SeaMonkey

Its OK Retri, that is what us veterans are for, to help. You already knew it, just don't move the unit in SC and it entrenches one level per turn to the maximum for that terrain. A very good feature to use when you are on the defense. Now if I recollect correctly, in SC2 the Engineer unit will enhance the ability for a unit to entrench or at least increase the level of entrenchment for certain terrain. The developers could comment on that feature in more detail, or perhaps Edwin can dig up their posts on the subject.

Thanks Bill

Try the Demo

Well since this has been discussed before, I'll summarize the conclusion. Remember the old board games with basic rules, intermediate rules, and then the advanced versions? That kind of covers it. SC2 will have the scripted events. Rules to make the game more complex or to complicate matters at the players' discretion. The only problem is that these advanced rules/events will probably throw the AI into complete disarray and will only be applicable for customs and human games.

JJ, is that the ole vaunted "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate" award? That was from Rowan and Martin's "Laugh In". Man that was along time ago...great show...can you believe it was cancelled for its controversial subject matter in light of the shows nowadays. I got a real good laugh from that just reminiscing. My oh my how times change....that's it I give the ole FFFofF award to all the broadcasting media for being so inept. Any more awards????? Not like there aren't tons of candidates.

Sure Retri....remember the entrenchment feature for SC1.

Well I have to mention one of Monty's greatest failures but conceptually one of his most brilliant plans. Operation Market-Garden......whether you like the man or not, his ability of commanding and getting results is irrevocable. So he never took chances? OP MG.....well what was that all about?

Kuni......you've been consulting your John Ellis Encyclopedia. But I have to qualify... it was close German uboat losses from air attack = 290 from surface attack = 246 And if you take into account all belligerents, suface wins 394 to 323.

Hey Yogi, just imagine this as an initiation period. Just like anything, anywhere else in life there is a term of orientation/acceptance. Fads come and go, the SC folks that frequent this forum are looking for something other than "oneshot wonders". I believe you'll eventually find that perseverance and realiability are good traits to expose in your fellow humans. Think of this forum as a good place to practice at your tactics of disclosure and exercise your management of the other two I mentioned.

I believe Gavrok, that SC2 will have a bit of that parameter in the design. Units that don't move, attack at higher supply and/or readiness/moral conditions.

Well keegan, my point was not in defense of any particular feature of any game, just the possibility that some seemingly inclement features are not as significant as one may wish to believe. "I would just like to offer some distinct and very viable observations on the conduct of this game." How about we wait to see how SC2 plays out, or are you a beta tester? As far as Seamonkeys are concerned, this was a 60's nickname for surfers(I started in 67). Being 6'3" and 190 lbs, I have been told that my long arms are ape like in comparison, not to mention the rest of my upperbody physique. Surfers usually obtain this physical characteristic from the inherent need to propel(paddle) themselves through the water when the forces of nature(waves) do not cooperate with their endeavors or they wish to harness one of the forces of the universe(aquatic inertia in this instance). Now about the UI of CM and SC, I'm sorry I confused you as to implying that SC had a camera similar to CM, my literary mistake. Simply put, the difference is that SC's UI allowed for a more expeditious handling of the game features then did CM and a quicker turn completion, complications considered. Oh....and about being owned,.......get in line, your place is well in the back.

Keegan, I was afraid this thread had gone a little far to continue a train of thought. I was just putting your CM experience of tile configurations relating to SC2 in contrast to my perspectives of certain different aspects of CM that were perceived by me to be shortcomings. Not game breakers, just things that I had difficulty getting comfortable with(like you with SC tiles). That camera manipulation to a potential position(unit) check for viable LOS (blockage check) to get a shot at my opponent. As far as Tiller's PzCs, I found my one venture into them(Bulge44) as fun, but a little tedious moving all the units individually. And then of course the incompetent AI. That is also one of the consequences of TOAW's larger scenarios. Like I said, the real brilliance of TOAW was the editor. Glad you are getting the demo of what??? Panther game. Red Devils over Arnhem? Is there a Highway to the Reich demo? RDoA is a bit dated, well dated, even HttR is at this point, watch for CotA. And Panther's game is RTS, or should I say CTS(continuous), but not like you expect. See what happens when you prematurely judge something by its cover? Don't worry...I won't savage you for it .

Good idea JohnD, in the mold of Panzer General's unique unit qualities. I agree with most of these, except I give Manstein the only 9 rating in the game.....why not 10? The reasons are obvious I hope. Zhukov, Patton, Guderian, Rommel get 8....9 on the Man10 scale. Monty 7 and Bradley, the Soldiers' Soldier gets that 7 too. Additions for SC2, support JJ's Stilwell, but i give him 8, USA Devers 6. UK Mountbatten 5, German Model, at least 7, Manteuffel 8(never an A Gp commander)but neither was Guderian. Never mind the Germans have enough.

Keegan, let me contribute to your orientation as far as your posts seem to warrant. If you have never been exposed to Norm Koger's TOAW, it would be well worth your time to explore its mechanics, at bargain prices by now. Hex based and operational in scope, with one of the best editor's of all times. The scripting feature of SC2's editor will be cut in the flavor of that Hall of Fame game. As far as CM, I have CMBB. It is quite good, but the camera manipulation and UI are a bit clumsy for me and not near as crisp as SC1. More micromanagement than I like and of course the scale is not my favorite. I believe that is why a lot of the people here don't relish CM as their gaming genre staple. Gary Grigsby's company is called 2by3 and he and his team coordinate their releases with Matrix. His legacy is well known, no need to comment. I have his latest release, WaW, and it is an excellent game. But... it is not SC, meaning that it is lacking, but has some extraordinarily good features dealing with logistics. As far as innovation, nothing can touch Panther's Airborne Assault engine. Their last release, HttR, was, to put it mildly, the greatest leap in wargaming mechanics I have ever been exposed to. An amazing interface, a wonderous AI, superb grid map, but there are some drawbacks. The AI can get a little incompetent once you've mastered gameplay, not always, and there is no PBEM, only TCIP. This is the future. In conclusion, I guess what I'm leading to is that after playing all these unique game systems, some traditional, some not, the fact that SC2 is based on an isometric tile view is totally inconsequential,trivial, and insignificant, IMO. My advice,,,get over it. And Kuni, I'm not BL's mother....I'm your DADDY!

I was wondering Bill, is there a mechanism to disable the event? Sort of an opposite to the #DATE which designates the event to happen regardless of the triggers. What I would like to be able to do is delete/disable the event and its definitions on a certain date and then reintroduce a similar event with a greater/lesser percentage of a trigger for later game play. In other words, change the definition of the event midgame if it hasn't happened or the eradification/fulfillment of an event activates a new event(a link). #LINK, #NAME deactivates(dd/mm/yy),#FLAG=0; #NAME activates(dd/mm/yy),#FLAG=1.

This has to rate as one of the top SC discussions of all time, what a history lesson. All points well presented, especially you Kuni, most unexpected. I think JJ said the words, "define victory conditions", in the context of SC2 features. My vote for definition is "an army runs on its stomach", simply... control and use of resources. The SC symbol of that....MPPs. Isn't that the key to balance? Put history aside for the moment and reflect on the gameplay of SC1. If we want an historical flavor, then the timing and acquisition of MPPs is configured to attain that goal. If it be balance, the same conclusion. If HC decides that the default 39 campaign should reflect the historical unfolding, then the definition for an Axis win will be the effective acquisition and use of a certain number of MPPs over and above what was historical, the degree of winning based upon that exceeding margin. Obviously, we know what then constitutes the Allied victory. Now if HC decides balance, well we can still have the historical campaign as a basis, with the players agreeing on the use of scripted events either turned on or off, to level the playing field, depending on their individual play skills. The use of those events should be configured so that the skewing of advantage for either side should be slight, more events, more advantage. In our perfect world of SC2, a balance which all sides embrace, would just be a matter of selection. Eventually, just as SC1 gameplay evolved, the players of any skill levels will deduce what events represent parity for them and include them in their competitive play with either humans or the AI.

This question has a lot of answers.....well,..OK just one answer, but lots of qualifiers. Short answer...game should be balanced, 50 / 50. Of course the Axis player has the benefit of hindsight, that is a great advantage for them, because they lost, it can only get better. Allies are under pressure to perform as the traditional winner, slight disadvantage, but larger than historical because initially they will have to react to Axis tweaks. In other words, give the Axis enough chances and they will invariably become the winner, note SC1. Examine the real consequences and causes of WW2 and boil them down to what it was essentially all about, resource acquisition. Just as in SC1, when a side gains the preponderance of potentially more MPPs per turn, the momentum adjusts to that side. Should this be the focus of balance and thusly the subject to ascertain victory, MPP count? Not sure, I'll have to reflect on this some more. But ideally the longer the game can hang in that inconsequential zone of purgatory(given two equal opponents), with both sides teetering on the edge of success or failure, the better.

Just to add a little fuel to Edwin's premise. It seems there were quite a few, around 100, sinkings of Allied Merchant vessels in the vicinity of South Africa. An interesting tidbit, on the east side of the African continent the Japanese subs were kind of active also, accounting for around 10 sinkings.

Good point Edwin, but I believe that S.Atlantic interdiction strategy may need a southerly base for support, like Gibraltar, or the Canaries. Maybe even the Azores. Those subs will have to replenish from time to time as we know what happens to units with low supply and readiness. Never the less, with an astute Axis player gunning for the Med, and Mideast, the interruption of the flow of combat units from the UK to those regions sounds like a viable strategy. You know come to think of it, that SC feature(operating) of moving Air units from UK to the Mideast always seemed a bit unrealistic to me. Perhaps I'm wrong and there was an air link path (excluding CV ferry)for flying units to the NA desert other than transport around the Cape. Anyway it would be interesting if the Axis player could interdict that operating of air units to North Africa, as well as the ground units.

Nice retort beginner, You definitely have the sentiment to play in this forum. What say ye fellow SC brethren? I say he's a keeper.

"Actually if I were Battlefront, it would be a concern that potential customers get turned off by long waits, unkept promises and/or non-respect for their opinions." Wow Yogi how enlightening, that BF has a lock on this and no one else in this world displays these characteristics. What dimension did you come from cause I want to follow you back . Consider yourself lucky if this is the only disappointment you have to bare in this lifetime. Heck, HC could have just said, "That's it" SC is my only release of this genre. Or, "I'm going to release this game the way I want it, damn all these suggestions." Ranking this game's delay on the pessimistic scale of real life, between catastrophic and insignificance, it dwells in the infinitesimal fine print of the disclaimer.

Greatly appreciated Bill. It seems one of the truly lacking occurrences of simulations is the ability to interject that unknown parameter, the intangibles that are so prevalent in real life. We players, having the benefit of hindsight in historical simulations, usually depend on our human opponents to provide that stimuli. Unfortunately, circumstances of gameplay, familiarity with the AI, usually present a somewhat predictable sequence of events, even when all sides are represented by humans. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, its just the reality of the situation and it usually promotes a player in dire consequences to lose interest in continuing the simulation. What I'm looking for is a feature that parallels that undying human characteristic of hope. No matter how bad it gets, there is always the possibility, however remote, that a light exists at the end of the tunnel. Here's where that random event(s) come into the equation, unknown by either side, not necessarily changing the game, but providing for "that light".

Most excellent, this game is truly an inspiration for the future. I'm elated with the 60% cadre buy back feature, a stupendous addition...well worth the wait. Now for everyone...not being pessimistic, but my experience with the AI idiosycracies, especially games with massive variables, which SC2 has, is that we are in for quite a delay. Fear not, disheartened ones, it is either delay or incompetency from the AI, which do you prefer? My vote is delay...get it as good as possible and release at the end of February, early March, patches come later.

Come on JJ, like SB says, the alternative sucks,... well not really. With a near death experience in my backpack, I can tell you all, it isn't that bad......in fact its very appealing...to much so for this Earthly realm. Never the less, life in this paradise goes on, and here's hoping that everyones' perspective indeed improves for 2006, after all its just a braingame. Its just as easy to win as lose, just like playing SC....so enjoy this existence my fellow SC brethren for another shall follow, Here's (raising glass of Reserva, de la Familia)to all, a wonderful New Year. Happy 2006!!!!

Great points DD and Edwin. Imagine the replay value of pregame events or the fact of certain scripts that compel the player to execute some form of action(political, military, research, or a build) with a consequence for not fulfilling the parameters. Well Bill and Dave, what's the verdict, will SC2 have the possibility to incorporate such a feature? And clab, keep your eye out on CotA, as a logistical model of some significance has been added to the Panther engine. Although this gamescale(Panther's) is grand tactical/operational, it may catalyze some ideas for GS applications.