xwormwood

This is a joke, isn't it? :eek:

SeaMonkey, i doubt that anyone posted into the DC because of the possible reward. The contest was a beautiful idea to post ideas without getting them commented to death, to post ideas noone has to search by reading 19 pages of a thread which started with a complete different topic. And most of the DC poster have given freely their ideas over the past years here as well, so let me comfort you, you were not alone... I have no problem with someone who didn't wrote something into the DC. But the absence of many known "faces" out of this forum felt still a bit strange, at least to me. After all, the DC was the first official appeal to bring in ideas for future releases. Anyway, i never wanted to criticise anyone who dind't took part in the DC, i just wanted to express my astonishment that so many "made" men were absent. So, keep up your good work in the forum-jungle (but watch out for Moon, he the anarchy-eater is always on the prey...).

I'm sorry if it sounded as if i had shot in you direction, that wasn't my intention. Even i can remember your efforts do improve the russian campaign, in my opinion you did more than anyone could expect to improve the game. It still would of course have been nice to see all the aces participating in the design challenge.

I thought we were discussing SC1+ here? :confused: Honestly: i'm a bit tired to read from "great game x" or "underrated game y" over there at Matrix, where the last games i loved were the improved SSI (!) games Steel Panthers and War in the Pacific (how fast 10 years go by, gosh) I am tired of it because this doesn't help a bit when it comes to SC. By the way: if you really care about SC, than why the heck didn't you (and several other SC1 grunts) joined the StratCom Design Challenge while it lasted (and it lasted preeetty long)? Not reading anything there from so many ancient SC legends was quite dissapointing for me. I thought that my scribblings there would be washed away by the might of their game insights and the pure genius of the older ones, but somehow most of them didn't had the guts to appear there with a single suggestion. Or were they to lazy? Or didn't they care construcitve (anymore) about SC? Anyway: maybe we all should sit back for some weeks whithout additional request and without nagging at each other: If Hubert did implent some of the StratCom ideas, than he is right now probably quite busy. And if he does a world map-game as well (with a decent AI), than he has right now probably already bloody fingers from typing the game code. Hubert himself announced already (more or less) that there is coming something big for us, and i am glad to wait for it. Concerning SC1+, i think it is a great idea from Jersey, and i have a feeling that Hubert will at least probably look into it after his next release. But give this man a break. How can he go into details when he is working full power on a different project? What could he write more than "thanks for loving SC" and "good ideas" (which he alredy did in a similar thread)? He can't promise anything of substance right now, and he won't say aye or nay right now as well. How could he? And if he did, he would speaking it literaly into the wind, because time alone can show what exactly will or can be his project after his recent projects.

I know i am a bit out of line with this, but i truly want to add it anyway: SC2 (include WaW an PDE here) make very much very right. SC1 was was very good, but it was more like chess than like WW2. The chess factor added much fun to those, who completly learned all its rules. But for a normal, strategic war game lover, who needs good games against the AI instead of a not existing human opponents, it was not as much fun as SC2. Saying this, i hope that magic Hubert suprises us all, when he releases his next milestones in wargaming fun. I would bet that implenting hexes would silence 50% of us old nagging grunts instantly.

AMEN! Where can i sign?

I still don't like stacking, or at least, the stacking approach most computer game designer have had choosen. Building task forces, a new unit type, acting as a container for several units, that would be ok / fine to me as an approach (One click on the container unit opening up a pop up window at the top of the screen, showing all units withing the container). Or let land hexes be the container. One click on the hex and you see all units which are currently standing there, But not "stacked" one over the other, but in a popup window which FIRST doesn't block your view on the actual map and SECOND put the units side by side, so that you can see off them at the very same time. In board game terms the classic "Europe Aflame" from TSR had similar solution which worked very fine. But for heavens sake, don't ask for this this "ridiculous clicking ten times at a single hex just to see which units are stacked there together". Usually it ends like this: when you just clicked the seventh time you have already forgotten how many move points the first unit had etc. etc. , not to forget that with stacking it is always very hard to keep the overview, often you "lose" some of you units because you forgot where they were stacked etc. etc.

Les, please don't call " No unit stacking" a "major let down", because it isn't. Stacking is boardgame, not computer game. There are much more inteligent solutions at hand (just like Sea Monkey already mentioned). Stacking in a computer game is irritating, at best. At least if you take it literaly 1 on 1 from the board games. I played computer games with stacking features, and they all sucked, because they used stacking just the way board games do. And then it is always hard to see how many uniits with how much strength are there and can go how far if at all, because you can't grab all units and check them just the way you would do it in a board game.

