How popular would a more realistic SC be?

[Paul Harrington]

Hi all

Firstly, I should say that having played the demo of SC I think its not really my cup of tea. I've always been more into realistic simulations (one of the many reasons why I like CM so much) and the many compromises SC makes at the expense of realism to keep the game simple just get on my nerves too much. I suppose I was hoping for something closer to Third Reich.

Now I realise that there are clearly lots of you out there who see things quite differently, valuing the simplicity, playability and speed of SC very hightly. My question is - how many of you would buy a more serious, realistic strategic sim of WWII if it were available? I'm not talking of SC with tweaked rules for production, etc btw. I'd also be interested to hear what sort of features would be important to such a sim.

To those about to burn me at the stake for such 'heresy', please don't take this as a criticism of SC - its obvious that it has struck a chord with a sizeable number of gamers. I'd just like to know if this group (or maybe a different set) would like a game on the same scale but with a different emphasis.

Paul

[ August 27, 2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Paul Harrington ]

[Schnell]

Hello also. First of all Im not about to burn you at the stake. Contrary to some here I think everyone is entitled to speak theyre thoutghs.

Lets face it the way strategic command is now is a fun and let me emphasize, fun WW2 strategy game. Im not taking anything away from it. I will be playing it alone and also by email for a long time to come baring any new games in this style.

The game still involves many strategic options even though some of those aspects could be develloped further.

As for a more complex or realistic version of a WW2 grand strategy game I for one would be among the first to pre-order such a game. There is so much room in this day and age with the technology we have to make sound and more realistic strategic simulations.

The one thing that Winston Churchill feared the most was the U-boat menace wich would be fantastic to see implemented well in a game either abstractly a la Third Reich or on a more hands on method. Also the massive bombing campaign by the allies wich seems lacking that would be great to play with either abstractly or hands on.

These are of course only a few of the subjects wich should be implemented in a grand strategy game of WW2. There are many more.

For now let us be thankfull for this game and enjoy it as is untill such a time as we have another to take the torch.

[pzgndr]

Well Paul, this subject has only popped up about 53 times so far ...

There is a roughly even split between those who just love SC the way it is, and those pushing for some more optional or advanced features to make it more realistic. The beauty of SC is that it is not mind-numbingly complex or so historically accurate that it takes forever to play and you get locked into pursuing historical strategies. There is room to grow and make this game more appealing to grognards without losing its basic charm. Hopefully we'll see some enhancements in the 3R/WiF direction, but probably not too many and not too soon.

[Paul Harrington]

Hi Bill

I've seen the various discussions on particular rules, but I'm interested in whether a totally different game would have a market. I suppose you are exactly the sort of person I'd like to ask - 'would you buy a more sophisticated strategic sim of WW2?'. I expect the answer for many will be 'it depends', but perhaps these people could explain where the limit might lie in making such a decision?

Paul

[ August 27, 2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Paul Harrington ]

[pzgndr]

I probably should answer the original question since I replied. Would I buy 3R again, or better yet A3R, with an improved AI? You bet. Computer WiF, if they ever finish it with an AI? Maybe. Computer WiE based on the old SPI monster? No. Will I buy Hearts of Iron? Undecided. I've seen the screenshots and I'm not impressed with the provinces or real-time aspect. I'm primarily a hex-based, turn-based gamer from the old school.

I played an entire SC campaign game this past weekend over about 8 hours, which is awesome (not me, the game!) So SC's simplicity is important and should be maintained at the expense of more complexity. There's a cost/benefit optimum out there somewhere, but good luck trying to find it.

[gunnergoz]

I for one would welcom a more complex game with similar or global scope. I'd like to see the complexity kept flexible, i.e. the player could automate many decisions that did not interest them. Ideally, it would allow for corps-division level operations. Anything smaller would be too difficult to play. Ships could be represented individually, except perhaps small combatants or escorts. I could go on and on, but you get the picture...

Mind you, I really like SC and would love to see Hubert do a Pacific or better yet global version of the engine.

[Yohan]

Some of us have been waiting for two years now for the Computer version of World in Flames (WIF). It would/should be the pinnacle of WWII strategy but they have not been able to complete it. Forget about an AI if it hits the street, there is just no way it would be competitive.

SC is what it is, a great "Beer and Pretzels" WWII strategy piece. One or two improvements like the British fleet not being allowed to storm the Baltic, a bit more terrain in the Med, Finns that aren't a pushover (there you go Mannheim), subs that.... uhoh I think I'm describing WIF <g>

[ August 27, 2002, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Yohan ]

[demoss]

I'd like to see a computer version of Europe Engulfed. It seems closer to SC in many ways than the other choices that have been suggested - fog of war is built-in, the entire naval system as well as strategic warfare is abstracted (but looks like it should work well), and the complexity is not that high, because the main test for adding things seems to be that if it adds rules, it has to be a BIG improvement or it doesn't get changed.

I'd even settle for the board version when it comes out.

[Nitro]

My question is - how many of you would buy a more serious, realistic strategic sim of WWII if it were available?

I am all for it. But don't get me wrong, this game definitely has got its charm. But I think it would be nice to play a game which has got battalions as the smallest units with great historical accuracy. For instance, a simulation of the battle at Kursk with all the actual denominations the units had at the time - and as I sad before - on battalion or brigade level as the smallest playable units. The time scale would also be different - let's say one turn 8 hours or something. Just an idea.

[ August 27, 2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Nitro ]

[Guest Mike]

The only reason SC kis worth it, IMO, is that it is cheap.

I'd pay the more normal US$50 for a GOOD WW2 game, but I wouldn't pay it for SC as it is.

That said the game is fun for what it is.

[Jon Patrick]

I, for one, would NOT buy a 'more realistic' WWII game. SC has hit that sweet spot of being authenitic *enough*, while capturing a frustrating amount of replayability and 'just one more turn' syndrome.

I'd like to state that this is the FIRST game for my computer that I've spent money for (the rest have been demos or freeware, nothing stolen!!) since I had a COMMODORE 64 back in the 80's!! That's how much I loved the demo!

In the past 7 years or so, through 2 Macs and now my PC, I've tried several 'more realistic' war games... I don't care what day of the month it is and what sergent is leading what platoon at what slope during what time of year. I just want to attack! The 'more realistic' games bog me down in details that I simply don't care about.

Cool?

Jon

[husky65]

Originally posted by Paul Harrington:

Would I buy a more complex game along the same lines as SC?

Depends on implementation, over the years I've seen heaps of brilliant ideas destroyed by poor implementation (Outpost being the perfect example).

HoI looks like a good idea, but I am very wary of a few of their design decisions.

Would I support the various complexity adding schemes proposed for SC? - No.

[J Wagner]

Each of us has their own opinion on what would make a game "more realistic" than SC. But I think what it comes down to is how much detail we would like to see in the game. Adding a feature here or there would not necessarily make it more "realistic" but perhaps make the gaming experience more involved. Think for a moment about Grigsby's Pacific War. For me, there is simply too much micro managment in the game to make it an enjoyable gaming experience. For others, PW is their cup of tea and I commend them for it. I have mentioned a few things I would like to see in future versions of SC such as weekly turns, variable regional weather conditions and a slightly larger map. I don't think these three requests hinder game play or make it more complex.

Saying that it takes only 8 hours to complete a game does not matter to me. If the game takes longer to complete, so what? Most gamers are not clock watchers when it comes to gaming and as long as you have a save feature, you can take all the time you need.

I no doubt will check out HOI when it comes out. There is always room for alternatives.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

SC is nice in the same way Axis & Allies is nice.

It isn't A3R clearly, but that is not a flaw.

A big mistake would be to make SC2 and pretend that suddenly it had grown up and become A3R by merely cluttering up original SC with additional complexities.

Sometimes that works, but often it doesn't.

SC will live or die on its merits, but I think it would be wrong to try and use a hammer on it in say 2 years and assume the software was suddenly capable of mutating.

As for additional complexities in an entirely new wargame. I highly doubt anyone will complain about a more realistic game.

It all comes down to whether it is done well.

The voting seems to be in favour of CWiF being an example of not doing it well as of yet.

I am also not holding my breath waiting for actual A3R to pop out of the blue.

But it would be nice if done right.

[Bruce70]

I think much of the disagreement on the forum on this subject comes from people not specifying whether they are talking about changes for SC1 or possibilities for SC2.

SC1 is a simple, quickly played game and that is what makes it appealing and stand out. There is room on my computer for a game like this and a more complex game. There is no perfect grand strategy game for me, I like variety.

That is why I am against making SC1 more complicated. I will probably buy HoI also and would definately consider a more complex offering from Hubert, but SC should stay SC IMO.

[Brian Rock]

I'm another person who likes SC for its beer-and-pretzels qualities. I like it because it's simple, quick, and close enough for all practical purposes.

I'm all in favour of increased realism/refinements, and open to suggestions that improve SC, but would prefer if changes didn't add much (if any) complexity.

[J Wagner]

When I refer to weekly moves and variable regional weather conditions, I am always refering to a future version of SC. I like this SC the way it is but I wouldn't mind seeing these changes in a SCII or SCIII.

[BriantheWise]

Being, probably, redundant, relevant to this thread and those that have gone before, I would say this:

1) The goal of course, is quite simply, an easy to play version of World War 2, et all. This platform can't handle this, though I would love if it could. The closest to a game coming to that would be a) CommandHQ - bad graphics, but excellently done; Empire Deluxe - They actually did this well, for their time; c) Axis and Allies - with the worst AI ever seen in modern times (the board game was fair, and fun, but to me it seems likes someone got really high and found a simplistic eureka, made it appear realistic, semi, and made it into a game. I still love it, like I like Risk too, but come on).

2) Since Clash of Steel, I've been working on a playable platform, that could and should work. I have no sponsers, yet. Hint. The key, I think, is finding a way to merge the differences of land combat on the European Front, with the naval perspective on the Pacific front. They clash, for one is a matter of campaigns, and the latter is a matter of inserting a second by second risk factor, aka, Midway, without making the Pacific War a matter of attrition.

3) I think it can be done. I think that SC could be the platform, but with some serious radical changes, particularly a) Naval combat, b)Unit maxes), c)a second, tactical map. That is how my platform is following.

Those are my thoughts.

[waltero]

lame queston(being that it is not "REAL")

But no matter.

IS not who will buy, but who will build!

WHO?

This game is close to 3R.

And anybody who 'loves' 3R would play this.

( I would believe that anybody who calls them self a grognad would like 3R )

If this happens to be a valid queston than Of course!

Otherwise this post provides a place to lambast The game.

Hubert Has become my friend.

And this game is headed in a good dirctn!

So unless you have A game such as you speak Don't bring it in here!

My support is with Hubert.

Who has brought me countless hours of waisted time on the computer.

Most play games that fit there style.

Ok good cool, thats great.

The fact that some of my fellow gamers do not like this game,effects me little :confused:

Thay will play anyway becouse It is a challenge!

So if the game is not your cup of tea? is it becouse I can kick your butt in it or you just dont like the machanics of the game.

If you liked 3R you should like this one

(If you make "that" game, you will become my best friend!)

So for now if you would like a game more like 3R put a Little faith into SC.

It will only get better!

If you cant handle SC than I am sure you sucked at 3R!

AM I right HUH ya am I right! So the fact is you can't handle the truth can you :eek:

The truth is SC rules! and Hubert will always be one up on you.

[Danish Monger]

I wondering why does Denmark get a corps to defend Copenhagen. We, Danes, offered no large scale resistence what so ever.....gave up after 4 hours. :confused: Only a little sporadic fire mainly in Jutland near the border to Germany.

[Nitro]

I wondering why does Denmark get a corps to defend Copenhagen.

Well, first of all the game has no smaller unit than the corps unit. One can perhaps arguee that Copenhagen should have had a reduced corps unit, e.g. a level 5 unit or something.

Also,I think Hubert wanted the game to be somewhat balanced so that e.g. the Axis couldn't too easily get their hands on the MPP's (money system in SC)that Denmanrk has.

In addition, SC doesn't handle all the historical events that took place during WWII. So the fact that Denmark gave up after 4 hours of fighting isn't modeled in the game.

[Danish Monger]

I see your point.....but that fact remains that there was no resistance of such a scale apart from a couple of machinegun positions i Jutland and the occasional dummies who thought they were bulletproof....*lol*...Point is not even a corps with strength 1 would satisfy me.

I do see that it would turn out a "freebie" plunder though....hmmmm....

What determines the size of the plunder?????????

[jmbunnelle]

I enjoy it as is. It's cheap and it's damn fun.