Jump to content

Just a few observations.

Recommended Posts

I've only played the demo of this game which is the Fall Gelb campaign, but i'm already hooked and have decided that i'm definitely buying this game despite being in the middle of exams (this could be the end of me). I love the game for 2 main reasons:

1.I am a world war 2 fanatic in that I read many books about it and watch many programs about it. What I am most interested in it for however, is the complex strategies and great Generals of the war. So this game seemed too good to be true.

2. Despite enjoying strategy games (whether they are turn based or RTS, i'll give them a go), i've never enjoyed micro-management. To be completely honest, I couldn't give a **** about the muzzle velocity of a German MG-42 or how thick the armoured plating is on a T-34 tank. The game seems to strike the perfect balance between taking realistic and neccessary logistics into account, and overall grand strategy. I expected it to be a banal experience when I saw the graphics, but now I see them as adding character to the game. They may be outdated, but world war 2 only ended in 1945 you know?

But onto my real point, despite the obvious brilliance and maximum fun factor of the game, there are a few nagging issues which are pretty big. I don't like to whine incessantly, but here's a few:

1-This is the biggy, map size. Why is America so small? I know it's a European theatre, but the country's economic resources end up being dictated by the size of the map. By default America gets about 180 MMP's per turn when in reality it should be more like 500-600. The same principle goes for North Africa. Any ideas of reliving the desert rats vs afrika korps battles, may go straight out the window. In this way, it reminds me of the Civ 2 world war 2 scenario when the game should be so much more ambitious than that.

2-Historical accuracy- For the most part the game is remarkably accurate but some key things are missing. Seemingly, a fresh German army is no better than a fresh Italian army. In reality, your grandmother could have defeated the entire Italian army with a dildo. There should be more emphasis put on the character of each country. e.g. Russian soldiers should be more resilient than normal but the quality of Russian equiptment should initially be at a disadvantage. The German Luftwaffe should be capable of completely annihilating the Russian aircraft initially. My point is that the game seems to substitute this historical accuracy with simply making the Russian army big, but not as big as the German army. In reality, the Russians would have a far greater army, but end up getting torn to shreds by a faster more agile German army.

This is just a minor point, but why can't individual units surrender? I mean, although they may not be able to recieve any reinforcements if they are surrounded, why must you always completely and utterly wipe them out? It makes the loss of an army a more trivial affair. Why is it that when the 6th army was destroyed at Stalingrad, it was the most pivotal point of the war, and yet in the game the loss of an army may prove a common occurrance and a problem which is easily overcome?

There, I don't want to make this any more intolerably longer than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Col. Gen. Guderian:

2-Historical accuracy- For the most part the game is remarkably accurate

LMAO :D are you sure? LOL. Just scroll the topics and you will find that historical flaws have been debated over and over for 2 years. SC is a great game but lacks historic accuracy in many many areas.

Join the sc 2 forum with your ideas instead, there will be no more patches for sc.

[ May 18, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry I was going to mention that i'm aware that all of these things have probably been discussed a million times before, but I forgot to warn. I still think it is accurate for the most part, at least when it comes to dispositions, names of armies, that sort of **** that gives the game an extra gloss over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Col. Gen. Guderian

Glad you have enjoyed the taste the demo offers. The full game is a lot more.

Warning, those that play the game night and dfay night and day night and day repeat for a month, have discovered you can get burned out playing it like that for a year hehe.

I play it casually, and I like it a lot.

There are a few glitches, and they are being remedied basically by the soon to appear SC2.

But the game is fun.

And as most games are annoyingly finite, and conclude after a month of hard core playing, you will be happy that this game does not conclude any time soon.

But watch out for our jaded online playing mob, you don't want to take them toooooo seriously.

It's going to take a LOT of games for you to even experience half of what annoys them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Col. G. --- Go study for your finals, the game will be here when you're done. If you need some pointers in calculus, C++, history, or whatever...I'm the guy around here that knows.

If you need a real live headcracking in SC...well, I use to be the guy who takes care of that too. I'm in my retirement, Yoda-Phase, so going ahead & find one of my disciples.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...