Kelly's Heroes

Hehe. Funny you should mention it. Haven't you ever run into some "Exel" guy on those forums? I used to do a whole lot of modding for the game, and was even in the Beta dev team for a while doing the 1.06 patch. </font>

I will end this by repeating what I said at the end of our last discussion about this - you're happy (in 20 months), we're happy, heck even Matrix will be happy, things are working as they should. Martin </font>

HoI is a big success despite how buggy that game was at release. Despite HoI's problems, people still play it because they want a big strategy wargame to play. Just visit Paradox's forums and you'll see for yourself. SC2 looks to be far superior to hoI. Maybe SC won't reach a large target audience, but SC2 will. I have played wargames for a couple of decades now; played them all. I've been in business; seen what works and what has failed. And I am also aware of what people want today; they want a big strategy wargame like SC2. Why do you think Matrix is making UV, WiTP, WaW and EiA? Because people are tired of the RTS craze. Sometimes we need to think outside the box. . . Cheers!

Well, I'm not surprised that you disagree - heheh. Hey, it's your game; but my money. . . The reality is that SC2 won't be available to the general public in NA for 20 months. Meaning that a one year old game will arrive on retail shelves for the same price in 2005. Yes, it will be available via mail order, but again, MOST people will be unaware of this fact. Again, only a small niche crowd will be aware of this fact, thus limiting sales. The number one business rule is to get your product to the customer. Make it as easy as possible. Give it exposure; volume is the key. It is quite presumptuous of you to tell me that shipping and duty will not affect my buying decision, because I am telling you that it WILL affect my buying decision. This $35.00 game would cost me $70.00 or $80.00 Canadian with exchange/taxes/duty/shipping included. This goes beyond my game purchasing threshold, as it does for thousands of others. I would not advocate going retail for most wargames, because they appeal to a specific wargame crowd, such as TOAW, UV, etc. But SC2 is different - it offers WIDE appeal (which is what Hubert intended), such as HoI and Axis & Allies does, and you should cash in on that fact. Even most non-wargamers want to play a big strategy game that offers lots of decision-making. As I mentioned, the approach you are taking for marketing SC2, is simply the wrong approach. However, Matrix will be publishing WiTP in June and WaW later in the year (both games will be available at retail) and I will be buying them instead. Then, in October, 2005, when SC2 is fully patched, and when there are lots of scenarios to enjoy, I will buy that game at retail. Cheers! [ April 14, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

Take a look at any marketing/sales survey and you will see that the biggest profits earned by most retailers is at Christmas. This is when most people spend their money, including when they buy computer games. I would not advocate this approach for most wargames. However, SC2 is different. It offers wide appeal, similar to HoI and Axis & Allies. It is NOT a niche wargame, like UV or some of Tiller's wargames might be. Cheers!

IMHO this is a BIG mistake. It's not going to be released in NA for another 20 months! Surely, you jest. . . Well lucky Europe. . . This game could have very wide appeal for even non-wargamers. By limiting it only to on-line sales, you will cut your profits considerably. This game needs exposure. Since pre-Christmas retail sales are the largest than at any other time of the year, you will lose out on the impulse buyer as well. You have to think volume. Have you ever been in the computer games section of Walmart one month before Christmas? It is literally lined with customers tripping over themselves eager to part with their money. You really need to re-think your marketing strategy. . . I would have bought this game the second it came to retail. Knowing this, you won't get my money for another 20 months (and by that time it will be reduced in price). While you might pocket more money via on-line sales, as a Canadian, I am out of pocket a lot of money just because of shipping and duty costs. This is yet another example of why wargames remain relatively unknown among the general population, and why they will remain a niche product. . . I'm still shaking my head over this decision. . . [ April 14, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

I'm curious what the computer system requirements will be for this game. Any idea?

