Why?!

[Ike99]

I know this is an old issue for some but it isn't for me and I feel the need to voice my opinion.

Why in the world are you using a grid based board?!

I haven't seen this since Tactics2 on the board and Civilization on PC. For very good reason too..people don't like it, I don't like, nobody likes it. I've seen people on this forum making every excuse they can and forcing themselves to get used to it. No way. It sucks.

The movement doesn't work right in grid based games and neither do attacks. Wargame designers realised this...when? Back in the 60's!? Hexagons are superior in every way. If your wanting more units to be able to attack make stacking limits.

Hubert my friend. The young audience buys RTS games and the like. Not turn based strategy wargames. The vast majority of your market does not care about eye candy little toy soldiers or cities. Give us rectangles with "X"s in them and so on and were graphicly happy.

Using a gridbased board is doing nothing but alienating the wargamer fan base and I'm thinking we are the ones who are pretty much gonna buy this game anyways.

As far as the new graphics...there nice, I like them but I don't need them. Other games like TOAW had them also and after 5 minutes of playing with them I turned them off and went to top down NATO symbols and never turned the isometric figures on again. Same as everyone else. Wargamers are very easy to please graphicly but taking away hexagons is like pulling our teeth out.

It's a mistake.

[pzgndr]

You're correct about one thing. This is an old issue. No horse is too dead to beat, eh?

[Retributar]

I personally like the Eye-Candy that 'Hubert' has...i think his Isometrics look 'Damned Good'...not like those of TOAW which totally sucked.

I too had an abberation about Squares...and disliked them at 1st...though now im resigned to having Squares and am willing to give them a Go!.

I think 'Hubert' will have a Very-Fine Game here...and after we try out SC2...if we Dislike his Squares and/or what-ever else...we will say so!.

And...by the Way i 'Hate REAL-TIME' games as the Computer always cheats so much by exploiting it...and its not a restful...relaxing way to play a game!.

[Slapaho]

The proof of the pudding... just waiting (patiently ) to get first hand experience of sc2.... then maybe the real debate will begin as doubtlessly some will love it, others will hate it, but until we play it, it is difficult to assess. Personally i have preferred hexes to squares in most other war games i have played, with only Dawn Patrol(?) (ww1 aircraft game) on squares that i liked.

[fischkopf]

I'm anxious to see how it plays for myself, but I think that the vast majority of 'casual' strategy gamers are more used to tiles.

Look at the ongoing success of Civ4. I personally found it unplayable, but it's been in the top 3 every week since it shipped. It appeals to casual strategy gamers, which outnumber grognards 10:1, at least...

[jon_j_rambo]

I want hexes, but will give Hubert the benefit of the doubt...for now.

[Ike99]

You're correct about one thing. This is an old issue. No horse is too dead to beat, eh?

No I'm correct about alot of things and their is a reason this keeps coming up. The majority of wargamers do not like gridbased boards in wargames, period. They don't like it. Thats all I can say.

I too had an abberation about Squares...and disliked them at 1st...though now im resigned to having Squares...

Personally i have preferred hexes to squares in most other war games...

I want hexes...

Listen to your base Hubert or SC2 will flop around and die like a fish upon its release.

I realise some people here have an almost emotional attachment to SC2 and will buy the game regardless, However these people are a minority and are not going to make the game a success or not. I myself, and probably others think hard about putting down $35 dollars or so for a game. Most Wargamers are gonna see that gridboard and go "Skip it. I'll take my 35$ or so and go buy something over at Matrix Games." or some other company.

With the release of SC1 Hubert got the fan group that likes games like "Clash of Steel", "Third Reich" and so on. SC2 is not being true to this "genre" by using a gridbased board and is straying from the course.

I personally like the Eye-Candy that 'Hubert' has...i think his Isometrics look 'Damned Good'...not like those of TOAW which totally sucked...

Well, I happen to own all the TOAW series and still play them. They still work on XP. If you go over to the TOAW forums you will see they are very active despite this being a old game. Unlike the SC forums which are dying a slow death by the way. In fact Matrix games is re-releasing TOAW. So I'm afraid your taste are in the minority among wargamers.

So in closing...

Hubert, lose the grid. Fix the naval and air problems and some other small things with SC1 and release the game we are wanting.

BTW, not to be all negative, the land system in SC1 was brilliant from a game design standpoint. Simple with realistic results.

[fischkopf]

Yeah, in an ideal world I'd be all for hexes myself.

But even if the majority of 'wargamers' prefer hexes, look at gamers in general. Most would never play a hex-based game. And yet tile-based Civ 1...4, as mentioned earlier, are huge huge sellers. Imagine how badly a Civ game would flop if it was turned to hexes. The tiny, but vocal, wargamer community would love it, but not the guy walking into EBGames to see if there's anything interesting to play... And not even the guy browsing GameSpot's list of PC demo's. He wants tile-based.

Anyway, I have faith that Hubert will do a great job with tiles and that SC2 will be even better than SC1. And if it isn't, well ... it was only $25??

[John C]

The reason for going to squares has nothing to do with making things pretty or with what casual gamers prefer - it was done to address a gameplay issue from SC1. The game grinds to a halt when a few strong pieces can block an entire front. With squares, with corner to corner moves permitted as they will be, it allows three units to concentrate fire on a given piece instead of just two as is permitted on a front line with hexes. This should allow greater concentration of fire and breakthroughs that might not be possible on a hex based map. The intent of the squares is to better model the mobile warfare and breakthroughs that were the hallmark of WWII.

I prefer hexes also. They "look" better to an old board gamer like me. But I understand the issue the squares are intended to fix and I am willing to give it a try.

[StefMan]

Well maybe it is just because I am not a "hardcore" wargamer, but somehow I don't understand what the fuss is all about. Grids, Hexes - honestly I dont't care if it is a good game. I loved panzer general and civ "gridwise" and battle isle and sc "hexwise". Aesthetically I like hexes better but I don't see why grids should ruin a great game. I haven't heard any gameplay reasons for hexes either. In a way it seems like you are looking for some "eye candy" of your own.

[Kuniworth]

There may be different reasons for tiles. Obviously according to playtesting it works out and should not be a major problem.

However if the main reason for tiles was to enable more directions of attack I think a better way would have been retreat rules and stacking 1-2 corps per hex.

[pzgndr]

DesertDave and I are both old boardgamers who grew up with hex-based turn-based wargaming and given a choice would probably prefer the hexes. And yet, we're finding no issue at all with the tiles. Gameplay is fine. I turn the optional tile grid off and can hardly tell. Believe me, you get into the game and get into the heat of battle and you'll have a whole lot of other stuff to think about. We're having fun with the game. If we can do it, I suspect many other open-minded grognards will also. :cool:

Unless of course you've got some irrational emotional attachment to hexagons. Too bad.

And since Tactics II was mentioned... I've been working on my "Tactics III" campaign for SC2 and quite frankly been having some fun with Red and Blue again. I think anyone who used to play it might want to start looking forward giving it another try after SC2 gets released.

[Ike99]

fischkopf "And yet tile-based Civ 1...4, as mentioned earlier, are huge huge sellers. The tiny, but vocal, wargamer community would love it, but not the guy walking into EBGames to see if there's anything interesting to play."

Civ.1-4 are not "wargames" per say. They are exploration and empire building type games. There really not in the same genre. Your point on the marketing of SC2 I agree with totally. Your average guy walking into EBGames is not going to buy SC2 be it hex or grid. Your market for a game about World War 2 in Europe is going to be wargamers. Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out. The point is wargamers want hexes, not a grid.

"With squares, with corner to corner moves permitted as they will be, it allows three units to concentrate fire on a given piece instead of just two as is permitted on a front line with hexes."

I just can't buy the reasons put forth for using a grid. Must have been a miracle then every other good game covering this theatre seemed to manage it. "Clash of Steel","Third Reich"..."E.T.O"..."World in Flames"..dah...dah...dah.

