marklavar Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Hubert, SC1 was a great game, but sadly lacking in some respects: 1) No diplomacy! Why is there no diplomacy in the game? 2) Inaccurate calculation of American strength. The US gets far too few MPPs in the game, not reflecting the GNP figures. I suggest using historical economic figures for calculating MPPs. 3) Scenarios are inaccurate. Lots of inaccuracies in the scenarios, eg. USSR forces don't seem to be weakened in 1941 like they should have been. 4) No paratroopers and no Soviet 'shock' armies. Why not? 5) HQs cannot fight. Surely the HQ should be able to have fighting power as well! 6) Time limit. Why limit the game to 1947? Let it go on indefinitely if the player chooses. 7) Limited area. Why not have the whole world instead of only Europe? The Pacific theatre as well, etc. 8) No economic management. It would be interesting to have more detailed economic management in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 With respect, Your number one point is "no diplomacy" SC is meant as a two player game. What diplomacy is there for two players???? There is a great game for diplomacy, its called diplomacy. SC is not meant for diplomacy. I like it without any diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 marklavar Not meaning to sound like a crusty old grouch, but if you'll use the search mechanism -- be sure it's set on Strategic Command and not one of the other games -- you'll find Threads and postings galore on all these topics. Any postings on these issues made here will be restating what has already been written many, many times in earlier Threads. [ October 24, 2003, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 marklavar --- thanks for the input, that's great. You want to play a competitive game of SC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 marklavar. I agree more or less on every point except 1. I would not want diplomacy deciding the war. Diplomacy works well in empire building games but in this type of game the battle tactics should be the focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Besides, SC 2 will be covering the Boer War so most of your suggestions will not be applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 marklavar I'll try and give you the short answer to your questions. 1)Diplomacy...It was abstracted by the readiness %'s. Hence the actions you take against neutrals represents your diplomacy. On Turn 1, invade the Baltic States, you'll see what I mean. 2)US MPPs wrong...You suggestion about using historical economic figures shows you really don't understand the complexity of the problem. For instance, what is the historical economic number for Russia in 1939? Or any period for that matter from 1939 to 1945? Any number you get from any book is a guess. And then you have to figure out what the cost for a Russian unit was versus the cost for a American unit. The costs were not the same. 3)Inaccurate scenarios... This one is hard to answer, since its so open ended. I suspect that alot of the issues you have come down to playability versus realism. 4)Paratroopers and Shock Armies... Paratroopers were not present in large enough numbers to represent a Corp, not to mention a Army. And the effect of Paratroopers is more operational than strategical. Shock Army answer is the same for why there are no SS units. When you get a unit that has two or three experience bars, rename them to Shock or SS. That is an accurate reflection of them. 5)HQ's having no offensive ability ... HQ's can fight since they defend themselves. The intent was to keep HQ's out of the front lines as an offensive units. Hence, no ability to attack. 6)Time limit... I suspect it because Mr H needed some way of showing who "won or lost". Its possible that after showing that result, the game could have continued. But ask yourself, how many games have you played that hit the '47 limit? Especially against Humans? 7)Limited area... Memory restricions limited the number of hexes. Hence, the map couldn't be larger. 8)No economic management... If the game was to include detailed economic management or even a simplified version, something we currently have would have to go. Lets not forget that SC has no problem running on older less capable machines. You start adding those extra bells and whistles, and you cut out alot of people who don't have the computing power to process the game engine. Hence, I suspec it was a design decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts