Looks Very Disapointing

[Yohan]

Originally posted by J P Wagner:

TalonSoft's series of games such as East Front and West Front, allowed you to toggle between 2D and 3D display so it is not something that is impossible to program.....

Agreed! I playtested many of those and almost never played in 3D mode. I find it much more difficult to focus on what is important in 3D.

[CraigRS]

Thanks for the kind words Jersy. I thought when I first saw the info on the new game I should take the time to speak up because this is one of those games (SC1) that I love so much I'll play it for years to come. Because of that I want SC2 to be all it can be and if I wanna complain about what I don't like better to do it now rather than later. Who knows, if a lot of people feel the same as me maybe we, I, can help mold the game.

Craig

[jon_j_rambo]

Hubert --- Reduce the size of the Menu Bar if not already done.

Thanks,

Legend

[Hubert Cater]

There is two schools of thought when it comes to the menu bar, and both have to do with the mini-map.

For example, the mini-map can either cover a portion of the play area or the entire side can be covered by the width of the mini-map, thus the size of the buttons. Most schools of thought (when I did my research for the original SC) actually recommend to cover the entire side portion of the play area as players will quickly find it annoying that they cannot see the entire game map. Again there is always some give and take but a good interface is pretty tricky to implement... well at least one that the majority like

[ April 14, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Friendly Fire]

Wow, to be honest I'm not sure what to think. My biggest worry is about the effect of the square tile on (in particular) the Eastern front. 3 units can go on one, interesting!

Looking forward to giving it a try!

FF

[kossuth]

Sitting and looking closer to the screenshots.

After a while a can stand the look, still dont

like it, but only IF that d-n round plate under the unit could be removed it would be much better.

Hope someone who can, will edit it in the future.

[ April 15, 2004, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: kossuth ]

[RobRas]

JJ - and thanks for the kind words from me as well

It's great to be a part of a forum where courtesy and respect are in the forefront.

And I can join CraigRS praise for SC1 and his hope that SC2 can be that truly great WWII strategic simulation.

[marklavar]

In a way I agree with Craig in the sense that we really didn't need the pretty graphics etc. But Hubert has to sell this game on the open market, and therefore he needs a 'hook' to draw buyers in. This isn't some private club of wargamers, Hubert is running a business. I'm actually a lot more concerned with playability, features, etc than the graphics, hexes and so on.

In fairness, SC1 was nothing but a crude, updated copy of 'Clash of Steel', the classic SSI game of the early 90s. SC2 looks to me like what SC1 should have been in the first place, so I welcome it.

[marklavar]

By the way, yes I also prefer 2D icons as a matter of fact!

[DSEDS]

SC2 is still 2D with isometric view.

The whole discussion reminds me on the discussions late 80´s where people wondering what the heck need a roleplay and adventure games nice graphics or animations..

I will buy SC2 no doubt, i think SC1 people will accustom on the new look faster as the think.

But everytime i would trade in nice SC2 Graphics for a Japanese AI Player.

[Exel]

The only thing I'm still sceptical about is the decision to switch to square tiles. I don't know if it works, would have to test the game to know that, but there just are so many situations where hexes would imaginably work better. Guess we'll just have to trust Hubert's judgement...

[Wako]

I'm sure SC2 will be nice and all, but I for one won't buy it if it doesn't have hexes and it doesn't have a 2D view option.

A big plus would be allowing unit stacking too, but that won't make it or break it for me like this 3-D thing.

Dear God, why does no one realize that what we want is something with a map like Third Reich (but prettier) with with the kind of simulation ability that only a computer can provide.

Hate to be too negative, but please, please, PLEASE at least include an option (like TOAW did) to change this abhorrent semi-3D map into a hexed 2-D map.

Thanks.

[CraigRS]

Marklavar---you said "needs a 'hook' to draw buyers in"-- That sounds like a saying I use about Mac's-- If you can't sell them on substance, sell them on style!

I sure hope that is not the intent here, nor do I think it is. I do however think some things will be sacrificed for the "new look". The new look takes time, which is money, which Hubert only has so much of to develope the game. For me the isometric view doesn't work and the squares over hex's doesn't work. I don't think there is any way we can do anything but trust Hubert does as good as we all know he can and maybe by SC3 he'll come to his senses

[RobRas]

CraigRS - Amen to that.

