Les the Sarge 9-1

Actually, unless I am greatly mistaken (not impossible eh) the problem is while yes, you can just call the icon whatever you want it to be (even to redrawing it in nice new pictures), it won't alter the fact the software was built around certain assumptions. One of those is the game uses corps and armies. And while you can change the icon or relabel it, it remains what the software thinks it is, a corps or an army. And thus you will only end up with corps/armies that look like divisions or regiments, but having the comba dynamics of a corps or an army. If it sounds like a duck eh. And placing 3 ports besides each other, does not make a single location capacity increase, it just allows you to call three separate locations one location. If the icons mean nothing, then why are we even concerned about realism in the first place. Its just checkers with neat pictures.

While we are talking about counter symbology. Has anyone ever seen the counters used in Avalon Hill's game The Longest Day? They were modelled after WW2 German symbols rather than modern Nato symbols. Personally, I don't mind clarity first and last, but those symbols are just so kicking cool looking.

Oddly enough, I am a "weak" player, but I have the common sense to realise he is very right (oh stop prancing Rambo, its not decent ). The game (SC) while it could use some tweaks for its history nuts sake, mainly has to look at the aggravating balance issues FIRST. The only thing that kept SC from being perfection personified, was those little glitches the hard core beat all to hell and back. Because in the end, its how well "balanced" the game is, that will make us play and play and play and play and play....

The game engine (if I have the term properly employed) to do Pacific, would likely require Hubert to take a totally different look at the situtation. Ok here is my current thought process. Currently the scale in SC is a corps or army. Guess what people, we never landed whole corps or armies ANYWHERE in the Pacific. Your mods will be jokes if you think "oh just jury rig a few icons mangle a few maps and presto I got the game in the Pacific". Correction, you will have a game with a Pacific looking map that only a nut will think has any connection with the Pacific. The combat model will be totally wrong, and all you will have done is maybe draw a pretty map that might impress your highschool teacher. If you want to impress us, it's going to cost you more than just some time with an editor. I think we are all agreed, the Pacific was basically a fight between naval task forces searching each other out, naval air combat, amphibious landings made by small groups of highly motivated men fighting under extremely harsh conditions of constricted ground and horrendous losses. In a few spots the war in the Pacific took place on reasonable amounts of land. But these larger land masses can't automatically be counted on to automatically let the game continue to use original SC European concept forces just because "its all you got". The fighting in Burma did not involve large mass armies or tank groups. My notion is to see if HC is interested in making a scaled up game of SC for the Pacific. By scaled up, I mean providing maps with a totally different ground scale. On a current SC map, the island of Tarawa for instance will be occupied by a Japanese unit, it would be the only hex like with Malta, and good luck taking it. You show up with the US naval air, pound it a few times, the IJN with it's many surface vessels shows up, swats your expensive carriers and you get to lose yet again. We need a map that allows Tarawa to be a multi hex representation of the ground. We need small scale units such that it isn't some idiotic notional Marine corps all in one spot silliness. I can assure you, that's what I will require. Otherwise, count me out.

I think the size is limited by the software under the hood though.

For my next literary quote, how about.. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter heaven" Anyone here actually know (other than me that is) what I refer to in the "eye of a needle"? It isn't a sewing needle by the way. Thus, it is easier to sell Les a good real time wargame like Highway to the Reich that doesn't require flashy graphics, than it is to convince me a wargame is any good regardless of the magnificence of it awesomely rendered real time 3d imagery. P.S. Les the Sarge don't do pictures, but I am sure Jersey John will be more than pleased to insert something grand if he is asked nicely

"In the end the proof will be in the pudding" God I hate it when you guys mangle that old saying. Repeat after me, the proper quote is..."The proof of the pudding is in the taste". Hence, the proof of SC2 will come in whether anyone plays it, not whether it has say tiles or hexes.

Any mod that is just SC ala Pacific with small islands, yet not properly designed for that theatre, will of course simply be a hand made mistake though.

I would like an SC Pacific as well. Maybe HC will do one after he figures out the minutae of naval landings on small islands, and creates a naval game that won't look dumb. I also hope he makes it just a Pacific game, and leaves it to stand alone on it own merits. I personally think HC has the savvy to make a nice game. But after all I have seen of SC thus far, it's not designed to be a Pacific game, and likely would do no better than Risiing Sun did following Advanced Third Reich. It too was a great game, used for the wrong setting. The lesson learned, you had to take both games, and rebuild both of the from the bottom up if you wanted the global experience done right. I would not be surprised though, if some still don't like the design.

