Yogi

Please don't screw us up with logic. The world isn't ready for that. Just read the forum for my proof.

Miles are much better then kilometers because it shortens your trip. Wouldn't you rather only have 25 miles to go instead of having to go a hole 40 kilometers? Of course your sports car goes faster if you go kph instead of mph. You just can't win I guess.

Looks like you're safe. He seems to be throwing his support behind Dennis Miller.

Thank you for your opinion of suggested similar examples. Any attempted response would clearly be lost on you. Your post confirms your own prejudice and lack of credibility. We can take comfort in knowing that you really aren't worth responding too.

I don't mind the tiles, but have to admit that watching units move diagonally through & between two enemy units can be a little frustrating.

Actually I agree at least with the sentiment of the comment. We want wargames that require strategy and tactics. Not luck factors. There of course will always be some luck in the "roll of the die" battle results, but we don't need to create more. Now if tech advances when you spend the mpp's are automatic, one could argue it is strategy. Do I put money in units or research? But the more random luck involved in the if & when of success in that research, the less of a strategy (or at least tactics) game it becomes.

Yes I do, but perhaps no one has really tried to find the market. Yes as I put in my post. That is why I am willing to accept higher cost for a better AI. However, the higher cost may not be needed, as I still feel that strong AI development will in the long run result in more copies sold. Until the "long run" comes through, maybe the extra cost would be the incentive the companies need.

I understand rleete. But the thought of paying more for AI may be what is needed to get a good one. And it goes with the rest of my post, "If a company can get the reputation of creating the best AI around, there will be many ready to buy each and every release of their products." A company that charges extra and puts out a lousy AI will be avoided. The point is that too many, the AI is very important. In the ideal world we would be given that great AI automatically at no extra charge. That just hasn't been happening so far. (at least very seldom) If some incentive to create a good AI is needed before a company puts the needed effort in, at least we might get a few games worth a little extra. I agree that a no AI version would not be very attractive, I was thinking more of an enhanced AI version, and only if worth it. Maybe AI expansion packs would have a place? If making a great AI becomes profitable - some one will make it. Sounds like, "If you build it, they will come." [ June 15, 2006, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

I wouldn't blame the playtesters. I also understand that a game can have great value even without a decent AI. However, I do think that this discussion does once again show that AI is important to computer gaming. Too often we get on this "dispute" between people who don't give a hoot about AI and those of us who mainly play against the AI. I just want to say once again that it doesn't have to be one or the other. The game should be great played against others and great against the AI as well. Almost all computer game manufacturers are missing the opportunity to capture what may be the biggest customer base out there, especially when it comes to strategy/war games. That base is the solitare player. If a company can get the reputation of creating the best AI around, there will be many ready to buy each and every release of their products. I assume that making such an AI is tedious and time consuming and therefore expensive. But I for one would be willing to pay extra for the feature. Picture SC2 head to head version $47 and SC2 including extensive AI $60. I would pay the extra.

Maybe the Italy surrender should be triggered with an invasion of the Italian mainland. The Italians are much tougher (at least in their defensive ability) than they actually were. In fact in the game (against AI) I have seen Italy continue the fight even well after the fall of Germany.

Not Complaining - Wish list only Better AI Better AI Better simulation of historical capabilities Better AI Better AI

This is the best bet you could think of?! Why is youth always wasted on the young?

Not so sure about that it doesn't work on those of us over 40 bit. Always makes me want to declare war on Switzerland for some reason.

Just wondering, did this match end with the new patch releqase or for some other reason? Or do we just have a big slow down?

It would seem to be predominately a male thing - some of whom happen to be gay. It is not a matter of one or the other.

Glad your coming around Major. Yes the spirit that would eventually become America was in the hearts of many throughout history.

Take Rambo and the specific examples out of it if you like. One could argue however that the principles of "Blitzkrieg" could depend on the technology of the time. Lightening War refering to quick advance, encirclement etc. would be a matter of reference. Therefore even an army on foot in the ancient world could perform a sort of Blitzkrieg for their time.

Male 55 USA

I apologize for any political tone in advance. Of course now so many including France have lost the lessens of history as they clamor for the US to be more isolationist and get out of the war on terror. Perhaps they no longer care about how many lives may be saved for the future as they focus only on the present. Back to topic! I don't know about attacking Spain being a "Lame" policy. I still maintain that the game by making so many attacks against so many countries potentially a reasonable strategy does make it a game rather than a simulation. I understand some of the remarks about Spain (and a few others) but I also felt the game made it too easy for Spain to join the Axis, and have even seen it make that decision several times when the Axis was already pretty much defeated. Not too realistic. Some comments about the new patch may indicate that the problem may be a little less prominent now.

Now that's realistic! I think a guy named Hitler may have had the same type of problem.

I am certainly no expert, and could be wrong, but in addition to the ease of a DOW, it also seems to me that the reality of the difficulty of doing some of these things is not easily depicted. I don't think that the Axis was in aposition to support troops in Norway, Turkey, Iran, Spain etc. etc. etc. The game makes it too easy. Maybe this is just another do we want a game or historical simulation question, but as I read a number of the matches on the forum, I often think that we are no longer looking at a simulation, just a game. Fantasy buffs welcome.

Agamemnon Some of what you describe as "bugs" looks like there might actually be a reason caused by situation of units involved. (such as supply or movement points available) As covered in another thread, they may have to tweak some of these "rules", and a patch may help. But again a bug and game "rule" are two different situations.

At least we are closer together Seamonkey, but I don't agree with your conclusions. 1) It can happen and I have seen it in other games both board and computer. Yes we do have hindsight, but that is part of the fun, although even with it we often make the same mistakes. 2) We don't know how things will turn out in a good simulation either. We still have to make the decisions good or bad. There is still the "variable" of combat results on any attack. There is still the decisions of which path of attack, which line to defend, which units to sacrifice, save etc. 3) I don't want something that has a set conclusion, but yes, if you were to proceed down the exact same path as done historically (although that is unlikely) a good simulation should give very close to the same result as actually happened. 4) We can take any "scale" you like, but just as an example, a game of the battle of Gettysburg. If you give Lee more troops he may have a better chance, but the real skill is to take the same troops against the same strength enemy and do better. If playing a whole campaign game, yes your earlier decisions may change what happens at Gettysburg. That can and should happen in SC2 as well regardless of scale. If the Axis do well early in Russia, D-Day may be a tough thing to pull off. But not because of an artificialy weak "pacifist" US that can't get enough mpps to do historic actions unless they get lucky. Too often when those of us who like simulations say we want more historic accuracy, others think it means we want the exact same results. That is not true. We want the historic accuracy, but plan to change the results. If I didn't care about historic accuracy, I would probably be playing more Science Fiction games instead of what is supposed to be WWII, Civil War, Napoleonic or whatever period I choose to play.

Actually, NO IT ISN'T WHAT WE ALL WANT! I like true simulations. Ever notice ads for games like, change history can you do better than Lee, Patton, Rommel whatever? You only can answer that if you have the same situation. I commented on what a war simulation should be in an earlier thread. On the other hand, we can easily both be pleased. Add what if's, variables etc. that can be selected and/or turned on and off. You want your variables great, you can have them. Let those of us who want to recreate a real sitiation do so. I have many games that use the historical and what-if's in their scenario selections. That's all I'm asking for. The more of us a game can make happy, the more games that will be sold.

Interesting game, good game play, although once again, sounds more like a fantasy game then a WWII simulation. Maybe we can call this Galactic conflicts - earth 1940.