Ike99

Yes Churchill said this but Churchill was wrong. The UK was never even close to being forced out of the war by U-boats. Here is a link to 2 really good books on the subject. I own both sets, a bit of a dry read but nonetheless entertaining and informative. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394588398/103-6537656-8963007?v=glance&n=283155 You can also do some searching for British import statistical charts as the war went along and find good info also. England was never close to being forced out of the war. I'm a German U-boat fan too and love reading about Prien & U-47 and all those guys, but in truth they never even came close to cutting England off.

Or until the people here on the forum formed a lynch mob and went to HC's house and demanded the game.

Well to me it looks like a pile of mashed potatos more than assclouds. But my understanding is all these graphics are editable. My suggestion would be to use the standard Infantry and add an airborne symbol to the base. You know, the two wings with the parachute in between them. Put that down there somewhere near their legs on the base. Thats not a big problem.

Wow! 45$!! What happened to 30 something? I guess a small, one man operation can still translate in large, multi-man prices. je je.

I love TOAW! Lot of meat on those old, slow bones. But, I'm probably old and slow too. Never played HttR. Everyone I've heard comment on it says it is good though.

Very nice attempt at whitewash but if pictures speak a 1000 words, whats this one saying.....?

Yeah that air battle really hurt Edwin. Figured my boys would do better.

Well I'm not sure and one of these veteran players can correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's this.... After France falls, the axis take malta, they go from there and knock out Vichy in Africa and mainland Vich France at same time. At some point during this they have gotten Norway usually and go over and grab Sweden too. After all this they can go into Spain and Portugal. Meanwhile Britian is alone and the US and USSR stay neutral during all this. After all is said and done by the time the US and USSR enter the game germany is economicly stronger than the allies and more advanced in tech. Axis victory 90% of the time. I think thats about it because my first few games all my opponents were doing the same things, the things described above. It's plain, it's boring, It's too A-historical, I don't like it, for me it's no fun to do this. Thats why I made my 39' scenario, take away the gambits and give Germany a decent chance at winning without going all outa control using cookie cutter. When I play the default 39' scenario I do the best I can and when I see I can't get victory I fight for the draw. I frustrate the hell out of my opponents by denying them victory because they all expected to get it when they see I never used cookie cutter. If i get the draw thats my personal victory -I think I described the cookie cutter correctly, right guys?

Hmmmm...I'm not sure Kuni but I think this is an example of what Hubert is talking about!

Hubert, after the release of SC2 and you take a break from all the work, do you see yourself revisiting SC1 again for any final tweaks to the original? I'm not meaning like a month or 6 weeks after SC2's release but like 6 months or a year down the road. If you do see yourself revisiting SC1 one last time maybe the others can sound off on any tweaks to the game they would like that wouldn't be too time consuming for you to program in. I've seen some threads about airforce dominance for example and maybe someone has an idea on that. But anyway, do you see yourself in a year or so touching on SC1 again in some way?

all we are saying.....is give peace a chance...EVERYBODY NOW....all we are saying.....is give peace a chance... No but santa bear is probably right, probably just boredom, SC2 pre-release tension.

Well now...ya know as I read all the ideas expressed above such as... Honor, Nobility, putting it all on the line for the freedom of others, self sacrifice and such... I thought I heard a drum beating faintly and a violin playing softly in E-minor, I admit I had to wipe away a tear. After wiping the tear from my eye I heard another sound, the sound of screaching breaks and then a collision with broken glass and twisted metal. It was reality breaking through this idealistic cloud of... Honor, Nobility, putting it all on the line for the freedom of others, self sacrifice and such... I really wish you guys were right and I mean that. As individuals this is probably true in most cases based upon the information the individual has been given. I've never heard any soldier say "Well, were going to war to steal the resources and enforce our political system on the population of this other country." While nobility and the other ideas mentioned above may be the driving factor of the soldier for better or worse it is certainly not the driving factor of the collective. After seeing the World get together after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 91' to stop an aggressor as a collective, UN force I thought maybe the world had turned a corner here. This was certainly honorable but after the pullout in Solmalia, the outright genocide in Rawanda as all of us watched along with others atrocities, I think it was mere coincidence. I ask you this.... Where was the "nobility" as bodies floated down the rivers in Rwanda? Where was "putting it on the line" when a million people were slaughtered in Cambodia? Where was the "fight for the freedom of others" as people disappeared in my own country and the government controlled everything from the press on down? Where was the romantic ideas and chest poundings as racial & religious based extermination flourished in Serbia? I for one never saw them. Someone smarter than me a long time ago said..."Warfare is the violent exchange of resources and power, nothing more. The soldier is simply the currency used to complete the transaction." I subscribe to this idea and dismiss the other stuff as rubbish. Although it is nice to hear so many people still believe in the romantic notions. It tells me there might be a slimmer of hope for the countries to get together and give "Freedom & Justice" to everyone and not just give it lip service to trump up their populations for a war. "Babies in incubators!" Oh I LOVE that one. Classic. You older guys can fill the younger ones in as to what I'm talking about here. Hope I didn't burst anyone's sanitized bubble or ruin their Kodak moment picture. But that's the way it really works. My country, your country, their country. Nevertheless, it's food for thought.

But seriously, before that war there was still these things happening. Had been for years. I'm just saying if the mid east campaign is a failure will the images most remembered be the Flag on the statue video or the Prison scandal photographs. I wonder if in the North American society will the "I was a soldier" statement be used as often and for the same reasons as it is used today.

I've always found this "I was a soldier." statement used as a thing to garner respect or legitamacy for oneselves or views to be a British and American cultural thing. In my country to say "I was a soldier" is not something one wants to say. Actually people who were or are soldiers try to not to bring it up. I suppose this is because 20 years ago if you spoke against the great leaders you ended up at the Escuela de Mecanica or some other place for electric shock therapy or never to be seen again and the soldier is the one who took you there. I know in many other countries it is also almost a shame to say I was a soldier. I know after Vietnam there was an effect like this also in the United States. I wonder if the Mid East campaign being waged today turns out to be a failure if we will see this change once again in the US public phyche.

@Riddler Your right I don't and to be honest have no interest in finding out. Hmmm...really no clue on this. Probably for the better anyway. We were talking about the A.I. in PC wargames, no where was your name mentioned by me or anyone else on this thread. Scroll up and look. Your the one who seems to have an obsession. There is medicine and couseling for that though so we won't give up on you if it makes you feel any better. Is it Joker or Riddler or is this the split personality coming out? BTW, no one is laughing with you. All this stuff here is really not worthy of comment. Don't worry moderators. I will not acknowledge this persons existance as long as he is in this condition. I'll let him ramble on and keep my post on a civil and intellectually comprehensive level.

@Riddler...Well at least you consistant. As usual, I still don't know what your talking about. We were talking about computer A.I. in wargames and different systems that could be used. What are you talking about? Actually Riddler I don't have to argue or debate you and I won't. It's so much easier just to sit back and watch you make an *ss of yourself quoting bad poetry. However I fear if you continue the next controversial topic will not be hexes or grids but are the scenarios going to be any good and balanced based upon the IQ levels displayed by one of its playtesters. No it's not a bad poetry audition, the riddler is lose on the SC forum. Put up the bat signal someone.

I've noticed a certain style in your post Dave. Sometimes however they are kinda hard to understand. Thats the bad thing. The good thing though is I think I have discovered your true Identity.

It really is quite a brilliant concept that has stuck with me. The game is quite obscure however and I think designers didn't see the game as well as many players. It is the only game I have ever seen then or sence that takes this approach to solitare play. Didn't stay in print very long as it's subject isn't so popular. But still brilliant idea. Might work even better in a PC format.

To be honest I don't think I have ever seen a good A.I. in a PC wargame game. I just don't think were there yet. Most games give the PC player more resources or something to level the playing field level and keep us human players interested. Sometimes you hear people complain about some wargames A.I. but In truth there all pretty bad. Some are better than others. I can't name a PC wargame that I have played that made me go "Man, this A.I. just keeps beating me time and again." that was playing on a level field. So im very forgiving on games A.I. Maybe we should all be careful what we wish for anyways. When we have wargames with A.I.s as good and intuitive as we are... well soon we will probably have versions of C3PO flying our airplanes, working in our factories and fighting our wars right? Then some big muscular robot comes from the future trying to kill a guy named John Connor right? You get what I'm saying. I'm of the opinion the best opponent for everyone is ourselves. What do I mean? Well if we bought a new game and tried it. Then the A.I. crushed us time and again it wouldn't be any fun. If the A.I. was ourselves it would be at the same experience level and skill level as us at any given time. Be perfect. How could this be done? Well back in the day I saw an example. The game is quite obscure but maybe somone else here has played it and can comment also. There is a paper and cardboard game thats long out of print called The Peloponnesian War by Columbia games. In the game the player competed against himself by switching sides during key events of the war that were triggered by his actions. Basicly when you started winning you were forced to switch side. Yet the design of the game kept the player motivated to do the best he could for current side he was playing. It was a novel approach and very effective. It's difficult to explain in detail here how it works but there is a copy of the rules online, here is a link to check if your interested. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1678/Peloponnesian+War It would be a novel and fresh approach to a PC game if a designer did away with an A.I. completely and built a PC game engine using this system for solitare play. How it could be done to effectively fit into a World War 2 game or some othergame would take alot of brainstorming and creativity but it could be done. It would certainly keep from having to build an A.I. and programmers and designers would love this. Maybe one day we will see something like it. Be interesting.

Well to start with Pzgndr your getting all wild and emotional and carried away with yourself as you seem prone to do. This doesn't bother me on its own as I have pretty thick skin but it's leading to you inventing what I have said and havent said. Pzgndr-"Howzabout you enlightening the rest of us as to how this game you have never played cannot possibly be worth playing and having some fun with?" Nowhere have I said SC2 is not worth buying or playing. Typical tactic by someone losing a discussion. So if your done with your story telling now I'd like to get back to the point of this thread, I will remind you because it seems your lack of emotional control is making you loose focus. Why is SC2 using a isometric grid? Most wargamers don't like it on a visual level. Most wargamers don't like it because it doesn't allow movement or keep space relations in the game as realistic as a hexagon board. This has been expressed on this forum time and again. It is clear the prevailing wind wanted a hexagon, top down view. So again I ask, why was it decided to use a isometric grid board for SC2? It makes no sence to go against the wants of your market. I mean C'mon Pzgndr. You said yourself you prefer hexes. If there is a SC3 Pzgndr you can bet your dollar it will be on hexes. SC2 may be a real good game, not saying it won't be. But it is using a inferior isometric grid board over a superior top down hexagon map. As I said before and I say here again. Using a isometric grid map was a mistake. It doesn't help the game but hurts it. Maybe everything else it has will make it good but visualy to look at it's bad and the space relationships are not as good as they could have been. It was a bad call. But to answer your question ... "So Ike99, tell me, why might I be finding SC2 so appealing, despite a tile grid. "Why?!" You ask the question, howzabout providing an answer?" Well because I don't know you personaly nor have I played the game I can't answer your question.

Well desert dave it happens to be that English is not my native language. However I can speak 3 and write 2 and a half as you can see. LOL How many can you speak and write genius? hmmmm...thought so.

Well I'm not sure what you meant Desert Dave by your post. However I'm getting really tired of debating with "biased" people so I won't waste anymore time in this. We will let time tell the tale along with reviews and sales figures. WIF-vs-SC2 You'll see who was right.

"Look, you guys want to experiment with hexes? Take a look at the MWiF map....simply awesome. Now you want some of the old Nato type counters we are all used to? Well, they are there too. Just one problem..........?????We want the simplicity approach of SC and not all the complication of MWiF.So who's going to port the SC gameplan to the MWiF playing field?" I don't know but if it sounds alot like Clash of Steel and if it were done it would be great. I think this is what people wanted with SC2. BTW, I find it gratifying to hear so many people here talking about WIF and it's upcoming release on this forum. Even pzgndr has mentioned it. (Yeah I know your waiting for it too pzgndr) Yet when you look at the WIFs' forum no one is talking about SC2. Why is that? Well my opinion is, and I have been saying it all through this post, most wargamers want... Top down view Hexagons Armored attack, then breakthrough and able to attack again. Like in some other E.T.O. games. Maybe SC2 has this but I haven't heard it mentioned so I'm assuming it doesn't. Pzgndr your a playtester, enlighten us, does SC2 have this? Naval sea zones, dont' use the same system for land movement and combat that your going to use for naval. Never works out right and you get unrealistic results. other items as well but I won't make a list. But as I said I feel gratified that people here are talking about WIF but at the WIF forum, no one is talking about SC2. This only serves as evidence as to what I have been saying the majority of wargamers want. WIF is the main event for this summer and this is why. Now i will turn the floor over to the worshippers and you all can invent reasons and rymes as to why I'm wrong and call me troll but the evidence speaks and will speak for itself. We will all see the reviews and sales figures between WIF and SC2 and you'll see who was right and what the majority of wargamers want.

Well now don't get your panties in a twist pzgndr. It's true your playtesting the game and your opinion is biased. "Now, what the heck have you accomplished here other than racking the muck?" Well I think what I HAVE accomplished along with many others on this forum is this...if there is a SC3 it will be played on hexagons. Your correct in saying it is the 11th hour for SC2 and probably too late for a change. However I think HC has gotten the message from me and many others about putting a SC3 on a grid if there is a SC3. There were many suggestions on this forum with many good ideas for SC2 and not one of them included putting the game on a grid board. That should have been clue number one. Lets be honest pzgndr its been controversial from the start and for good reasons. Because I have voiced my objections to the grid system does not make me a troll or anyone else who has voiced their concerns pzgndr. I want SC2 to be a good game same as you and everyone else. This is why I don't understand using a grid over hexagons when the majority of people don't like a grid. If a poll were put on this forum asking grid or hexagons we both know hexagons would get the nod. So why go with a grid? It makes no sence to me. "You don't like it? So what. Don't buy the game. Go wallow in your own irrelevance." Well just because your a playtester doesn't mean your an official representative for HC or Battlefront so i will not hold it against him or Battlefront for your unproffesional attitude here. I will not go "wallow" anywhere and I am relevant. VERY RELEVANT. I'm the customer. If I don't like what I see in a product I don't go "wallow" anywhere. I take my money somewhere else. Grow up a little.

fischkopf "And yet tile-based Civ 1...4, as mentioned earlier, are huge huge sellers. The tiny, but vocal, wargamer community would love it, but not the guy walking into EBGames to see if there's anything interesting to play." Civ.1-4 are not "wargames" per say. They are exploration and empire building type games. There really not in the same genre. Your point on the marketing of SC2 I agree with totally. Your average guy walking into EBGames is not going to buy SC2 be it hex or grid. Your market for a game about World War 2 in Europe is going to be wargamers. Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out. The point is wargamers want hexes, not a grid. "With squares, with corner to corner moves permitted as they will be, it allows three units to concentrate fire on a given piece instead of just two as is permitted on a front line with hexes." I just can't buy the reasons put forth for using a grid. Must have been a miracle then every other good game covering this theatre seemed to manage it. "Clash of Steel","Third Reich"..."E.T.O"..."World in Flames"..dah...dah...dah. "Well maybe it is just because I am not a "hardcore" wargamer, but somehow I don't understand what the fuss is all about." Well the problem with a grid is it does not keep or allow movement in a very realistic manner. Hexes are especially good when distances matter, because between any two points the distance is the same irrespective of direction. When your game needs infantry to be x% faster than tanks on roads but y% slower cross-country, hexes will give you the most accurate model of any tesselation. There is more of a difference between hexes and grids than eye candy as some people have expressed here. The grid system makes the game lose credibility and wargamers want a wargame to be realistic. If the game lacks crdibility the wargame crowd will discard it. pzgndr-"Unless of course you've got some irrational emotional attachment to hexagons. Too bad." Well I hope this doesn't sound stronger than I want it to pzgndr and you don't take offense but everyone knows your playtesting the game and your opinion is biased. Therefore your opinion is irrelevant.