Timskorn

Once I get home late, late tonight I'll let'er rip. I'm hoping I have one last, strong offensive to throw at you soon. Nothing like going out in a bang!

Good to hear it then JJR, I plan to grind out a minor victory!

Good points Terif. For me if I've made a bonehead move as the Axis early on and in '42 I'm getting rammed down the throat with Reds already and have no chance of winning, I'd prefer surrender. If, like in my game with JJR, my downfall really becomes apparent in '44, I'd like to try and stick it out and at least try for the minor victory. I'd rather not bore anyone to death either. If it's a tourny game then I wouldn't care, I'd go for the win any way I can get it, even if it means ending the game with my last three units around Berlin.

I'm more interested in HvH games. Is there, dare I say, etiquette when losing? Some people may get upset that you quit "early", and others may get bored/irritated to continue playing a game they'll surely win. So quit when you're "done", or try to fight it out for as long as possible (or, at least, until the game end-date which is what, 1946? 1947?). Then that begs the other question, if you're clearly losing, yet take your opponent to the games end date and you get a minor victory...who really is considered the winner?

What do most people here do in a losing situation? I know in competitive gaming a veteran player pretty much knows when their odds of "winning" is zero to none. This just comes from playing a game endlessly and just knowing when that turning point has occurred. From what I gather, it seems most players here play until they acknowledge that situation and then call it a day. It can make sense for a number of reasons, namely people usually don't enjoy wasting time playing dozens of more turns of a game they'll never "win", and because the win conditions of SC2 revolves around capital grabbing. Which typically means the side that accomplishes this knows it's going to happen well in advance. The topic for "win conditions" is another subject altogether so what I'm wondering is, if you surrender early, what general circumstances (For Axis and Allies) do you decide to make that call? I'm currently in a game in Spring of '45 as the Axis. There is no way for me to win at this point. I've got a solid defensive line with crack air support in the west, and a crumbling shamble of an army in the east. Romania has surrendered, but Axis forces are reforming the lines there to defend. North, German forces are reforming a defensive line in eastern Poland. Since it is late in the war, I find a new challenge in losing as the Axis: properly deploy defensive lines and find opportunities to counter-attack whenever possible to stall Allied advances. On the flip side, would most of you still enjoy playing the game as the Allies? Or with victory assured, wish to move on?

Darwinia is a really fun game, really unique. I also love the other game Introversion made, DEFCOM. It's perfect for a quick 10-15 minute game of thermonuclear warfare, and it surprisingly has a lot of strategy. I saw that Steam also is distributing X-Com: Terror from the Deep. I personally enjoyed the original better even though the only real difference is that TFTD is underwater. Both are all-time classic games. If you've never played them, do it. Now Playing: Guitar Hero 2

Yep, playing the AI is probably a good way to get a feel for SC2 at first. But, if you play a decent human player they'll teach you a lot of hard lessons early. In general the Axis are tougher to play, especially versus another decent human opponent. As Axis you can't afford to make too many mistakes, especially early, or you'll be quickly overwhelmed by the Allies. As the Allies it takes a bit more time to build up forces, but you can make more mistakes and still recover, as the Allies generally get stronger as the game goes on and the Axis weaker. Good luck, have fun, remember to never give up too quickly and welcome to the boards!

Gotta have the weeping Frenchman!

I hope CEAW becomes a good game. I have to say though I've been a little spoiled with SC2's graphics. One look at CEAW and I can feel my eyesight going.

