RobRas

I'll just add my voice to the choir: GREAT work Fantomas! So much easier on the eyes - a significant improvement. Thanks.

The problem with the graphics as I see it is that they sacrifice ease-of-reading for what I see as superficial chrome. I can - somewhat - understand why this is done but to me it degrades the playing experience. The graphics of SC1 were near perfect for me in their simplicity. I don't need to see snow on the counters in order to know that it's a winter turn or an Eiffel Tower in a hex...eh, tile..in order to know it's Paris. I know some players feel that things like these add to the flavor of the game and though I flatly disagree I obviously respect this. But fantomas' ideas about modding the counters to something more in the traditianl vein have moved the game from problably-not buy to probably-buy in my book.

fantomas - sounds great if you can make SC2 with classical wargame counters! I really liked the simple easy-to-read graphics in SC1 and I think it's too bad that SC2 doesn't include a top-down view with NATO-counters and simple map graphics.

Originally posted by Blashy: Thanks - this could be good news. I'll try the demo.

Hmmmm, too bad it won't run on my 950 MHz - probably those darn graphics demanding resources. And I even hate those graphics and would've preferred simple top-down counters.. Sorry, just me whining - I really had looked forward to see if there was a good game (which I expected) hidden underneath all those fancy toy soldiers.

Thanks, Terif. And I agree: It's very seldom a relevant problem during the game. It just bothers me somewhat when a computer game has rules, mechanics or calculations which can't readily be understood. But that's life Best regards, Robert

Hello I can't seem to grasp which units an HQ supports. I know the closest units are selected first but if more than five units are at the same distance from the HQ then what? I've tried to experiment whith placing 12 units at two hexes distance from an HQ in order to see which five would be supported - then removing units to see which ones would now be supported. But I just can't grasp the mechanics behind it. Can anyone help? Best regards, Robert

Yup, that would be really cool! True. But it would be nice to be able modify the start setup for the Russians - perhaps experimenting with their force composition as well.

Hmmm, too bad. But thanks anyway, Trapp

Hello Just on - probably stupid - question: Is it possible in the campaign editor to change the starting position of countries not yet activated? It seems to me that if you want for instance to improve the Russian setup in the campaign game you have to activate them first thereby having them participating in the war from 1939. I just wanted to change their setup for WHEN they joined. Thanks in advance Robert

Steve - wow, that was heavy. Allrigt, I (and others) have been labeled "anti-change", "reactionary", "highly vocal", "minority" and now "disrespectful" and "abusing". Basically for speaking our minds on a subject we care about. But I suppose I just misunderstood it when I thought that was the point of a forum. Fine, tiles it is. I believe it is a wrong decision but of course it's the designers' call. I hoped this decision perhaps could be changed but I was wrong. I wish you all the best luck with your SC2.

Thanks for weighing in, Hubert I will cross everything that can be crossed (and that's not a pretty sight) hoping for a Top-Down option.

They wayside sounds kinda nice. Just sitting there with a sixpack and some smokes. Thinking of what kind of game SC2 could have been

Elmo wrote: "There you go again Rob, with your "reactionary" "anti-change" attitude. Stop being part of the "highly vocal minority" and get with the SC2 program. Resistance is futile..." Sorry, Elmo. I just can't help being reactionary, anti-change and highly vocal. It's part of my nature

Les - I fully agree. No need for the US on the map. A couple of boxes keeping their units in would be fine. The Atlantic could've been represented by sea zones like in the old Clash of Steel. More realistic and more interesting giving naval warfare it's own flavor. An freeing a lot of hexes for land. But I certainly would like this Top-Down look and simple grahics as an option anyway

pzgndr - yep, to me it makes a huge difference. And I frankly still haven't heard an argument as to WHY Top-Down simple graphics isn't an option. I understand that they want to sell more games and a way to do this is to make the graphics all fancy and stuff. But why not at least making the Top-Down an option. Please. I'm all for all of the other changes - they sound great. It's too bad we have to use a lot of time on this debate. But the developers must have anticipated this. And as mentioned in another thread: When checking posts concerning what people wanted for SC2 little mention of isometric/tiles came up.

Shaka wrote: "Besides... I would think that all of us would appreciate the esthetics of snow covered vehicles and white uniforms in winter, khaki uniforms in the desert or even mud drenched uniforms". Nope, not me. I just want to play a game - not look at uniforms. Got books for that.

As a couple of posters noted in the Hexes/Tiles thread this discussion has been mixed up in the Isometric/Top-Down discussion. Or the other way around. I've been a part of this mixup myself and I therfore start this thread focusing on the isometric view. I've stated my position in other threads but in short I REALLY would like to have the option og a Top-Down look with simplified graphics (i.e. symbols for Cities, Ports etc. instead of the current icons) and NATO symbols. This has been done in earlier games (eg. Talonsoft's Eastern Front) so I suppose it could be done in SC2.

Bill101 - And Talonsoft Eastern Front games had the option of Top-Down view. Which I always used. I really hope that SC2 will have the same option.

Bill101 wrote: "I can't understand why some people's minds are so closed to new ideas". Tiles are not a new idea. Chess has tiles. Tactics 2 had tiles. It's an old idea. But I admit that my primary problem isn't the tiles - though I believe they are inferior to hexes - but the isometric view. If I could get Top-Down map and simple graphics I would be a lot happier. Furthermore even though I strongly suspect that it's way too late it is NOW that we can state our case and perhaps influence the decision. When the demo is out it's certainly too late.

Quote by KDG: "And counting tiles is difficult? If you can plan out all the moves in your head without clicking units, then I really think you can figure out how far a unit will move on the diagonal, don't you". Yup, counting tiles (with different movement rates for moving diagonally) is more difficult than counting hexes. At least it is for more. Especially when the board is isometric - if we had the Top-Down flat look it would be easier. KDG wrote: "If you do a search, Hubert answered these questions regarding SC1." I tried to find this and I found a thread where Hubert stated that Windows itself forced him to limit the size of the boards ie the number of columns and rows but I can seem to find the hex/tile discussion. I'll try again later. Steve wrote: "The main voice against the SC2's new system is, as I see it, the usual "anti-change". Every single game player group I have ever been a part in for the last 11 years of professional game development (wargame or otherwise) contains a certain highly vocal minority element which is reactionary and very much opposed to change. Especially fundamental change. They will invent 101 reasons why it is better to leave things as is, and doggedly defend each and every point no matter what the counter argument is. I am seeing plenty of this here whether the posters themselves see it or not". I'm one of those evil conservatives who just oppose change for fun with no arguments whatsoever. Just inventing a lot of reasons because I don't have anything else to do. Or could it possibly be that arguments could be raised for hexes? Or for a simple Top-Down board without all the fancy graphics? Oops, sorry. I'm opposing change again. Steve wrote: "If most people think it stinks, they keep their money and Hubert has to live on SPAM and generic soda until he makes a new and better game". True. But I don't doubt that fancy graphics and isometric maps sell more games. Me not buying it will easily be offset by someone else looking at the back of the box and going "Wow, look at that nice tank and the Eiffel Tower. I'm gonna buy this game".

Quote by KDG: "Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes. " True. But I need to estimate where all the unclicked units can move as well - at the same time. Easy to count hexes. Quote by roman uk: "The fact that the switch to tiles gives you map sizes up to 250x250 is by itself such a step foward that any other minor points (and they are truly minor) of debate between tiles/hexes are moot". I don't feel that a larger map necessarily makes a better game. A better game makes a better game. Antoher thing: I'm no programmer so I have to ask: How can it be that a map with hexes can't be made to 250x250? Why is that a problem?

In my view there are two sides to this debate: * Are tiles or hexes best to simulate the movement and placement of units and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each. I believe that hexes are best but I can accept tiles if I have to. I don't buy the stalemate argument though. To drastically change the format of the game board in order to adjust some simple game mechanics seems odd to me. A lot of other options could have solved or reduced that problem: Increased armor effectivenes, retreat rules, stacking, extra effectiveness for each attacking unit beyond the first etc. Furthermore a stalemate is possible in any game and stalemated fronts did occur for months in WW2. * The other discussion is the look of the game. I seriously dislike the look, I think isometric boards distorts the board making it much harder to estimate distances and placement of units. Especilly combined with all the fancy graphics of the counters and the board. Making it harder to recognize units and making it all look like some kind of diorama. I could live with tiles if I could get the Top-Down simple graphics look as an option. I can't help but suspect that the isometric tile-based board primarily has been chosen to accomodate the new graphics engine (though I may be wrong in this). Which means that in order to get some graphics I don't want or need I have to get a game based on tiles which I don't like. Not excactly a perfect situation But no biggie - it's just a game. I'll just keep SC1 and Clash of Steel and join Holyman in waiting for the perfect WW2 strategy game.

Another way of reducing stalemate situations would be to give bonuses to units beyond the first attacking a hex. Or even better: To introduce retreats

I'm still not sure as to WHY tiles were selected instead of hexes. True it will be easier to attack a given hex...sorry, tile...from more directions and yes, somtimes stalemates did happen in SC. But did it happen very often? Stalemates can obviously happen in any game - and some of the fronts in WW2 were stalemated for months. And true: Tiles make it possible to move in 8 directions from a well..tile. But is that an end in itself? I'm not against innovation and change - area movement and point-to-point movement are great additions to the movement schemes in strategy games. But using quadratic tiles seem to be to return to the old ways of Tactics and Tactics II.