about reloading and having too many opponents who just stopped playing when they were losing were both in SC-1.

For me actual game experience in SC-2 is limited to just a few games, and they were when it first came out. One was as the Germans against Kuniworth when he was testing his Barbarossa scenario. We had a great AAR going and a terrific game, but it had to be stopped due to a flaw that made the Soviets virtually unbeatable.

Anyway, of course a game designer can put out a product without an AI capability. The question is whether, market-wise, it makes sense to do so. As SeaMonkey brought out, there are probably a lot more people who buy these things for games against the computer than those who see them as a sort of serious head to head contest.

No sweat John, had a momentary twinge, then had a reality check and realize you is cool :)

The thing with games, is we can't play games we are not given.

So if all we are given is games with shoddy AIs for opponents, because the scene isn't possible, or realistic against humans, then it's understandable people will demand AIs thinking they need AIs when in truth what they need, and likely don't realize, is a good well made game that would consider an AI opponent a bad second place.

In the future I'd like to hear wargamers laughing at the suggestion a person settle for playing the AI "you're actually serious? you want me to play a predictable, unchallenging opponent that couldn't possibly win against even a bland player? Do I look that seriously bored to you?."

I live my life mainly in science. The day we have an AI that is actually a capable adversary we better have ditched all knowledge of nuclear weapons. That's one particular popular scifi scenario I have no interest in.

It's not an idea solution, but if a wargamer is truly destitute for opponents, they can always have a family and raise them :) Youth clubs, seniors clubs hell there's all sorts of venues for finding opponents. I've always been of the opinion if a wargamer can't think of a way to get someone on the other side of the table I don't wish to play them. They'd simply not be smart enough for my needs :)

But wargame makers need to do there part in designing wargames MEANT to be played online against people. I can do many things, alas software design isn't one of them. I've a better chance of designing real world military ordnance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Sombra, define fun. Historically the French didn't have a chance, although no one presumed that at the time.

This is not a correct description of what happened historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Jersey's idea of a sc1+

- Include the sc2 editor of PDE with some refinement

- diplomacy that run with diplomacy points like road to victory or similar

- weather

- no nonhistorical invasions in middle of winter and similar weird stuff

- retreat rules

- Map and counters that looks like a real map

Add some more minor suggestions and we'll have a winner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I still find it as irritating now as back in 2004 with this defend-all-to-the-death apporach by some of the beta testers and other yes-sayers over here. Im starting to feel like 2004 again with the infected debate over Rokossovsky.

In my world you don't slam the door in the face on cri9tics, espeically not here on people who came back for 6 years to improve something they love. No you should embrace it and listen, because in the end we only got each other.

I have confidence in Hubert, his selection of beta testers are surely valid from his point of view, people like Edwin and Blashy are loyal workhorses that will work very hard. That's ok but what I don't like is this apporach to defend instead of listening. Jon J Rambo really put the line down, what game created must fuzz and fun? What game is it that people want to play?

I never heard anyone except Edwin push for PDE for example. But I see a lot of veterans pushing for sc3 or inproved sc+. Listen please.

Now regarding ww2 there are a lot of work to be done to get design decisions to get it right. I would therefore officialy like to nominate JerseyJohn for sc+ beta team to help Hubert work on the historical aspects of the game. I never ever again want to fight to get Rokossovsky in or be surprised by unhistorical "features".

Get JerseyJohn in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ble I don't wish to play them. They'd simply not be smart enough for my needs :)

But wargame makers need to do there part in designing wargames MEANT to be played online against people. I can do many things, alas software design isn't one of them. I've a better chance of designing real world military ordnance.

If memory serves me right less than 10% of people who purchase SC and SC2 series actually play vs. human opponents.

IMHO Hubert does a a bang up job of making the game playable both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If memory serves me right less than 10% of people who purchase SC and SC2 series actually play vs. human opponents.

IMHO Hubert does a a bang up job of making the game playable both ways.

Fortunately I don't need to rely on memory to know that 100% of the people playing SC1 and SC2 don't have the game to which I think we would all prefer to have.

It doesn't yet exist.

And we are still waiting.

Now I should mention, that over at Matrix Games, they have a design called Advanced Tactics which likely has done a better job at being both a WW2 design as well as a Red vs Blue type design. The game can make random maps all by itself if asked to as well, no need for the player to do it at all.

It can emulate other games such as the classic board game Axis and Allies just as readily as famous theaters of war such as North Afrika.

In some ways, Advanced Tactiucs may well be the grand strategy equal of Steel Panthers which can emulate any form of squad level tactical combat from any portion of WW2.

If Advanced Tactics was a WEGO design, I dare say it would likely own the entire market for grand strategy, and Hubert wouldn't be able to give SC2 away for free.

Sorry Hubert, you can't always get showered with praise eh.

As it goes, Advanced Tactics is likely the most under rated game on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advanced Tactics probably has a team of 5-10 people working on it... SC series is ONE man.

