Sc1+

[JerseyJohn]

This area is called the SC-1 Forum. As such I assumed there was a reason to still be discussing that game system and to be suggesting improvements to it.

It's too bad so many of us, including people I really like, are stuck on SC-2 and have to be so damn condescending about it, even bringing that here, where their continueing harping on all its wonders are as out of place as this thread would be in the SC-2 area.

I feel like half the people in here are just robots caught in a loop.

Anyway, I really have had enough. My thanks to the people who put in constructive discussion. The ones who were just talking for the sake of talking, acting like the rest of us are neanderthals because we're discussing the proper game in the proper forum can continue doing so, but I'll spare myself reading, or replying to, their pointlessly defensive and antagonistic points.

BrotherRambo -- Many thanks. I think you've got our Bills mixed up, though. The fellow who posted here is British Bill101. Bill Macon is American. I believe he's a graduate of West Point and a former army officer, but I've always liked him anyway.

Sombra -- I agree with what you're saying. As I mentioned earlier this is the SC-1 area and as such it seemed reasonable to figure Hubert was still looking for ideas to improve that game.

Conducting the moves in phases wouldn't make it more complicated at all since the computer would be handling all of that. If anything doing things that way would enable to AI to play better, as it played better in COS than it ever did in SC-1. It seems to be easier for the computer to make decisions with Sea Zones than it is with actually moving naval and land units at sea; that's the sort of reason I brought all of this up, but it's been lost in a lot of irrelevant SC-2 zealotism -- irrelevant because I stated up front that this has nothing to do with SC-2 and there's no suggestion for Hubert to stop working on it. This place can no longer even take yes for an answer unless you join the chorus and put on the trappings and read it from the same hymnal the rest are reading from.

Mr X. -- Thanks for entering the discussion. As I said earlier, since this whole forum is still called SC-1, I felt it would be a good place to post the suggestions. Apparently I was wrong.

Hubert -- Good to hear from you on this.

[justanotherwargamer1]

Myself, I have SC1, it's "ok" it will likely always have those elements that "need some work".

I don't expect Hubert to re open the game and do more work on it really I don't. It's ok to admit that the day is gone.

I also don't expect to get anything done to give Squad Leader any tweaks. I expect to be told to just get ASL Come to think of it, I'm still sad they weren't able to get Combat Leader off the ground.

I'm not a fan of SC2, and I am expecting anything built on it and looking like it likely will not grab me. Whether it be Pacific theatre or even external to WW2 entirely. Civil War with the tiles would be a massive pile of dung. Arab Israelis conflict in tiles would be a crock too.

Sometimes perfume on a pig is just perfume on a pig eh.

I'm not waiting on SC3 to be a magical solution fixed reborn SC1. Nice dream I guess, but I'd rather Hubert just take the learning from SC1 and SC2 and give me the right game.

Maybe 3rd times the charm.

As has already been mentioned by me, I require a simple easy to run game of WW2 grand strategy. One actually using WEGO.

It's not just a concept with me, I'm saying it's a requirement.

Layer an AI if you adamantly insist, just so long as it can be ignored by me.

And I want those damn hexes.

Draw pretty graphics if you think that's the only way to attract the shallow, it's not important to me, and I will be among those likely waiting for a Nato counter set to replace them.

I think Hubert has the needed talent to make my "great wargame" I think we just need to convince him to make it.

SC1 got the bases loaded. SC2 though was not the homerun expected.

I haven't been focusing on the nuances of the two games, because to me it would have been a wasted effort.

I want SC1 to enjoy it's glory, but it's in the past.

And I don't want an enhanced or altered or modified SC2.

I want it replaced with the WEGO concept entirely.

I'm already thinking an entirely new piece of programming.

There comes a time when you have to let something go I guess.

I can let SC1 go, I'd like to see people let SC2 go.

Stop with the beat it to death expansions.

Clean up the tools. Get a fresh slate, and get working on the new design.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Billy Bacon --- Sorry I smacked you, I smacked the wrong Bill! You just got in the line of fire.

@Other Billy --- Dude, get your game together. Wait, do I know you? Welcome to the party.

@SomeBunta --- Nice to see online, how's the Fatherland? How's the family? We had some great battles in SC-1 against each other. I still remember your massive Russian invasion against R.A.C.K. in Poland, still in my memory banks. Come visit the States, spend a couple days with Legend & family....I'll take you boating, make my famous Spicey Rambo Beef Burgers with my secret reciepe Idaho fries. Spark up a couple of SC-1 hotseat games.

