Exel

So what you are saying is that people actually form their opinions on a case-by-case basis instead of just being pro- or anti-everything? Well, let me tell you something; that only shows that people think, and that's how it is supposed to be. FYI, open minded does not mean accepting everything new as it is. And just because you assess something and decide to object it doesn't make you an anti-change person. Even if it's just your personal preference without any arguments as its base. I have yet to bump into a single anti-change conservative on these forums. People who object tiles or the isometric view here do so because they sincerely believe that they are inferior to hexes and a top-down view. They have every right to their opinion without being bashed as conservatives objecting all change. I find your comments about arrogancy and reactionism offensive towards everyone who is contributing to this debate but doesn't happen to agree with you. Is it so hard to argue without attacking opinions on a personal level? [ April 21, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

I definitely prefer a top-down view. It beats isometric 10-0 in clarity. Isometric view is already done, so no reason to remove it, but I'd hope for an option to switch to a top-down view, as in SC1. [ April 21, 2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

Why does everyone who objects to a certain change get always flamed "anti-change", as Steve put it? The people who prefer hexes over tiles have good arguments, they don't support hexes just because they are conservative. Unless you haven't noticed, quite a few of the hex-supporters (including me) have made numerous improvement and new-feature suggestions in the other threads. The thing is, like I said in my previous post, that "new" does not always equal "good", and changing something just for the sake of changing it is not any more reasonable than objecting change just for the sake of objecting it. Let's not ruin this great debate by flaming each other by such mundane claims. Secondly, please stop using Civ3 and others as examples for pro-tile and pro-isometric arguments. It is a totally different kind of game, and is thus non-comparable to SC. Just because 1st-person 3D view works in Battlefield 1942 doesn't mean it would work in SC2. Great! We agree on something as very fundamental as this! Mhm. *nods* Yes, but increasing the value and usefulness of tanks as breakthrough units negate the need of increased number of attack directions in the first place. And I would still argue than 2-1 attack on a straight front is more realistic than 3-1. And being able to attack one unit from 6 directions on a continuous front can really be a game-breaker - this really needs some thought. In SC1 you could get 6-1 situations only if you had surrounded a single unit, but in SC2 such situations could apparently happen in any and every slightest wedge or bulge formed into a continuous front line. Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes.</font>

Aanyway, I'll begin with responding to some of your arguments. One could argue that 3 units being able to attack 1 on a straight front line isn't very realistic. Also, having more attack directions into one tile may actually make breakthrough harder, since any bulge or wedge formed in the line will immediately cause your front units in the breakthrough point to be hammered from up to 6 directions - even when your line is continuous. Hex maps with sizes up to (or more than) 250x250 do exist in other games, so don't tell me it's not possible. Is it really the fault of hexes, or would it be programming instead? Okay, making maps with tiles may be easier than with hexes, I give you that, but hexes on the other hand allow more natural and real looking maps. Just compare the shapes of certain land masses or borders in SC1 and SC2. Albania is my favorite example: In SC1 it is decently close to its real-life counterpart - at least it faintly reminds of it - but in SC2 it's only a four-tile square. It may only be aesthetical, but it sure affects my immersion to the game. And on the other hand, if aesthetics didn't matter, we might just as well have black and white vector graphics or ASCII. Now, actual arguments for hexes: - Superior clarity regarding movement and distance estimations and frontline integrity (though isometric view is a bigger factor here). - Equal movement to all directions. Tiles have the annoying diagonal movement issue, that can't be solved in a fully satisfying manner; the movement will never be exactly equal, and the solutions result in fractional or immensely multiplied action points. Again, hexes beat tiles in simplicity and clarity. - With hexes you don't need any zone of control rules unlike with tiles. - The looks: Hexes simply look better, less angular and blocky. Front lines run more fluently. It all results from the simple fact that a hex is closer to a circle than a square is. It just looks more natural. - A hex is of a superior shape. Even the bees agree with me. We should learn from the nature!

No, but through two, three or maybe even four hexes, just like you have to do in Italy. But the end result isn't the same. Unless you count liberation of France and Axis surrender as the end result. Having to fight for the beach head and for the success of the invasion makes things a lot more interesting - or would make. Knowing that only one turn later your entire army is ashore and suddenly occupying a decent slice of France really isn't something that does it for me. [ April 20, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

I agree with this whole-heartedly. Having made some comparison between the screenies and SC1, I've been convinced about the superior clarity provided by the latter. Tiles versus hexes don't matter much in that debate, but an isometric view does - it's quite simply inferior. I also noticed the same thing with the icons, SC1's simple plates being much clearer making it easier to form a picture of the situation, but otoh we should remember that the SC2 graphics are just a wip and probably subject to improvement. At least I hope so.

I see your point pzgndr, but still... Morale as an actual combat modifier, while similar to experience, would be different in a number of ways. First, it wouldn't depend on the number of combats fought, nor would it reduce with reinforcement and it would possibly be the same for all units. Its effects would also be less obvious and perhaps, in general, milder than those of experience, but they would shape the long term results of war. That would also give different countries their own characteristics, which I think would add to the immersion and gameplay.

Sorry KDG, but again I must jump at your comments. The pro-hex side has given more arguments for hexes and against tiles than the tile supporters have given reasons to move to tiles. Most frequent supportive arguments for tiles have been "why stick with the old hexes, let's try something new; tiles!" and "tiles have 8 movement directions, hexes only 2." First, "new" doesn't always equal "better". There is often a reason why something has become standard or traditional, and that applies to hexes - simply put, they work well. Second, the numerous advantages of hexes outweight the fact that they have 2 less movement directions than tiles do, in my opinion. I'm also sure that the problem with map size can be solved without abandoning hexes (what magical limit causes it anyway?). And finally, the "stagnating front with hexes argument"; there surely are other means of solving the issue than moving to tiles and allowing more units to attack the same target - namely increasing the importance of armored units as the breakthrough units they historically were. WW2 would have been the same trench war as WW1 if it wasn't for tanks. In SC1 tanks are subpar with their historical capabilities and by fixing that you would fix the front problem without having to move to tiles. [ April 20, 2004, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

Did it, really? Somehow it's just too much for me to see the Allies land their whole army at once along the entire French coastline. It just aint right.

And why's that? I think it would be better that way, with post-surrender partisans on too for USSR. It's ridicilous how in SC1 you don't have to leave any garrison troops to the east once the surrender has triggered and can throw everything at the west. Not very realistic.

If the Malta effect requires and air unit to be based there, doesn't it make the island pretty vulnerable with the new invasion system? An air unit can't hold against an amphibious invasion on its own, nor are the fortifications any good if you don't have ground troops present. Unless, of course, you can base both air and land unit on the isle, but I doubt that.

For the love of god (which ever of the many you believe in), do NOT make manual airfield construction. That'd be a major pain in the butt. We should cherish the easy playability of SC1 and that means no micromanagement.

Well it should. :/ It's not only poor morale that is a factor in real combat, like in the case of Italy, but exceptionally high morale as well, as in the case of Finland. The way I see it, morale and experience should be about equally important, adding up with or negating, while not directly effecting each other.

But can morale give a boost to readiness and/or combat stats if it goes exceptionally high? This is the crucial part, since that would really make the combat engine more life-like and it could have a great effect in certain game situations like in the defence of Moscow and Stalingrad, defensive battles in Finland and in the case of successful Sealion. I don't know about your plans, but I'd suggest making the morale system similar to experience. Except that it wouldn't be directly related to the number of battles fought and it wouldn't decrease (at least not much) with reinforcing. The importance of morale in wars is often underrated, and too many games ignore it completely. A great example of successful implementation of morale (though on tactical level) can be found in the Close Combat series - I'd hope to see something similar more often in games. [ April 19, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

At least no ZOC rules for naval combat I say.

Are some troop morale modifiers going to be included in SC2? I think they definitely should, since they had a great impact on the results of the fighting as well as the final outcome of the war. In some cases morale clearly had a more significant effect than equipment, training or sheer numbers did. Let's take some examples. First, as is universally known, the Italian war success war very poor, and it is quite widely agreed that, despite their poor equipment on some branches, the primary reason for that was the poor morale of their troops. The Brits who fought them in Africa had a lot better motivation and were able to beat them even when outgunned and outnumbered. On the other hand, when Italy changed sides some of the Italian units demonstrated great fighting spirit when fighting against the Germans in northern Italy. A quite similar example is Soviet Union, which fared poorly against the Finns in Winter War as they lacked all motivation for the task, but later proved to be fierce fighters when defending their homes against Axis invaders. Finland on the other hand was able to resist overwhelming Soviet offensives in both 1939 and 1944, and there's no doubt the primary reason for that was great morale. So please tell me you have plans to include morale as a combat modifier in SC.

One more thing about tiles: they make the map look awfully blocky. Hexes make an overall nicer looking map with less angular country borders. And it's not just about esthetics, but realism too. Just look at Albania for example, and compare the screenies of SC2 (where it is a square of four tiles) to SC1. I wouldn't like to rant about the issue so much, but I just think that hexes would have been a better choice - hopefully changing back is still an option.

How about returning to the original subject of amphibious invasions? I like Hubert's plans for refining operational movement though.

You are barking at the wrong tree. Rommel was the commander of the Afrika Korps, but it wasn't his decision to go there in the first place. Generals do what their superiors tell them to do. Blaming Rommel for going to Africa is like praising Patton for Normandy.

Well it wont be much with just a couple of guys, but the whole point is to get lot if people involved. Of course, I can't promise that it'd be 100% serious meaningful conversation, but usually interesting subjects do arise from the chatter occasionally.

Let's add a new dimension to this community - IRC. Real time discussions and intense debates both on and off topic, setting up mp games, adoring Battlefront and Fury Soft, good comradeship and a heck of a lot of fun! So, without any further blaahblaahs, I shall announce Strategic Command's very own irc channel, where everyone is wellcome. Join #stratcom in QuakeNet! For those of you who don't know about irc, go find out about it at http://www.mirc.com and download the most revolutionary communications software ever invented since email and join the rest of us.

Let's add a new dimension to this community - IRC. Real time discussions and intense debates both on and off topic, setting up mp games, adoring Battlefront and Fury Soft, good comradeship and a heck of a lot of fun! So, without any further blaahblaahs, I shall announce Strategic Command's very own irc channel, where everyone is wellcome. Join #stratcom in QuakeNet! For those of you who don't know about irc, go find out about it at http://www.mirc.com and download the most revolutionary communications software ever invented since email and join the rest of us.

I don't know about anything else, but if Germany occupies Iceland, the lend-lease shipments from USA to USSR should be stopped or seriously hampered.

I think a better solution to imperfect spotting, rather than making it manually operated, would be to calculate each units spotting by some formula containing a random element for each turn separately. That way you'd have no additional micromanagement but there would still be a hazy FOW.

I just hope HC wont count too much on the flexibility and moddability of his creation as to let the players do the final balancing for their "personalized" game. We are still expecting to get a finished product that doesn't require any user modifications. And if there will be some issues in the initial release versions, the proper reaction should be "we'll fix it in a patch" and not "you can edit it right yourself". Don't get me wrong, all this editability is great, but it should be treated as a "bonus" instead of a built-in feature to the game itself.