Keegan

Sigh. Look, I'm not here to fight. Though God, I do love to. I would just like to offer some distinct and very viable observations on the conduct of this game. That's all. Honest. That's all.

Well, you sound very reasonable, Seamonkey. (Jaezus, how can I take a name like 'Seamonkey' very reasonably? But I will let that slide.) Still, you have yet to explain this: Honestly, it's a bit difficult to understand without a more substantial explanation. Yes, I know you've offered this: The drawbacks and insufficiencies of CM are well known, so why don't you address them directly here? Or are you just trying to set up a Strawman for your defense of the Orthagonal Grid in SC2? Please stop it, now, because you won't get away with it. Because you have offered no real advantages for it, nor any reason why it should be any better than its previous plan view, imposed hexagonal grid. In any case, what you have said sounds like bullsh!t, doesn't it? So, go on...show me why this is the case? This is entirely free of market considerations. Just show me why your isometric view with its little figurines is somehow better. And then I will show you how it is not, at least not necessarily so. Oh, you are so owned.

rambo: I assume you'd like your name in lc. Your point, being?

Sea Monkey...what on earth are you talking about? What camera manipulation exists in SC1, and even if it does, for what purpose? In CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK, the camera manipulation is vital to the fun and appreciation of the game, and while it's not quite up to par with air sims like Il-2 Forgotten Battles or Battle of Britain 2, it's still very good. On the other hand, SC1 is a strategic wargame, entirely concerned with strategic considerations. I think you had better show me a critical example of camera consideration, such as the contributor above has done do demonstrate its lame characteristic. Can you do such a thing? I am just so completely flummoxed by such a response that I do--not--know--what to say. No, I have never played TOAW, but judging from Kroger's 'Tanks!' it wasn't something that I missed too much. At the time I was really too busy playing Grigsby's games, and later, when I really picked up on the amazing renaissance of the wargame, through V4V's stuff and then Tiller, it was pretty irrelevant. Maybe I will pick up the original, but I seriously doubt it will challenge 'Panzer Campaigns' in its role as the heir to SPI's operational series. I play a lot of Tiller's Panzer Campaigns series right now, and don't think it's entirely satisfactory either, except in a very broad sense of adherence to the way it carries forth the presentation of the division begun in SPI's 'Wacht am Rhein.' I have checked out the preliminary on Panther's 'Airborne Assault' and I'm downloading the demo now...THAT's what I'm looking for, new games that challenge that box that I knew. However, I should also reply that while I've not played Total Art of War, I have his 'Tanks!' and found it pretty lame. Actually, I've played so many wargames, both on paper and on the CPU, that it's getting pretty hard to remember all of their salient features. I played some game that was tactical in nature, maybe it was 'Close Combat?' that detailed the movement of an infantry squad so closely that it was just dull as hell. I do, however, remember some aspects of games like SPI's 'Next War, like precisely the right sequence to apply NATO airpower in the air superiority phase. So, you say, 'Get over it.' Well, I may, if the game is good. But I've never found a square grid game to be good. Lump it. It's just like one's taste for broccoli. Either you have it, or you don't, and no point arguing about it. So, I'm way over it. But that doesn't mean that I will like it, nor will many other wargamers. Some might. That won't make it the overwhelming success that SC1 has been, and that's all I have said. It looks like Tactics II all over again, as the contributor above so sharply pointed out. Edited and BTW: This Panther game had better not be a RTS thing, like those bull**** mouse pointer, build, shoot, construct things, short of the vision of Paradox or even TW, or I will so savage you here. I'm downloading the demo now. [ January 08, 2006, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Keegan ]

Furthermore, do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, or are you just an ignorant jackass? One more reply like this, and I will report it to those who maintain this board. This is, as I said, a place for intelligent discussion of a technological nature, and not for a brawl. Look, I've had brawls, and I'm not here for that. Though I'm at your service, fnckhead.

Rambo, serious regarding--what? And kissing the neck of Kuni, what do you mean by that? Are you a queer or something, to read such a thing into our exchange of posts, which are entirely my first here? It sure sounds that way.

LOL, BL, I think I like you. You have some cock. Kuni y JJ can't help you, and I guess I don't understand the argument to begin with, which I think is bull**** in a technical forum like this. Yes, it's a technical forum, just like the ones that applied to my profession before I retired, where relevant posts are precisely applied, and those inappropriate or, better yet, aside the point, should be cast away. Do you understand me? It is pointless, here, to aattack the contributor in any way, except by what he has suggested and said. There are other places for you to do that, and I have been there. But here, our motives should remain pure, and entirely aside from whatever makes you dislike someone else; or, conversely, like them. So, having said that, what do you think of a square, orthagonal grid, from the point of view of a wargamer? That would be responding to my post. Further, don't you think that a real-time, real-map, real-force game would be possible, with the inclusion of a zoom-time compression battle resolution? This is really, the big question. I guess that those others have already been asked. Don't piss off at others like a little girl. We have more serious things to discuss.

Now, that was an intelligent comment. I once heard a story about a guy that got (so he said) an entire battalion of good infantry blown to hell by a single 550kg bomb from a lone Stuka...bad time for a group hug? Of course, none of us veteran wargamers would deploy so stupidly...

Hey, Beginner's Luck, why don't you respond to the substantive issues I have posted, instead of being a pissy girl? I've had quite enough of your whining, and while I won't buy into the kind of flame war you have promoted, I don't mind saying that this is quite enough. You're all blow and no bite. Fish or cut bait. Respond to my post or STFU.

I wonder if vertical deployment from the start line down, rather from lateral map edge to map edge might not be more pleasing and at least a compromise to all concerned, especially if it could be arranged at the center of the start line rather than at one corner of the map. Of course, this takes no account of the difficulty in doing so in terms of writing code. I guess I'm not inclined to view the current initial setup as intolerable, even if I don't like it very much.

LOL! You can tilt the chessboard, look at it way down low, but it's still parallel and diagonal....

I, too, would rather see companies arranged in 'blocks' at the start up, instead of 'lateral parade order.' I don't know about others, but set I up exactly as Petark described, above: First, I take the units out of 'lateral parade order,' i.e. x=squad, X=leader, or xxxXxxxX, etc, allowing for the placement of vehicles outside of prohibited zones, and rearrange them by 'company block,' i.e: platoon 1 xxxX platoon2 xxxX platoon3 xxxX Company leader Company assets (MG platoons, transport, organized by type.) Edit: (After that, I deploy them into a battle line, when I have a good grasp of their situation, assets or deficits, organization, and capabilities.) Sorry I didn't make that clear earlier. I thought it was an obvious point. Still, once I understood the CM system of lateral deployment, it isn't that big of a problem. It's time consuming, but not really any major brain damage. [ January 08, 2006, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Keegan ]

I expect you're right, Kuniworth, though I'm not at all familiar with his name--can you fill me in on his work? I'm afraid that my most recent designer awareness is John Tiller, and although I know Kroger from his early SSI work, I never played 'OAoW,' so I can't comment on that. I don't even know the names of the guys that developed Combat Mission, or HoI for that matter, although I keep a close eye on Paradox. It's just that, regarding the grid thing, it has always bothered me, and that goes back to Avalon Hill's original efforts, 'Gettysburg', and 'Tactics II', and what a revelation it was when I first saw the hexagonal grid when I got 'Stalingrad.' There is no doubt that I will buy this new version of SC, although I might wait to look at a few reviews, first, or a demo, or play a few turns with a friend. Nor do I expect that its development will change its course because of my reservations. Now that I think of it, excepting bad tech problems, I have rarely seem a wargame that wasn't improved in its reiterations. The only notable instance I can think of is Microprose's M1 Tank Platoon II, and although that was a good game, and an improvement over the original, it was just too full of bugs to play, even patched. Still, I would be interested in hearing a well reasoned defense of the use of a square grid in SC2.

Well, hell, that's one good reason to post on forums--I didn't even know that Grigsby had a software company, so I'll check that out. So, the 90 degree grid in SC2 doesn't bother you?

P.S. forgot to mention--WiR upgrade in 2007? Drool. New engine, or just another Matrix team revision?

Many times, and the reason I haven't purchased his War in the Pacific is because his earlier Pacific War stands up just fine to what I've seen of that--again reinforcing my point that the necessary and sufficient standard for a good wargame is conceptual and not graphic, although I know that it goes a bit further in its scope. I played Grigsby's East Front on my old Amiga in the early nineties, found War in Russia and actually got to play a few games against some of my old board wargame opponents, and now have played Matrix's upgrade a few times. Figuring the unit 'plot' was great--one of my opponents called it, 'The Dance.'

I am tied to the keyboard and monitor farther above my waistline. I'll post if interesting discussions about wargaming develop. BTW, let me make one thing clear, Battlefront's Combat Mission series is THE greatest presentation of tactical combat thus far. I hope they do a good job on the new engine. SC1 is similarly superb, for what it does, with the caveats I mentioned above. I should have mentioned Grigsby's elegant earlier games as well as V4V's stuff, both based on simultaneous move resolution, but it was getting overlong as it was.

Well, I'm newb to the Battlefront forums (but not to wargaming) so how about this: I think that the decision to make SC2 an orthagonal/isometric grid view game with modeled figures (ala Civilization II/III) is a BIG mistake. Look, I'm not averse to eye candy, but I am not really very fond of such toys as Axis and Allies, (not to mention the Civ series itself) and while I am certain that the new product is to be a great deal more sophisticated than such a thing, at this point it looks to me as though I will prefer the original to its improvement. Quite aside from its limitations in terrain modeling, such as coast, road, and river lines, an orthagonal grid imposes an inherent distortion upon movement and maneuver that is much better served by the traditional six sided hex grid. I don't object to its use in the Combat Mission series, although it is a frustrating thing to use when desigining new maps, because the unit maneuver across its surface is not limited to the grid's parallel and diagonal directions, i.e. the unit itself is not 'centered' in the grid cell, as presumably it will be in SC2. Since I have seen these other products discussed here, I assume that it is permissable to bring them up in the course of discussion. I am referring to HoI2, 3R, and World at War: 1st Blitzkrieg. None of these are broadly comparable to one another, except perhaps 3R to SC; each has features that makes them unique. For me, SC's great advantage over 3R is that it is easily playable. I played a great deal of 3R in its paper and cardboard format, and had a great time with it. However, I found its digital version nearly incomprehensible, and very difficult to play. SC, on the other hand, is perhaps a little too easy to play, and some further complexity is desired, perhaps a somewhat larger map, with perhaps some rudimentary rail lines, and further unit differentiation--airborne divisions, mechanized/armored infantry, and mountain divisions. A more interesting system of national economies/industrial base and technology tree would be good, too. WaW: 1st Blitzkrieg fulfills the aching need within the wargaming community for a substitute for SPI's WiE. It looks as though they have a clear vision of what they intend to accomplish, and although I somewhat resent its 'staged' presentation along the lines of GDW's old paper and cardboard 'Europa' I can appreciate the necessity for that in view of the changing nature of the WWII battlefield and its OOBs, and the difficulty of presenting such a thing in a comprehensive whole as SPI did, so beautifully, with WiE. HoI2 is a different case in point. Its global and area movement concept, along with a beautifully conceived movement/combat/technology system takes it light years beyond the kinds of simplistic game mechanisms the Total War and Civilization systems (not to mention the much despised Axis and Allies) represent. As I played HoI2, I wondered, why did they not go the next step, which is to eliminate the grid or area itself, and present the conflict in real time on modeled terrain, derived from a map itself? Just a thought, but I think that the PC has advanced to such a degree that such a thing is possible. If those air sim guys can come up with something so evolved in 3D as Pacific Air War, then why not on a 2D surface with more complex units, perhaps even a zoom-macro method of battle resolution, much as Combat Mission Campaigns seems to promise? Just a thought. I wouldn't consider such a thing on the global scale, but ETO might be within the realm of possibility. What the hell, I'm retired, I'd have the time to play it. OK, I've rambled, but my main point is that SC2 should stick with what it does well in the realm of a playable, small scale presentation of the ETO, and that it should merely improve on it in very small increments, and not attempt to be another Civ IV. Just my .02--does this satisfy your requirements?