Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Kuniworth

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,731

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Kuniworth

    Opening an old wound (Hubert, the old thorn in your side has returned!)

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Konstatin V. Kotelnikov:

    I'm sure it's been discussed before but the game mechanics for SC don't seem to support having a winter war. You would have to make the Soviet Union active, fight the war and then it would go inactive again until it was time to fight germany.

    SC 2 needs two have three alliances instead of two as it stands now. The cooperation between west and the Sovietunion as it folds out in SC is´nt to realistic. Better to use the clash of steel model.
    0

    France attacks Low Contries - England still ally?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

    The only reason they didn't invade Belgium themselves was because they'd made it a major issued of the First World War, and there was still the treaty they'd signed nearly century earlier guaranteeing Belgian sovereignty.

    I was about to write the same thing. I dont have a problem with this issue, the allies would without hesitation violate benelux neutrality to defend against Germany. It plays out fine and realistic in Strategic Command.
    0

    SC owners - who's playing Hearts of Iron?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Here is my criticism against HoI:

    First of all let me just say that Paradox is a great gaming company. EU1 and EU2 worked well out and were two games that maybe put the expectation on HoI to high.

    Secondly I´m this kind of guy that plays war in russia, third reich and strategic command and want the big picture. I´ve studied ww2 for 16 years and want game that reflects the important aspects of ww2. I think this misses out on this.

    This is my criticism;

    RTS - Yes it may work if the game was not so complex. Right now you have to click all the time and you lose picture. You become stressed and make misstake - not strategic ones just misstakes because you forget to move units. And thats WRONG cause we talking about large armies. That wouldnt happen IRL. Thats why I prefer turnbased because to play the game properly in it´s current shape you have to pause all the time. And who got the time to bother about night-attacks or season. Attacks are commited all the time, there are never any pause on the fighting.

    THe micromanagement is also wrong. I think the research part is great and also the diplomacy part in large(unfortunate the AI is not so good to make it work) but to place individual convoys, moving units to intercept all the time is just NOT STRATEGIC. Im also unsure if the submarine-moving is ok. to put it short; I miss auto-functions to let you focus on the big picture and thats to bad. HoI will end up attracting axis & allied fans and thats ok, but all us grognards outthere, and we are quite many, will turn our back on HoI.

    I´m also not sure if the trade-system works adequate. Because it misses on some vital part as Villain remarked.

    Finally we conclude that the idea of beeing able to play every singel country in the world are not working. I´m not sure how Paradox can succeed in patch away all strange happeings when you play aggressive as a minor. The AI is just to hard to code to face all possibilities. Compare that with a game where you only can play the major countris - what a realistic and fun game it would be.

    So look. I still believe that this game got some nice features. And I give my respect to Paradox for recognizing the demand for a true strategic and global game about world war 2.

    I want a game of ww2 for all the people outthere. The company that succeeds in doing this will not only make a buck but also create a feature for strategic gaming.

    0

    SC owners - who's playing Hearts of Iron?

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by J P Wagner:

    The game is still a bit buggy Bill, V1.02 will hopefully be out by Christmas....my initial impression is that they have made a mistake in using the EU engine and allowing you to play any nation. Too many ahistorical situations occur, like Romania conquering Russia, the Czechs marching into China ect. I think the game would have been better served if you were only allowed the play major powers, US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, Russia, Japan, China, and perhaps Spain. It plays too much like EU2 to the point they could have called it EU3-The Modern Years. Saying this, I do enjoy playing it, but it is not a World War II sim by any stretch of the imagination, there is simply too much latitude with the minor countries that turn it into a fantasy game...I'm not looking for a game that clones the actual outcome of WWII each and everytime but I want some degree of realism such as what SC supplies...I'll continue to play HOI and hope future patches make it more worthwhile.

    You are absolutely correct. In my latest game as Sweden I intervened on Finlands side in the winterwar against the Sovietunion. In the meantime Romania attacked the soviet union and conquered it to the Urals because all forces were on the finish border.

    Finally I managed to breakthrough on the karelian isthmus. Got controll over Leningrad and Finland controls Murmansk-area. Totally nuts

    0

    Future of ww2 games - lets make the stand

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Hi guys, great to be back.

    So the years go by. We see some new games coming but we never get this total grognard ww2 game covering the whole world. Sure there are many great games outthere covering europe most of the time but I want the whole war and no company at all endorse such a game. We got pacific war fans, war in russia fans, third reich fans, strategic command fans, Hearts of iron fans, clash of steel fans and so on. Lets come together once and for all. And lets do it NOW.

    Therefore as a ww2 consumer, Im now taking this step to once and for all get a great game all of us want. So my proposal is this;

    All of us interested will do a name-collection and then send it to the gaming-compaines demanding the ultimate ww2 experience. In return we promise to buy the game and work for a strong community supporting it. I know that this may seem crazy but Im ready to go as far as I can to get this. The strategy-war gamers deserves it and I´m confident that there are thousands and thousands all over the world ready to support this idea. Thus making the game a great business-idea.

    I want a game based on the Wir model which still is the best up to date. However many games got good ideas which could be implemented so I say this is the communities simple terms;

    -The game should cover the whole world war 1936-1947

    -Turnbased game like war in russia, one week-turns and hexbased.

    - Unit-model used in War in russia. Corps with divisions in it.

    - Availibility to play USA, Italy, Germany, France, UK, Sovietunion, Japan.

    -Production like in War in russia. But a very good research-model should be used.

    -User friendly interface.

    - Great looking graphics to ensure the game attracts new strategy gamers. Realistic map, like the outstanding map proposed by 2by3 games to their eastfront game.

    - Simple but deep and realistic diplomacy level. See world in flames politics model or Hearts of Iron.

    - Great AI. Chance for multiplayer and email-games. Maybe an AI that lurns your tactics like the 2by3 eastfront game.

    This is our terms. What do you think of this? Please reply to this thread. And if you are ready to work with me write to

    kuniworth@hotmail.com

    Lets make this happen. We can do it.

    / Andreas, Sweden

    0
×
×
  • Create New...