Maybe have arty be researchable, but not have it as a separate unit. Instead, it could be used as an attachment to an army or corps unit. You would have to pay to upgrade that unit with the arty. When the upgrade is done, a small "+" could be added to the counter, signifying it has arty support. The same could be done for heavy armour. All armour could be medium tanks, but you could add heavy armour units to supplement the medium tanks. Cheers!

I would suggest $39.95 Canadian. This game looks to have wide appeal. Capture not only the wargamers, but also strategy fans everywhere, especially the HoI, Axis & Allies, Civ II fanes, etc. To maximize profits the game should be released in retail in Canada at the same time as the USA just before Christmas. Personally, I have dial-up, so I would rather purchase the game on CD with a manual. Cheers!

New units should only be available from certain "supply" hexes located in the rear. They must then be brought up to the front. New units should not be able to be initially placed at any city at the front.

Personally, I like everything about the new look for SC2. This is one wargame that will be fully customizable. I am sure there will be someone who will produce icons for the board game folks. I think there will be something here for everyone. Even non-wargamers will want to play this game. My hat is off to Hubert for taking this bold step. New ideas are needed to be injected into the wargame genre to get more people interested. This should have wide appeal.

1 & 3 - VERY extensive editor capabilities. Pretty much everything. Combat tables, terrain tables, resource values, etc. Just look at the screenshots to get an idea. :cool: 2 - TBD. But pretty much everything will be scripted with a text editor so you'll be able to see and tweak everything. Siberian Transfer, Vichy France, etc. Not sure what format will be used or how much randomness can be introduced, but think SC1 and go from there. 4 - Yes! You can create new maps and entirely new games. So you can adjust unit movement values (AP) to match whatever scale you want and change data. :cool: 5 - Not sure. Hubert will have to comment. Don't expect to deviate too much from the established WWII unit types and research categories. But given the rather extensive scope of the editor, you can probably make reasonable adjustments - like substituting Tank Groups for Cavalry for instance. Don't know. We'll have to wait and find out. </font>

Well, I must say that this must be one of the first wargames to have all these editors included. How in-depth will these editors be? What type of events can be scripted? What unit values can be modified? Can a whole new map be created? Can new units be created/imported? I have a lot of questions, but these are good for a start. Cheers!

This what I am talking about Great news. I like the new features. When it comes out, get it into the stores ASAP - should be a big seller before Christmas. Walmart anyone? Just a few questions: 1) What are the computer system requirements for the game? 2) Will the unit bases be able to be toggled off? 3) Will the game be hex-based vs the current four-sided hex we now see? Bravo!

Good idea. Taken further: Have two options for FoW: 1) FoW for human and AI 2) FoW for human but NOT for AI. Option #2 would allow for more challenge. Cheers!

But it can also be a very simple, elegant system. CivII from 1996 (a complex game) used "IF, THEN" events, and users could produce quite challenging games. This type of event system can be very useful if used properly. Here are a few simple event commands from Civ II: @IF UNITKILLED unit=PzKw IV-H Panzer attacker=Soviets defender=Germans @THEN CREATEUNIT unit=StuG IIIG owner=Germans veteran=yes homecity=None locations 11,89 4,80 5,101 6,94 endlocations @ENDIF @IF RECEIVEDTECHNOLOGY technology=65 receiver=Germans @THEN CREATEUNIT unit=Volkssturm w/Pzfst owner=Germans veteran=yes homecity=None locations 16,96 15,75 14,98 11,103 7,123 7,115 6,94 4,108 1,117 endlocations @ENDIF @IF UNITKILLED unit=Slave Labor attacker=Soviets defender=Germans @THEN TEXT ^The advancing Red Army liberates a Slave Labor camp run by the Germans. ^International monetary backing for the Soviet war effort increases. ENDTEXT CHANGEMONEY receiver=Soviets amount=500 @ENDIF Cheers! [ April 09, 2004, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

Good Ideas Another method would be to have a simple event editor, with simple "IF, THEN" commands. Just using a method like this can make for a very challenging game against the AI. I often wonder why wargames do not use this type of system? Cheers!

US Industrial production should definitely be increased. After US enters the war, US MPPs might be increased by 5 MPPs per turn: 150, 155, 160, etc. . .

Hi Actually, I'm not advocating stacking or dividing units, etc. I would like to see medium tank groups as a purchase item along with heavy tanks. The medium tanks would be cheaper, and countries would be allowed to have more of them vs the heavy tank groups. Their stats would reflect their size, weight and firepower. I would also like to see DDs as a purchase unit as well. This keeps things simple and straight forward. I don't want to change the game; only add to the gameplay, strategy and historical feel of the game.

Agree. All of this could be done quite easily in the campaign editor. It would keep SC easy to play, but would add more strategy and planning, and allow the game to play more along historical lines. That is also why I would like to see medium and heavy tank groups. In the real war, heavy tank production for Germany was limited; so it relied more and more on mass producing the Pz-IV/Hetzer/StuG variants (although this was done a bit too late in the war). Medium tank groups would be cheaper than heavy tank groups, and Germany would be allowed to build more of them. Cheers!

1) Manpower per nation (at least the majors) would be easy to work out. HoI has already done all the work in that regard. Besides there are lots of tables that list the size of all the nations' armies. The editor could be improved to allow the player to adjust manpower size. This will be important to control the size of a nation's military. It would certainly add another level of strategy to the game. 2) Research for the Allies: It's not a total dead end. Britain won't be able to do much research. However, when the USA joins the war it should be able to receive more MPPs per turn (or month) to reflect its industrial production (this is an improvement I would like to see). Say in dec 1941, it gets 150 MPPs. Next turn it gets 155 MPPs, and so on until it reaches an upper limit of say 300 or 400 MPPs per turn. Since Britain is an Ally, the USA should be able to give Britain some of those MPPs (as part of Lend Lease) to allow it to build more military units and do research. These things could make SC2 play along historical lines. Cheers!

I think it would be interesting to have some randomness in research. And there should be ways to improve the possibility of getting that research completed. For example: If SC uses dice to predict outcome of research, then: You have the possibility of buying 5 dice, which increases the chances of getting the discovery: 1 Dice - cost 100 MPP = 10% chance of discovery 2 Dice - cost 200 MPP = 25% chance of discovery 3 Dice - cost 300 MPP = 40% chance of discovery 4 Dice - cost 400 MPP = 50% chance of discovery 5 Dice - cost 500 MPP = 60% chance of discovery As to the Allies sharing tech. I'm wondering if it might be easier if America shared its MPPs (production) with Britain. In this way Britain could pursue its own specific research. [ April 01, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

True. War brings out the worst in human nature. There are exceptions in all armies. However, many historians and military authorities all agree that the Japanese military was simply more barbaric or cruel on so many levels. For example: Allied POWs suffered a 2% death rate in German prison camps. However, Allied POWs suffered a whopping 37% death rate in Japanese prison camps. In addition, there was a Japanese Gov't order to kill all 100,000 Allied POWs after September 15, 1945. [ March 31, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

I think many ideas listed here could be solved by including an improved Campaign editor: 1) The ability to set country military limits on unit types; 2) The ability to set MPPs for each year of the war for the six major countries; 3) The ability to set the number of techs available and required MPPs per tech level; 4) The ability to set unit movement rates; etc, etc. . . Plus, when units have low readiness, a small red dot could appear on a unit's icon whenever readiness falls below 50%. This would give the player a quick visual of the status of his units without having to click on every icon.

I agree with you Les. Research was was/is never a sure thing. In Atomic research both the Germans and Japanese often went down the wrong roads. Heck, even Axis and Allies has a random chance that research won't lead to a discovery. For example, it takes the rolling of two six's in order to achieve the Long Range Bomber tech. If the player doesn't roll two six's, then it's good-bye to the MPPs that were spent on it.