Exel

The tactical map could use a zoom-out. Ideally you could choose from 2 to 3 zoom levels going from the present default to perhaps even the strategic map. Maybe it's just me, but it feels that it is sometimes hard to grasp the overall situation and you miss out things with the camera being so close to ground. Would scaling the graphics down by 25% for a wider zoom be lot of extra work?

I can only say this: Hubert has done it again! To be honest I had mixed expectations about the game, I was afraid that after all that has happened and been discussed here since the publication of the project, it might turn out to be a disappointment. Not so after 5 minutes with the demo. It hooked me instantly, caught me off-guard just like the SC1 demo years ago. It so fresh while at the same time so familiar. The tiles turned out far better than I had expected, it didn't have a dramatic effect on gameplay at least in any negative sense. Bravo, Hubert, bravo!

I'm one of those people who will rather have a well polished game rather than a hurried release. So yeah, I can wait too.

Internet buy would be my preference too, especially if the game was a tad cheaper that way (no printed manuals, discs, packaging or shipping - would make sense, no?).

Couldn't agree more. I tried to argue for the same cause a while back in a thread I've already forgotten. The scripted events should be logical and general so they wont become instruments for hardcore power playing and ruin the (multiplayer) gameplay. That said, I also think that the use of scripted events should be minimized and handle as much of them as possible through the AI.

I'm willing to help.

Why is this even an issue? Of course there should be infantry in the game, even if it is a tank sim. Infantry is still the backbone of any force on the battlefield. You don't capture cities with tanks or artillery, you don't hold terrain with helicopters or aircraft. That's what you need infantry for. And don't forget that tanks were first designed to assault infantry positions to gain breakthrough - it's a task they still are more than capable of doing, despite increased emphasis on anti-vehicular combat. Tank vs tank combat without infantry makes no sense, just like it would make no sense for aircraft to fight for the airspace just for the heck of it and not to attack any ground targets. Sure an infantry squad without cover or effective AT weapons is an easy target for a tank, but so it should be. Tanks are supposed to dominate infantry! Still, infantry in covered with ATGMs or RPGs is a very real threat to a tank if it fails to see the infantry first (and is dumb enough to drive within range of their weapons unsupported). Also don't forget that tanks rarely fight alone, they are usually accompanied by mechanized infantry.

Well I agree that in the easier difficulty levels the AI could (and should) be simpler, and then progressively get more dynamic in its actions with higher difficulty settings. But I don't think the AI's options should be limited to only a few scripted strategies. Of course they could be used as a base for AI planning, but the AI should also be able to change its strategy according to the situation. And even the scripted base strategies shouldn't be so few and so transparent that the human player could predict what the AI is going to do.

Why be so restrictive? Make the AI more dynamic, so it actually considers what would be the most preferable thing to do and not just select from a few pre-determined strategies and then stick to it no matter what.

Wow, didn't know that. That's mighty handy. SC with you wherever you go!

GGWaW is aimed at hardcore strategists, and Gary Grigsby is a well-known brand among them. A demo isn't a must for such a game. The people who will buy it most likely know Grigsby's previous games. SC2 on the other hand aims to get plenty of new gamers as its customers, and the game is aimed to please the strategy nerve of even non-hardcore strategists. Strategic Command also hasn't developed into a trusted and reliable brand (yet) other than among the core fans. It is unknown to even most strategy gamers, and as such needs all the marketing help it can get. I'm not saying that without a demo SC2 would flop miserably, but having a demo would certainly help out in getting buyers.

A demo is most certainly a must. If only from a marketing perspective. I'm one of those people who bought SC1 after being hooked on the demo with the absolute need to get more. I learned of SC1 from a gaming mag that gave a positive review, but other than that I didn't know much (read: anything) about the game. Without the demo I would have been a lot more hesitant about buying the full version - in fact, I doubt that without the demo I never would have made the decision to buy SC. I don't think I'm the only one who made the purchase decision after playing the demo, and since SC2 aims to attract a lot of new consumers and not just the old SC1 fans, not having a demo would be foolish.

The problem with such restricted pre-defined scripts is that people start to know them by heart sooner or later. Once you know that moving a unit to tile X causes something you don't want to happen, you obviously wont do it, and the whole point is lost. The diplomacy and strategy AI should be more unpredictable than that. It should base its actions on continuous situation assessment, from both the perspective of the whole alliance and from the perspective of each individual country. Events like peace deals and alliances, could be then be tied to certain requirements in the AI script instead of strict locations or player actions.

How much sub vs. sub action was there actually in reality?

Uh, how do you intend to do that?

