Yogi

How so? :confused: And, so what? </font>

Whether we already know you or not, if I were you I'd be secretly laughing too, as the group rushes out their posts that proove your statement.

Actually, I don't tyhink it would ever get done, because the suggestions will just keep coming. The suggestions aren't a bad thing, it's just that AI can only be expected to do so much until we can actually teach a computer to think and not just follow script. Personally, I will be very happy if we can just get an AI that puts up a good fight. A good defense and a good offense. The ability to defend and attack reasonable objectives. The ability to not commit suicide by stupidity would be nice. The ability to mount a sustained offensive. The ability to set up a defensive line (or not) as the situation suggests. I know my comments may seem too general to those that like the total details of any possibility or scenario. But it is quite possibly the ability of a games AI to have a very general but high quality basics, that make the biggest difference in the quality of a solitare game.

Are you guys really wargamers?

Maybe instead, you could ask for a massage from the mail carrier on delivery. Actually, I agree that shipping & handling seems to be high, but this is not a Battlefront issue, as I see it from many companies. About the cheapest I've seen for computer games lately is about $4. $53 is $53 - so whether they just charge $53 with no shipping makes no difference. However since you are willing to pay $75, please send it in and they can apply the surplus to my shipping charge.

Ok, Leap of Faith time, I'm in! Probably should wait for reviews and bug fixes, but there doesn't seem to be any fun in that. Might as well get in on the ground floor so to speak.

1) I agree that I would not want a game that needs to be customized to work well. 2) I agree that I would want a finished product that works well without having to edit anything. I am not into game editors, I don't hink I'm alone in wanting a game that plays out of the box as it is wiothout need for tweaking. 3) I would also want a game with a top-notch AI. 4) The concern about gameplay on the Russian Front (or any front) may be premature however. Since games can vary greatly, making judgment on seeing only one or two games can be faulty. Also I don't have the same concerns you have expressed at this point from what I have seen. Summary: It is hard to make judgements on what we have seen. I think it would certainly be prudent for those with concerns to not rush out and buy until there is adequate feedback after release. That would also give a chance for the usual first edition bugs (if any) to be worked out and corrected. Some of us will just have to have SC2 as soon as it comes out, won't be able to wait any longer and will take that leap of faith. Many, perhaps the wise ones, will display patience, wait for better information and then either buy with confidence, or not buy and be glad they took the time to review. I'm not sure which group I will be in yet, but I'm leaning toward buying.

Actually I would say that too!

Actually I would say that too!

How about, classic 2d counters are much better than 3d graphics? At a glance, you know what they are, strength etc. I know that while I will switch back & forth a bit, I often prefer to play with the old classic counters. Or are we still talking about hexes vs tiles? [ February 20, 2006, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

I can't remember the manufacturer, but it was Gettysburg - made to play on the Apple IIc I wasn't all that bad, but quite simple if you go back and look at it today. No color, no fancy terrain, just drawings of elevations similar the some of the original board wargames. The "counters" were just a simple soldier or cannon. Would have been circa about 1981 or so. Came on 5.25 disc.

I certainly agree that when we play it we'll know. As has been said a number of times, the proof is in the game. Tiles or hexes would seem to be more of a matter of "display appearance" than a game function in and of itself. There is some difference in how many squares or tiles someone can attack from (or must be defended) but it depends as well on "frontal". "flank" or "rear" attack modifiers if any. So the game should be able to handle it either way. I too as an old time wargamer have a soft spot for hexes, but don't feel it has to be a required feature. The first games I remember had sqaures or rectangles, and you could even angle your pieces with-in them to determine your actual facing.

Well Kuni, I guess value is in the eye of the beholder. Interesting that it appears you may have read Huberts posting (copy below) before you made the above post. Hubert Cater Moderator Member # 7567 posted February 13, 2006 01:07 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Yogi has hit the nail on the head for some of the reasons why threads seem to quickly get out of hand and into the vicious cycle of attack/counter attack. On a more personal level, I too have often wondered would people continue the same discourse in a face to face conversation and I'd like to think they would not. While flaming has become a bit of a sport lately I'd like to remind everyone of the forum rules and to perhaps take a step back empathize a bit before even considering personal attacks. Remember these are our SC2 forums and self moderation would be very much appreciated as we are all very busy over here and would much rather be working SC2 than constantly keeping the forums in check.

[i have posted this on the general thread as well. I meant to do that and after I posted realized I was still in the SC2 forum] Given how many of the threads collapse into questionable postings and banter that may fall into the heading of this thread; and even realizing that this one probably will too, I thought it might be interesting to hear some comments as to reasons you feel this occurs. So to start off, some possible reasons: 1) The "hidden identity" of forum users allows us to escape responsibility or penalty for our remarks. 2) Likewise we are "bolder" when we aren't face to face. I assume (and hope) that many of the posts would never be said in a personal contact situation. 3) The immaturity and/or uncaring nature of some participants. 4) The "vicious circle" or need for retaliation. (If we feel insulted, we strike back - and on it goes) But again, why do some posters feel they can make fun of ethnic background, sexual preference, women, religion or whatever? Any thoughts? Those of you who do so in particular, we would love to hear form you and your believed justifications beyond "It's just fun." I will post this on the general thread as well. In fact I meant to do that and after I posted realized I was in the SC2 forum. [ February 11, 2006, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

First, I understand fully and appreciate your comments. The forums do get "out of line" and it is frustrating to see how bad the no flaming, or personal attacks, and no harrassments is violated. Second, I do encourage you to check in here often. I'm sure the Beta Forum is great, but for those of us who can't get into it, it means no good information. Don't punish the whole forum, because of the folks who don't want to act responsibly.

I wouldn't give any date. We have had too many already. If I believed release dates, I would be well into my second year of playing SC2 already. When it's ready, it's ready. If I were Hubert, I wouldn't even suggest a date unless and until, it is known that it actually is ready.

I wouldn't give any date. We have had too many already. If I believed release dates, I would be well into my second year of playing SC2 already. When it's ready, it's ready. If I were Hubert, I wouldn't even suggest a date unless and until, it is known that it actually is ready.

Yeah, I've never seen anyone complain about anything HERE!

Well, we have heard about release dates in the past which obviously were not met. I have not seen anything official from the battlefront site about February. [ January 20, 2006, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

Well, we have heard about release dates in the past which obviously were not met. I have not seen anything official from the battlefront site about February. [ January 20, 2006, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

Actually the 2d 3d choice works well for a number of games and is used in many HPS games. I often find myself going back and forth bewteen views at times depending on how much map I want to see, what type of movement I am expecting, battle detail or just for the change.

Thanks Kuniworth, At last the acceptance and understanding I have sought over the years! I am now one with all.

Ok Jersey John, I'll bite. Remember on number of posts, as on many things in life, the quality of the matter is much more important than the quantity. On your other thought above about contributions, yes you do have a keen perception of the obvious. I've been coming to the site like you since 2002. Number and type of posts aside, I do enjoy much of the reading. I even have to laugh at some of the "inane comments". Still, it is true that the email discussions and our being apart and unknown, makes many make remarks that would seldom be made face to face or if we were fully accountable.

Hmm, SC3 Must be set for about a Christmas 2042 release. Not sure many of us old timers will be around for that. At any rate, I do understand the "wear and tear" argument. Closest thing I have seen to it are fatigue ratings in some games. I would think you could build something like that which would give a "strength reduction" if there is a long move and/or no rest between attacks. Time to heal and build strength back up.