Sc1+

[JerseyJohn]

Okay, so this is really an exercise in listing some ideas I've had regarding SC-1 as a springboard to SC-3, with hexes.

Please don't say it destroys the idea of SC-1 by making things more complicated. Yes, it is a little more complicated, but it keeps the same map and counters and the same basic game system.

I think it has a possibility as being packaged with the original game as --

SC and SC+

-- Posted Complaints From SC-1:

1) Game tends to feel like WWI more than WWII

2) Difficulty in simulating Blitzkrieg-like breakthrough tactics

3) Amphibious landings, troops on transports hung up at sea too long

-- a) Landings possible in impossible conditions

4) Weather not enough of a factor, especially for Russian Winter.

-- Posted Cautions:

1) No stacking; leave the game at one counter per hex

2) Leave the basic game system simple and easily playable

SC+ Ideas

I – Don’t change the pieces or the map

II -- Make winter more severe with Variable Conditions for October-November; March-April. Pure Winter December-January-February Severe Winter in Russia and Scandinavia -- weather rules to be worked out and to include mud, snow, and ice with adjusted flying conditions.

* European Mediteranean coasts + 1 hex inland (Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece and south coast of France ) experience mud rather than winter snow/ice. -

** Spain, south of the Pyranees through all of North Africa to all of Turkey is exempt from all Winter rules.

III –- Instead of straight turns, divide the turn into phases for the two players

Amphibious Invasion Rules:

IV -- Units leaving port en route to another friendly port pay an initial transport cost and set out; they must proceed to either a friendly port or friendly coastal hex; they cannot invade.

V - Units leaving port for Amphibious landings pay a double transport cost, travel by sea to their destination, and land on the same turn they leave port. If they are not landed they are automatically charged the amphibious cost each turn they are at sea, or are returned to the nearest port or friendly land hex.

-- 1) If the unit is more than two turns distant from the country it set out from, and the cost cannot be paid, it must go ashore at the nearest land hex.

-- -- a) If the hex/hexes are friendly the unit, or units, land without incident.

-- -- If the hex is hostile the landing is treated as an invasion, though it may not be the destination originally planned for.

-- -- c) If the only coast within reach is neutral, the owning player has the option of declaring war on that country and landing the unit as an invasion. Or it can be disbanded without a DOW having been made.

Turns in Phases:

Players A and B

Phasing Player (A):

I) Reinforcement and New Unit Creation

-- a) Newly created and reinforced units may move and engage in combat during the same phasing turn they were placed on the board or reinforced.

II) Sea movement

All sea moves are carried out and all naval combat resolved.

-- 1) Units at sea that are placed adjacent to defending a defending unit on the coast attack it as though it were a land battle, but receive a 50% bonus to simulate naval bombardment.

-- -- a) If the defender is destroyed (or forced to retreat if such rules are in place) the attacking unit comes ashore and can move no farther that turn.

-- -- If the defender survives (or is not forced to retreat) the amphibious unit can either remain in place to attack again the following turn – or land if there is an adjacent vacant hex – in which case it pays for another turn’s amphibious cost. Or it can be returned to either a home port or friendly coastal hex at the owners option.

III) Air Attack

All strategic and tactical air attacks are conducted by the phasing player, along with all interception missions by the non-phasing player. Done same as in SC-1

IV) Land Movement and Attack – done same as in SC-1 – land units can OPERATE now, but cannot be transported. All battles resolved.

V) 2nd Land Movement – no attacks allowed. Units may move again and can enter or finish in enemy zones of control. UNITS CANNOT OPERATE. This phase will allow exploitation after breakthroughs -- blitzkreig as done historically by the Germans in from the start, and the allies after 1943.

-- Land units that haven’t moved, attacked, or landed amphibiously can conduct STRATEGIC MOVEMENT, going up to 200% their normal movement allowance. They can start, pass through, or end in an enemy zone of control.

VI) Air Movement – no enemy interceptions possible. Air units relocate to friendly hexes. Air units can be OPERATED to distant locations during this phase. Air units cannot conduct strategic movement.

* Player A has completed his turn.

