Yogi

Note: Above quotes are part of a larger post. My intent is not to continue two old and sometimes heated debates, but I just want to express some agreement with Targul on his overall comments. "Historic Play" is important to many of us. Despite what many have posted, this does not mean that it always turns out the same and/or that the Axis have to lose. It simply means we want a simulation with reasonable realism. I think the hexes vs squares debate can certainly go on, but for many, hexes are the preferred choice. Like it or not, it is already evident on another forum that this decision alone may have a number of people preferring the other product. To use an old saying, "Perception is more important then Reality". True or not, many people perceive that hexes are better.

Forge of Freedom (Civil war from Matrix) Quite an involved game with long learning curve. I often play HPS games owning quite a few and switching often, currently on Sicily 43 Campaign Chickamauga should be arriving in mail very soon. Civ IV & Mead-evil/Rome Total War are go-to games for fun every now & then.

Let us know if you spring Or don't spring. Many will be hanging on yer decision! </font>

Actually the Matrix forums are giving it some mixed reviews, but some are saying the more they get into it the better it is. Already a little talk about hexes instead of squares as well. Sound like a familiar argument? I'm not sure yet if I will spring for it or not. By the way, it will be $39 on NWS.

I don't have a problem with the above thought, but what about the tactic of using the French Navy as a suicide force early in the game. May not be historical, but it can at least take out some Axis strength and/or at least find where they may be hiding/headed before France does fall.

1) I usually agree with the decision to close a thread. 2) Nothing tends to be "resolved" in the type of discussions that are closed anyway. The minds of the people involved have already been decided and/or closed on the issues already. 3) I do get a little tired of the constant need of some to continually bring in the same issues and tired statements no matter what the thread is actually about. At least the abuse does seem to be a bi-partison offense. 4) As has been discussed before, the internet "shield of protection" from having to be really accountable for our words, has a tendency to bring out the worst in us at times.

A great thought and often true. On the other hand, war at times is a necessary evil. There have been and will unfortunately be again times where there is no choice but to go to war. Some people and/or some beliefs are so dangerous and destructive as to require their elimination. There have and will be those that will not think twice about conquering, controlling and/or killing others and will continue to do so unless stopped. We may at times have differences of if a particular war is/was necessary. But unfortunately, we must understand that it can be and we must be ready to go to war when it is. Perhaps many of us would agree that Hitler & WWII was one of those times. But back to your thought, you are correct that war should be avoided, is horrific, is often stupid and can be the failure of politicians.

Thanks Terif We are blinded :cool: by your brilliance in SC2 I suppose some day, you will lose and the most interesting thing about that day will probably be seeing your expert analysis of how it happened.

Hi Terif, I understand if you don't want to take the time to answer my curiosity questions, but I thought it might be ineterestng reading for all of us if you do. Situation: You are the clear expert on SC2. I think it might be fair to say that few if any of the rest of us can even come close to your skill and in particular your knowledge of the game. You must have spent hours studying the game mechanics to become the guru of the game. You are greatly respected for that. Questions: What was it about SC2 that attracted you so much that you wanted to know it so well? Are there any games other then SC2 that you have studied in a similar way, or is SC2 your only such choice? Do you get more enjoyment out of being "#1" or just out of studying the game for sake of the game? If you have lost - or if you ever do lose - how much of a downer will it be for you? How does it feel to be the heavyweight champion of the world for a computer game.

True, but I actually would like to think that "both sides" can have it there way. As I remember, I recall some old and tense discussions on this topic on this forum and others. Many game players are unhapopy when a game falls short of being a reasonable historical simulation, but on the other hand, many game players are unhappy when the game does not give the ability to dramtically alter everything. It seems that with the proper use of scenarios an/or options, we may be able to have both and jeep all of us happy.

No, that's not true at all. The idea is to take the same situation as history and see how well you do. Germany can win, allies can lose, but it's strategy, tactics and some luck of war that decides. You have the power to change the plans, tactcis, timing etc. Doesn't matter if your playing WWII, Gettysburg, Waterloo, Market Garden etc. etc. You are in command now and you may do better or worse then the historical counter parts. Levels of victory from out right domination, to lasting longer then in real life. Taking your example: Germany can and probably should be able to get to Moscow. Depends on how well of a battle plan you made. Getting to Moscow because of game tricks, too strong an Axis, or unrealistic actions is no accompishment. Getting there with basically the same forces and factors of the real life situation is a victory in itself.