I like Lars' and Edwin's idea on the use of submarine warfare as a factor on US entry best. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive with scripted events or means of diplomacy, though I see it as the more realistic choice. German subs attacking American convoys gave the White House a great propaganda tool to use in turning the people of America against Germany and to support war. So the more the Axis would use submarines on the Atlantic, the more they risk increasing US war entry. On the other hand, if they don't use subs to interdict the convoys, they risk UK (and to some extent the USSR) growing ever more stronger with its own merchant shipping and US lend-lease. This would of course require that the significance of the naval convoys is increased quite a bit - in SC1 submarine warfare is rarely worth the effort and with added risk of increasing US war entry it would become very unfavorable. The MPP loss from submarine raids would really have to hurt the UK player. With this system the Axis player would be forced to choose - or find a delicate balance - between restricting UK resource income and trying to keep USA out of the war as long as possible.

Whether or not to purchase a HQ should be up to the player/AI, it should not be pre-defined for any country. If the player wants to make the hefty investment to get a HQ for a minor nation, why shouldn't he be able to do that? Think of it as development of the army structures. Even if country X didn't in reality have a well organized army, that doesn't mean that they never could've had one. It just would take a lot of resources to do it, but that choice - ie. whether or not to invest in a HQ - should be up to the player.

Amen to what hellraiser said. MPPs are a great way to simulate the realities of warfare economics in an abstract manner. Much more than a more complicated, wannabe-realistic system such as proposed here to replace the well-working MPPs.

I'd rather have the honestly abstract MPP system than a more complicated system that tries to be what something it really can't be. I agree that the cities, harbors, oil fields and mines could have some very small strategic differences, but those would really have to be mostly cosmetical. The biggest problem with making the few resources significantly different is that then you'd have to add plenty of others as well in order to not to destroy gameplay and realism. While minerals and oil are important for warfare, even more crucial are for example food and manpower. How could you justify giving mines a more significant role while not having food production simulated at all? This is exactly the kind of problem I tried to portray with my Hearts of Iron example. Those resources are important, but they are not that important. Should Finland not be able to have tanks just because they don't have oil fields? Should Russia not be able to buy infantry units if Germany takes their coal mines? Should British units be cripples in mobility because they don't happen to have access to oil from on-map resources? I don't think so.

In a realistic war game I see two choices regarding economics and resources: either the system is totally abstracted, like in SC, or maxed up realistic, with dozens of resource types in a delicate balance, sort of like in Victoria. Anything in between is just foolish, since concentrating on just a few resources isn't realistic but it aint simple either. It would just add complexity. Look at Hearts of Iron for example; it has Oil, Steel, Rubber and Coal, and what's the result? The "realistic" resources mean that countries with other types of important resources than the four selected ones get nothing and are thus ahistorically crippled, while others are boosted. That or the resource types in question are abstracted to also model other resources than what their name implies, and then what's the point of having "realistic" resources in the first place? Since SC is an abstract game I would go with the abstract economics system as well.

While I wish a more intelligent, human-like AI (not a SkyNet, but more unlinear than the SC1 robot AI), I also think that maybe even a higher priority should be to make the AI more competent without such blatant cheating - though I think that by fulfilling the first wish well the second one would be fulfilled as well as a sort of a side effect. It is frustrating how in SC1 the AI clearly play without FOW. You can't surprise the AI with any maneuver. I understand that the human FOW can't be enforced for the AI, at least with very positive results, but the lack of FOW should be more on the background in the AI thinking. It should use it's all-seeing vision to draw the big lines, not to move individual units around like it now does in SC1.

I'm fully in support of giving all countries a chance to purchase at least one HQ unit. Your point is a very valid one however, and I have to agree with it. In order to not make the HQ units too common, their price could be balanced so that it would take great effort for minors to purchase them, but then again not impossible. Then you should carefully ponder whether or not investing in a HQ unit for a minor would be worth the cost.

I partly agree and partly disagree with you. On one hand a more realistic economic/resource system might improve gameplay, but on the other hand SC is by nature a very abstract game and thus such a system might not fit in. I also don't like the semi-realistic system you described where there are only a couple of main resources (be it oil, minerals and money or gold, wood and food) - it isn't really any more realistic but adds complexity. MPPs are at least a honest abstraction.

The spotting issue is easily dealt with by making the spotting non-foolproof. Ie. there should be a random chance of the air unit detecting each unit within its spotting range. This could be increased with tech. In fact, if I'm not totally mistaken Hubert had something like that in his plans already.

I meant that there should be a sub-AI linked to the country alignment routines, or if you wish, have the AI expanded so that it will continually assess the war situation (each country from its own view) and act accordingly diplomacy-wise. For example, after losing its European allies, the USA might still want to continue the war if it felt strong enough, but if the AI assessed that it had little chance of winning, it might offer surrender (or accept surrender more easily).