** Player B begins his turn following the same steps used by player A

*** This would be an expanded version of SC-1 rather than SC-3, intended for those who like the original game and who want to play it on a more historically realistic level.

Eager to hear comments and the ideas of others. Except the inevitable dreck that it's too complicated, :cool: blah-blah-blah.

[SeaMonkey]

Very interesting JJ, many things I like, some questions though.

Pieces, I'm OK with, map....I would prefer bigger, but I'm not adamant.

Weather, yeah, I'm a little worried about the extreme conditions making an area unplayable in the winter, but that's not so hard to reason it might be unplayable in reality.

SC2 allows you to customize coastal weather conditions.

Phases eh? I can go there, but I'm firmly in Les' camp...WeGo if at all possible and it is.

Amphib IV....yep and V. I agree. Might have to give USA some special abilities to project amphibs a distance though, perhaps allowing them to stay at sea a couple of turns or give them a large movement allowance, maybe both.

I would like Amphib units limited to Corps size. I like your assessed costs and consequences for staying at sea.

III Air, is fine and the land phases look good, but Strategic Movement....hmmmm?

Start, pass through, or end in enemy ZoCs? Isn't this more exploitation? What is "operate" suppose to be? Perhaps I'm missing something here.

Now back to sea movement, what provisions do you suggest for the actual naval units and interaction to simulate the Battle of the Atlantic.

It seems to me that most surface vessels needed to be based, operating and refueling from ports with maybe only one turn at sea before needing replenishment.

Subs on the otherhand can lurk at sea for longer periods, cruise greater ranges than combat surface task forces, being replenished by "Milk Cows". Maybe some mechanics devised to mirror this anomaly would provide us with the simulated Battle of the Atlantic?

Anyway, you're right, it might take awhile to play this game head to head.

[JerseyJohn]

Very interesting JJ, many things I like, some questions though. ...

Glad you like it, SeaMonkey. As I said in the other thread, it's a hodgepodge of elements from other WWII PC games of the DOS era.

... Pieces, I'm OK with, map....I would prefer bigger, but I'm not adamant. ...

Hubert, or whoever else would be designing this thing, is free to alter the pieces, but I figured for consistency we'd stay with the ones Hubert placed in the original SC game.

Ideally I like the map used in HiCom. Its hex area is 40 miles, as opposed to SC and COS's 50 or 60. The HiCom map goes completely up to the Arctic Sea and, in the south, it reaches down to the Qattara Depression. East and west it also has much more territory than does the SC map. The problem, of course, is that the hexes are a bit more difficult to access, but I never had a problem with that and I doubt anyone else did either.

... Weather, yeah, I'm a little worried about the extreme conditions making an area unplayable in the winter, but that's not so hard to reason it might be unplayable in reality. ...

I remember reading that the Luftwaffe made its big hit on Malta when Russian Winter set in so it could use most of the planes and crews from that theater, on loan, sending them back when the weather in Russia began warming enough for regular flying.

In Russia and Scandinavia I think there should be a chance during December, January and February for extreme winter, when attack factors would be halved, movements for all units =1, and no flying at all. Normal Russian Winter should also be pretty bad, though not as bad as the most extreme variety. I think this sort of thing can be easily worked out.

One thing I'd like to see in Russia is N-S zones so the bad weather is blatantly moving from Finland to the Black Sea (perhaps over three zones) and, in the spring, the warm weather moves S-N with the opposite effect. I've always felt there should be a motivation for the Axis invader to go for Leningrad first, and then Moscow, so the attack is moving in front of, rather than against, the bad weather.

... SC2 allows you to customize coastal weather conditions.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I love whatever freedom scenario editors are willing to afford the player/scenario maker.

... Phases eh? I can go there, but I'm firmly in Les' camp...WeGo if at all possible and it is.

I go for whatever works best. I think a basic flaw in SC is the solid turn structure tended to give it rigidity, rather than the mobile flow WWII had throughout the war in Europe and North Africa.

... Amphib IV....yep and V. I agree. Might have to give USA some special abilities to project amphibs a distance though, perhaps allowing them to stay at sea a couple of turns or give them a large movement allowance, maybe both.

