Done with SC2 already

[Lars]

Originally posted by dicedtomato:

France builds diplomatic chits for Russia instead of troops

So that's what you did. Bastage.

Think SC2's problem, such as it is, is that Hubert put most of his effort into programming the basic game. It's going to take awhile to tweak all the settings to get a historical simulation of WWII. I don't like the sub war, gone in 30 seconds, attack values are too high and reducing diving was the wrong way to go, imho. The Malta effect is screwy. And some readiness hits for invasions are too high, Russia didn't give bugger all about Denmark and Norway. There are others, but I'm willing to give it time to mature. SC1 wasn't perfect out of the box either, but kept me amused for quite some time.

[dicedtomato]

They graduated kindergarten.

Diced Tomato

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Too many skirts came out of the closet with SC2. Where are all the competitive smack talkers?

[Desert Dave]

Lars, patient:

There are others, but I'm willing to give it time to mature.

For my part, I wouldn't mind seeing a more complete list of your suggestions.

And, what you have thus far mentioned could use a bit more elaboration.

Some rationales as to WHY it should be different than what it currently is.

So, how about #1-10 in order of importance, one of these days?

This is what Hubert REQUIRES us to do as play-testers. He surely doesn't just take a one line opinion what's been tossed into the wind, and say:

"Hey, that, like Betty Grable of yesterdays, has got some really shapely legs!"

[dicedtomato]

No, the problem is that SC2 is closer to Panzer General than a hard-core wargame. What I fear will happen is that Blashy, Desert Dave and Hubert will keep adding "historical" features that will only break the game. It's like putting a golden roof on a wooden shack.

We need to acknowledge the truth; SC2 is not a wargame, but a strategy game loosely modeled after WWII. If that's the case, we don't need to worry about realism. The only question is what makes the game fun. Want to make subs stronger against surface ships? Do it because it's fun, not because you're trying to fix a hopelessly unrealistic naval system? Want the U.S. to have more armies, or the Russians to be demoralized because Tunisia fell? Don't rationalize it, because it's not rational. Just include it because it makes the game more interesting.

It will save a lot of pointless bickering over what is and isn't realistic. The game isn't realistic, so why argue?

Diced Tomato

Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dicedtomato:

France builds diplomatic chits for Russia instead of troops

So that's what you did. Bastage.

Think SC2's problem, such as it is, is that Hubert put most of his effort into programming the basic game. It's going to take awhile to tweak all the settings to get a historical simulation of WWII. I don't like the sub war, gone in 30 seconds, attack values are too high and reducing diving was the wrong way to go, imho. The Malta effect is screwy. And some readiness hits for invasions are too high, Russia didn't give bugger all about Denmark and Norway. There are others, but I'm willing to give it time to mature. SC1 wasn't perfect out of the box either, but kept me amused for quite some time. </font>

[Lars]

Ok, to take one. Subs.

Too easy to find and kill, which was not the case historically. You killed the sub when they found you. It was always pretty much the sub's decision whether or not to give battle.

What we do now is just run a CA spread up and down the convoy lanes till it bumps into something, then everything else comes in for the kill. Subs usually gone by 41. Even the AI manages this. You can't even hide in the middle of nowhere in the Atlantic. Sheer random chance will eventually get you. It's just not worth the bother.

Game needs to be re-worked to allow a CA spread to just go cruising on by when the sub is on silent. Can't have stacking, so maybe the engine could just "shift" a sub over to the next tile if not spotted?

[Yogi]

We need to acknowledge the truth; SC2 is not a wargame, but a strategy game loosely modeled after WWII. If that's the case, we don't need to worry about realism. The only question is what makes the game fun.

I understand Dicedtomato, but this just continues the ongoing debate. If you do the above, many of us will want nothing to do with the game. We do want a good simulation. On the other hand, it is possible to do both! That may be the best choice. That way, those of us who want a real wargame and simulation can have it, and those of you who just want a "fun game" fantasy or not can have it too.

[ July 06, 2006, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

[Desert Dave]

What I fear will happen is that Blashy, Desert Dave and Hubert will keep adding "historical" features that will only break the game. It's like putting a golden roof on a wooden shack.

Bill and I and Blashy (... and another 1 or 2 who may one day make themselves known) do NOT add anything.

We, just like you, make suggestions.

Hubert makes ALL the decisions.

So, Diced Ice,

What would you do, quite specifically, and in detail, to make the game... how you'd prefer it?

See, I keep repeating myself, but... there needs be some more elaboration on these suggestions.

Now, there are a few who HATE to hear about the Editor. :confused:

Which is X-tremely strange indeed, considering the FACT, that, you can make almost any kind of game that you'd like.

I have MY own MOD, which is very, VERY different than ANYTHING I've seen thus far.

