Yogi

You may have a good point here JerseyJohn. I think both Viet Nam and Iraq show that today at least the American Public tends to waiver as do many politicians. It is one our weak points and the enemy today knows it. They don't expect to win the on the battlefield, but do have reason to expect to win on the American Home Front. All they have to do is watch the American evening news and/or the statements of some politicians to make them feel like victory is near if they just hold on long enough. I have often wondered if the American's of today could have handled WWII or our own Civil War. But, I do think there is reason to believe that you have at least a good point that "war weariness" could have eventually had a very strong bearing on what the West would do.

Putting the two themes of this thread together, 1)Is this community Dying? 2)America Bashing and/or other Heated Debate. Any thoughts on if theme 2 has a direct bearing on theme 1? The bantor, that at times can get quite heated and personal, may very well have a big "turn off factor" on some. Why come to a forum just to get pissed off by things that are personally quite offensive to you? I understand the remarks such as "just ignore", don't be a "wuss" or whatever they may be. But some things can be hard to ignore and some things can be quite hurtful or frustrating on a number of levels. Maybe the SC2 forum should be about SC2, For Liberty about For Liberty, CM about CM etc. Maybe we should consider using the general forum to fight out the other stuff. Maybe making "Newbies" feel unwanted, stops them from becoming part of the "Old Guard". Personally I enjoy some of the "off topic" banter, but back to answering the original question. If we adopt the attitude like it, take it, live with it or get out - just maybe more people then we think, choose to get out.

To DOW or not to DOW, that is the question! I think that when a DOW is done, because of a game mechanic exploit rather then because it makes sense from a realistic standpoint - it's a fair way to win a game. It's just perhaps a sad commentary on the merits of the game itself. Few of us have the time or perhaps interest & desire to have to study a game for all the mecahnics, mathematics and exploits it may have. The fantasy is conquering Russia or the Third Reich, not conquering the morale formula nuiances. Don't get me wrong folks, I like SC2 - but it is more fun to play a game without having to worry about tricks of the trade and just being able to concentrate on the "war", rather then the "game" so to speak.

Just to be clear DD, my intent was not to "hurl a stone". I don't use the @ like jjr might. I do use it at times just to handle more then one thing on the same post and help clarify who I am responding too, no matter if it is a positive or negative response. If in this case you took the @ as offensive, I apologize, none was intended. Perhaps I should just use the persons name and leave the @ off, in the future.

Here's the Problem as I see it. Is it fair to exploit the game "exploits"? Well sure if you know them, why not. BUT Real good games will have few if any "exploits" to use. Ideally, all a person should need is great strategy and tactics. If a person is a reasonably competent wargamer, strong at strategy and tactics, ideally they should be able to take on any one (even Terif or Rambo)in any good game and give them at least some reasonable competition. Unfortunately In many games, apparently including SC2, you have no chance against someone who is experienced in the game. So perhaps the problem is, to win, you don't need to study strategy and tactics, as much as you need to study game mechanics. There's my 2 cents worth, & I don't claim it is worth much more then that.

You take away all the fun, this list is waaay too easy to laugh away ! Powerful ? You don't see the bodybags coming in every single day, do you ? Rich ? You didn't read the latest budget, did you ? Influential ? You never read foreign magazines, do you ? Succesful ? You haven't visited New Orleans lately, have you ? Too easy, pffft. </font>

Group 1: It's too big. It's too powerful. It's too rich. It's too influential. It's too global It's too succesful Group 2: Jealousy Hatred of any group 1 concept regardless of issue Brainwashed (religiously or politically) Inferiority complex Instructions: Desire to know reason why for most U.S. Bashing? Insert appropriate concept(s) from group one and add one or more personality traits from group two to understand reason.

Pffft, that's lame. It's pretty easy to come up with a few US jokes too, you know. About Iraq and their support of the tortureous regime there. About their aid to Saddam Houssein to fight Iran. Or about their aid to Bin Ladin to fight Russia in the 80's. About Vietnam. About them in WWII not doing anything until they were attacked. About them needing French help to get independance form the UK. About them genociding Indians. Very lame. </font>

@TaoJah Glad to see your done insulting the USA.

Good luck and raise lots of money at the fundraiser. Personally I'd have a hard time concentrating on my golf swing though.

No, the lesbians are just fine with it rambo. But wouldn't CNBC be a little liberal for you?

I would agree fully, if it is more challenging it makes sense to play that way. I use to play old board wargames solitare and obviouslly you could see everything. I agree in large part, put knowing exactly where they always were, or seeing the obvious signs of build up before an attack, or seeing just where and how deep the defense is, can take some of the surprise out. No need for recon or expeditions, you already know where they are.