I agree -- perhaps, since we're keeping the basic SC setup, and the USA has a comparatively small economy for the tasks it should perform -- it can pay half for amphibs, or as you say, a special ability to amphib directly from the U. S. to N. Africam, Europe or Scandinavia for a single amphibious operation cost.

I would like Amphib units limited to Corps size. I like your assessed costs and consequences for staying at sea.

Agreed. Corps would be much more realisitc than armies and, on this scale, should be the unit of choice. The historical Normandy Landings would, I believe, have been approximately a single SC corps (2 U. S. divisions, 1 UK and 1 Canadian + paratroops dropped inland -- if I'm not mistaken). Once ashore, and in possession of a reliable port, or suitable area for offloading, the initial force would quickly build to army size. -- It should be noted that the German garrisons did a great job of holding harbors, and then wrecking port facilities before surrendering. The Allied armies in the French campaign had port facility and supply flow problems till after the Battle of the Bulge!

... III Air, is fine and the land phases look good, but Strategic Movement....hmmmm?

My idea here is that the attacking player might hold one or more units in reserve through the first attack / movement phase and then bring them forward after the breakthrough to shield the units that attacked and help hold the newly gained territory. As they have neither moved nor attack they'd be taking both phases movement at once. Strategic Movement is an old rule going back to the AH 60s board games; I think it's applicable here.

... Start, pass through, or end in enemy ZoCs? Isn't this more exploitation? What is "operate" suppose to be? Perhaps I'm missing something here.

I think it would be the best way to simulate the pincer movements so characteristic of both sides successful campaigns -- the Soviet breakthrough and encirclement of Stalingrad and Germany's divide and encircle tactics used in Poland, France and the USSR.

It sounds devastating, but historically successful defenses depended upon keeping a mobile counter-attacking force in reserve to break back through such encirclements. The German pincers worked perfectly at a time when their enemies didn't know this and didn't maintain mobile reserves. Conversely, when Germany lost the ability to keep its own mobile reserves for counterattacks it started losing entire armies, on both fronts, in pockets created by Soviet and American/UK offensives.

... Now back to sea movement, what provisions do you suggest for the actual naval units and interaction to simulate the Battle of the Atlantic.

I don't think anybody liked the way it was handled in SC-1. This is something that would need to be hammered out. I'd also like some provision for surface raiders -- masked merchantmen as well as Germany's initial use of two pocket battleships (Deutschland in the North Atlantic and Graf Spee in the South Atlantic) as well as the later convoy attacks by Scharnhorst and Gneisnau in early 1941. Historically these were never as successful as either the U-boats, or even the Luftwaffe long range bombers, but they did have an effect in tying up capital ships for convoy duty. And, in SC-1, there is no way at all to represent surface raiders.

[Sombra]

Just a few comments:

- To allow breakthrough and blitzkrieg tactics: => make the map bigger (increase movement of units ) to make it impossible to form long uninterupted defense lines....

- Regarding transport on sea , I think SC2 went to right way to create amphibious attack transports with limited range. However in SC!1+ it would work to simply damage each turn a unit on sea during transit (or starting to hurt it beginnign round 2 )

......

Another way to make a SC1+ would be to take SC2 WAW introduce hexes..give it a review regarding the kiss principle... address shortcomings of balance and unrealistic outcomes with game decision (aka movements of units , number of untis ) and not with "events" and give it soem thoughtss regarding how the map displayed (ugh this Pseudo 3 D view)

[Colin I]

I'm not sure we always want a bigger map in terms of hex or tile size being smaller. One consequence is needing more units to fill the space. In SC2/WaW the Russian compaign takes a while to play - the map is larger, there are more unit types and the repurchase of destroyed units at half strength makes it slower than SC1.

Broadly, I want my strategic choices to come out in Russia or other theatres. If I go in too early, or too late, or have the wrong balance of forces, or fight too far forwards or my opponent has a good counter to my technology it should have realistic consequences. But a huge number of turns in a slugfest is not what I'm interested in - this has got worse as the SC games progress.