Well, at the risk of bringing up old wounds and discussions relating to games vs simulations: I agree with the feelings and comments of targul's initial post. Once again I wish we could at least have a "historical option" to activate if we can't get an actual simulation. All one has to do is read the AAR's, strategy tips etc. to see that this game often (perhaps usually) ends up looking nothing like the real thing. The realism of running around declaring war on anyone (whether you're axis or allies) does cast a tone of fantasy on the game. While I sure to appreciate the skill and knowledge of the great SC2 players and how they have found great ways to win the game - I long for a better simulation. Many of those strategies used to "win the game" would have "lost the war". Now that said - I think it's a great game with a lot to offer and it looks like even more great things are yet to come. Added in edit: Also as discussed before, it is not just the declarations of war, it is many other little issue's that can greatly effect points, bonus, growth, research or whatever that can be learned (and have been by the great ones) to win the game over poor unsuspecting (new or otherwise) victims who base their play on strategy and/or realism instead of tricks of the game. To some degree that is a problem for many computer games, but denying it is part of SC2 would be denying the truth. When in a game logic, reality, strategy & tactics are no more or perhaps even less important then knowing game tricks or programing equations and values, it becomes less of a wargame and more of computer programing study. Fun for some perhaps, but not for those who actually enjoy historical simulation wargames. [ May 22, 2007, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

Thanks for the explanation Hellraiser, it was interesting. As far as "luck" depends how you look at it I suppose. Were you "lucky" or "skilled" to see the situation at the Keil port? I might argue the latter, but isn't real war often determined by luck as well at times? Just being in the right (or wrong) place, a fortunate or unfortunate patrol/recon event etc. Either way, luck or skill, certainly skill was needed to take advantage of it. On the other side, risks are sometimes taken, is it bad luck or poor skill? Just a choice that was made probably. You can't be everywhere and do everything. I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases, leaving the situation as Rambo did, would not have been noticed and the result could have been quite different. Luck or skill? Maybe the fortunes of war is a better description.

Thanks Hubert, I made the post to see if others were having the same result. Your game and work is appreciated a great deal. This one does seem to be a pretty major AI mistake so I thought it was worth mentioning.

Finally had a chance to try 1.06 a couple of times. While I have liked some of what I saw the AI do, in two games with Axis AI, France held out until August and June of 1941. I'd like to say because if my great defense, but what the AI did was reach Paris but then backed off and concentrated on the Maginot line. Lots of loss and lots of time allowing a very weak France to just sit and defend Paris with little trouble until the whole Maginot line was destroyed. Kept reinforcing my line units as much as possible, so it took months (over a year) for the entire line to fall. Is it possible that the AI is scripted to take the Maginot line first instead of Paris?

Thanks. I thought it was just a touching piece to share that some would appreciate. It has been interesting (although sometimes sad) to see the discussion that the post spawned in both the SC2 and general discussion forums.

I posted this on the General Discussion Forum where it belongs, but thought some of my SC2 friends who may not go there might enjoy it as well. My apologies to Hubert if it is too far off topic for the SC2 forum, but maybe it is just close enough. Some of you may enjoy and/or appreciate this http://objflicks.com/GladiatorAmericanStyle.htm

Enjoyed the post Rambo, I also remember watching "To Hell and Back" on TV as a kid. In addition to a number of other Audie Murphy B Movie westerns.

Damn Rambo, I couldn't figure out how you got my picture, then I remembered I have seen you someplace.

Not a problem for me. Actually the whole thing is a much bigger negative reflection on the poster then it is on anyone else. Reference not adding Yodl's, I think you should keep posting. lets see, I think the current: 23W 7L 20Yodl, 2Draw gives the legend a winning percentage of about 44.2%. Of course remove Yodls and that climbs to about 72% so that does give you something to Toot your horn about.

Thanks for the offer Rambo my friend, but don't feel I have anything to clear. Plus I kind of enjoy the extra attention you give me. Maybe you can Brush up with the AI Thanks also to DD for suggesting earlier that I wasn't a bad sort after all.

Misrepresented and Dillusional as is often the case, but it is nice to be remembered so vividly.

Merry Christmas May the year ahead bring joy, health, peace and prosperity to all.

As discussed before, I personally think the DOW situation is flawed and detracts from the game for those of us who would rather see a more realistic situation. A simulation rather then just a game is another way to put it. I personally find it silly to be able to go around with DOW's that would make no sense in real life. Or being able to do a DOW to get a benefit of some sort, with little or no consequence. On the other hand, having such things seems to please some who enjoy it more as a game with advantage to those who can learn the "tricks" of the game. I also don't want to have to use the editor, to deal with such things.

If it happens, just pretend that it was like when the American's were able to figure out the Japanese secret code. :eek: Still would be madening of course, but you could claim somme sort of historic results. :mad: