SC II: Global

[JerseyJohn]

Les,

Good summation of potentially live dead zones. A lot of these potential campaigns, like Iceland are a matter of reconciling scale; it would seem doubtful the Germany could have or would have sent a corps and I think the British and later U. S. Marine garrison consisted of a few thousand troops.

I may be wrong on this as I haven't checked the figures. It was the sort of thing where Norway fell and a few months later those in charge started asking what was keeping the Germans from making Iceland a sub/air base.

Of course, even if the Germans had taken it there would still have been the matter of keeping it supplied, so a small garrison would have been preferable from that standpoint as well. I think some of these things would make for good off-map events. Not my choice but possibly the only way to incorporate them.

The voyages of Scharnhorst and Gnesenau and later of Bismarck and Prinz Eugen, illustrate one of the present weaknesses in the game's Atlantic structure. In both cases these ships sailed along the Norwegian coast and turned into the Ocean well above the British Isles, moving south to the Denmark Straights to enter the Atlantic between Greenland and Iceland.

Perhaps this weakness could be corrected with an arrow similar to the Atlantic/Suez link going from the Baltic to the Western Atlantic map edge to be used by Axis U-boats and warships only. There would have to be a way of doing it so the ships don't exit into a zone where ten Allied BBs are waiting for them!

SeaWolf, Shaka

I still like the ideas put forward by BriantheWise but it seems certain an improved version of SC Europe with a Pacific version is probably more likely to be in the works than a single global edition.

That's only my view on SC 2. I have no idea, of course, on whether Hubert is also working on a global version of this game. If so, I hope he does it along the lines Brian set forth ealier.

[HankWWIIOnline]

Hubert has a real opportunity to make a fun, global WWII strategy game. Despite the naysayers about HoI, I enjoy a ton of aspects about it despite its flaws. However, as popular as the game is it just isn't accessable to the average wargamer.

If SC2 is just SC with upgrades, it should be big enough to warrant calling it a new game. The tech system, in my opinion, needs a overhaul. The random-chance research system is too simplified and smacks of A&A. The HoI system, as much as I enjoy the detail, is TOO detailed for a game like SC. A good medium could be found though.

If Hubert, at the least, could pull off a Pacific Theater game that was as fun and addicting as SC I think we'd all be thrilled. Going global is the money shot though. HoI is proof there is a large market for people wanting a global WWII strategy game. Command HQ is still my all time favorite because of its global scope and simplicity.

[Shaka of Carthage]

HankWWIIOnline

Curious why you believe the SC tech system is too simple and needs an overhaul. The current system allows the results to be unpredictable, allowing for replayability. Adding more tech options would increase the variety, or forcing the units to have to "upgrade" maybe more realism, but neither would require the system itself to change.

I don't own HoI, so my comments are only reflective of what I have read and seen (why don't they offer a demo?). Civilization = EUII = global conquest. HoI = global conquest = WWII setting. HoI is not a wargame. Global WWII wargame, having the European (ETO) and Pacific theaters (PTO) together is a nightmare for a wargame, since by definition, the wargame needs a sophisticated representation of supply. Interdiction of the supply was done using different methods in each theater. And thats assuming you solve the huge range of the different unit types. Add to this the problem with real time in a wargame and it just gets worse.

So now you have wargamers looking for one thing and Civ players looking for another. You can't make them both happy so you end up with a compromise. You know, like the committee that designed a horse (ie a camel)?

Btw, representation of logistics, is why SC is not A&A or a "beer and pretzels" game.

Thanks,

Barry

[HankWWIIOnline]

Well, I definitely don't think SC is a full-on wargame. Supply and logistics are there, but simplified. When I think of wargame, I think of the old V for Victory series. SC is very much a beer and pretzels style game. Very easy to pick up and play, but not easy to 'master'.

I don't want to turn this into an HoI thread, so don't think I'm simply 'yaying' HoI over SC. I absolutely love SC and get a ton of enjoyment out of it. It doesn't replace HoI, just supplements my love of WWII strategy games.

The tech in SC is simple because you buy a point and drop it into a research category and hope you get results. The latest patch greatly enhanced the tech system and made it hard to research in tons of different areas. But it is still 'click and hope' when researching. It is still random, as in A&A, but with a lot more variables.

I agree the main problem that I have with HoI is the real-time combat. They take into account a multitude of statistics when units battle it out (ala V for Victory). Terrain, supply, morale, weather, day/night, type of General, type of equipment, organization level, national dissent, etc are all calculated into a units fighting ability. Not simply whether they have an HQ attached and a clear line to a friendly city. When directing offenses and defenses, I usually always have to bring the game speed to slow or below normal speed in order to assess everything. It can get tedious at times, but luckily the end product is rewarding once you know what you're doing.

HoI's combat model is much closer to a wargame, in my opinion, than SC. SC has simplified a lot of things, which is not a bad thing but what I'm trying to say is SC2 could benefit by keeping a level of simplicity while adding some more layers to the game.

SC2, if done strictly in the European theater, would benefit from having a much bigger map with more room to maneuver. Hubert could then add some more variety to units. Add Mechanized/Motorized Infantry Divisions, regular infantry divisions(And corps) and plain armor divisions. Three to four different unit types isn't getting THAT complex, and would lend itself to new strategies over a wider playing field.

Anyway...everyone has their own idea of what SC2 should be like, so I won't go on with all my ideas. Already a long post as it is.

[Hueristic]

I don't own HoI, so my comments are only reflective of what I have read and seen (why don't they offer a demo?).

Because they know it would not sell the game and probally would warn people away that are going to buy it but find they can't return it because of the new copyright laws.

