Stacking and SC2

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Yes I know I thought I left.

I am not retracking any of my comments here or abroad, but as this is where SC2 will be made, this is where I need to ask my question.

I think the lack of stacking in SC killed the game for me more than anything else.

The justifications were as valid as 3 dollar bills.

So my question is this, if SC2 is made, and I will not "assume" it will be made just because we whine for it to be made.

Will the designers consider re considering the stacking element of the design?

If all the comments to the effect were taken into account, how we all wish this game could be "just like A3R" for polish and style, and A3R has stacking, then to say that stacking is not possible at this scale is not going to wash.

That's it in a nutshell.

Is there aaaaaaany reason I should assume that SC2 will do aaaaaanything at all to alter this particular design feature. Or will SC2 turn out to be just be a mega patch.

As it stands, SC can not be patched in a way that will help me.

I am just wondering if I have cause to wait for SC2.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

What type of stacking? If you mean air units in the same hex as corps and armies, corps on corps (up to 5 maybe) or tank groups on either armies or corps, then ok, but u am not in favor of getting to Moscow and seeing 10 armies stacked with an HQ in my way!

My .02 (but i think the exchange rate is low )

CvM

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

In A3R it was 2 ground units regardless of what they were called armour or infantry (although Para stacked free).

You could put 5 air factors in a hex if it had a city or air base, regardless if the army was there.

You could put 4 x 9 factor fleets in a port hex, whether or not the army or airforce was there.

In the open sea well there was no stacking limit at sea, why should there be.

That you can't base a fleet with ground units in the port as well as air assets, only indicates the game design was not well thought out in this particular aspect.

All the lunacies of all the other design features, might not even have mattered enough to prevent me from getting a copy.

But this one feature in the end told me the game was not correctly designed.

[pzgndr]

There is some stacking in SC. Armies and Tank Groups are essentially two corps. But that's beside the point.

I would also like to see corps-size units and stacking of 2 corps per hex in SC2. It works well in A3R and there's no reason it couldn't work in SC2.

Btw, welcome back Sarge. You really should try v1.06. It's not your perfect game, but there are worse things you can do with that $25 burning a hole in your pocket.

[Kuniworth]

Hm Sarge, where do you have your old friend Old Eagle`

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I have no idea about Eagle's whereabouts.

I also recal vaguely a name something like Egg_Shen, have not seen that moniker in a while either.

I have had my opinions folded spindled and mutilated before (sometimes it was even deserved), but nothing annoys me more than when it is not my opinion, but me personally that gets attacked.

One man's game is not always another though.

What makes 1.06 so significant.

Right now I am thinking of reformating computer.

Currently running through my games to see which ones give XP the finger.

Expecting that I might be seeking out some new games to replace old ones.

I will feel like I am shooting an old loyal dog if I can't get Operational Art of War to run correctly.

Not expecting to purchase anything in Grand Strategy though. I am to hung up on a game having to play like Advanced Third Reich.

[pzgndr]

I am too hung up on a game having to play like Advanced Third Reich.

Sarge, there is a 12-step program available for recovering Third Reichers. It's called SC. Just kidding!

A short story, another sales pitch, and then I'll leave this be. I came into SC with a 3R/A3R background since I started playing in the mid-70's. I had seen COS and was intrigued by the game, but hated the map and graphics and never got beyond that to actually try to play the game. I initially played PG and even got PG2, but got fed up with air units flying around continuously and other quirks of the game. Not only did I delete PG from my HD, I threw everything away so I wouldn't be tempted again. WiF was always interesting, but too complex for my taste and the computer version never happened.

So along comes SC. COS-style map, PG-style game mechanics, a turn sequence that continues to amaze me, no seasonal effects, and various other oddities. I hold my nose and play the demo, and play and play and play. And I play the full campaign game, over and over and over. Now I'm hooked. If you get beyond the un-A3Rness just a bit, the overall game starts to play very well. So here's a computer game right now with a decent AI (unlike Computer 3R) for solo play, full PBEM and TCP/IP support for human play, FOW, random politics, research, and a real opportunity to flex your WWII grand strategy muscles. v1.06 finally resolves a lot of the play balance issues and the result is a darn good game you can play right now and not just wish for. It's not perfect, but nothing else is either.

SC2 should provide more improvements and enhancements for better realism and historical accuracy, but may be the better part of a year before we see it. HOI is an alternative, if micromanagement and RTS is your prefered gaming style. I've played SC over and over as both Axis and Allies and against both the AI and human opponents and can say I've gotten much more than $25 worth of satisfying entertainment. Other games are collecting dust.

So go ahead, buy and play SC or don't. Methinks it's your loss if you don't. And that's coming from a former A3R player - including ULTRA, Avaloncon, and the rest.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Well Bill you are a credit to the game, even made me pause and think there.

Not impossible.

Nothing is impossible.

And it will run on XP, which is sometimes better than any other selling point with this "I hate 98" demon.

It's unlikely I am going to stop bitching about the stacking though.

But post christmas season, if I have nothing out there other than UV to purchase (and sadly Pacific Naval really is like white chocolate to me), I might buy something just for the sake of buying something (but there is zero chance it will be HoI).

