BloodyBucket
-
Posts
986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BloodyBucket
-
-
I'm not so sure Adolph was so keen to destroy England after France fell. Didn't he make a lot of comments about how an England was needed in the international order of things? Of course, he expected them to sue for peace...
Certainly Sealion should be possible in the game, and I have an idea that how difficult that turns out to be in the full version will be up to the choices the allied player makes early on.
The idea of an government in exile after the fall of the home island is a good one. Besides the idea that they wouldn't have thrown in the towel, just imagine the thrill of liberating London with Free English forces
. -
At last I got around to attacking Russia in the demo. The overall campaign seemed about right against the AI, with two reservations.
</font>
- Finland gets pounded early and often </font>
- I really miss the Winter </font>
While there is no "first turn after war is declared suprise bonus" that I am aware of, the German advance was satisfactory. The "feel" was about right, probably because I got to smash a few corps with armies. Good advances, HQ trying to keep up, tempting to run the armor out way in front, with the FOW suprise effect adding tension.
The Finns got squished. Perhaps I made an error, but they seem pretty helpless.
Even if it was just a "chrome" effect, like altered graphics during Winter turns, some recognition that Winter is on would be welcome. I doubt that any Winter tweaks are forthcoming, but from a flavor standpoint the Russian Winter is so ingrained in the mind of the WWII gaming crowd that it just seems as if something is missing there.
-
IIRC, Hubert said that subs were being tweaked. Anyone remember if he said how?
-
The perfect solution would be, as Hubert has said, to have the option to toggle the opponent's turn replay off and on as agreed to beforehand by both players. It should be locked once the game starts.
If it had to be one way or the other, I would strongly vote for the view replay option. I agree that in strictly game terms, the no-view option might add a lot of FOW issues, but in simulation terms it falls far short of simulating the intelligence available to WWII commanders.
It would not be a game killer, but it would be a strong mark in the minus column.
-
Happy Halloween! :eek: :eek: :eek:
-
This sounds like a challenge for the grogs like Dorosh and JasonC. I think I will post a link in the General forum.
-
Big Bump for the replay feature.
-
That is an interesting question. I don't think you can say SC is offering anything really revolutionary. It is, at the core, a hex based, turn based game going over ground that has been plowed many times before. It is very true that SC does not cover most aspects of the war in as much detail as other games that came before it did.
If you are looking for detail, or complexity, I think SC is going to be dissapointing. The graphics aren't going to blow anyone away, and the interface is not anything amazingly new.
If SC really takes off, it will be because of a hard to define quality that might be termed elegance. There are some very simple games that seem to have this quality and become a case of the sum being greater than the parts. If there are no glaring errors (game crashing bugs, canned strategies that always work) than SC has a shot at this.
The appeal of a simple game that has good historical feel and can be played to conclusion in a reasonable amount of time should not be discounted. Battle Cry, the Milton Bradley/Avalon Hill boardgame, has a loyal following based mostly on these factors, plus good looking components and a system that you can tinker with (scenario editor, anyone?) and yet it is nowhere near as detailed as countless American Civil War games that came before it.
That is what SC has going for it, IMHO. You might say that it has a chance at becoming the Bejeweled of WWII computer games, and that would not be a bad thing for Fury, BTS and gamers.
-
Apologist Lackeys is perhaps not the right term. Enthusiastic Supporter might be more in line.
It is a semantic difference, not unlike the difference between Constructive Critic and Ungrateful Faultfinder. Merely a difference of perception.
If someone points out that there is a scenario editor, so each player can tweak the game to his liking, that is hardly the behavior of an apologist lackey. The existence of a scenario editor does not imply that the scenarios that came with the game are incorrect. IIRC, Straha was very vocal about changing details in the map early on, not the sort of thing an apologist lackey would do.
I have yet to see anyone come across with a "SC, love it or leave it" attitude. Merely speculating as to why the French don't have a tank group in the demo and pointing out that the scenario editor is available to create one if desired is not very narrow minded.