I do not like ANY games from Matrix, actually I have not enjoyed any other wargame outside of the SC series. So maybe SC is not for you but it is for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Advanced Tactics was a WEGO design, I dare say it would likely own the entire market for grand strategy, and Hubert wouldn't be able to give SC2 away for free.

Sorry Hubert, you can't always get showered with praise eh.

As it goes, Advanced Tactics is likely the most under rated game on the market.

I thought we were discussing SC1+ here? :confused:

Honestly: i'm a bit tired to read from "great game x" or "underrated game y" over there at Matrix, where the last games i loved were the improved SSI (!) games Steel Panthers and War in the Pacific (how fast 10 years go by, gosh)

I am tired of it because this doesn't help a bit when it comes to SC.

By the way: if you really care about SC, than why the heck didn't you (and several other SC1 grunts) joined the StratCom Design Challenge while it lasted (and it lasted preeetty long)? Not reading anything there from so many ancient SC legends was quite dissapointing for me. I thought that my scribblings there would be washed away by the might of their game insights and the pure genius of the older ones, but somehow most of them didn't had the guts to appear there with a single suggestion. Or were they to lazy? Or didn't they care construcitve (anymore) about SC?

Anyway: maybe we all should sit back for some weeks whithout additional request and without nagging at each other:

If Hubert did implent some of the StratCom ideas, than he is right now probably quite busy. And if he does a world map-game as well (with a decent AI), than he has right now probably already bloody fingers from typing the game code.

Hubert himself announced already (more or less) that there is coming something big for us, and i am glad to wait for it.

Concerning SC1+, i think it is a great idea from Jersey, and i have a feeling that Hubert will at least probably look into it after his next release.

But give this man a break. How can he go into details when he is working full power on a different project? What could he write more than "thanks for loving SC" and "good ideas" (which he alredy did in a similar thread)?

He can't promise anything of substance right now, and he won't say aye or nay right now as well. How could he? And if he did, he would speaking it literaly into the wind, because time alone can show what exactly will or can be his project after his recent projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xwormwood I dont either like the bashing of Huberts games, I've played them too much and he is doing a great job. But with that said and the pontential clear to anyone I want it to get better.

I did not post in the strategic command design challenge because my opinions were long known, Ive posted several threads about this long before this design competition. I reckon though that I could have done that, but I meanwhile also had some mixed emotions when I've heard about PDE, for me it was disappoing that we saw another expansion instead of sc3.

Anyhow hopefully the upcoming games will be good. Hubert usually listen to many suggestion maybe he might reconsider a more sc1 like game. I have no trouble with him or the beta testers, what I really dislike though is the yay-saying attitude this forum sometimes have. Maybe it's due to crtitics not beeing constructive enough but I don't really think that explains all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advanced Tactics probably has a team of 5-10 people working on it... SC series is ONE man.

I do not like ANY games from Matrix, actually I have not enjoyed any other wargame outside of the SC series. So maybe SC is not for you but it is for some.

Advanced Tactics is the creation of Victor Reijkersz. It grew out of his one man creation called People's Tactics. Just how many people Vic had available for the modified game is uncertain.

He likely had someone available to produce the manual. Marc usually does them at Matrix Games.

It's interesting you can say "I do not like ANY games from Matrix" considering they probably market 60% of the easily found computer wargames on the market. And if not for HPS, likely would be responsible for closer to 80%

So what you are saying, is you hardly like any wargame on the market.

My question, is have you played any of them, or is this just your way of saying I hate Matrix Games simply because I like some of their games?

I likely have no interest in half of the Matrix Games catalogue. But that's just field of interest. I'm not big on Civil War or Nappy games. I don't think everything they do is golden though. I don't like Panzer Command at all. I also have been around long enough to remember their flubs like Firefight and Eric Young Squad Assault. And it's not like a game magically succeeds just because it's there. They simply couldn't get Combat Leader to work redardless of how much effort they threw at it.

I'm not "bashing" Hubert's game, I'm stating, it wouldn't survive a fair fight against more than a few designs.

I think if they ever actually get Computer World in Flames out the door (seeing is believing), it might well raise the bar so bloody high that trying to market WW2 grand strategy will become nearly impossible.

Just an opinion of someone that has played nearly every wargame which I talk about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not post in the strategic command design challenge because my opinions were long known, Ive posted several threads about this long before this design competition.

I'm sorry if it sounded as if i had shot in you direction, that wasn't my intention.

Even i can remember your efforts do improve the russian campaign, in my opinion you did more than anyone could expect to improve the game.

It still would of course have been nice to see all the aces participating in the design challenge. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the demo of various games, Matrix and others and I just do not enjoy them the way I do Huberts series.

World in Flames looks amazing, but I really have no interest myself as it will obviously not be a beer and pretzel type wargame and I have no interest for wargames that do not fall into this category. I am simply not a fan of micro managing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...