Glad to hear desert is being touched up. To those though that maintain you want "the possibility" of landing in North America, you are playing the wrong game is my conclusion. It is either a simulation of WW2, or it is a farce. I am not against wide open alternative courses to the war, but if you deep six the credibility of the game, then you never had a ww2 game at all, opened or otherwise. I am not mandating a virtual recreation of the events, because frankly, I would rather watch my documentaries if that's all I wanted. But there has to be a limit to the flights of fantasy, or our game becomes a joke. I can always play Civilization if I want it to be me against the world. And no offense to HC (and I am postive he knows I mean none), but Civilization is years ahead of SC in polish. But SC isn't Civ, and Civ isn't SC, and I like that they are different. I recently fired up Civ Conquests and played the Pacific setting game. It looks amazing from a graphic point of view, but the Allies ain't allies, they are all individuals all bent on doing it solo with a marginal "understanding" existing at the start between the nations that you would expect to all be on "your side". It would be as pointless as trying to play SC where each nation could make or break treaties on a whim. Anyone here actually think the British could win if the Americans stayed out? What would happen to Germany if in the middle of attacking Russia, Italy decides France looks nice, and if Germany doesn't like it, then declare war on Germany. That ain't SC, and while it could happen in Civ, lets face it, the games are not the same game. One is a depiction of WW2 as close as we can make it, while the other is just played on globe that just happens to look like earth. There is no basis for putting North Amnerica on the map. Any plane tank ship or other counter can easily stage from what on a map for a board game, would be a utility holding box representative of point of origin. I know there are a few games out there on drawing boards that will be global. I have also played a few global reaching board games. Every time I have played a game, one that is global, actual full world map. the war stll continues to maintain credibility, or the worthiness of the game and my interest in it suffers. I don't think it is saying too much, that even after many years worth of playing even an easy game like Axis and Allies, the Allies had already lost the game an hour ago, if the Axis had any forces on North or South America. The game was always decided in the snows in Russia, and in the deserts of Africa. And the clincher was linking with the Japanese. I have read plenty enough to know, that only extreme bull**** luck prevented that scenario happening. Still confuses me how Hitler lost.

In light of my post on a thread to do with maps, I want to specfically express a concern important to me. SC is about WW2 conflict simulation, and so too I hope will be SC2. Until HC designs a game that goes global (and while it would be nice, I am not going to kill myself waiting for him to beat up his game just to do it), I think it is time to firmly make SC2 a game of the war in Europe, and stop wasting time with pipe dream fantasies of Germans marching in the US. I know WAY to much REAL historical fact, and have WAY to firm a grasp of the ACTUAL potentials of Germany where a North American fantasy are concerned. Now of course, if you want to play some lunatic game where any frigging country can take over the world of the 1940s, I will ask you to please get lost and go play it to leave us historians alone With that in mind, I am for taking North America right off the map. Yes I know, they won't have any cities any more, where will they gate cash from. That though is a patently silly question. HC merely has to set exactly what is the economic base of Canada and the US, and it is so. This could be much more easily and much more credibly dealt with through a menu system than a map symbol representation. All North America should be, is a source of cash and weapons of war that attempts to thwart the German desire to see it at the bottom of the Atlantic. I would suggest it was easier to simulate a series of coastal staging areas for convoys. Any allied forces headed for the war need only exist when they get shipped out to Europe. The only thing that would greet a German invader of North America, is several millions of people willing to dump them in the garbage heap of history. I realise that sounds boastful, but you will just have to get past it.