"Well maybe it is just because I am not a "hardcore" wargamer, but somehow I don't understand what the fuss is all about."

Well the problem with a grid is it does not keep or allow movement in a very realistic manner. Hexes are especially good when distances matter, because between any two points the distance

is the same irrespective of direction. When your game needs infantry to be x% faster than tanks on roads but y% slower cross-country,

hexes will give you the most accurate model of any tesselation. There is more of a difference between hexes and grids than eye candy as some people have expressed here. The grid system makes the game lose credibility and wargamers want a wargame to be realistic. If the game lacks crdibility the wargame crowd will discard it.

pzgndr-"Unless of course you've got some irrational emotional attachment to hexagons. Too bad."

Well I hope this doesn't sound stronger than I want it to pzgndr and you don't take offense but everyone knows your playtesting the game and your opinion is biased. Therefore your opinion is irrelevant.

[pzgndr]

Therefore your opinion is irrelevant.

Coming from a 7-post troll with an attitude, I'm touched.

Now, what the heck have you accomplished here other than racking the muck? Is Hubert going to make a radical design change in the 11th hour just prior to release? No. Is he likely to make a radical design change as a future patch? No. Is he likely to consider hexes for a future game design, either as the default or an option between hexes and tiles? Maybe, and probably yes.

But for now, SC2 has tiles. SC2 will continue to have tiles. SC2 will probably never have anything but tiles. You don't like it? So what. Don't buy the game. Go wallow in your own irrelevance. But do not come here and post inflammatory nonsense. Cuz guess what? It don't matter.

[synystr]

Interesting. Shall we just wait and see how the game fields our opinions. It may or may not be as good without the hex grid. Theres only one way to find out...

[Ike99]

Well now don't get your panties in a twist pzgndr. It's true your playtesting the game and your opinion is biased.

"Now, what the heck have you accomplished here other than racking the muck?"

Well I think what I HAVE accomplished along with many others on this forum is this...if there is a SC3 it will be played on hexagons. Your correct in saying it is the 11th hour for SC2 and probably too late for a change. However I think HC has gotten the message from me and many others about putting a SC3 on a grid if there is a SC3.

There were many suggestions on this forum with many good ideas for SC2 and not one of them included putting the game on a grid board. That should have been clue number one. Lets be honest pzgndr its been controversial from the start and for good reasons.

Because I have voiced my objections to the grid system does not make me a troll or anyone else who has voiced their concerns pzgndr. I want SC2 to be a good game same as you and everyone else. This is why I don't understand using a grid over hexagons when the majority of people don't like a grid.

If a poll were put on this forum asking grid or hexagons we both know hexagons would get the nod. So why go with a grid? It makes no sence to me.

"You don't like it? So what. Don't buy the game. Go wallow in your own irrelevance."

Well just because your a playtester doesn't mean your an official representative for HC or Battlefront so i will not hold it against him or Battlefront for your unproffesional attitude here. I will not go "wallow" anywhere and I am relevant. VERY RELEVANT. I'm the customer. If I don't like what I see in a product I don't go "wallow" anywhere. I take my money somewhere else. Grow up a little.

[santabear]

OK, so I've got to add my $.02:

I've loved SC ever since I first bought it--it's a great game--and I can't imagine that SC2 will be worse regardless of hexes/tiles/triangles or whatever. I'm looking forward to an engaging, stimulating and challenging game.

With that being said, if there is an SC3 I would vote for hexes.

But I'll have SC2 to change my mind about the tiles!

SB

P.S. There's going to be grumbling about SC2 from now until the first patch and beyond. Not becuase it won't be good, but because everyone has their own mental image of what the "perfect" game should be. And it's unlikely that Hubert's image will be identical with anyone else's. So we'll have plenty to post about even AFTER the game comes out.

Better to have people who care about this enough to get passionate about hexes that a bunch of apathetic nonentites...

