Jump to content

Historical Freaks!


waltero
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can you not understand! That there are vary few games that are going to make you happy?(if it were to be totally historical)

If you want to play a game that is historically Acurate play Battle of the buldge or some other game.

Yes It would be nice to have the finnish ski patrols and paratroopers and this and that!

In time it might come about.

If Hubert was to incorperate most of the historical aspects of WWII It would take away the playability of the Game.

Not to mention the High complexety of the rules and game.

So If you lose agianst the rushkies dont blame it on the fact that there were no finns to save you.

Hubert gave us the basics, see if you can handle it first!

I am sure in time this game will have a whole new face.

So if you think you are good at strategy games this is a good one to play.

And if you suck at strategy games this is also a good game to play ( As long as your the allies)

So just have fun with it, and see if you have what it takes.

Pardon my spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely on the nose with this post.

I just can't help feeling that the Portuguese Açores Islands should be included in the game. After all, they fielded a battalion of elite scuba troops ( 3rd Linguiça Divers Bn ) that might have tipped the tide of the war were they used effectively. :D

Instead, the battalion was sent to Finland in order to open one of the first primitive -- albeit effective -- Starbucks-like franchises. It's been noted by more than one historian how most of the Finnish troops could often be found at one of those ubiquitous coffeeshops before going out on a ski run.

God, I hope Hubert sees this. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like war but not history, then you should check out the game 'Victory' from http://www.columbiagames.com . It is all about worldwar2 style units slugging it out at each other, and you can make up any kind of map you want to play on yourself. There's nothing historical about it, just team "red" "black" "blue" and "green" fighting it out against each other. You can even add team gray and all that too if you're really into multiplay.

That should be something for you, as perfection isn't what you seek :cool:

~Norse~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what are we saying here?

Play the game as is, and like it! OR -- just shut up about it? NO SUGGESTIONS ALLOWED! :confused:

If that's the case, then you would have to go back and erase half of the posts on this forum, yes?

I have had great fun with this game, more so than with any other I have played in the last several years, and that covers a lot of territory. :cool:

I also have made suggestions as to HISTORICAL enhancements.

In fact, several of the suggestions that some have made, have been incorporated into the game by Hubert, such as the Russian Cruiser in the Black Sea.

So, what? Now, we need be determined to protect the VERY FIRST version of the game?

Or, is it the latest, v1.03 that we feel needs a big brother's attention, which also includes some historical additions?

Freaks shall inherit the Earth, O Yea brothers.

Historical freaks included, who are usually interested in having fun AND incorporating any of those aspects a game-designer might eventually elect to add, which will increase the "realistic" feel of the contest.

These are NOT mutually exclusive concepts, are they? smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

So, what are we saying here?

Play the game as is, and like it! OR -- just shut up about it? NO SUGGESTIONS ALLOWED! :confused:

If that's the case, then you would have to go back and erase half of the posts on this forum, yes?

I have had great fun with this game, more so than with any other I have played in the last several years, and that covers a lot of territory. :cool:

I also have made suggestions as to HISTORICAL enhancements.

In fact, several of the suggestions that some have made, have been incorporated into the game by Hubert, such as the Russian Cruiser in the Black Sea.

So, what? Now, we need be determined to protect the VERY FIRST version of the game?

Or, is it the latest, v1.03 that we feel needs a big brother's attention, which also includes some historical additions?

Freaks shall inherit the Earth, O Yea brothers.

Historical freaks included, who are usually interested in having fun AND incorporating any of those aspects a game-designer might eventually elect to add, which will increase the "realistic" feel of the contest.

These are NOT mutually exclusive concepts, are they? smile.gif

Well spoken, Immer. There ought to be Freaks, send in the Freaks! :D

Straha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't be offended by them Immer Etwas, they are just self-righteous who in the quest for SC perfection just might say:

O God Shall Strike Down Upon Thee for making The Perfect Product, You Historical Freak

Take it with a laugh Etwas ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

So, what are we saying here?

Play the game as is, and like it! OR -- just shut up about it? NO SUGGESTIONS ALLOWED! :confused:

If that's the case, then you would have to go back and erase half of the posts on this forum, yes?

I have had great fun with this game, more so than with any other I have played in the last several years, and that covers a lot of territory. :cool:

I also have made suggestions as to HISTORICAL enhancements.

In fact, several of the suggestions that some have made, have been incorporated into the game by Hubert, such as the Russian Cruiser in the Black Sea.

So, what? Now, we need be determined to protect the VERY FIRST version of the game?

Or, is it the latest, v1.03 that we feel needs a big brother's attention, which also includes some historical additions?

Freaks shall inherit the Earth, O Yea brothers.

Historical freaks included, who are usually interested in having fun AND incorporating any of those aspects a game-designer might eventually elect to add, which will increase the "realistic" feel of the contest.