This may get long-winded but it's something I've been thinking about for quite awhile. Due to HC being pretty much a one-man army this is obviously one of those "future wishlist" things. One thing that always struck me with SC 1 and 2 is that the history IN the game is just, well, dry. There's not a lot of connection to the real war. In HoI for example, there's a ton of photo's of real generals. Doesn't sound like a big deal but it adds a level of authenticity. Right now we have brief pop-ups of events, such as when France surrenders or sides declare war. There's no people involved. What made the war so interesting were the faces and names on every side. Sure, you can click on Patton's HQ and see his name, but how about a mug shot of him chomping on a cigar to go along with it? In the pre-gen Madden games (non Xbox 360/PS3 versions), they had a National and Local Newspaper you could look at each week. It changed depending on not only what happened around the league that week, but also featured your players and how they did during their game. I loved looking at it to see who made the front page. It personalized your game. I would love to eventually see a Dynamic News system in SC. Instead of a generic pop-up that says, "France Surrenders", it would have a huge headline with the classic weeping Frenchman on the front page. And instead of a pop-up, just create a seperate section altogether that you click on to bring up. This way you could ignore it if you wanted to. Not only would it include major events, but it would summarize most of the major (or minor) actions happening in the game (and within FoW rules of course). It could detect when x amount of units within x amount of tiles loses a combined total of x strength, it would register as a major battle if the numbers were high enough. "Russians on the offensive near Smolensk!" if it detected enough Axis units destroyed and/or damaged in the area. Same with Allied landings in Norway, countries being "swayed" diplomatically, such as a photo of Franco and Hitler together if they are moving towards the Axis, major naval battles or dogfights/bombings over the Western front. There could two papers. One national that both players can see, and the other local which would be more personalized. The local may have an article about a Army group that just received one bar of experience, showing a photo of a decorated soldier within that unit, or a tally of an air unit's combined kills so far in the war. Just something to blend the real war with the game war and make it feel that not only are you a part of history but you're changing it in the process. I know that WaW is adding options for images and sounds, so hopefully that'll go a ways towards what I'm talking about in the time being.

Could we even go so far as to include anecdotal historical information? We take for granted our knowledge of WW2. The first game that made me want to dig very, very deep into WW2 history was Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe. Also during that time most WW2 games had thick manuals full of history as well as how to play. Aces of the Pacific, Aces of the Deep, B-17 Flying Fortress, V for Victory, etc. At any rate, I'd like to see (optional) popups during the game that relate to what happened in history. Nothing long and elaborate, but popups (or side icons you can ignore or select) that have "This day in history" information, as well as contextual information. Such as when the first Russian winter hits. Have a brief explanation of what effect that had on German units during the war. Or when the player first uses an Allied bomber, or an Allied bomber is used against the player, give some brief info on the purpose of massive Allied bombings were on Nazi targets. Not only does it give a bit of history but it'll give the player a hint as to a type of strategy to employ. This can be used with just about everything. U-Boats, Italian surrender, why Romania joined, why Malta is such a pain in the ass, even when you first attack across a river. Popups may get annoying after awhile, which is why a side icon (such as in games like Rome: Total War) would work better. You can access them if you want, quickly dismiss them or ignore 'em altogether. I know it's mind boggling but not everyone knows a lot of these details about WW2. Without forcing them to read books on it, HC has the opportunity to educate 'em a bit while they play a game. Just like the good 'ol days.

They're finally making a movie about you: http://iamlegend.warnerbros.com/

This kind of help goes a LONG way to easing new players into a game like this. I'd like to see some popup help for entrenchment and fortifications, and their general effect on defending against air, land and sea attacks. Doesn't need to be long winded, just so players will understand why three air attacks on it might not have produced any casualties. Another popup would be about morale and readiness, and some general things that raise/lower them and their effect on a unit's effectiveness. A lot of the hidden information is what probably stumps newer players, as a units effectiveness can literally go from maximum to minimum in a single turn depending on the circumstances.

Cool, glad to hear it n0kn0k. I'm sure it's a pretty big endeavor and one probably best suited for SC3 or whatever next "full" game HC releases, unless of course there is $$ to be made with a 2nd "expansion" for SC2. I'm glad to see HC making WaW. Expansions typically do not make as much money as the original game, but I think for a wargame such as this you'll get the core fanbase to buy it, plus all the "sleepers" out there that bought and enjoyed the game but have since moved on. Once they hear about an expansion they come back. Then 6 months from now you release the "Gold Special Edition Directors Cut" SC2, re-market it and grab up all-new customers who missed it the first time.