I do think, by whatever mechanism, being able to encircle large armies is both a realistic path to victory (particularly in the East) and very satisfying. I'm not sure a large map (= more detail) is the only way to achieve this goal.

[Blashy]

I think the map could be just a tad bigger without having to change how many units you can have.

That water areas (all of them) certainly could be much bigger, no less than 50%.

[J P Wagner]

Despite what one may think of Road to War as a game, the scale of the map would be perfect for SC 3

[SeaMonkey]

This is a good point about unit density and this is where stacking into a container hex provision will be the fix. Each hex, depending on its predominant terrain/function has the ability to contain a certain density of combat units.

As the units accumulate the containing hex takes on different attributes has different abilities.

Take a land hex for instance, obviously a clear terrain hex would allow the most density, forest allows more infantry, limiting mobile units, a containing road allows an additional motorized deployment....get my drift.

Say you start out with just an infantry division, or a corps as the base combat occupier, then the hex does not have a rigid ZoC until you deploy more. Perhaps another division or corps, now the hex contains a corps or army and has more influence on surrounding hexes.

Want to give it more abilities, add some anti-tank guns, artillery, armor, engineers, recon, assign a leader and name it Kampfgruppe Kempf or something to that effect, even PanzerGruppe Guderian. I love customizing my units. Here's where upgrades come into play, not to mention various combat bonuses, like combined arms, defensive enhancements, bombardment effects, infiltration.

Now let's say you designate a portion, not all, of the hex's deployment to a certain attack task, maybe a portion to a diversion, another portion to the main assault. Want a secondary assault...so be it. You create a breakthrough, guess which units in your kampfgruppe ignore ZoCs and flood through the opening, but only if you left them in the "reserve" designation, or the "exploitation" mode, or whatever.

You see where I'm going with this? Combined arms, prosecuting attacks, setting up defences is about attaching the appropriate units to a designated command structure and giving them a task.

Then hit the button/key....WeGo.

[Blashy]

All cool stuff SeaMonkey, but the thing I love the most about the SC series is their simplicity, keep adding some of that stuff and the game creeps more and more towards the complex and I have no taste for that myself. The fact that SC series can be learned in a day is IMO its biggest and best feature.

[SeaMonkey]

True Blashy and the AI will have a hell of a job managing it competently, but its not impossible.

Sure SC can be played within a couple hours of loading by not even reading the manual, but it can't be mastered without a commitment. An intuitive interface is a great feature, but eventually we need a little more, evidence is SC2.

You can make anything from nothing, so to speak, even a mere simple action can be disassociated into its complexities, humans are ingenious in this effort.

You can play SC reactively and you can play passively, you can also play aggressively. But SC's best feature is to play thoughtfully.

[JerseyJohn]

It seems to always come back to simplicity. Tic-tac-toe and checkers are pretty simple but there's also chess, and some people even prefer it over the simpler choices.

What was being discussed, or at least what I had in mind, wasn't a new game that would replace SC, it was the next step of the original SC and, ideally, they'd be packaged together; the basic game and its next evolution on the same (or similar) map, with the same units. Unless we're saying the original SC-1 is perfect in itself and has already achieved its highest level?

[Bill101]

JJ, do you really think that Hubert's going to throw away four years of work on SC2 to start off with SC1 as his baseplate again? There are so, so, so many features in SC2 that weren't in SC1 that it's improving SC2 that needs to be discussed.

For these ideas to really be of any relevance they need to take SC2 in all its incarnations as the starting point, otherwise a lot of the discussion is a waste of time because it's discussing issues that have already been rectified since the days of SC1, and also because those of us who have kept up with the times find it very hard to see the wood from the trees in this thread (or should I say the relevant from the irrelevant?).

Should SC3 be an improved version of SC2 but with hexes would be a far more relevant topic of discussion than some of those I've seen in this thread, or a question of how to improve upon SC2's modelling of strategic bombing, the re-building of destroyed units, sub attacks on convoy routes, or the game's diplomatic model etc., etc.