These are NOT mutually exclusive concepts, are they? smile.gif

See, You guys take a post and just spin it way out of context here. I'mm all for things that make the game better. But not if it's going to detract from the game's greatest strength, it's ease of playability. Some of the suggestions on here are good solid suggestions. But there are a some people who obviously came into the game expecting and wanting the perfectly accurate war simulation. Folks, this is a nice easy to pick up, hard to put down little game. It's not a hyper-realistic military sim. To make it that way, the designer is forced to make tradeoffs. These tradeoffs involve taking out things that would complicate the game without adding a whole lot to it. I see some suggestions on here where the people didn't bother to even think out exactly what they want, but instead just say that the game is horribly flawed because it doesn't (insert suggestion here). And there are those who want to add in so much detail to aspects like for instance naval warfare and commerce raiding that would turn a great military-lite game into some hybrid war/economic freakshow. I refer people to Third Reich (the computer version) for an example of that kind of thinking gone wrong. Come on...keep making suggestions by all means, but at least think them through for cripes sakes, don't just go off half cocked and cry and whine about how this is so stupid and unrealistic. I mean really think about it. Want tanks to be able to move twice? Who here can name any unforseen consequences of that suggestion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Victory, and in my long time played em all wargaming opinion it's the single best wargame made in the 90's (although that is just the board game realm).

I have seen a lot of the "suggestions" made. Most of them should be given the same response though...

Shut up and go play Advanced Third Reich.

Advanced Third Reich is the pinnacle of gaming in this scale. I have yet to see a single computer game even get close to it.

But then you only have to listen in on the A3R mailing list to understand it comes with a price.

If you don't have a university degree level command of proper english you will experience troubles playing A3R eventually.

SC is a great game because it gets damned close to being A3R.

Sure I don't care for the lack of stacking myself, but it just means learning a style of strategy that incorporates that, nothing more.

Personally if they eventually make SC2 and dump in all this nonsense, I also hope they double the price. That level of effort won't be easy, and the designers should get paid a fair price for the trouble too.

As it stands SC is easy to play, I like it. More is not required. The only things needed to be addressed in new versions, are tweaks to fix software glitches that all programs suffer from.

To open the flood gates to opinions of historicity, will only make you suffer a constant spiral of adjustments as you try feebly and futily to please everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Husky I'd agree with you if this was a board game or a miniatures game, but one of teh beauties of computer gaming is that complex processes can be included and presented with simple "front ends" by using computaional ability to do the hard/boring/repetitive work instead of a human brain.

CMBO is a good example!!

SC could be too one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As originally posted by Wolfpack:

Come on...keep making suggestions by all means, but at least think them through for cripes sakes, don't just go off half cocked and cry and whine about how this is so stupid and unrealistic. I mean really think about it. Want tanks to be able to move twice? Who here can name any unforseen consequences of that suggestion?

I don't know about you Wolfpack, but my reading of the posts since April have indicated to me that MOST are both pretty reasonable, and fairly well informed.

Most are NOT half-cocked, whining or stupidly unrealistic. You have employed a common rhetorical device very often used in debates, namely -- an appeal to emotion (... ah, yes, I have used it myself, though try not to, etc...). ;)

We are dealing with a group, myself included, who have waited 8 or so years for someone -- anyone! to create a game like this, and so, at times the suggestions will include a long, long fantasy-list that goes back a long, long time.

Quite naturally, I think, an awful lot of opinions will exist, and the time for expressing them is... if not -- here and now, then -- when?

Sure I know that my suggestions will probably be discarded, but I enjoy trying to include myself in the creation process because I can finally, after 8 long years, have a chance to give my thoughts & opinions on GS war-gaming.

Here I am, with an electric-eclectic group of people from all over the world who truly enjoy Grand Strategy games, and discussing ALL the possible aspects with others of a similar (... some would say -- strange, but what do they know?) nature.

Now. Am I happy with SC? No. I am positively thrilled! smile.gif If it never changes? I will STILL enjoy it every bit as much as the next guy.

I appreciate ALL the comments on this thread, pro & con and thoughful, or -- even those that are a kind of... "spontaneous wishful thinking." :cool:

You cannot remotely improve anything -- if that is even one of your goals -- whether a game, or your own tending-degenerate thought processes, without challenging ALL preconceived opinions. Unlike the case with ol' Socrates, Hemlock is not on most Opponent's wine list.

And so -- bring it on! ALL unrehearsed, uncensored, unbiased, AND -- considerate, fair-minded and friendly opinions!

BTW, I am still for Para, Destroyers, and some kind of Variant Event table, enacted randomly to help insure infinite replayability -- you? smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

I don't know about you Wolfpack, but my reading of the posts since April have indicated to me that MOST are both pretty reasonable, and fairly well informed.