[Hentzau]

Originally posted by John C:

- it was done to address a gameplay issue from SC1. The game grinds to a halt when a few strong pieces can block an entire front. With squares, with corner to corner moves permitted as they will be, it allows three units to concentrate fire on a given piece instead of just two as is permitted on a front line with hexes. This should allow greater concentration of fire and breakthroughs that might not be possible on a hex based map. The intent of the squares is to better model the mobile warfare and breakthroughs that were the hallmark of WWII.

Sort of eliminates my favorite defensive tactic for SPI quads, doesn't seem like it would have mattered for SC2 with its bigger scale.

I've always figured the real reason for tiles was that all the editors are included, and if people started remaking every hex based game that has ever been produced there would have been a legal uproar.

I'll buy with tiles.

[Agent Smith]

My 3 cents...

It's not the issue of tiles or hexes per se. It's the damn eye candy effect of the isometric view. If there was a top down view option/ toggle that dispensed with all the bitmap b.s, then frankly I wouldn't give a hoot if the game grid was interlocking circles!

My disappointment lies, in ramping up min. hardware requirements for ditzy, quick-to-get-tiresome, bitmaps when the cpu should be smoking over edwin's a.i. scenario scripting.

[pzgndr]

Well just because your a playtester doesn't mean your an official representative for HC or Battlefront so i will not hold it against him or Battlefront for your unproffesional attitude here.

Ike99, I am not an official anything here, just a volunteer playtester. And for the record, you are not an official representative of the player community or customers out there.

You and others are entitled to your opinion. You prefer hexes, so just say so and leave it at that. But you went a bit further with your prognostications about SC2 flopping about like a fish upon release, and other negative comments. Considering you have not even played the game, that's a bit harsh. And a bit selfish to impose your design goal ideals upon a real game designer. Let us know when you are ready to release your own game, yes?

I just can't buy the reasons put forth for using a grid. Must have been a miracle then every other good game covering this theatre seemed to manage it. "Clash of Steel","Third Reich"..."E.T.O"..."World in Flames"..dah...dah...dah.

It was interesting how SC1 was so closely compared to Clash of Steel, for good and bad. Ever consider that Hubert might be deliberately stepping away from the yada yada yada pack to demonstrate how SC2 is unique in its own way, and appealing to a broader customer base than a bunch of niche grognards? SC2 remains an abstract game and not a realistic simulation. The grogs may all have to wait for MWiF (with hexes) or Online AWAW for that nirvana of WWII grand strategy wargaming. It is not critical that every single game on the market must be just like such and such other game.

Having been a diehard hexagon gamer and concerned about the tile issue (and yes, this was a topic of discussion in early playtesting when we first saw the tile grid), I've come to accept Hubert's decision. And frankly, for whatever my biased opinion is worth to others, this old 3R/A3R player is having fun with this game. And it is only just a game fellas. If the grid or the isometric effect or the 3D sprites really and truly detract from your ability to enjoy the other great new features of this game, then you're letting something trivial become overwhelming. That's your choice of course, but difficult to understand. There's no point arguing about such things.

Let's stop beating a dead horse, shall we?

[santabear]

Pzgndr:

Thanks for your good observations.

But from this thread, the horse ain't dead yet. The decision may have been made that the game will have tiles, but folks still seem to have strong feelings about it.

It's like "who was better, Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus?" There are some discussions that won't ever end. And since this is a discussion forum, it's probably a good thing that they don't!

[Kuniworth]

Guys, I see no point in continuing this debate. Game is on its way. End of story.

[Canuck]

No wait it's not too late! Let's destroy two years of development because some forum n00b says so!

[SeaMonkey]

Look, you guys want to experiment with hexes?

Take a look at the MWiF map....simply awesome. Now you want some of the old Nato type counters we are all used to?

Well, they are there too.

Just one problem..........?????

We want the simplicity approach of SC and not all the complication of MWiF.

So who's going to port the SC gameplan to the MWiF playing field?

[John C]

Originally posted by Ike99:

It's true your playtesting the game and your opinion is biased.

Replace the word "biased" with "informed" and I think you will be closer to the mark. How can actually having played the game be a bad thing when evaluating the effectiveness of a design decision? /shrug