Straha
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Straha
-
-
Woahh!!! :cool: No doubt, that's the greatest news regarding a change in the code since the beginning of the board!
Straha
-
Hmm, a game "gone gold" means that the CD for the publisher is done. So the gold demo will be a demo taken from the final version. Once the gold demo is here, the final version is, too.
Straha
-
Huh? :confused: The "I give up" wasn't at all directed at you, grimlord. Sorry.Originally posted by grimlord:dude i didnt mean to jump your case...sorry...
Straha
-
Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:
The thing is, I have been concentrating on the mechanics of the game, and have brought up several valid (as confirmed by other posters) issues. It's comments like this that brought out my use of the term "lackey":
[qb] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />you still claim that me and "several" other people "make excuses for why the game is not different" - still without providing even a single example where I have done so.
After posting a fairly lengthy discussion of one of my basic criticisms of the game, the first response is a claim that I haven't given a single example, despite the fact that I've done all but clobber him over the head with my example.
</font>
-
I give up.Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:If you reread my posting, I'm not calling specific individuals "lackeys" for their support, but rather their hesistance to honestly debate certain points about the game. There is a difference, but that is apparently lost on many around here.
-
I, too, think that the German AI should be made more aggressive. The real problem is, though, to make them more aggressive, but in a sensible way. I 'm wild guessing here, but maybe various (alternative) "battle plans" to choose from could be imposed on the fuzzy decision procedure?
In addition, I like the idea that Germany gets MPPs from Vichy - indeed it had to pay "reparations". This special rule would make leaving Vichy alone more interesting - at the moment eliminating it seems to be almost a no-brainer.
Straha
[ May 29, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]
-
See, and here we have something in common.Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:SNIP ... the fact that SC can be quickly played in an evening. This means that unlike groggier games, I can actually play it with my wife.
Hehe...if $25 is the price of domestic tranquility when it comes to gaming, then it's worth the price. 
Peace? Straha
-
MT, look, there's a difference between being imprecise and insulting people. You can't call someone a "lackey" out of the blue, and then expect him to not take it personally. I'd be willing to get to terms with you again, but you're making that difficult for me as long as you still claim that me and "several" other people "make excuses for why the game is not different" - still without providing even a single example where I have done so. (In fact, I'm even beginning to wonder whether you maybe simply confuse me with someone else.)
The irony is that I even agree with your concerns . I,too, was worried that SC will maybe just fall short of classics like especially Clash of Steel. Or maybe that it would improve some things, while falling behind in others. I really want the game to be great, and that's the reason why, up until now, I raised many points of criticism myself. These ranged from the geographical location of rivers, national boundaries, and position of armies, over strategical and tacticalissues like the (initial) lack of submarine/MPP-convoy interaction or the missing of an assault option, to gameplay/interface issues like e.g. the way the movement/attack phase is handled.
Hubert took many of the suggestions issued by others and me into account (in fact, more than we all ever dreamed of!), but at one time we all had to agree that if he says that something can't be changed because it is too deeply rooted in the frame of the original design decisions, or would not work because of technical limits, then we would let the matter rest and live with it.
But offering criticism and suggestions, does not exclude standing in for the strengths of the game at the same time. E.g. I would not think it an improvement if the French setup in a corps/army-level game would include a tank corps for the reasons I stated. I honestly don't think that this makes me an apologist (not to mention the "l-word"). It's nothing but part of the everyday discussion which happen to take place on boards like this.
Yes, I can't but confess that there are things I *will* sorely miss in SC, especially combined assaults and diplomacy. Everyone will have his own personal gripes, and I yet have to see the game which is perfect in every regard for me.
Still, I will not end this post without at least hinting at why I *nevertheless* think that, all things considered, SC is indeed a big improvement over all the classics like SAE,Hicom, COS and 3R:
- The most important point for me is that it has a much better AI than any of those oldies. Sure, like everyone else, I still want to have it tweaked in various regards, yet I'm impressed with how good it already is (btw. Hubert told us that the final version will be further improved).
- Taking the experience points from PG is a great idea which I can't find in the other grand strategy games at all.
- Unlike COS (my personal favorite in the genre until now), SC has the navy going on hexes (like hicom and 3r).
- Unlike hicom, the production and resarch is clean and tidy (like in COS and 3R).
- Unlike 3R, there are not 27 tedious "phases" to go through when issuing orders.
- Unlike COS, the US and canada are actually on-map, instead of just being presented by units popping up in the UK. (Even if it is still abstracted, and taking the US has to be made more difficult, I really like the general idea.)
There are many, many other things in addition to these, but you get the gist: while SC is *not* totally different in the sense that it is still a game of its kind, it manages to take many strong points of the oldies and successfully merges it into something which I do not hesitate to call "new" because the whole is always more than the sum of its parts.
Straha
[ May 29, 2002, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]
-
What do you mean by this?Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Straha:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:
SNIP Hehe...it's pretty funny how many apologist lackeys there are on this board.
Straha</font>
-
Yup, and in this case it is even the right decision with respect to gameplay AND the facts in '39. There were French tanks, but no French tank corps.Originally posted by grimlord:SNIP...and it seems as if with a few exceptions the designers set the force structure right on...especially for game play purposes
That the player still can buy a tank army to turn things around is a nice twist, though.
