Jump to content

Why I stopped playing SC

Guest Mike

Recommended Posts

It's a fun little game, but ultimately it's too simplistic and the mechanisms and results are not sufficiently tied to history for me.

for exampel I'm happy that the Germans can invade England and possibly win, but Id prefer it took some actual effort on their part rather than being as easy as it is any time I play it against a human (from either side!!).

There are better historical games out there - CMBB & MTW take up all my time now! :D (not that MTW is all THAT "historically accurate", but it has great "feel" and "atmosphere" that SC lacks).

I think SC may be a very useful tool for teaching my boys wargaming tho'! smile.gif

Ciao all.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple is not a flaw, any more that to damned complex is.

I compare SC with the Operational Art Of War. One is an easy to get into game, the other highly unlikely to interest some gamers due to excess detail.

Some want a Warcraft like game, while others like me, think ASL is the best wargame ever made (due to its level of detail).

In the end, some of us want a peanut butter sandwich grade experience, and some will pay for a major steak dinner experience with all the trimmings.

Me I like both. Last night I had a great dinner out, but in a short bit I will be munching a boring peanut butter sandwich heheh.

I currently think SCs biggest perk is it's price.

it delivers a good game, but doesn't cost a fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think STRATEGIC COMMAND's (SC) biggest draw for me is the fact that it is a good game at its center. What the term "good game" means to you may be somewhat different than my criteria; but, I like SC because it has a recognizeable historic flavor (although I wish the game better represented the real power relationships between the Major Countries) and it is a competitive game which uses fairly simple and intuitive game concepts. The game operates in a fashion that makes sense. Thus one, especially in the early portion of the game (1939 - 1941), can get a great deal of enjoyment out of the WW II experience.

I would even consider SC's basic design as rather elegant for how much it packs in its apparant simplicity. I am still playing the game regularily and enjoying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sea Lion is quite easy to prevent if you _know_ it's going to happen, so I'll resist the temptation to offer a challenge.

However if you don't know that it's being planned from Axis turn 1, and you're working on other goals, say defending France, then a well-executed Sea Lion is not an easy beast to tame...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The game may be a little too simplistic for some people...but its not beer and pretzels like A&A...its complex enough to require strategic thought and foresight, while simple enough to draw in a decent base of people who will play it. It definitely one of my favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think Chess is a boringly simple game too.

But I don't generally win, why, because I suck at playing chess.

I can run circles around some players in some games. And in others I haven't a clue.

Whether a game is hard to win does not automatically have anything to do with how complex or simplistic it is to play.

I like the game by Columbia Games called Victory: The Blocks of war (yes its a board game).

In spite of it being MY game, and that I have played it a number of times, I have not yet won a match heheh.

The game is not hard, nor complex, but winning takes a little known trait called "skill".

In a lot of cases "skill" is something you gain from playing, or studying the game intensely.

I think a lot of the people complaining about SC, in a lot of cases might be the weak link themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike actually said the game was "simplistic", not "simple".

There's nothing wrong with simplicity, and a simple game can require sophisticated and complex strategies. Iolo mentioned Go as an example. I learned the rules easily enough, but have never won a game.

"Simplistic" is more about something being oversimplified, which usually isn't so good, and tends to produce dull games.

So while I agree that SC is simple - which is one of its strenghts - I disagree with Mike about it being simplistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes a seemingly "simplistic" thing is really not so simplistic.

I don't care for the lack of stacking, but in the end, it is more of a I am just so darned used to it thing, that to not have it, seems to odd I suppose.

But when you look at a unit in the game, it is not "just a unit".

The designer would have employed numerous references to arrive at a decision as to what statistical model to employ for the unit.

I won't pretend to know SC to well yet (I have just the demo currently), so I will reference Advanced Third Reich (which I know like my hand).

A German armour unit is rated as a 4-6 ie it has 4 combat factors and a movepoint sum of 6. Compare this with an American armour unit that is a 5-6. We are all well schooled in how Tigers and Panthers were all so much beter than Shermans. But at the strategic level, the American armour unit it not just a bunch of tanks.

I have noticed a lot of comments directed at SC, where the post revolves around a dislike of a unit/game system.

Some times the poster seems to be commenting, without knowing what went into arriving at the game unit/game system in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...