If being excited about SC makes one an apologist lackey, than that's what I am. There is room for improvement, the demo is only a beta with that in mind, and from what I read Hubert is getting a lot of input. I am content to chip in my two cents without disparaging the opinions of others.
-
After a reboot, the funky text went away. 'Enable External Depth/Stencil Buffer' still has to be checked for transparency to work right, but the "hit" on the system seems to be a lot smaller than it was, hardly noticable. Not perfection, but an improvement for sure.
-
The drivers are version 15.084.
-
The transparency and airburst problems are gone, however, now I get corrupted text problems, starting with the screen where you set the preferences. Anyone else tried the new drivers for 98?
-
Just curious, what settings do you prefer?
I always use the hex grid and sound, tend to play around with the neutrality settings, difficulty and the options just to see what they will do, and have not used FOW very much, but am starting to. End of turn summary is mostly left off now.
Without adding new features, are there any other things you would like to be able to toggle in the settings choices?
-
Thanks again for your responses. I'm afraid that the only way I'll ever see the "you won the game" screen is by playing hotseat solo, so please put in a dramatic "your butt has been kicked again" sequence, too.
-
I agree with a couple of things from the original post, that the AI seems to get better combat results than I do and that many gamers won't like this game.
That said, I don't mind if the computer gets better results if it balances the game (and it is possible this observation is simply sour grapes on my part). As others have pointed out, there is no substitute for a human player, but I have played countless games of Combat Mission against the AI and enjoyed it, despite the fact that a good human player is a more capable opponent. The SC difficulty settings seem to be up to the task of providing a challenge, and that is what I want the AI to do. I don't expect human play from the AI, and I am pleasantly surprised at the variety of moves the AI seems to take in the demo.
SC is not going to be every gamer's cup of tea. The fact that it is designed to be playable rather than detailed is going to rub a lot of gamers the wrong way, and the lack of spectacular graphic whiz-bangery is going to put off others. That doesn't bother me at all, since I am happily in the category that enjoys the level of detail and playing time that SC delivers.
As to SC needing a drastic overhaul, I would agree if you want to change the design philosophy of the game. I hope that it only gets tweaked and remains a clean, playable and relatively simple game. Hubert has been extremely responsive to input, even if the answer is sometimes an honest "It ain't gonna happen".
The beta demo is too short. It is probably intended to be too short to be satisfying. I would guess that one reason to put out a beta demo is to expose the flaws in the design and seek constructive input. To pretend that a beta product is flawless would be silly.
There has been a dearth of strategic level WWII games, and now it looks like there will be several coming out soon. Some will likely have greater scope and detail than SC, and that is a good thing, because there will be more choices for individual tastes. Even if I didn't enjoy the idea of a short, playable WWII European theater game, I would hope that SC sells like hotcakes and other designers revisit the theme rather than bash the game because there were things in it I want changed.
-
Of course I had to take Berlin in a solo hotseat game. Is there going to be anything besides the text message in the final version, like a summary or a cutscene?
-
Bad chemicals or something.
-
I have pro-allied coups in Yugoslavia all the time. In fact, if they ever go pro-Axis, I'll probably attack them out of reflex.
-
SuperTed,
Thanks for the link to the Field Manual.
-
(Me)Duh!
Thanks
-
Bring a copy of the game and you can have the run of the house.
-
Well, until the full game is out we will have to take things one steppe at a time.
-
Thanks, although it does force me to admire the intro screen a little longer than I would otherwise. Great portraits, and the background picture is nice. Looks like the graphics I am working on for that one-of-these-days fansite.
-
Any naval unit? How about an airfleet? Does having a naval unit in Gibralter restrict the movement of subs?
Bring back old forum colors? Yes/No
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Not bad, kinda like the old "pinks and greens".
Any way to tie the colors to the current emotional state of the moderator, sort of a big forum color mood ring?