I will say this. I hated no stacking the day I saw SC and it is likely I will remain firmly convinced that I will continue to want it. But that is just a preconceived prejudice I can't seem to let go. It's a game, and it is a well made game, even if it isn't perfect. I would not enjoy being given a request to line up a list of "perfect games". I wouldn't be likely able to find one. There is always going to be "something wrong" with a game and how we see it. This is likely because we were not totally responsible for making it so. No that wasn't meant to sound arrogant, but it is a simple truth. We always think we could have done it better than "the other guy". To give an example of even how our veteran icons of perfection have been marred by something seemingly so petty, remember how before Advanced Third Reich, the Third Reich game had an annoyingly finite sum of counters for the Minors forces? It always so completely pissed me off. And my friend so often was the Axis, so I was the one that got to be left holding the bag when he orchestrated the perfect set up where upon he would carefully declare war on Minor after Minor so that the ones he needed depleted would be sans counters. It wasn't even remotely anything other than shameless exploitation of a limited counter mix. And no. this was not "fixed" by logical players either. It was oft cited as an exploitable strategy. Wargamers NEVER give up an edge ever. The game was only fixed when they release A3R and gave the Minors there own forces per nation. And this problem arose simply because the original game was partially crafted on the size of a die cut countersheet eh. There was nothign more complicated than that. It was just a concession to how many counters could the manufacturer actually make. Nothing more. Wargamers rail against many things, but occasionally there is no magical mystery behind why some games are made the way they are. Often it is a very bland physical limit the designer has elected to use, without being able to see in advance the repercutions. The actual dimensions of the board are often set in a game like SC. If HC decides the map will be X squares by X squares, then that is ALL it will ever be too. We might rally and ask for a specific detail change on the map, but the map won't likely ever magically stretch. That's why I refrained from wanting more desert or a bigger Atlantic. Not going to happen, you just can't always make something bigger than it is. If you give to the desert, where do you take it from? I personally think there is NO merit to having North America physically represented on the map. Aside from fairy tell invasions that ruin a games capacity to make you feel you are recreating WW2. And lets get one thing clear, in 1939 some what ifs would only make incredible flaky scifi. And it doesn't get less flaky no matter what the Germans succeed in designing in the lab. Forcing North America onto the map, really only serves to steal credibility from the map, and take away map capacity from where it might be more useful. Having the US and Canada present, and forced to accept a pointless sliver of desert that fails to recreate the Western Desert really only causes you to lose both as any value. I for one have yet to ever fight a single battle in North Africa that looked even vaguely like history. So on tiles or hexes, it really is just a manner of drawing the map. I personally don't care if either is used if the actual drawing on the grid is well done. HC could have chosen area movement, or point to point movement or simple squares if his map was well rendered for simulation. Its the simulation that counts. The grid just gives the man a constant framework to design on. When is why stacking was so odd for me to get used to. I still haven't fully mastered the SC designs pace, simply because I can't get my head fully out of stacking, breakthrough attacks, exploitation, ZOCs. In SC you muster your forces totally different. Playing the other guy's game while playing SC only makes you lose a lot more games in the end. Everything I have seen of SC2 makes me think HC has taken the game up a notch. I won't hate him if the game looks graphically more pleasing, but ends up sitting on much the same board with much the same oddities. I think he will have designed out a few errors in original thinking in the process. It will make the next game, SC2 well worth the purchase, just like A3R was definitely easy to pick up after years of playing basic original Third Reich.

Personally, I would be happy if the desert was able to be famous for what it made famous, that being a war of maneuver. The desert in SC is really just about as inaccurate as it is possible to be. I have never complained, because there has always been a cheap unhistorical fix. You land on the other side, take the canal, and that's that. But I would rather like to see something of what made the desert famous.

Just downloaded 614, and hmm 30 day trial then I have to pay for it. Pass I use plenty of chat programs that are free. I don't need a service that isn't free thaaaat bad. Anyone wants to chat with me just has to ask. I use Yahoo as primary, and with Trilian I can simultaneously link to ICQ AOL and MSN. Trillian also links to MIRC, but the others are free. It counts.

Ok this link is likely old news to you 5 minutes after ya got here hehe, but who knows, you might not have found this. http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/index.html Currently this forum is less than a week old (if I am basically correct). And while talk of SC2 has been mostly "wish it were here", being actually able to witness it is fairly new. There ain't nothing to "try" yet though. And believe me, you will know when there is if you look in here often enough hehe.

I am interested, but I will say that cautiously. I have seen MIRC in action, and usually it is people exchanging 5 word messages as if it was meaningful conversation. I can't speak for most, but when I put in a post, it is a clearly stated and hopefully meaningful comment. Chatting with people only contributing micro messages would be deadly dull or just plain boring. But I have the MIRC program, and I will at least check it out.

If I have the story correct, isn't it the plan to have this thing available from BF direct ie not on a retail shelf for like a year, before ANY shelf NA or UK or otherwise? If that is the case, I will find a way. I am not planning on waiting for it to hit a shelf here in Canada, if the wait will be a full year. When it finally got to the shelf here, it was admittedly a very nice mere 19 bucks, but I am not going to wait a full year just to say a few bucks off a game already reasonably priced. I only make the effort to wait on games, that go beyond the 70 dollar range.

Cool HC thanks for commenting, I was not expecting our game to go rediculous, but I don't making rash assumptions either. As for locks, hmm, I will only say what I said elsewhere, a lack of moderators being moderators (without worrying about being moderators) while potentially annoying, is also better than what happened to Wargamer (which currently holds no interest for me any more).

Can't find Matrix ? That's like totally weird http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=26 That's their EIA forum (if this is the first person to get that to ya ). Or their main home page is... http://www.matrixgames.com/

I have noticed BF has added a few titles to its line up. This is good I guess. I have noticed also as you mentioned, some of Matrix Games titles slip further and further and further back. But it is not as if they are not producing, as they are indeed producing. But they do have a few titles that the old gang has had to sit by and lament over. Combat Leader is getting to be a game where announcing release information falls in with the cheque is in the mail (sadly). Close Assault, well I would not be surprised if people have even forgotten it exists on the list. Battlefields seems to be fading away as far as release schedule is concerned. I am likely not interested in hearing about forecasts for when cWiF will appear. As a project, I think it will take some time. These are all games that have been on the burner a loooooong time. I applaud every new initiative Matrix Games takes, but I sure would like to see deliver on some of the original games taken under consideration.