Because odds are the idea of me buying a dvd burner is not going to happen for me any time soon).

And currently the only wargames I WANT to buy (Combat Leader and Battlefields) are not likely to hit the market any time soon.

A years time though really is nothing to me.

I am pleased that all this time while lurking, I have not seen much talk of the game "not working".

My beefs are entirely with issues of game design, the software appears to be no hassle.

And I have always been willing to say SC has a good interface.

[SeaMonkey]

Sarge I'm an ole TOAW I fanatic also, been through a lot of wargames, board and PC, and yes SC isn't perfect but there is just something about it (perhaps is subtle complexity) that grows on you. In a year, with many SC HtoHs behind you, help us and Hubert make SC2 the one that nearly is "perfect".

[ev]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

There is some stacking in SC. Armies and Tank Groups are essentially two corps. But that's beside the point.

I would also like to see corps-size units and stacking of 2 corps per hex in SC2. It works well in A3R and there's no reason it couldn't work in SC2.

Perhaps we could allow two corps to join into an Army ...and, likewise to allow an Army to split into two corps.

[sogard]

I don't see what the big deal is over the requirement for stacking. If the scale is appropriate (ie. units are large enough so that it is appropriate that they would/could hold the front (50 miles to the hex), there is no problem.

I can see the issue coming up when discussing why Air Units and Land Units can not stack together and I would have no problem with this. But, as long as the basic unit in the game is an Army or Corps, the scale fits. I suppose the Soviet units could also represent Fronts (Army Groups) and some ability to combine a couple of Corps to form an Army and maybe the addition of an Army Group counter (with the appropriate added combat abilities) is worth considering; but, stacking merely because people are familiar with games that permit unit stacks is not a very compelling reason to implement in the STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) or STRATEGIC COMMAND 2 (SC2).

I love WORLD IN FLAMES. I would play WiF over any of the iterations of THRID REICH everytime. But, just because WIF has an identical map scale and permits stacking does not necessarily mean that SC or SC2 must follow the same design decision. I like the fact that SC keeps the game simple. I have been passing out "BUY" recommendations to all my friends and on ConsimWorld now that tcp/ip has implemented. SC is the best little stocking stuffer that I know of for your gaming friends who think they have everything.

What would be particularily clever is be sure to give a gamer who has just shelled out $50 for HEARTS OF IRON a little game called STRATEGIC COMMAND and then tell him that he is getting three times the game at half the price of HoI. Ho, Ho, HO....

[ December 10, 2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Well I won't say I advocate stacking merely for its own sake.

I can generate stacks of 10-15 counters in bizarre situations in a game of ASL. But a batch of those counters are just misc. memory aid utility temp counters.

A3R is no different than the first version in that you could only stack two ground units per hex. This was potentially a concession to hex size, and ground coverage potential (ask the designer).

That SC will only allow a single ground unit is no major burden. That you have to pick a single counter though, regardless of ground, air or naval IS a burden.

The footprint a ground unit will have on a hex has nothing to do with the footprint an air unit will have on the same hex. And if its a port, the naval unit being waterborne, will have no impact whatsoever on the existence of ground and or air units in the hex.

This aspect is what has me annoyed.

I can deliberately "game around" this design, because if it affects me it affects the other guy equally.

But the claim "a ground unit of a certain size has a certain effect on the ground usage", is just not something that can be justified.

[J Wagner]

All this talk about stacking has me chuckling over SPI's old board game War in Middle Earth where you would have 15 to 20 unit counters stacked on Helms Deep and Minis Tirith and then have additional stacks of 10-15 counters per hex surrounding the forts, trying to break the seige....those were the days....

Seriously though, stacking in SC would not work efficiently unless you introduce additional gameplay options, which have been discussed before. In particular, combined muti-hex attacks and attack prior to movement. If these were not included, you may end up having an increase in the "trench warfare" feel that can already crop up in the game...

[pzgndr]

I can see the issue coming up when discussing why Air Units and Land Units can not stack together and I would have no problem with this. But, as long as the basic unit in the game is an Army or Corps, the scale fits.

Well, that's the issue in a nutshell. Is the scale Army *or* Corps? SC has both, but they are not interchangeable. So the question for SC2 boils down to maybe finding a way to split Armies and Tank Groups into Corps and vice versa, or perhaps having Corps-size units with stacking. Or just keep the SC system as is, where Armies are slower but more efficient at utilizing limited HQ control than multiple faster Corps. That's an interesting and important aspect of SC and affects your force structure and force deployment decisions.

I'd like to have both, plus ability to stack an air unit with ground units. However, I recognize that any stacking may make combat more complex by requiring designation of attacker and defender when multiple units are present. If some stacking could be worked into the game so as to keep everything simple then fine, otherwise I'll vote to keep things pretty much the same as they are. The current system works fairly well, so I'm reluctant to say a change here is critical.

[Der Panzinator]

I really like that you cannot stack units.

It drives me nuts to have to click through stacks of units. It's much easier to look at the screen and see everything laid out without digging around. Plus it keeps with the simple easy to play nature of this game which is one of it's strongest attributes.

I have played a lot of overly complex games once or twice and set them aside to gather dust. I have boxes full of them actually. There are some games that I don't think were ever even played.

As much as I love to find a game with historical accuracy I will always prefer a game that is playable and fun. That I believe is the true greatness of this game. And that is what has generated such a large fan base.

Things can be added and maybe new maps for the Pacific theater would be nice but the basic design of the game should be kept mostly as is. Just look what happened to Panzer General 3D. Tried to be something it wasn't and flopped as a result.

I would say that stacking will introduce too much complexity and require so many additional rules that it will cause the game to lose much of its appeal. That said I would however love to see a totally new game created by the designers of SC that would be more advanced and use things such as stacking and multi-force attacks. But please keep this great little game the way it is. IMHO it is just fine.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

One thing I will grudgingly give as a concession to SC.

All games be they Shooter, RTS, turn based or board eventually have styles of play that become mandatory skills required to win vs someone else wanting to do the same thing.

The suspension of disbelief is often the only thing that must be mastered by the game designer, or people laugh at the game and won't play it.

I am currently laughing at HoI.

SC though has me merely annoyed at a design feature.

I am not sure about the politics, research, economics model yet. I can't have an opinion on those elements till I play the full game. So I won't sit and make statements on those elements. You would be right to discount my comments there as being from a source that had no merit.

One thing is for sure though. If Bill Macon succeeds in getting me to buy the game. You will have to deal with my opinion on those matters then hehe

As it stands I am pondering Bill's comments. He is currently the only reason I am pondering too.

[pzgndr]

I'm flattered, but must insist that all credit go to Hubert and his game. It stands very well on its own merits.

The more I think about the stacking issue, the less it bugs me. Perhaps adding a new unit type - Tank Corps - and providing a means to breakdown Armies and Tank Groups into Corps and to recombine them should be considered. Wouldn't that achieve the same overall effect?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

I'm flattered...

Well, today is your day to be "lionized," yes?

Your 15 seconds of fame... were Andy Warhol alive he would put you on a Campbell's soup can, having lunch with the Katzenjammer kids... or

Emblazoned on a silk-screened T-shirt, sure, you could wear aviator sunglasses and be smoking a corncob pipe and be pointing toward the far-off horizon, a colossus man! a renaissance man! who would be gallant but stoic & selfless, quite astride the Whole World, entyre...

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

That's nice Bill, but while Hubert might have sweated over the game, it was still your comments, and therefore you efforts that matter.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Shameless bump, (hey it's my only thread hehe)

[jmbunnelle]

Sarge,

Which version of TOAW are you trying to run on XP? I have TOAW:COW and had to make some adjustments to get it to run, but now I can play without the disk so I can't complain. Go to http://www.warfarehq.com for the full scoop on how to do it. Do a search in the general TOAW forum and you should pull up the threads.

Jim

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I have both elite versions, but my Operational Art of War Volume 1 Elite edition defies me.

My stuff predates Century of Warfare

[ December 13, 2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

This is cut and pasted right from where I think you are talking about Jim, although I think it is Century of Warfare relevant only, is that the case?

Man I like the game well enough to repurchase it again if I have to.

Instructions for downloading updates:

Century of Warfare Update v1.03

Please note: this procedure is DIFFERENT from other TalonSoft updates and applies only to the WinZip Self-Extractors below.

All updates include all changes made in prior updates- it is not necessary to find a previous update.

Locate the OPART 300 CW.ICD and OPART CW.ICD files in your game folder and delete them. These files are Read-Only and on some systems, the patch will terminate if it tries to overwrite a Read-Only file.

Click on the link below to begin downloading the update.

When prompted to, save the update to your hard disk. For easier installation, download the saved file directly into the game folder. The default directory for Century of Warfare is C:\Program Files\TalonSoft\TOAW-CW. If you have loaded the game to a different directory, download the update there.

Once the file is downloaded, double-click on the downloaded file. The WinZip Self-Extractor Screen will start and will ask you for an installation directory "Unzip to folder:" The default folder is already included. If you installed your game into the default C:\Program Files\TalonSoft\TOAW-CW, then you already have the correct folder selected.

Once you have selected the appropriate folder for extraction, press the Unzip button to update your game. When the update is finished you will see the message "91 files unzipped successfully."

Once the game has been updated, and you receive the update confirmation, you can remove the update from your system.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Well sadly I tried the patch for Wargame of the Year, as well as the patch for Century of warfare on my earlier copy of Operational Art of War Elite edition II, obviously it was incorrect.

Big time drat. Looks like my money will have to get Century Of Warfare if it indeed runs on XP even if I have to fiddle with it.

My Elite edition Volume II runs, but that is hardly Volume 1 now is it.

[Hueristic]

Just a comment. Why XP? It's a POS. There is no need of it. For a home one user system Win9x is the way to go. And there is no reason to goto a NT Kernal until Games Support Multi-Processor Access. And even when they do it will only be needed for the 3D CPU intensive Sims. Not the type games that anyone here seems to feed off. Just my 2 cents. I use Win98se Lite. And i Recommend it for any Home use machine.