And SC1 managed to attract enough buyers to warrant an SC2 - even though it had crude graphics. Maybe beacause it carved - or perhaps cultured - a niche of wargamers whose primary concern and interest is relevant information. Not tiny soldiers with snow on their helmets or city hexes with tourist attractions

[Desert Dave]

Not tiny soldiers with snow on their helmets or city hexes with tourist attractions

Long, long before anyone ever even thought about playing "computer games," folks in other times and places were earnestly playing with miniatures. And they still do.

"Tiny soldiers" are merely... and only, "in your mind."

Whether you are staring at a computer screen, or moving them around quite diligently in a sand box.

I like these new icons, and I REALLY like that... when it is the Winter Season,

You can be immersed in the proper atmosphere, primarily by the snow dusting appearing on the men and equipment.

Now that is really truly kool. :cool:

When a Desert Rat in the vast and unforgiving desert, you will be outfit in appropriate Camo gear... and that is atmosphere also.

If I didn't like the tiny soldiers, I could switch to "military symbols" or I could import one of the 100s of mods that will SOON! be available after release.

As could you. So, keep an open mind and give it good and faithful... try out, first?

[Wodin]

Were still not talking about some crappy 3d RTS title here.

Surely its gameplay that matters. SO with all its improvements in gameplay terms Hubert is on to a winner.

Not to buy this game because it has new isometric graphics seems a little odd. Fair enough if the whole system were to change that it became a different kind of beast all together but I dont think it has.

Hubert has put a lot of time and effort into what turmed out to be one great wargame. He has then gone on to improve it prob ten fold. I feel a little sorry for him. No ones played this game and when he gets out a little taster posts like this come up. Come on lets give the game a chance. At least lets play a demo before we start to criticise.

I like silly little graphics as to me it adds a lot of atmosphere and I hope the sound effects are top notch to. Something most wargames are lacking.

[ April 15, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Wodin ]

[marklavar]

Another thing I hate with the 3D pictures is that stupid disc they seem to be all placed on. Is that disc supposed to be a platform of some kind, to imitate game board counters? If so, it's idiotic in the extreme! Get rid of the discs Hubert, please.

Anyway, aside from our (justified) criticism, it's still very early days. Hubert needs to be thanked for all the effort he has put into this project; the big gaming companies steer well clear of strategic wargames, preferring to develop eye candy for 15 year olds and those with a mental age of 15.

With 'World in Flames' and Grigsby's 'World at War' also coming up in the next six months to one year, it should be a very interesting time for wargamers!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Marklavar:

Another thing I hate with the 3D pictures is that stupid disc

Then, plain and simply, turn it... off.

You can opt for a halo-base like you see beneath the surface ships, or, you can opt for no base at all!

As with very much else concerning this astonishing! new Grand Strategy WW2 game... something... for EVERYBODY! :cool:

[marklavar]

Desert Dave,

This is very GOOD news! I'll be opting out of the board counters.

[RobRas]

Desert Dave - I have tried these kind of games with small soldiers and winter effects. A lot of the other strategy games look excactly like that. And I have played miniature wargames and it can be fun. But I love board wargames and I had hoped that SC2 would be a true board wargame. I don't need to be immersed in the proper atmosphere - I'm sitting on my butt playing a strategy game. It's certainly not soldiering. It's a game - I don't particularly want to be in the middle of a war.

In my view a strategy game is about analyzing available data, forming strategy, allocating resources and implementing strategy. The game's user interface needs to hand me as much information as possible in the easiest manner making it possible for me to quickly evaluate the situation on the board. The board needs to be clear with well-defined and well-selected colors and the counters likewise. The old Advanced Third Reich/A World at War boardgame is to me close to the perfect design. Nothing to distract your eyes.

Anyway: I know I'm in a minority and I know that me and my small group not buying the game will easily be outweighed by hundreds or thousands looking at the back of the box, seeing the screenshots and saying "Wow, look at that tank. I'm gonna buy this".

[JerseyJohn]

Rob & Craig,

Glad you guys feel that way, during the past year the SC forum has become a lot friendlier than it previously was; I think now everyone pretty much gets along and we treat each other pretty respectfully.

Rob

I don't believe you're a minority, I think most real war gamers feel exactly the way you do.