Considering that often there are complaints about the poor AI, my question is, does the fog of war off mean the AI does better? If so, it may be a better contest. I have heard it suggested on a number of games that with fog of war off, the AI is able to react to the enemy better and gives a better fight. The sad part of course is no more surprises for either side and the reality factor is very questionable.

Pretty sad thread, too bad it has to contaminate the SC2 forum.

New diplomatic effort outside of normal channels.

Thanks Hubert, I appreciate the information. You have designed a great game. It is great that the editor can do so many things for those who enjoy playing with it and I applaud the editor being part of the game. I will again say however that some don't care to have to go to the editor to do things. Some would just like to have "options" and "features" built into the game with no need to make changes themselves.

I'd like to see diplo as an option not a built in automatic. Those who want to reduce the "luck" factor and concentrate on military strategy could just turn it off when they don't want to deal with it. Turned off, countries could behave as they did historically. If needed, when turned off mpp numbers could be reduced as they are no longer needed for diplomacy (if it is felt that is needed to keep force strength realistic) By making it an option, those who love it can still have it. Those who are frustrated by it (like me quite often) can be rid of it. As it is now, I just don't find it very realistic as discussed in a few of the other threads. Rambo's diplomatic skills could also then be saved for his forum posts.

This really tests the "respect your elders" instructions our mother's gave us. Unfortuantely I'm one of the oldest on the forum.

Beyond just the problem of Spain joining the Axis too easily, I have found it at times to be of "questionable realism" when it does join. In several games I have had Spain join when the Axis is already clearly beaten. You have to believe that the Spain leader is an idiot as they join just in time to participate in what is an obvious hopless case scenario. It is one thing for Spain to join a strong axis, it is another to join as the Russians and allies approach Berlin and Rome (or already have one or the other). I should add that I have not yet played beyond game patch 1.02. I avoided 1.03 after the bug was announced and have not yet been able to play 1.04.

Those of us who stick around web-sites, forums etc. are aware of the updates & fixes. Other then the frustration of the bug crashes and the download time & hassle, we can certainly live with it. No product will be perfect and the improvements are greatly appreciated. Still, some of the product deficiencies can be pretty glaring. Not all consumer's want and/or will take the time to look for "fixes". I wonder how many potential repeat customers are lost to companies because of bad experiences with a hasitily released product or patch? (below added in edit to refer to above paragraph) Battlefront/Hussar games may not be the best examples for possible lost business. Being basically an Internet only and specific interest manufacturer, a high percentage of their customers may participate in the forums, or at least frequently check the website. I think the potential is greater for games that can be purchased from any on-line vendor (chips & bits etc) and in particular at retail stores. Buy a buggy or poorly designed game at Wal-Mart or Best Buy, and you may decide to avoid products by that manufacturer in the future. [ September 08, 2006, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

On one hand we certainly have to commend Battlefront on the patches and upgrades. Let's see we are now at version 1.04 of SC2 and my second patch needed for For Liberty. On the other hand, why are games put out in such poor condition? Why are bugs found by customers shortly after a game or patch is issued? Why do we have to spend large amounts of frustration and time just trying to get a good product. (some are even stuck with dial up or must do downloads at work) Is it needed cash flow? Is it poor testing? Is it a rush to satisfy customers? Believe it or not, I'm not posting this as a complaint. I just wonder why so much hassle is required. If you order a game, you can't seem to expect a great product without regular tweaking. How many just give up without even knowing a "fix" is/was avaialable? Battlefront is certainly not alone in this, it seems to be the software industry. Civilization IV was a total mess on first issue for example. Just thoughts and wondering how others, especially the developers and companies themselves feel about this. And of course feel free to be upset that anyone would question why.

Actually Rambo, I agree with you that hexes are better then squares. That may of course just be the old board wargamer in me. I just feel that the hex vs. square argument is secondary to the rest of the game. So, wishy washy or not, while if given the choice, I would vote for hexes, I think a great game can make it with either.

Well as most know, there has been quite a few discussions about hexes instead of squares before and after the game release. I think that depending on your personal "wargame" preferences the above can be a valid argument. I enjoy the game, but I do feel it is more of a game than a good "wargame" simulation. I think that is fixable in future patches if Hubert decides he wants to "fix" it. I do still feel however that the squares themselves, instead of hexes, has little to do with that.

Sorry coming into the discussion late I know. I just want to add that I agree as well. It has been quite frustrating to click off a unit and then not be able to go back to it again.

Easier said then done. Kuni can be quite difficult to ignore at times! All Kidding aside, he also has a great understanding of and contributions to the forum about SC and SC2 & the strategy and tactics of the games that I wouldn't want to ignore.