@Sir Jersey --- Stay in the battle, you got friends here, you're a made man. Just like Squad Leader, the Americans rally faster than any troops in the world! So when you take a couple of hits, we'll get you right back in the front lines.

TILES suck.

Editors are fine by me.

SC-2 early game is a bore

SC-2 late game can be fun

SC-2 has good naval & Africa

SC-2 weather is too much (screw the editor, I ain't programming it)

Comes to a point, I just can't explain why SC-1 is better. It just is. Hey, I played my share of SC-2, but good grief, it takes 20 hours to play! SC-1 can take just as long too, I just liked the early game better, the Allies could actually do something. I think we have Terif to blame for figuring out both games.

[Sombra]

@

TILES suck.

Editors are fine by me.

SC-2 early game is a bore

SC-2 late game can be fun

SC-2 has good naval & Africa

SC-2 weather is too much (screw the editor, I ain't programming it)

Comes to a point, I just can't explain why SC-1 is better. It just is. Hey, I played my share of SC-2, but good grief, it takes 20 hours to play! SC-1 can take just as long too, I just liked the early game better, the Allies could actually do something. I think we have Terif to blame for figuring out both games.

+1 (nice summary Rambo)

@ Blashy: I never liked editors, or creative features in games...even in GAlcCIV2 the ship creator was to much for me already.

As you said yourself user made scenarios are usally not accepted in a 1 vs 1 game between humans. its hard enough already to find human opponents as trying to convince them to play a selfmade scenario, it will not work. THe bid modus worked well to adapt the game to adjust the level for different kind of player strenghts ) Unfortunately SC1 had some serious bugs till the end (for example AA-bug) and serious flaws ( Terif cookie cutter strategy) , Invincible Carriers, Rambos Rome Gambit), german D-Day in Rusia, boring U-Boot Krieg etc. sure this is why we wanted an improved SC1,

2. I like many (nearly all ) new features of SC2 . Still I think the streamline beer and bretzel approach of SC1 was more fun for me. Many of the enw features, slow down the game considerably and open the door to new abuses against the AI (You noted it yourself that you have to ignore features to make the AI even slightly more challenging)

SC2 vanilla is quite balanced . SC2 WAW looks more realistic but is still open for abuse (IMO) between players.

3. Last but not least: SC2 maybe the better game for single players ( I think it is) still for human players SC1 still shines

1. French campign is stll outstanding inn SC1 regarding gameplay

2. Sealions are just right for in SC1 .

3. Barbarossa is fun

4. The game doesnt get boring its always a race against the clock.

5. Even Afrika could be much fun

[Blashy]

I will say that out of your 5 points I only think the French campaign in SC1 is better because if well played by the Allies and the Axis make errors it can be a game changer.

But the rest I find SC2 is soo way ahead of SC.

Sealion was just simply unrealistic in SC, in SC2 it is much more so and this is why it is difficult to accomplish (impossible vs. a competent Allied player).

Barbarossa is fantastic in SC2... more SPACE.

The game is boring in SC because it becomes these two big line of troops on both sides and the only way to plow through is with the overpowered airfleet. Feels like WW1 if it were not for the airpower.

Africa is the same for both imo.

[Sombra]

I will say that out of your 5 points I only think the French campaign in SC1 is better because if well played by the Allies and the Axis make errors it can be a game changer.

But the rest I find SC2 is soo way ahead of SC.

Sealion was just simply unrealistic in SC, in SC2 it is much more so and this is why it is difficult to accomplish (impossible vs. a competent Allied player).

Barbarossa is fantastic in SC2... more SPACE.

The game is boring in SC because it becomes these two big line of troops on both sides and the only way to plow through is with the overpowered airfleet. Feels like WW1 if it were not for the airpower.

Africa is the same for both imo.

Blashy I can respect your point of view and even respect it.

