Suggestion- major game engine change

[Reepicheep]

I'm hoping this one hasn't been discussed somewhere else here already. Anyhow, the idea is simple- make a future version of SC same-time/turn-based like CM.

Obviously that would radically alter combat, but I think it would be for the better in regards to gameplay, depending upon on how it was implemented. Also, it would be rather unique, and would separate SC from the crowd, so to speak. I know of only two grand strategic wargames that use that system, and neither are WWII games (Risk II and Imperialism II).

One smaller suggestion: how about allowing optional assaults- combats in which more casualties could be taken on both sides, and in which if the attacker won, they would automatically move into the defender's hex and force a retreat (or surrender). Along with removing much of WWI from the game, that would also allow amphibious assaults on already defended hexes (like Malta).

[ January 15, 2003, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Reepicheep:

I know of only two grand strategic wargames that use that system, and neither are WWII games (Risk II and Imperialism II).

Civilization II as did Civnet and CivII PTW has this feature in it, it is called simultanious Move. It would be a nice option for those who want a faster game but i would ONLY make it an option as the problem arises when he who moves the pieces faster gets to react to moves better for instance if i move an army into a clear hex then goto a diffenet part of the map to place a unit. My opponent sees the moved army moves his entire line around it and when the turn ends quickly selects all those same units and gets a second move thereby destroying my army with no reprecussions. Sim move is for fast fun games but cannot be accounted as Strategic by any stretch of the imagination and would destroy this game in my opinion.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I am not sure if this is close to what he had requested, but if you had to give all your units commands to attack and or move, and then hit execute after your opponent or the AI had done the same, it would sure make the game a different beast.

But I am happy with SC as it is now, in that I move my units, then the opponent does.

Departing from the current design into what I had suggested, and I would be inclined to insist the name Strategic Command be dropped in favour of the designer picking a fully different name.

After all, it would really not be SC anymore now would it. Adding a number after a name has to have its limits.

[SeaWolf_48]

The beauty of the game now is that it is like a giant chess game, or football game, and you have to anticipate the players next move. Not a soccer game.

[Yohan]

Please god, not another time based game. They suck.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

The beauty of the game now is that it is like a giant chess game, or football game, and you have to anticipate the players next move.

I would agree.

There is a lot to be said for contemplation, whether within the realm of Eastern Zen traditions, or chess, or war-games. :cool:

Frenetic activity can be a kind of "high," but it can also quickly lapse into mere physical dexterity. That is fine when you are piloting a sleek cigarette-boat from the Bahamas to Key West... in a slowly building hurricane, but not so much fun if you are playing a war-game.

[Reepicheep]

I wasn't suggesting real-time (yikes!)- you would still have all the time you needed to sit back and plan your moves. But instead of getting the results immediately, you would have to wait until the enemy plotted their moves; and then the turn would be executed.

I believe that would be more realistic, more indicative of what actually was done at that level; and I reckon it would be more fun if done well.