I like SC in that it is a modest game with a file size footprint that almost should be called a toeprint. I have a 40 gig hard drive, so what, I am not overly impressed with flashy games that insist on all manner of pretty graphics that think my hard drive is endless. I am also eqipped with an 800 celeron with a 256 meg ram set up and I have a 32 meg radeon 7000 PCI video card. I am NOT planning on replacing any of this in the next 5 years. If Combat Leader won't run on this machine, I will stick with Steel Panthers, a game with no real flaws worth comment. If Gary's need global game won't run on this machine, I won't buy it. If SC2 won't run excellently, I won't buy it either. I am also unlikely to change my mind. My current stash of wargames includes SC for grand strategy, TOAW for Operational WW2 till present. I have all the Panzer General series for simple easy Operational. I have Steel Panthers for tactical. And I just recently got HTTR for a more localised operational fix with the novel real time that counts for something. I have a tank driving sim in the form of Panzer Commander, and I have Squad Assault for a 3d thing (although I tend to just fiddle with it when I visit a buddy with a better machine as mine just doesn't quite cut it). I ain't suffering here for wargames. The idea of me spending a lot of money upgrading the video ram or processor is, well, stupid. As it currently stands, my computer is already able to do everything I want it to do. I am not worried that SC2 will be moronically enhanced beyond a 800 Celeron, but if it should happen, I will make the logical choice, and just shut up, go away, and play something else.

It depends on how long a turn is. If Overlord had gone a week with no actual progress, retreat would not be needed, the Allies would have had to surrender, and the debacle would be a debacle. I agree on the beaches notion in principle. The game needs a methodology where just placing a land unit on a coastal hex is not sufficient to deny a landing. The landing at Omaha sure wasn't done unopposed, but they went inland all the same, even if it DID look iffy for a while. And by D+1, the Allies were more than a few miles inland. So in a week, things will be either decided or the landing fails. Thus a multi turn landing is not required. It should be an all or nothing result. You land and win, or land and lose. I also hate that any piece of coast will do. As was mentioned, not every piece of coast was acceptable. Or rather some pieces of coast were better than others. In my board game Fortess Europa, you could land anywhere, but the how much was determined by the where. Maybe the game could log each and every tile separately and landing at any specific tile would carry its own unique signature of landing casualties. Yeah I know, someone gets to pour over some decent references to find out which beaches were good and which beaches sucked. Oh the joy of designing a decent wargame eh hehe On the bright side, this will be one of the many steps towards maybe making a Pacific edition easier for the future. Because SC will never see the Pacific until we ace the process of landing on small scraps of land.

Invading North America is fine for scifi, but I have to admit, it is sooooooo low on my list of needs, that I highly doubt I even care if HC puts any of North America on the map. I only need the coast there so I no where it is in relation to sub traffic. Frankly, I have read one to many credible "What if" books on all the possible permutations, and the idea of the Axis actually doing such a thing is of zero worth to me. Sealion is a very far end option as it goes, and that is just a cross channel dash. I don't have any interest in Civil War myself. If I did, I would likely ask that the game start off with Civil War in mind, and not be taking a mallet to HC's game just to get one. That is me though, if you guys want to hand make NA, go for it.

I agree, forests not the end of the world, but mountains? Nope that stretches my ability to believe to far. I vote ruling out mountains. I would allow an air unit of strength 3 or less, but I am not interested in asking HC how to code that into the game.

In advanced Third Reich, upon attacking an inactive nation, the opposing side immediately allocated defender forces as they saw fit. And being a board game, the opposing player saw exactly where the opposition was set up. It never hurt the game, and many years later it is still a great wargame. Now in a computer game you have the benefit of FOG of war. Although in SC if it is turned off, your opposition sees all just like with the board games. I would suggest all DOWS be mandated as being first of turn limited actions for possible simplicity sake. Not sure if that is even required though. Let the defense place their units where they see fit inside their borders. Do you honestly think they have no clue about the potentially hostile intent of their neighbours? If your game play is worth squat, then it won't matter if the defense is aware you have troops massing. In real life nations do that all the time just to fake you out eh. I personally think, defending forces should have reduced defensive effectiveness though. Lets face it, until you are ar war, you just can't tell if the opposition is faking eh. Leave the defenses weaker on turn one. This should be enough edge I would think. It was all they had in real life eh. The attack through the Ardennes was not successful because of any one factor. Part of the success was just that the British and French just didn't see their own peril coming. It is all the more surprising they did it again in 44 actually. You snooze you lose eh. Playing the game against templated defense set ups though, is the reason we are well versed in "gambits". If the set up for inactive nations was discretionary, I dare say most gambits would not exist. Placing an army in Rome sure would kill the Rome gambit.