One of the very first things I learned when I went into the game industry was that all those wonderful, creative, innovative ideas you had swimming in your brain didn't matter. Design decisions were always weighed towards its potential for marketability, and basically whether it would help it sell or not. Even if it wasn't as fun or practical as another idea. That also goes in hand with knowing who your target audience is. A game like SC2, if too "simplified" in order to cater outside of the wargaming market, may end up losing sales to both crowds. The casual market may not like it (or just not be marketed to properly), and the grognards are turned off because it's no longer a real wargame. I feel the SC series CAN break out to a larger audience, but I believe that comes with ever-increasing-graphics and an ever-more-intuitive interface and action-feedback. There's a lot of numbers for people to look at (Strength, supply, terrain, weather, tech, etc) that factor into why a unit may do 3 points of damage this turn if they attack or 0 if they attack next turn. Or why can't I move this unit out of a swamp right now? Why can't I reinforce this turn, but I can the next? Most of the time it's just the interface and context-sensitive feedback that need some TLC in order to present all this information to a new player in a slick style.

Yargh, when's the release date for WaW?!?!

I see your point Yogi. Bottom line, hexes are just more widely accepted. However, this doesn't mean it's always the best system to go with, even "sales wise". Gamers always think they know what they like best until they experience something better. Unfortunately, there's a lot of old fogies who scream "hexes or death!" because it's just been the way of the war gaming world. If HC is really looking to make more cash I say focus on graphics, not bringing hexes back. Thankfully, HC likes to do things his own way and it's always seemed to work out. I mean we're even getting expansion for SC2!

Close Combat 2 was my all-time favorite of the series, although CC3 seems to be the most popular as a new version was "re-released" recently for purchase.

Thanks for all the info guys. Luckily it'll be awhile before I have the time and money to sink into an all-new wargame. SC2 and WaW will keep me busy for a long time. By the time I do get CEAW, hopefully it'll be all patched up and ready for me.

I have yet to play him, but judging from that screenshot above (1942 and he controls almost all the minors already) it looks like he has this game down to a science! On top of that, he has an Italian bomber and HQ, 4 German rockets, 6 aircraft (9 if counting Italy and minors), a huge German army with 4 HQ's and upgrades for everything...just in this one screenshot, and it's only 1942. [ June 25, 2007, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Timskorn ]

Oil as a means of war would be an interesting addition, but not sure if it's a necessary one at this point. MPP's sort of abstract the presence of oil. Oil fields give more of it, so it's just nice to have 'em. The old game Command HQ, from about 1991, had oil as a resource that was needed to move ships, armor and planes. If it becomes too important, I feel it would start to limit German strategy, as you may be forced to always go for certain oil fields in order to sustain your military past a certain date.

A Pacific game would need expanded naval and air functions as well. Carriers and their fighters were a huge factor in determining naval battles. It'd be interesting to see a "slightly" more detailed breakdown of carriers and their flight groups, and somehow capture the strategy of knowing when to attack and when to protect. Say you can set your carriers to different modes: A. Attack Carrier B. Attack Any C. CAP Attack Carrier and Attack Any would work sort of like Intercept mode with current aircraft. If a carrier or any other enemy ship comes into LOS of your carrier, it'll automatically launch an air strike against it. If the opposing carrier is on CAP mode, they'll have a higher chance of repelling the attack. If both carriers are on Attack Carrier, simultaneous attacks would occur. Pretty basic idea that would need much more attention of course, but expanded carrier functions would go a long way to making the "Carrier War" in the Pacific more exciting, and involve some more strategy.

Yes, it's a risky, harsh business. Most companies work for 2-4 years on money loaned to them by a publisher, with the expectation they'll recoup that amount plus some profits. It's an immense amount of risk and pressure. I think HC is doing it right, low-budget and lower risk, slowly building up an IP and a fan base. And eventually, hopefully, SC3 or 4 or whatever future game you make hits a nerve and you see sales quadruple or more. Some people hate EA because they keep pumping out updated versions of new games each year (Like Madden), but it's a business model. From a gamers perspective we say, "Revolutionize the game!" but to EA that just screams "Risky business". So they take what works and add parts to it each year, and millions of people buy it.

I've been playing Company of Heroes off and on. I love turn-based games, but I enjoy the guilty pleasure of high-speed tactical action too.

I was just wondering the other day, Hubert, what ultimately got you started (and inspired) to work on SC1? What was your initial goal for that game and what was the most surprising (and disappointing) aspect of the process? I used to work for SSSI (Empire Earth, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War) and am always interested to hear about this stuff, especially from smaller developers. What you can divulge, anyway.