1. French campaign : Ok

2. Sealion: SC1 : Sealion : unrealistic but possible and really fun => aka I commit my forces to the sealion if the Allied player does lose his fleet + doesnt garrison England enough hard to carry out but game deciding if it works and I win the jackpot. THe german fleet is the underdog but sometimes can be threat at sea

- Sealion SC2 : German fleet is quite able to challenge the british fleet, Sealion can (could) always be carried out by the Germans. No way England can (could) prevent it => Capital switches to Egyt and as present the allies receive the whole med as a present (*could I didnt try it in SC2 WAW anymore after Version 1.03 its simply not worthwhile) . In total why dont we see many Sealions in SC" WAW: Simple answwer its simply not even worthwhile and nearly always an advantage for the Allies besides I just knew that the lazy EGgypts are just to lazy to really support my troops in the beginning

3. Afrika actually is much more fun in SC2 WAW still in SC1 its an very important battlefield too

4. Barbarossa: Here SC2 shines but SC2 WAW can / could be over to soon to easily. Usally from my experience its in SC2 WAW is like poker "all in" either I win or get destroyed ...To flee isnt possible anymore because railways etc. artillerie + antiaircraft + fortresses make game really like a siege war. The big start of Barbarossa like in SCC1 is missing, any "normal" skilled player will leave the front cities undefended as Rusia. THe arrival of the Siberian troops in SC2 WAW is much better than in SC1 not dancing around the trigger hexes anymore still the forced arrival as early in in the war brings the curious result that Rusia in the beginning doesnt need much defense forces but can play a high tech research game (to get max tech up Siberians).

Regarding overwpowered aircraft in SC1: YES THEY ARE

IN SC2: they are I believe still overpowered if used correctly, anytime a units moves outside the "antiar cover" beng its gone....

I feel a little bit like Rambo. Rationally SC2 has all the features I wished for in SC1. The game is bugfree well programmend runs fast even on older computers etc. But somehow its not the "rage" and "fun" to play against other humans as SC1

[Sombra]

This area is called the SC-1 Forum. As such I assumed there was a reason to still be discussing that game system and to be suggesting improvements to it.

It's too bad so many of us, including people I really like, are stuck on SC-2 and have to be so damn condescending about it, even bringing that here, where their continueing harping on all its wonders are as out of place as this thread would be in the SC-2 area.

Sombra -- I agree with what you're saying. As I mentioned earlier this is the SC-1 area and as such it seemed reasonable to figure Hubert was still looking for ideas to improve that game.

Conducting the moves in phases wouldn't make it more complicated at all since the computer would be handling all of that. If anything doing things that way would enable to AI to play better, as it played better in COS than it ever did in SC-1. It seems to be easier for the computer to make decisions with Sea Zones than it is with actually moving naval and land units at sea; that's the sort of reason I brought all of this up, but it's been lost in a lot of irrelevant SC-2 zealotism -- irrelevant because I stated up front that this has nothing to do with SC-2 and there's no suggestion for Hubert to stop working on it. This place can no longer even take yes for an answer unless you join the chorus and put on the trappings and read it from the same hymnal the rest are reading from.

Hubert -- Good to hear from you on this.

Just to come back to SC1. Unfortunately I never played COS . REgarding the need for an SC1 clone look at CEAW. Seems to be commercial succes.

- Less pretty than SC2

- Les units than SC2

- No diplomacy

- quite a lot of bugs

- The AI is on a lvl of SC1

- quite badly balanced

- Game has some programming flaws (kind of slow ), disconnects hang up etc.

Still it has fans , there are interessting AARs over in the Panzerliga and the main tenor is:

Yeah its hexes, its fast and its simple to play but hard to master and feels a little bit like SC1 and its fun.

I dont want advertise another game because I am not even convinced that is even good and has the long term appeal of SC1 . But you could observe that some (many) of our players at the PL pick up this game because it reminds them strongly of SC1.

[Blashy]

I always tick that the capital moves to Canada instead of Egypt, moving to Egypt is just not what would have occured historically IMO.

In the end, I bet ya if SC2 was hexed based many of the old SC big time players would be playing it. I get the impression this is what chased many of them away.

[jon_j_rambo]

I always tick that the capital moves to Canada instead of Egypt, moving to Egypt is just not what would have occured historically IMO.

In the end, I bet ya if SC2 was hexed based many of the old SC big time players would be playing it. I get the impression this is what chased many of them away.

Yep

I got no beef with SC-2, it was fun, interesting, & had its place. I'm glad I bought, played many games with Terif & Liam.....and alot of PBEM.

The thing that bothered with tiles, I just couldn't "feel the map". Moving troops from Poland to France early on was just weird I couldn't sense the best way to move, it was awkward.

If you really want the tiles (I'm sure programming is easier), then just make it a checkerboard, meaning line up the squares!

All this talk, makes me wana buy a new game

Having an Icon like SomeBunta show up & post, gets my competitiveness stirred up!

[jon_j_rambo]

@Panzerliga folks --- What games you playing theses days?

@Terif --- You still around?

[jon_j_rambo]

Oh, another thing that REALLY bothered me with SC-2. The weather! Okay, we asked for it, we got. But could I please have a weatherman who would make some predictions about the next turn's weather?

"Your resources predict 50% chance of snow next turn".

"Your resources report unnormal sea levels & waves for the near future"

Some kind of warning would be nice.

Face it, weather would make or break you on the Russian front. Your opponent beats the crap out of you 2 turns in a row with clear weather, then you get "Mud", WTF? Too much luck.

I got so sick of mud turns I'd just push "send turn" back soon as a I saw it.

[Blashy]

Weather is EASILY managed in SC2 and a veteran player like yourself should have no issues with weather.

Quite simple, summer is offense, winter is regroup, fall and spring are the ones you need to have a few preparations in case you get good weather then you might be able to make a few attacks here and there.

[Colin I]

You can usually guess the weather from place and season - thats enough. I like the (realistic) unpredictability.

Winter is for offensives when you have good ground forces and your opponent is strong in the air - Battle of the Bulge, Soviet counterattachs etc.

[jon_j_rambo]

Weren't there weather forecasters back then? I know weather, so come on man. Weather is too much luck for a fun game. Imagine sitting in front of the computer for 15 hours, finally a battle will happen. You get bad luck after getting smacked, no opporutnity for counter, game over againt a real player.

[Blashy]

The turns are weeks and months, no weather was not predictable to that extent back then.

In ALL the games I have played luck has never been a deciding factor, the only time it will be is if someone tries stuff during bad weather and there is plenty of good summer weather to move forward and plenty of good clear winter weather to move as well.

[Sombra]

Yep

The thing that bothered with tiles, I just couldn't "feel the map". Moving troops from Poland to France early on was just weird I couldn't sense the best way to move, it was awkward.

All this talk, makes me wana buy a new game

!

Kind of funny , I dont think I shared so many opinions with Rambo before.

Blashy all the features in SC2 are fine by itself and look like great addtions in gameplay.

And I think you are right Blashy that if the english capital switches than to Canada ( I would like to see additonally in that case that nearly all the british forces surrender (like the free french) ,the Brits can make a slow comeback from Canada.)

Unfortunately as Rambo said I simply dont feel the features. I understand them , I can play with them, I can calcultate them but somehow the easy feeling of the battlefield dynamics of SC1 is missing.

Some important features like morale is hard to estimate . Supply is well done in my opinion in SC2 (but in SC1 too), weather changes can have a drastic effect. Problem here is that with the importance of the airfleets weather doesnt only slow down your movements (which you could counter to a point with higher motorization) but makes the most important weapon (aircraft) between useless and and the absolute show stopper ....

[Kuniworth]

I always tick that the capital moves to Canada instead of Egypt, moving to Egypt is just not what would have occured historically IMO.

In the end, I bet ya if SC2 was hexed based many of the old SC big time players would be playing it. I get the impression this is what chased many of them away.

You got definately a point here.

[Retributar]

I will not argue the above comment's!, but i too have played hex-games since i was 10-years old!,...yet i have had no trouble at all phasing into this Grid-Style_SC2-Game!.

Personally!,...i like both!. But! as an extra mention,...i especially really like/prefer the 3D-Graphic's!.

One-Day!,...if it ever comes to be or occurs where we can play the same game in either Grid or Hex Mode,...that will be the day that we could then really do a fair comparison of either concept!.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for all the posts and suggestions guys, been busy as of late with the new release work, but as always I just wanted to say again that I am listening and may just surprise you guys at some point down the road

[Kuniworth]

I like surprises.

[SeaMonkey]

How about this surprise: Posting over at Matrix, I find out from our Liam, that "Commander: Europe at War" was developed by our old buddy Zappsweden from the original SC forum.

I'm assuming firepowerjohn=Johan Persson=Zappsweden. If so, its kind of interesting how this strategic scale has been so inspirational and how that first SC title has served to be a great catalyst to wargame development of this genre.

Yeah ...I know it wasn't the first(SC), but perhaps a little push for resurrection.

[Kuniworth]

Zappsweden!!!!!

[jon_j_rambo]

Zappsweden!!!!!

[Kuniworth]

Air king Zappsweden!!!!!

[SeaMonkey]

So Liam alluded to. What's Liam's credibility record?