[... needs updating, which I'll do once Patch V 1.03 is out, but... I am happy as can be, because some "historical imperatives" that I personally like, are all in there, such as one I put in long time ago... Crete going over to UK control, with consequent "Crete Effect" IF GErmany should take it... one among countless other changes I have made]

If I can do this, ANYBODY can do, I'm tellin' ya. :cool:

You CAN have less luck-driven tech, for instance, there are, oh, about 10 ways to finesse it.

Hence, I am able to play EXACTLY the kind of game I prefer.

It ain't so hard, it's possibly just "intimidating" to those who haven't even ATTEMPTED to do it, is all.

[Yogi]

Now, there are a few who HATE to hear about the Editor.

I think the editor is great for those who like to use them. I wouldn't say I hate to hear about the editor. I would say I don't like to always get the answer you can fix it with the editor. I want a great game (and simulation) out of the box and/or via the issued patches and updates. I don't want to have to go to the editor to fix it.

I think it is great DD that those of you who enjoy editors can do what you want. I also admire the skills of people and what they can do with an editor. But I don't think it is for everyone. Maybe we don't have the time and/or don't get the enjoyment out of eiditing that some do. Call it lazy or editor challenged if you like. I just call it a preference. My comment about wargame simulation vs just a fun game applies here also. I see no reason we can't have both a great editor and a great game "out of the box".

[Desert Dave]

I see no reason we can't have both a great editor and a great game "out of the box".

Neither do I, Yogi,

And here pretty soon you shall indeed... have it.

Hubert is committed to making

The "out of box" game as good as it can

Possibly get,

And so,

I wouldn't worry about that.

It WILL happen. :cool:

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Gérard Le Poer Trench:

I must say I to was very dissapointed. I waited three years and what did I get? A game with an AI like **** and if you say it on this forum all these idiots say "use the editor" "take a mod" but that wasn't why most of us bought the game.

Don't assume that the 5-6 forum "use the editor"-shouters or the 3-4 "use a mod"-yellers are the mayority : I bet you a cookie that almost all players are very disapointed with the game's AI.

One can only hope that the makers of this game don't think that the few editor/mod yellers are their biggest audience and that they're working on improving the AI.

[dicedtomato]

Where do I start, Desert Dave? There are so many places where SC2 fails as an historical simulation. Here are a few:

* An abstract naval system where fleets gallop around like panzer divisions.

* A random tech system where you can go from WWI-era tankettes to medium battle tanks in a few months - or be stuck with 1939 tech in 1943.

* A strategic movement system where units zip Spain to Moscow in a week.

* A peculiar economic system where diplomacy and troops use the same currency (MMPs), so France buys chits instead of troops.

* A logistics system that allows the Axis to romp across the Middle East, Scandinavia and Russia - all within a couple of months.

* Diplomatic chits that turn diplomacy into a guessing game (Sweden goes pro-Axis by 40 percent, and you didn't have a clue the Axis were pressuring it. Surprise!).

* A morale feature that demoralizes or elates the Red Army because Tunisia has fallen.

* Ridiculously overblown air and naval bombardment.

* Generic force pools with little differentiation (which is why the Italian fleet can fight the Royal Navy on equal terms).

Many of these flaws are intrinsic to the game. Giving the U.S. a couple of extra armies, or toning down air bombardment, will help a little. But the game is basically strategic Panzer General and its "let's all pile on the bunny" tactics of swarming a target until it's destroyed. That's not going to change (maybe with SC3, but I doubt it). Adding realism band-aids will just complicate the game without tackling the underlying weaknesses. Better just to have fun and get our realism fix with another game.

Diced Tomato

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Okay...

1. Start with adding a real D-Day. And yes, even after a Sealion. The US sends 3-4 amfibous transporters wihout any defence, then two turns late another 4-5 units and that was D-Day.

2. Fix the US...

- they never, ever, EVER use their battleships.

- they send thier PLANES to Vichy France when you DOW on it. The same with Algiers (unless you take it in one turn).

3. Taking Egypt should be ALOT harder then it is. And don't even get me started on Turkey.

4. I can kill 10 Russian units in one single turn. Withdraw your German front troops back 3-4 hexes, let him come to you and then hit their units with all you got. 10 russian troops killed, the game is over.

5. Defend the capitals with something else then planes or HQs. And count Munich as a capital for the start.

6. Stop the AI from operating units like their is no tomorrow. You should -just for the heck of it-see what he does when you invade the south of Italy with 3 troops, then the next turn land 3 troops in France and the next turn land 3 troops in Denmark. It's depressing, really.

7. The Germans subs are waaaaay too easily destroyed.

8. Drop the diplomatic chits. The only two countries worth to use it on are Turkey and Spain, so everyone uses diplomacy the same and everyone counters with the same, no ?

9. The research is too random. Why not make it so that you get (say) 25 points a turn when you put 5 points in a level 0 technology and you get a 80% chance to get to level one once you have 100 points ? then when you have level 1, your 4 remaining chits buy you 16 points per turn and so on. It's too random now.

10. Do something about the rockets : no one uses them, that should say enough.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Yogi:

I see no reason we can't have both a great editor and a great game "out of the box".

Agreed, but I don't see why people are so closed minded they won't even think of trying some improved campaigns or like Dice they think it is impossible for the game to be improved via this way.

Then again Dice likes nothing about the game so I have no clue what he is still doing here.

I look forward to futur patches but since I have some tools at my disposal to actually improve gameplay SIGNIFICANTLY and feels more historical (and have the time) I went ahead and did it, has anyone here complaining tried it? I doubt it considering it has less than 30 downloads which is probably 10-12 actual players.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Yohan:

I must admit I am quite disappointed to say this but I am done with SC2 even faster than I was done with SC1.

Yohan - signing off

Man I don't want you in the trench with me if war breaks out. Seems like you are some kind of game queer.

[Lars]

I don't think that was quite Dice's point, Blashy.

He's just saying you can't make it something it was never meant to be.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

8. Drop the diplomatic chits. The only two countries worth to use it on are Turkey and Spain, so everyone uses diplomacy the same and everyone counters with the same, no ?

Lots of your points are fair, but not this one.

Iraq - If the UK gets them to 30% allied then it gets 30 MPP's/turn until the revolution in 1941 - well worth a small investment - or even a big one!

Norway and Sweden - if these ever become pro-allied by any % then they stop sending supplies to Germany - again well worth thinking about at least!

Spain - if Spain gets to less than 40% Axis then the minor Balkans (Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria) will not join the axis.

AFAIK there's nothing much exciting happens with the rest of them, but IMO these show that diplomacy can be very useful and/or threatening for teh MPP's involved.

[Blashy]

Diplomacy:

Spain, yes it is a big incentive for Axis, although I feel it is more realistic in my mod where Allies have for the major part of the game the diplomatic advantage, even so with a few good hits Axis can get them onside.

Norway, incentive for both sides, 1 hit by allies and convoy is lost for Axis, that hurts.

Sweden, good incentive for Axis, get them onside and you can take Norway with its troops. Also good for Allies, get one hit and the convoy is also eliminated.

Yugoslavia, good incentive for Allies, couple of hits and Axis will have to take it and use up 2 units to keep partisans away.

Iraq, good for allies, one/two hits and you get lots of mpps until the coup. Good incentive for Axis as well as if you get 1/2 hits it can join you when the coup occurs.

I see 5 countries that make diplomacy a possible strategical value.

You can also add in the high investment on Major neutrals, a high gamble but it could add some variety once in a while... a VERY RARE occurence.

[KG]

Where do I start, Desert Dave? There are so many places where SC2 fails as an historical simulation. Here are a few:

I liked this list so I'll give another players views on this list.

* An abstract naval system where fleets gallop around like panzer divisions.

I actually like the system. Minor change to subs would be nice. As other players have mentioned if a sub can't hide permanently then increase the dive %.

* A random tech system where you can go from WWI-era tankettes to medium battle tanks in a few months - or be stuck with 1939 tech in 1943.

I like some randomness but would prefer a min/max. 1 chit gives you 5% chance with 5 turns min/20 turns max and have each additional chit reduce the min/max by 1 for min & 2 for max as well as increase the % chance(or some type of combination of this).

* A strategic movement system where units zip Spain to Moscow in a week.

I'd like to see strategic movement limited to 10-20 hexes(I'll let the experts decide). If this can't be done just increase the cost of strategic movement or play with rails on.

* A peculiar economic system where diplomacy and troops use the same currency (MMPs), so France buys chits instead of troops.

I have no problem with this system. Just increase Frances cost for diplomacy

* A logistics system that allows the Axis to romp across the Middle East, Scandinavia and Russia - all within a couple of months.

See above on strategic movement limits/costs/rails.

* Diplomatic chits that turn diplomacy into a guessing game (Sweden goes pro-Axis by 40 percent, and you didn't have a clue the Axis were pressuring it. Surprise!).

Disagree. Even today diplomacy is pretty much clueless. Back then it would have been even more clueless.

* A morale feature that demoralizes or elates the Red Army because Tunisia has fallen.

Can each country be assigned a number that affects moral a different amount? Say 5% to 25%?

* Ridiculously overblown air and naval bombardment.

I'd use AA tech to balance out air attacks.

* Generic force pools with little differentiation (which is why the Italian fleet can fight the Royal Navy on equal terms).

Its not generic. When you purchase a unit you have the option of upgrading them based on the level of tech. Spend more to get more.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Lars:

I don't think that was quite Dice's point, Blashy.

He's just saying you can't make it something it was never meant to be.

He's not made one good comment about the game, I think his point is quite clear, he does not like it.

Try my mod, you'll be surprised at how it is possible to increase this games historical accuracy quite significantly.

[dicedtomato]

My job title isn't SC2 Cheerleader. I may not shower the game with praise, but I've yet to see Blashy admit that the game has serious flaws. Instead we're repeatedly told that it's our fault because we're not playing the game right, or we get some bogus historial justifications because someone pulled an article from the Encyclopedia Lazy (otherwise known as Wikipedia).

I've seen the list of changes for Blashy's "historical" scenario. They don't address the fundamental realism flaws because they can't. Only a redesign can do that.

As to whether I enjoy the game, I'm still playing it, but probably not for much longer. Once you decide not to take it seriously as an historical sim, SC2 is a lot more fun.

Diced Tomato

[Blashy]

Seeing it and playing it are two different things.

If I felt the game had no flaws I would not have a mod with 48 changes...

I praise Hubert's work because I feel he has a superb game, a great base he and WE can improve on, after all no game ever comes out perfect (well a few but mostly SP FPS and quite rarely)

If I make critiques, I keep them for the beta forums.

You obviously dislike the general aspect of the game, that's quite alright, I do not see the point in making constant quibles about it being a total failure at what it set out to due.

[Iron Ranger]

Once you decide not to take it seriously as an historical sim, SC2 is a lot more fun.

I think if you go all the way back to the early days of SC1 you will see many of the 'known' players repeating this or pointing it out.

Its a beer and chips game thats 'balanced'.

If it was a historical sim, why would anyone play Axis? You would have to build in 'stupid' scripts for them.

Script "AH has disided that all units in France must attack.. no matter how damaged or location. You can not end the turn untill all units in this country (including HQs) have done this"

[dicedtomato]

Like many others, Iron Ranger misunderstands the word "historical." An historical game doesn't mean that the Axis must do the stupid things they did in real life. I don't know any gamers that would want a game to unfold exactly as history.

It's not what happens that counts. What's important is WHY things happen. An historical game provides rewards and penalties for various strategies. For example, the Axis had severe difficulties supplying their troops in Africa. In SC2, the Axis can easily mass enough land and air power to take Suez and overrun western Russia - all in the summer of 1941. The Axis wouldn't have tried that in real life; they would have had to make choices. SC2 relieves them of the need for choice.

Similarly, real-life logistics imposes constraints on the ability to mass aircraft. You just don't mass five airfleets (a couple of thousand aircraft) in the middle of the Libyan desert one week, and then send them all to the Urals in the next. Because you can do that in SC2, air power becomes far more flexible and devastating than it should be, which means historically difficult strategies become easy.

Because the Axis have the initiative, numbers and tech at the start of the game, these flaws tend to favor them. I don't say it was impossible for the Axis to conquer the Middle East or England. I just question whether they could do it all almost simultaneously. There's a difference between alternate history and sheer fantasy.

You can keep sticking realism Band-Aids on the system, but I suspect you'll just disturb some other factor. Make air power more realistic, and then it's the Axis who have trouble winning.

I don't know what Hubert's goals were. Judging by the way SC2 turned out, I think he would put playabiilty ahead of realism.

Diced Tomato

[ July 06, 2006, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: dicedtomato ]

[Blashy]

Iron Ranger.

In my mod you can "win" as Axis, meaning an Axis victory is holding Berlin and Rome by Aug 31 1945.

Believe it or not, it is actually more FUN to play it and yet it is also more historical (the Axis just could not have "conquered all").

It is especially more fun in HvH games. Why? Because the Axis player does not say "I concede" the second he see's all is lost, there is incentive to fight to the end because that is when you "win" by surviving and achieving an armistice.

Even in my AI games, ALL of them I've gone to the end by date or until both Berlin and Rome were taken before the end date.

DT, One of their very serious plans was actually massing in Africa and go through Middle East onto the Caucausus, obviously they chose another plan.

But I do agree that taking Egypt is too easy in the default campaign, it is much better in what I've done but Minor units need to be able to have tech, when/IF that happens I think it will be just about right with what I have.

[Timskorn]

DT, I'm failing to see the point you're trying to make. It's a fun game. Not everyone who plays SC2 will be well versed in the historical logistics and details of WW2, they just want a cool game that makes them feel like they're in control of the Axis or Allies.

On the flipside, if anyone here doesn't like it, especially the fundamental elements of the game that likely won't be changed, there's no need to try and convince others why they shouldn't enjoy it for this or that reason. Some of your points are valid, but it seems you're looking for a more historical and realistic game than SC2 is offering. It is what it is.

[ July 06, 2006, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Timskorn ]