Most are NOT half-cocked, whining or stupidly unrealistic. You have employed a common rhetorical device very often used in debates, namely -- an appeal to emotion (... ah, yes, I have used it myself, though try not to, etc...). ;)

We are dealing with a group, myself included, who have waited 8 or so years for someone -- anyone! to create a game like this, and so, at times the suggestions will include a long, long fantasy-list that goes back a long, long time.

Quite naturally, I think, an awful lot of opinions will exist, and the time for expressing them is... if not -- here and now, then -- when?

Sure I know that my suggestions will probably be discarded, but I enjoy trying to include myself in the creation process because I can finally, after 8 long years, have a chance to give my thoughts & opinions on GS war-gaming.

Here I am, with an electric-eclectic group of people from all over the world who truly enjoy Grand Strategy games, and discussing ALL the possible aspects with others of a similar (... some would say -- strange, but what do they know?) nature.

Now. Am I happy with SC? No. I am positively thrilled! smile.gif If it never changes? I will STILL enjoy it every bit as much as the next guy.

I appreciate ALL the comments on this thread, pro & con and thoughful, or -- even those that are a kind of... "spontaneous wishful thinking." :cool:

You cannot remotely improve anything -- if that is even one of your goals -- whether a game, or your own tending-degenerate thought processes, without challenging ALL preconceived opinions. Unlike the case with ol' Socrates, Hemlock is not on most Opponent's wine list.

And so -- bring it on! ALL unrehearsed, uncensored, unbiased, AND -- considerate, fair-minded and friendly opinions!

BTW, I am still for Para, Destroyers, and some kind of Variant Event table, enacted randomly to help insure infinite replayability -- you? smile.gif

Hey, I'm all for suggestions, but just think it out first and don't say how the game is stupid and crappy because your personal thing isn't in. Okay, take for example the tank movement. Some want it to be able to move and attack, attack and move, move attack move...etc etc. So...should it be able to attack twice? Should it take a readiness hit for this? If so how much? If it can't attack twice, what happens if it runs into a hidden unit? Should there be an action point penalty for an attack or should it just be one AP? See? You have to think about these things and address them or else if it somehow does get put in, you'll probably be unsatisfied with the result. Personally I'd love to have an event editor like TOAW, but again, that would compound the difficulty in the editor at least. I see a lot of suggestions like this, "This game should have (Paratroopers, super tanks, swedish bikini team, whatever) they were used in WWII, they would add a lot to the game. If you think the game needs something back it up better than that. Prove to us that the game needs them...no, prove to Hubert that the game needs them. And don't make things so overly complicated that I'm going to be spending 2 1/2 hours trying to figure out how to manage my research points. smile.gif The main reason I like this game is that I can finish a turn in about 2 minutes and a game in a night. I've got plenty of games that I can sit in front of for an hour trying to figure out what to do. So, make suggestions, make tons of them...just don't expect people to fall at your feet in awe when you don't offer any reason they should be in other than that it's cool. smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

I see a lot of suggestions like this, "This game should have (Paratroopers, super tanks, swedish bikini team, whatever) they were used in WWII, they would add a lot to the game.

Hubert left the Swedish Bikini team out?!?!? :eek:

Bugger that. Cancel my order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

And so -- bring it on! ALL unrehearsed, uncensored, unbiased, AND -- considerate, fair-minded and friendly opinions!

BTW, I am still for Para, Destroyers, and some kind of Variant Event table, enacted randomly to help insure infinite replayability -- you?

Thank you Immer Etwas!!! :D:D This entire forum had in the last couple days taken a very bad side (re-read the Finland thread for one, enough said already). And now this latest in the line, "hereby having opinions on this game is illegal and anyone making suggestions will be hanged!! Hear hear! Amen!" But now that your wise words are written, so it shall be done, and hopefully we can now go back to the friendly forum where we discuss everything-SC :D

Now check this out, this is a sure way to push their buttons:

I am for more map to the north where the lend-lease in Murmansk can be challenged and the battle of Narvik replayed, operating units from Norway thru Sweeden and into Finland, a Finnish Mannerheim line, Iraq as minor-axis, Denmark with corps on strenght 5 and a port on strenght 0, an editor that let's you remove the French maginot line for Battle of the Bulge campaign and where you can edit the neutral and the minor nations forces AND that let's you choose what side each nation has joined! I EVEN WANT TCP/IP MULTIPLAYER PATCH FOR THIS GAME! Too much to swallow? Here is the rope, try to hang me!! COMON!!!! ;)

~Norse~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As originally posted by Wolfpack:

Hey, I'm all for suggestions, but just think it out first and don't say how the game is stupid and crappy because your personal thing isn't in.