BTW don't waste your time the game is a nightmare to manage it has 4 sliders that have to be micromanaged and change by themselfs. Basically it's coronary in a box.

[ January 29, 2003, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Hueristic ]

[Steve C]

Well, Hank - you have more HoI experience than I. When I booted it up and tried it out, it just didn't appeal to me. Dunno, the things that I liked about Europa Universalis just didn't seem to make the leap so well to the modern era. Maybe it's just me, but fussing around with economic priorities in your provinces, arranging supply convoys, worrying if you have enough rubber / oil stockpiled and so on just detract from the fighting. And once combat starts, it's so abstract there's little enjoyment in it. Think of all that detail, such as the massive R&D system, appointing / firing cabinet ministers based on their management styles, etc. as long and teasing foreplay, without the satisfying conclusion you have every right to expect based on what came before.

Call me a lightweight and you'll be correct. But if I'm going to dig into a detailed wargame, let it be Uncommon Valor, not HoI....The chess-like nature of SC appeals to me highly, few wargames get that style of play right. I for one want SC2 to essentially retain the flavor of the original, incorporating improvements without bogging down in complexity.

[ January 29, 2003, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Steve C ]

[HankWWIIOnline]

Well, first off...there have already been 3 patches released for HoI that have fixed an insane amount of issues.

Hearts of Iron isn't for everyone. I personally love having control of every aspect of my country. For pure combat, SC takes the cake, no doubt. My heart lies in global conflict, though. I would rather it be done at 75% effectiveness than not done at all.

I'm sure the majority of those here want more of the same. I say take the bull by the horns and go for the gusto. At least for something AFTER SC2. Like I said...HoI is proof positive their is a huge market for a global WWII strategy game. While HoI is on one side of the spectrum (Extremely complex), the future of SC could take it to the other side of the spectrum.

[J P Wagner]

One HOI thought---like it and play it but it truly is not my cup of tea..I can see me shelving the game down the road but still playing SC......anyone remember SPI's attempt at a simple WWII global war game?...It was a traditional sized game map, and Germany was represented by perhaps 6 hexes total if that, a complete waste...I mentioned this before in other threads, does anyone have a clue what type of game SC2 will be?...seems that all these suggestions are just like spitting into the wind until this important fact is known....

[KDG]

I would like to see twice the map size, more options of who to invade, Japan involved, a couple more techs, as well as them equalized a bit, and a bit more variety of units, more random choices, and options, a great Ai, etc. Do this, and here is my $30.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by HankWWIIOnline:

While HoI is on one side of the spectrum (Extremely complex), the future of SC could take it to the other side of the spectrum.

Unwieldy <> Complex

Wierd i didn't find it that complex? Just tedious. You want complex grab some old avalon hill board games That'll wake up the old grey matter.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by J P Wagner:

seems that all these suggestions are just like spitting into the wind until this important fact is known....

Agreed. that's why i haven't commented on SC2. Waiting for Hubert to post the Scale and setting and ask for suggestions before i start throwing ideas around. I hate repeating myself and saying the same thing over and over....

[Shaka of Carthage]

HankWWIIOnline

I think you and I both agree on the same thing, the difference is in the definition.

Beer and pretzles = easy to learn and play. Axis and Allies. Once it becomes difficult to master, it is no longer a B&P game.

HoI and SC will never replace each other. We are both in totally agreement with that. But we both think so for different reasons.

Tech being simple because you buy a point and drop it in that category and wait for the result.

At the scale we are in SC, that is all we should be doing, besides making the decision on which of the tech choices we have, do we drop that point. From some of your latter comments, I gather that you would want to be to do more, but at the scale we are, it would not be appropriate. Unless you want to be able to shoot the head of the research team because his progress is too slow .

The type of combat you like ... terrain, supply, morale, weather, day/night, type of general, type of equipment, organization level, national dissent, etc. If SC made a distinction between the nationalities and to&e's of units, effect of weather on combat then those items you listed would now be part of SC. If we accept that our generic units are equipped and perform the same, I get the same effect. At the level we are (ie supreme commanders), we should only be concerned about the leadership abilities of our subordinate Army HQ's... which SC does by the leadership rating (which can be further modified by the experience rating). The things that make up that leadership rating (morale, training, experience, intelligence, etc) we should not be concerned with, just the end result. Heck... I would have liked the leadership rating to have been random, determined after we bought the HQ (or even after the first combat it was controlling)... then we could have named it what we wanted. Again, you and I don't disagree, it would just appear that you like more of the operational level stuff.

Which brings me to the wargame definition. We just have a different version of that definition. In my mind, any combat oriented game that handles logistics, is a wargame. The scale of the detail, should be determined by the scale of the wargame. Grand Strategy = Armies, Corps. Operational = Corps, Divisions. Grand Tactical = Divisions, Brigades. Tactical = Brigades, Battalions.

As someone else mentioned here... Global Conflict wargame and a WWII Global is not the same thing. And until we are given the opportunity to contribute, either thru a request or some statement about what SC II should be... then we are just typing to be seen when it comes to SCII.

Hueristic

You could not have made a more true statement. Complexity is not the same as unwieldy. Some of the easiest things can be made so difficult, while some of the most complex items can be presented in a easy to understand and use format. 3R was monster for the novice player. Remember some of those old monster games... where you took two or three different maps and pieced them together? Unless you pasted them on the wall (with metal backing), and put magnets on your counters, you could never hope to play it. And you had to tote all those rules around. And then remember (or by hand) update all of those addedums, errata, etc. And you know what is worse? Even with computers, the people who produce games today don't understand that games are more than eye-candy and click fests. If I want that, I will go to my local gentlemans club... (hmmm not sure if the click fest is a good analogy for a gentlemans club) :eek:

Thanks,

Barry