That said, there's still plenty of room for improvement in SC2, of course there is, and perhaps a little of the spirit of SC1 is a good thing, but don't overdo it. It's all a question of the right, and fairly easy to implement, ideas coming up.

I'm not saying that there aren't any good ideas in this thread, but I'm not going back to SC1. What some people seem to forget is that part of the reason for the massive buzz with SC1 was that it was something many of us had been hoping for for years. It came, we played and had great fun. Much as I love SC2 it is hard to recapture that original excitement we felt at discovering something new, but everytime I open up SC1 (I do still play it) I am reminded of why SC2 is so much better.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill,

I specifically said this wouldn't be to replace SC-2, only an idea for continueing along the lines established by the original SC.

Nobody ever said anything about Hubert throwing away SC-2, or the work he's done on it or anything at all along those lines.

The purpose of this idea would be to pull back some of the people who loved SC-1 but didn't choose to keep up with the SC-2 times, as you say.

It would seem there's room for both, and it would be to Hubert's advantage to keep both. It's funny because I have SC-2 as well, said from the start, and often, that I like it, and yet every time I say something it's as though I'm going against some sort of fraternity because I stay with my own truth, that I prefer hex based.

The feeling I get from regular SC-2 posters is that it's their way, or the highway. Well, a lot of people have taken the highway. An updated version of SC-1 -- co-existing with the tile based SC-2 and its evolutions -- would beyond a doubt bring many people back.

If Hubert thinks that a good idea I've offered my own take on it. If he doesn't that's fine. It isn't a personal issue with me. As I said in the other thread, these are just ideas that have been percolating for a while and I wanted to post them.

There's too much hostility in this place to anything that doesn't chime in with the current thinking. I was starting to forget why I stopped posting, now I'm starting to remember.

[Bill101]

John, I'm not being hostile, far from it (admittedly it's hard to tell on a bulletin board which is so different from discussion face to face in real life, and my post could seem like that) but I'm not.

The point is that SC3 (if there is one) might be tile based or it might be hex based, but the main thing is that whatever it is, a lot of the features that you'll see in SC2 are going to be in there, and that's the reason why SC2 should be the starting point of discussion.

That's it, plain and simple, and I certainly don't want to put anyone off posting.

[JerseyJohn]

Bill,

I always over-react, my apologies.

At this point I'm not clear on what is in SC-2 and what isn't. I have the original version and have patched it. I don't have the expansions and, to be honest, didn't have enough interest to buy them. Which isn't to say they don't look interesting, they do, but I'm not familiar with them. Nothing against SC-2, I like Civ III a lot but haven't bought either CivIV or its new offshoot.

So, as see it, the game has forked and gone in parellel lines:

......[--- the original SC, which is unchanged since SC-2 came out,

-->[

......[--- SC-2 and its expansions.

SC-2, while maintaining many of Hubert's original concepts, is, to me and many others, a vastly different game. Better, yes, but then we don't know how SC would be if it had been the recipient of a similar redesign.

I don't like to talk too much about why SC-2 didn't have as much appeal to me as the original SC. To me negative comments aren't worth the damage they cause. Also, I don't have any suggestions to make within the SC-2 framework that would change the feeling I've had for it. I'm sure it's a fine game, I was as anxious for it to come out as anyone else, but after a few games I just stopped playing it -- I know there are many others who love it, and that's fine; but there also many with exactly my own reaction.

So, since talking in terms of SC-3 doesn't get very far I figured I'd take a different approach, going back to SC and my own ideas along with those added by the membership, of how to make the original into its improved form. I don't even see it as replacing SC-1, but being something people can go to after they've mastered the first product.

If it's as simple as making a version of SC-2 with hexes that's fine, if not it's all Hubert's call and no one else's.

I think Hubert would be interested because there's a gap now for a good strategic level hex based WWII game, preferably the European Theater. And people keep contacting me telling about the ones in development. To me they're all pretty similar to CoS-Hi-Com and SC-1.