Straha
-
Right, how could I forget that!Originally posted by redeker:Don't forget the one- and two-man turrets of the French tanks, compared with the three-man turrets of the Pz III's and IV's.
How important this is in actual battle did again show later during Barabarossa,too. Straha
[ May 28, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]
-
What do you mean by this?Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:SNIP Hehe...it's pretty funny how many apologist lackeys there are on this board.
Straha
-
It's indeed the doctrine, and to change it you have to buy a tank army. That it is costly to do so "last minute" is a correct representation of the strategic and structural facts in 1939. But if you buy the tanks, you actually get much bang for the buck.
But, as Mr. Clark said, there's also still the scenario editor.
Btw while it is true that the French tanks had better armour etc., this is not the whole story. E.g. they lacked radio communication which is vital, too, if you want to use them in the role the Germans did. Some tank models could not turn their turrets, either.
Straha
-
Me too. And the strength should be (somewhat) limited.
-
1. Why do you assume this being static while all other things (including research) are fluid and allow for alternate developments in the game?Originally posted by Otto:I don't get it, how can everyone go on about extending the game and not even mention the A-Bomb. If as an Axis player, you don't end the game my mid '45, Fat Man and Little Boy will.
2. The whole thing is a gameplay issue, anyway, and not an issue of being slavishly true to actual history.
3. It is a highly debated issue of whether the early production rate of US atomic bombs could have been decisive against a foe who is not yet on the brink of defeat anyway.
That said, I think Hubert told us that the actual game ends somewhere in 1946 - which leaves enough room for almost all campaigns IMO. There should be indeed *some* penalties for not being on time: so if I don´t manage to conquer Berlin until 1946, well then it is my own fault.
Straha
-
What R_Leete said. Also, it seems to me that Galatine has no notion of what a beta is. For what is the complaint that "the game went beta way before its time" even supposed to mean?
Straha
[ May 26, 2002, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]
-
And, again, SuperTed saves the day!
Straha
-
If the icons change, then this already is something. It's just that *only* being able to gauge the effects of enemy research by "feeling" that something fails more often than it used to, is a bit too diffuse for my liking. There was always more intelligence than that, even without espionage. But it seems that we do not disagree in this so much after all.
Straha
-
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Those encounters usually ended with capturing specimens of those units soon enough. T34 comes to mind at once. Of course, the combatants did not know what exactly the enemy was researching at any given time, or how far they are in it (atomic bomb), but once applied the secret was out, even with less "obvious" things like radar.Originally posted by R_Leete:Maybe it wouldn't necessarily be revealed for that particular type of encounter. Were those upgraded tanks, or was that just a particularly nasty result? If known beforehand, it gives away too much. For instance, would the British continue bombing, it they know that the Germans have already achieved A-A radar?
After multiple instances, it becomes apparent, which the descerning player will soon realize. If your tanks regularly are getting outmatched, you have to assume he has gotten some research points. If you see units at 11 or 12 strength ("but this one goes to eleven...") you'll know that the enemy has tech upgrades.
What we are talking about right now is simply not an issue for FOW, which should apply to enemy unit positons and movement alone.
Straha
Edit: it would be good idea to reveal the pertinent information only when sufficient contact was made with new enemy assets, though. Or, for the sake of abstraction, simply delay that info for some turns.
[ May 24, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]
-
I don't think that FOW should absolutely cloak any knowledge of the enemy's research levels.
Having battle contact alone should supply you with pertinent information. E.g. when the Germans got into contact with the first T34, they *knew* how far the Russians were in tank technology. No need to even spy! The same goes when the Allies encountered the first Me262s.
So I'd say we should have the general info, but a little bit "distorted" with FOW on.
Straha
-
Fine interview! :cool: I have a great deal of respect for Hubert's decision to hang on to his dream in spite of all the risks and sacrifices involved.
Straha
-
Just a strategy hint: the Rumanians and Bulgarians are your potential friends as Axis. It is better to not declare war on them because they will be very likely to join your cause later.
Straha
-
Well, just to close this issue: in connection with that near HD crash I had, some sharing violations must have been introduced. The evil thing about this is that they prevented all diagnose and repair programs from working. In the end, I could run Scandisk from an emergency disk. It repaired stuff for two hours!!!! I wonder how it came that W98 still worked "almost" normally with all these errors under the hood. I still have to invest some work to restore some folders and lost files etc.
But the good news is that I will try the download of the SC demo soon.
And thanks to all the people who helped me with suggestions. It was the fact that terminating all apps in the taskwindow (Cntl-Alt-Del) did not lead to scandisk (and defrag, which I later found!)stop claiming that "some other application" already locks the HD which gave me the right idea. :cool:
Straha
[ May 23, 2002, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]
-
Have you tried to defrag the drive, it sounds like you might have a damaged cluster on the hd.</font>Originally posted by vimes:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
EDIT: Did not work! The problem originally occurred after I had a bluescreen and a (temporary) harddisk malfunction. I also cleaned the registry and all temp-files, but no effect.
Three New Campaigns Available!
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
While being able to do a "Crete" would be really cool, without having the Airborne corps first it is a kinda moot point. Moving a transport over to occupy a lone port is somehow not the same.
Straha