Hi folks, i would like to add something as well. First: if ever possible, i would truly and honestly like to get hexes back instaed of tiles. BUT i would really like to add as well, that SC2 with all its additional expansions is a a TRULY GREAT GAME. And in my eyes there absolutly no doubt about this. It is easy to learn, includes tons of fan suggestions and has a very decent AI. Sir Jersey, i'm right behind you when it comes to editors and / or programming the game with it. I want something complete to play, not a promise to buy. And as you know i would prefer hexes as well. Tiles are ok in their way, but it is not the same. @SeaMonkey It is somewhat cheap to "mock" hexes as eye-candy. We gamers and hexes share history, we wargamers and hexes belong together since we declared them our unsplittable love when we bought our first board games. If hexes are our bride 1.0, than tiles are not our secret girlfriend 1.1 or our bride 2.0, but our ugly stepsister 1.0. Tiles are substitutes compared to hexes. They play like subsitutes, they look like substitutes, and why should someone use a substitute when he could get the trusted original? SeaMonkey, please don't feel offended, because i am on the other hand all on your side when it comes to the concept you explained which makes stacking (what i disgust in computergames) completly obsolete.

@John DiFool the 2nd Yes, and i know it. But the white ice tiles suggest that no shipmovement is possible, doesn't it? That alone is my point here. If your destroyer get stuck in ice, it can't move. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD PLENTY OF ICEBREAKERS.

Yea, and thanks. Maybe, in a boring part of a day, you can find a somewhat different approach for this graphic, i guess, hm? On the other hand i could quit nagging...

Hello Hubert. Thank you for yor answer. I can understand the game mechanic which worked here its way. But it should be worth a thought that UK declared in fact war against Germany. Maybe it would be better to improve naval forces or industial output for the UK instead of declaring war. If UK would have declared war for such an incident, than it would be very questionable if the US would have started Lend Lease sa soon as if Germany had declared war. Anyway, thanks for your time.

I started a 1939 Storm of Steel game against the allied AI. In Juli 1939 - while not one single shot had been fired, no war declared - the UK "joins the allies" (even though the "allies" still don't exist). Again: Poland: not at war. France: not at war. But the UK "joins" the Allies, attacking my sub which stood at the coastline between Belgium and France (i got a message that the UK was upset because of german fleet activity). THIS IS A BUG. When there are no allies, than there is noone to join. When there is no war, than starting to attack a former neutral power would be a war declaration, which should produce the well known consequences (politic points should shift: later war entry of the US, shocked neutrals etc.). Btw.: sub operations shouldn't be trated like regular fleet actions. This alone could be somthing to argue about.

I like the concept, that convoys suffer through winter seasons. And i like the frozen ice, which permits naval movement. But please take a look at this picture: The red convoy line shouldn't run straight through the ice, right? Don't we all know, that movement through the ice parts aren't possible? I don't know the overall idea behind these ice tiles in the norwegian sea, but if it shouldn't block convoys or sea movement, than i suggest that the red line should be drawn in a zig-zag-like, to indicate that the shipping line is kept open by ice breakers. But in the end my opinion is, that there shouldn't be an open convoy line if the sea is frozen.

2008

After playing my first few games i think that the game needs a bit more political additions and corrections. Example: in my last game i played the scenario in which germany joins in 1944 the western allies to fight together against russia. My thoughts: First: this scenario should start after a succesful Operation Walküre in June 1944, does anybody agree? I see no way that the western allies would have fought together with a nazi-led germany. But with a free german state which got rid of its brown scum - much more likly, isn't it? In this case (and in the now existing scenario as well) Norway should be neutral or UK / US controlled. Why should Germany be allowed to keep control, to be allowed to oppress on on a once free country? It would be probably better to start a US / UK convoy line toward Germany, wouldn't it? Germany itself should have the same borders as in pre-Munich conference time (1937, or mabye 1938 with anexed Austria). Next thought: germany shouldn't be allowed to built unlimited units, because in 1944 / 1945 it was pretty much blooded out, don't forget that in the end there were 15 and 16 years old wearing uniforms. Unthinkable that Germany would be able (or willing) to build new armies. Maintain the existing one, well, ok, but new ones? Even it POWs would be returned from the western allies, it would have still taken pretty much time to form them into fighting units again (if at all). Another thought: UK, France, Italy and Germany should be getting pretty much unwilling to fight in Russia after 6 long and bloody years of war. Freeing minor countries should be all you can expect from them, but a land war in Russia after 6 or 7 years of blodshed, well, i don't think that this would have been exceptable in any one of these countries. In 1945 everyone of them longed for nothing else but peace (and freedom). Last thought: When allied forces enter Russia, China (even though not on the map) should be alarmed. I think this part is absolutly missing right now. China wouldn't have stood still if the one (and only one) existing communist partner crumbles, because China would be alone after he has gone and probably next in line in the war against communism. Therefor China should send help whenever the US / the Allies threaten the Soviet to much (scirptet events, like siberian reinforcements). I think the game (as good as it is) needs more political events. Right now the game plays very much within the 1939-1945 rules of war and politics, but ignores a bit too much what would happen and who would react how after the destruction of nazi germany. And now the real last thought: Even the US should get into problems if too many units get slaughtered, because the US aren't the USSR, where losses didn't matter at all. On the road to moscow there should be somewhere the question "Why fight any longer, why should more of our boys die, do we really need to conquer all of the USSR?" There should be a growing "bring 'em home"-movement, and a Soviet political agenda feedings this movement ("well, we learned our lessons and offering our hand for peace-talks, let us end this unnescessary and bloody war"). I would be very interested to hear if there are any improvements already on the way, or if there are other players out there, who agree or disagree, or who have own ideas. [ June 04, 2008, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

I think there is a bug (?) if you amphib to many units from one port. In my game i had 5 units in and around Casablance. I used "amphib" on each and everyone of them, while a naval unit ankered already in the port tile. I was able to amphib 5 units, but one disappeared to nowwhere. I can buy this unit now once more (after all it is offered again in the purchase pool). I had 5 russians tank units down there (stalin turns east game, against allied AI), and every available tank was already purchased before is tried to amphib all 5 tanks. Now i am allowed to buy one more tank, while one of my units went obviously down to the bottom of the atlantic ocean ("Taucht der Panzer was?" Ja, der taucht was"). [ May 24, 2008, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

Playing the 1947 russians are comming scenario i stumbled about the following: early in the game i was asked if i want to assassinate Churchill because this man is all but trouble for the USSR. I answered yes, and at the end of my turn i got the message that Churchill died because of a heart attack. About one year late (after i attacked several neutral countries) the game told me, that Churchill just rallied the UK (sorry, i can't remember the exact message) against the Soviet aggression (or something like that). Obviously the game didn't checked the fact if Churchill was still alive or not. Or it gave me wrong intel about my assasination attempt. Beside of this minor bug (?) i can only say that this new expansion is truly awesome, i really like it a lot, because it is so unique with it fresh what if-scenarios. Great work, Mr. Cater, honestly, great, great work!

I don't think that we really need airbases. And swamps, mountains, deserts, jungle or ice weren't & aren't real obstacles if you want(ed) to build an airbase. In a civilisation setting airbases make sense, but not in SC2.

Great! Thank you Hubert (and Peter), this solution works fine! Very nice!

As much as i like a good discussion i feel the urge to write you missed the StratCom Design Challenge. And oh, yes: Sorry!

I for my part have no problems to admit that i added my share of mistakes here (p.e. by misplacing my registration email and / or by going public here without waiting for an answer from the battlefront support). But there are two things i still have to add in this case (and this only because Martin simply refused to read my last private email): First: By sending Martin my registration email as evidence I have proven to him that his (quoted above) statements were incorrect. Martin answered me that he still sees no reason to clarify, correct or apologize, even though he did offer another (in my eyes much more plausible) idea what else might have caused the faulty username. Second: I thought that my private data from the battlefront store would be safe, guarded by a decent privacy policy. Maybe you can imagine how surprised i was when Martin suddenly felt it nescessary to publish parts of my customer details in the forum (store username, private email address). Without the slightes alteration, without asking, and finaly to prove something he only presumed to be true.

Martin, clarification is all right. But you pointed your finger in my direction with Fact is (as i am more than sure now) that i didn't mistyped my email-address durign registration. I grant you that your personal support was virtualy instantly, and you did helped me. But with this you did put me in the pillory : My fault was only that i misplaced my account-detail email, but thats it. On the other hand the battlefron-store webpage obviously has had or still has some problems to interpret the "-" sign when creating a username out of an email-address. So you did blame me for a mistake which results somehow out of the misteries of your very own webpage. And this is a little bit nasty.

Hm, this may have happend. But on the other hand i did receive my account details under my correct email address (yes, when you don't need it anymore, you DO find your account details, sigh), as well as my (WAW) download ID. This doesn't make sense, or do i miss something? :confused: Anyway: thanks for your emails & help, Martin edit: Just checked my details: i'm pretty sure that the automatism which creates a user out of the email-address failed, because i wouldn't and didn't choose manualy a user name like my email-adress as long as my standard name (simply xwormwood) is free. And if my standard is already taken (never happend before), than i would create a little variation, but surely not my email address. I have spam enough in my life as it is right now. Tough one to blame it all on me, Martin! edit edit Ok, now it is clear: i just edited my user name from xwormwood@t_online towards xwormwood. The username xwormwood WAS FREE. Shame on you! [ April 15, 2008, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

dougman4: this is a splendid suggestion for the "StratCom Design Challenge". Btw: it really is s shame that this feature didn't made its way into the game. Truly. I was often angry myself when i simply misclicked and the attack wasn't possible anymore. Sea Monkey, your comment was a really bad one, there is no need to anger someone so needlessly.