Is this a Zero-Sum game? All right, you win. smile.gif

But first, I will ask you to refrain from making inferences that are without merit.

If you feel that I have stated that the game is "crappy or stupid because my thing wasn't in," I will now ask you to retrieve from ANY of my posts since April -- and properly quote me.

My feeling is that I have actively supported the game from the beginning, and will continue to do so, this discussion notwithstanding.

If you can prove otherwise by quoting me, fair enough. Otherwise, like I say -- you can win.

In terms of my own suggestions, I have more than adequately explained my rationales and reasons, with the possible exception of supporting the idea of tanks being allowed to move and attack in the same turn (I had added -- with a two MP penalty).

In that instance, I felt that everyone else in the thread had already made sufficient explanation, and therefore didn't need to go over the same rationales again and again.

If I had disagreed with them, I would have said so, and (... to my OWN satisfaction, NOT -- YOURS, or anyone else's) laid out my own reasons, all right?

Not everyone can be an analyzer par excellence, and so IMHO, you shouldn't demand it of them.

It is completely agreeable to me that they should merely state their opinion without need of detailed exegesis -- I can live with that, why can't you? smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

But first, I will ask you to refrain from making inferences that are without merit.

If you feel that I have stated that the game is "crappy or stupid because my thing wasn't in," I will now ask you to retrieve from ANY of my posts since April -- and properly quote me.

My feeling is that I have actively supported the game from the beginning, and will continue to do so, this discussion notwithstanding.

If you can prove otherwise by quoting me, fair enough. Otherwise, like I say -- you can win.

Wow, Immer Etwas, I am impressed. They just didn't listen to me when I said "I never said that", and kept dwelling on things I had never said, forcing me to explain myself on the very same issue 3 and 4 times over before they let go. And here you do this, so galantly, with minimal effort, in what seems to be almost less than 1 sentence.

Wow.

Will you be my mentor? Please? ;) Man I got diplomatic skills to learn tongue.gif

~Norse~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

But first, I will ask you to refrain from making inferences that are without merit.

If you feel that I have stated that the game is "crappy or stupid because my thing wasn't in," I will now ask you to retrieve from ANY of my posts since April -- and properly quote me.

Pardon me when I say "you" I'm not referring to you in particular, I'm referring to people like in the last tank thread. That put forth an arguement after little time with the game and offer incomplete suggestions. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

As for Norse, he's apparently on a mission to irritate me after I thought we had settled our differences. Whatever, have your transport across Scandanavia. If you can prove it was possible. Iraq as an Axis minor? Would make a bit of sense. Denmark low strength and a port? Port yes, strength...sure, they weren't exactly the creme de la creme of the European armies. As for the editor...I'd love to see more functionality...but tell me, if you want the maginot gone, why don't you just load up the 41,42,43, or 44 scenarios and use it as a base for your new campaign...voila, the maginot is no more. TCP/IP is also something I'm hoping to get soon. I despise hotseat because it makes me lug my rear out of my comfy chair every couple of minutes. :D Now be quiet and play nice Norse...or someday the big bald kid will come along and swat you. tongue.gif

Oh, and Norse, at least I'm not the one who makes up quotes that never existed to respond to. :rolleyes:

[ August 23, 2002, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

As for Norse, he's apparently on a mission to irritate me after I thought we had settled our differences.

Now now, don't be so self-centered.

Whatever, have your transport across Scandanavia. If you can prove it was possible.

It's done, look at the thread for this. Got any comments? State them there. I have more to say on the subject but I am waiting till Hubert returns.

Iraq as an Axis minor? Would make a bit of sense.

As they had a pro-axis coup, followed by Commonwealth intervention? Yes indeed. Already got Hubert's comment on this.

Denmark low strength and a port? Port yes, strength...sure, they weren't exactly the creme de la creme of the European armies. As for the editor...I'd love to see more functionality...but tell me, if you want the maginot gone, why don't you just load up the 41,42,43, or 44 scenarios and use it as a base for your new campaign...voila, the maginot is no more.

This has already been discussed. But for you I answer yet again ;) Mainly because I want the most historical accuracy as possible, as there were a full-strenght French Army holding the southern-flank of the American forces, with French corps garrisoning the major cities and helping the Americans in "the forgotten front" in western France. Yours is not a bad suggestion though, but Hubert is looking into it, so I am awaiting his final decision on this before I redo the campaign.

TCP/IP is also something I'm hoping to get soon. I despise hotseat because it makes me lug my rear out of my comfy chair every couple of minutes. :D Now be quiet and play nice Norse...or someday the big bald kid will come along and swat you. tongue.gif

Is that a threat? Now what would Immer Etwas say to something like this, hmmmm, alright got it.

I live in Texas ;)

~Norse~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...