Who ends up filling this thing doesn't really concern me. I like Hubert and have confidence in his work but, really, if the perfect hex game comes along next year or the year after, whatever, then that's the product that filled the gap. I started playing these things in 1959, no doubt I'm set in my ways and if that were the end of it I wouldn't even bother posting any of this. But its pretty obvious at this point that there are many others with similar wargaming tastes and they lean toward SC rather than SC-2.

To me that's the relevant part. If not, well, as I said, it isn't that vital to me.

[Blashy]

So what is the ratio of hex based wargames to tile based wargames?

Just an average will suffice.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

I like HEX based war games better and so do a lot of other people, that's all. It isn't a challenge and it isn't something I'm going to be hounded to death over. What do I care about tiles and hex's? The first AH board games I bought, Gettysburg and Chansellorsville both had tiles -- and neither of them worked; the player had to actually invent rules! That was in 1959. Subsequent versions had hexes and there were other versions of the same battles that had tiles. So what? I'm just stating my own preference.

There were some games that didn't even have a board, such as Jutland, where the players used cardboard cutouts, a floor or large table and curved measuring guides that came with the game.

Anyway, there's no point answering ridiculous questions like this one; what's the answer? Number of hex based games, number of tile based -- why not ask how many territory based games there are too? Who the hell cares? This defensive, dumb reasoning has just about convinced me to not waste any more of my time here. It used to be a great place where people had open-minded discussions. Now it's been reduced to a lot of obscure gobblygook for the sake of gobblygook. Keep it.

If Hubert likes the idea of continueing along the original line while also continueing along the SC-2 lines that's fine, if not that's fine too.

Adios.

[SeaMonkey]

JJ, don't go, we haven't discussed sea zones. I think it could be applicable to either SC variants. I have SPI's PTO which kind of had sea zones but it also had hexes inside those zones.

Tell me how sea zones work. I need some orientation. I kind of like to maneuver my naval task forces, but I'm open to other possibilities.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey,

I was actually on my way to another website and clicked here out of habit. So much for going.

Clash of Steel -- which in his interview with Curry Hubert said was one of his favorite PC WWII games along with High Command; both DOS -- had what I think was a very interesting dual system. Land was travelled and fought over in hexes; air units moved across sea hexes and land units came ashore from them. But that wasn't the way ships travelled. They left port and went to a sea zone. Gibraltar divided them into two sections, one from the South Atlantic north -- I'm not sure about the zones off hand but I think they were:

South Atlantic,

North Atlantic,

North Sea,

Baltic Sea,

Western Mediteranean

Eastern Mediteranean

Red Sea

Black Sea

Players could station as many of their naval units in any sea zone they controlled. Subs operated in them and amphibious invasions, using transports, took place through them.

Air fleets placed along the coast had a chance of attacking the ships in that sea zone. Aircraft Carriers fought opposing surface ships in an air to sea battle in which they couldn't be damaged. When caught in a sea to sea battle they could be sunk, of course, but I'm not sure if that was possible.

Ships in a sea zone they didn't have a friendly port in could be damaged in any given turn.

Invasions could cover several zones. If you were the Axis, for example, and wanted to embark from the Baltic to land in the UK, you'd load units through Leningrad, Riga, or one of the other ports in that zone. You'd need to have warships in the zone your troops were landing in or they'd be intercepted and destroyed by the defending fleet.

Whoever controled Gibraltar controled the Atlantic - Mediteranean link. Even if the UK lost Gibraltar they could go back and forth from Egypt & Middle East to the UK, and reverse, by leaving the sea zones around the British Isles and targetting the Red Sea.

U-boats and surface raiders (every warship had a surface raiding rating) chipped away at shipping but there was a chance they'd be brought to battle in any given turn. Surface ships that were faster than their enemies had a good chance of successfully breaking off the action.

There was also a chance that ships from adjoining zones would come into the naval battle.

All vessels in a sea zone gave a combined bombardment to a coastal hex being assaulted.

All in all I prefered this system because it was a good abstraction of naval warfare; a kind of hide and seek but the more ships you have the better chance you'll find what you're looking for.

[jon_j_rambo]

What's going on in here? Blash, Billy Bacon, & SeeMonkeySpank are getting all techinical. What don't you understand? TILES SUCK!

@Blashy --- Kid, you know what my ratio of "games I will purchase" to "games I will not purchase" because of Tiles? HOW ABOUT ZERO! Put that in your marketing plan. Get a clue son. I know you wanna defend SC-2 all the way to the grave, but it's okay to get off the bandwagon.

@Billy Bacon --- Dude, just stick with making the manuals. There's men here trying to give the designers simple & real input.

@SeeSpanky --- Pretty sure we played a few games, and I ran you. There's a reason I'm a Legend. Please stick to History Channel & whatever you do.

@Sir Jersey --- I got you covered.

"Maverick is re-engaging" --- Top Gun

[Sombra]

Bill,

I always over-react, my apologies.

At this point I'm not clear on what is in SC-2 and what isn't. I have the original version and have patched it. I don't have the expansions and, to be honest, didn't have enough interest to buy them. Which isn't to say they don't look interesting, they do, but I'm not familiar with them. Nothing against SC-2, I like Civ III a lot but haven't bought either CivIV or its new offshoot.

So, as see it, the game has forked and gone in parellel lines:

......[--- the original SC, which is unchanged since SC-2 came out,

-->[

......[--- SC-2 and its expansions.

SC-2, while maintaining many of Hubert's original concepts, is, to me and many others, a vastly different game. Better, yes, but then we don't know how SC would be if it had been the recipient of a similar redesign.

I don't like to talk too much about why SC-2 didn't have as much appeal to me as the original SC. To me negative comments aren't worth the damage they cause. Also, I don't have any suggestions to make within the SC-2 framework that would change the feeling I've had for it. I'm sure it's a fine game, I was as anxious for it to come out as anyone else, but after a few games I just stopped playing it -- I know there are many others who love it, and that's fine; but there also many with exactly my own reaction.

So, since talking in terms of SC-3 doesn't get very far I figured I'd take a different approach, going back to SC and my own ideas along with those added by the membership, of how to make the original into its improved form. I don't even see it as replacing SC-1, but being something people can go to after they've mastered the first product.

If it's as simple as making a version of SC-2 with hexes that's fine, if not it's all Hubert's call and no one else's.

I think Hubert would be interested because there's a gap now for a good strategic level hex based WWII game, preferably the European Theater. And people keep contacting me telling about the ones in development. To me they're all pretty similar to CoS-Hi-Com and SC-1.

Who ends up filling this thing doesn't really concern me. I like Hubert and have confidence in his work but, really, if the perfect hex game comes along next year or the year after, whatever, then that's the product that filled the gap. I started playing these things in 1959, no doubt I'm set in my ways and if that were the end of it I wouldn't even bother posting any of this. But its pretty obvious at this point that there are many others with similar wargaming tastes and they lean toward SC rather than SC-2.

To me that's the relevant part. If not, well, as I said, it isn't that vital to me.

I like SC2 a lot but isnt anymore simply a kind of fast bretzel and beer game. fast to learn and play but hard to master. (IMO)

I think SC1 incooperated many ideas / features from SC1 community that we thought are good ideas. Alas, unfortunately the game got kind of tedious and work at points. thats fine for the guys who like to play alone against the AI against a human player its kind of mortal...

-The game lost a little bit its focus of the kiss principle . Yeah, upgrading every unit regarding movement , soft attack, hard attack... right klicking every unit to set the commander to support this units or that unit etc. its not very complicated but slows down the game a lot.

- Roads and railways are nice features unfortunately they are like the deathspell for a failed counterattack especially when a trained Stukas can nearly destroy a tank unit with one strike => limiting the possible actions you can take

- Weather great additon because seasons really change the battlefield : Unfortunately the rapid switch from rain/ mud , snow to sunshine almost randomly for each side made the attacks and counterattacks like playing roulette.

- Experience , morale/readiness are nice concepts but hard to understand intuively and hard to balance ( for example the abuse with attacking minors one by one to keep morale high (dont eat your minors to fast)

+ EXperience .=> (as in SC1 ) bulding units killer units able to destroy their opponents in one strike ( tedious grooming of these killer units)

- More units are harder to balance + Anti air and artillery besides of the oh so carefully moving around it leads to kind of strange combats instead of Blitzkrieg is suddenly "siege war" slowly moving battlelines are moved under artillery cover ever closer to the cities

The tiles and the 3d view look perhaps better but make it much harder to grasp the layout of the battlefield regarding movements etc. easily.

I loved SC1 and still like a lot SC2 . The ingredients/ideas of SC2 WAW are all I ever wanted from sC1

Just the way they are used are not totally to my taste. I would have liked more design decisions to make human vs human games more feasible and attractive (for example seperation between actual combat movement and other tasks in different phases so both players have something to do all the time. Specator view and replays for community building, and work on the interface to simply repetive tasks etc. to reduce the micromanagement, waiting for 20minutes till your opponent has moved is not much fun.

If I see now many of the suggestions I would fear that we run into the same trap as before making the things even more complicated and bofg down the game . I would like to see and SC1+ or SC3 going back to the very simple and fast game mechanism it had before . No restrictions and 30 rules to learn but keep it simple.

[SeaMonkey]

Sombra I understand what you're saying but the fact of the matter is SC2 has the ability to grasp that simplicity.

The editor allows you to customize any campaign, adding or removing any features you wish or decline to have. You can create a game with a smaller scope not incorporating all the features that SC2 has available. You can choose. Choice is good!

Now I know that there are many of you here that do not wish to use the editor, that's fine, I understand. There are plenty of customized campaigns that you can choose from, most are really good contests and can be played rapidly.

See my thread about a faster, short duration scenario for tournament play in the Mods forum. I chose the NA and East.Med theater to incorporate all the elements of land, sea and air, but there is no production, research, diplomacy, a lot of decision making has been removed to focus on the combat aspects.

Sure, it may not be what everyone desires, but I don't care, I'm making it, its my design decision. You can choose to play it or not, but if you do, I'll be open to adjusting the creation to yours and others recommendations.

In conclusion, SC2 and its variants have the potential to recapture that simplicity of SC1, you just need to turn off some of the features.

[Blashy]

I find it funny how most people decry certain feature and yet those can be rectified via the editor but they do not want to use it and they want the default campaign that comes with the game to be the gold standard.

Even in SC some mods were WAY more balanced than the default one and yet people used the bidding system when there was ZERO need to do so with a properly modified campaign.

Hubert can not satisfy everyones desires, he would have to do X amount of campaigns. But he puts it what is probably the most thourough wargame editor for people to have the ability to do so themselves.

[xwormwood]

I know i am a bit out of line with this, but i truly want to add it anyway:

SC2 (include WaW an PDE here) make very much very right.

SC1 was was very good, but it was more like chess than like WW2.

The chess factor added much fun to those, who completly learned all its rules.

But for a normal, strategic war game lover, who needs good games against the AI instead of a not existing human opponents, it was not as much fun as SC2.

Saying this, i hope that magic Hubert suprises us all, when he releases his next milestones in wargaming fun.

I would bet that implenting hexes would silence 50% of us old nagging grunts instantly.

[SeaMonkey]

You're not out of line Xwood, you state the truth, the truth is never "out of line", problem is, "some people can't handle the truth".

You're right Blashy, Hubert has given us the tools of creation, but alas as is humanistic, they don't want to put in any effort, they just want to fork over the $ and get what they want. There's just too many "wants" for the compensation the "fork" will carry, so they won't ever get what they really want.

I'll be the first here to say I'm humanistic....I want to use the "fork". I have so many demands on my time I can't make that devotion to creation, .....so I want....but I don't get. Well...I get a little:), but it just never seems to be enough. Actually it probably is, its just my expectations are so high....I probably couldn't handle what I think would be "enough" if I ever got it anyways.

See that's it, Hubert has given us enough to create, but we won't admit it because that would mean we'd actually have to perform and create what we really want, from the building materials.

That takes work, I already worked, and got $ for my effort, so I just want someone else to create it for me and I'll give them some of my $.

But you know what...it won't ever be what I really want...cause it wasn't mine.