In competive chess, for example, you can't use the sort of ornate set and board amateurs are so in love with. It has to be a basic Staunton design (traditional pieces) against a board that will be easy to play on and will not cause confusion -- in other words you don't want any large black squares that might be the same color as the black pieces! etc & etc all rules set over the course of time for a good reason, people want to play the game and not have to wonder whether they're looking at a pawn or a bishop!

Same with games, I know the standard map symbols, as do most of us, and would rather deal with that instead of guessing whether the 3-D icon is a bomber or DuCamps Nude Descending a Staircase.

I think the best answer is a 2D / 3D Toggle switch so both camps will be satisfied.

-- Marklavar

"... preferring to develop eye candy for 15 year olds and those with a mental age of 15."

Welcome news for those of us just entering our second or third childhood!

[ April 16, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As orginially posted by RobRas:

But I love board wargames and I had hoped that SC2 would be a true board wargame. I don't need to be immersed in the proper atmosphere

Yep, that's me too.

I first began this great and satisfying hobby back in the early 1960s with some of those basic AH games such as D-Day, Waterloo, Stalingrad, and War at Sea.

There are many of us here, such as pzgndr, who have also been ingrained in the old ways, such as 6-sided hexes for map topography, and stacking 4-6 Panzer counters on that breakthrough hex you have established on the Eastern Front!

I see what you are saying, and I can't disagree with you, or with JJ.

I too would rather see that breath-taking nude descending a glass staircase... in a Museum, or in that bachelor's pad I always keep innocently in mind.

Some are in between, like rambo, who have done it both ways... board games and computer games.

And there are those who have never had that tremendous pleasure of opening the box on a brand new game, and taking out and admiring the sturdy board for the first time, and lovingly handling all those interesting cardboard pieces.

But, computers make it so you can avoid all the time-consuming set up that is necessarily involved, and even better... have those combat and supply and movement calculations done in a split electron second!

Who really has time, given that there ARE other pressing concerns, such as keeping the boss or the wife or girl-friend happy and satisfied?

Well, I have "adjusted" to this brave new world, and CAN now also appreciate all the different and challenging ways there are to play a war game.

I will tell you this much... Hubert is one who remains faithful to the original spirit of war-gaming, and does everything he can think of to maintain proper military perspectives, and true relations to historical imperatives... while also providing an exciting game that is fun to play.

Just ask some of those long-time players of SC on this forum, such as terif, and Zappsweden, and Dragonheart, or kurt88, to name only a very few of very many.

Whether you are carefully painting your miniatures, or pushing little stacks of cardboard counters, or clicking with the mouse, you STILL are immersed in that fascinating "atmosphere" of WW2 grand strategy.

Sometimes, as with me, the newer ways of doing things... takes some time... to get used to.

I have done it the old way for over 40 years.

But, I don't mind doing it the computerized way, because... you can always go back and set up a board game if you care to.

It's actually good that we can have so many choices, and computer games CAN provide a lot of new and unusual approaches, and still include all of those original tactical decisions that every Strategic Commander has to make.

As JJ and I have both suggested... you can toggle the "modern" icons off if you really don't like them, and there are times when I will play SC with the old military symbols.

Main thing... enjoy EACH kind of game that is available, each in its own unique and compelling atmosphere. :cool:

[ April 16, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Sombra]

The game looks great at the moment. One mayor concern for me is that it will get to mcuh of a micromanagementfeast: Upgrading each unit one by one , point by point... building fortifications...

Right now in the "simple" system of SC1 sometimes people need up to 20 minutes for a move...

[RobRas]

DesertDave - I think we basically agree. Well, perhaps not on the atmosphere thing, but never mind that

I really like the fact that computers have revived the ailing board wargame hobby making it possible to play online, by email or againt the computer itself. And I think we've only seen the start of this revolution. It's great. Provided - in my view - that the core value of strategy gaming remains. And this value is getting eroded because each new version of a game has to have an even more 'realistic' visual surface. Often making it hardet and harder to easily identify units and terrain types, to gauge distances etc.

This wouldn't be a problem it it was possible to play SC2 with a flat board with hexes and normal military icons - just like SC1 was. And then an option for more details on counters and terrain. Or the other way around. But as the screen shots look now it doesn't seem like the 'flat' board with hexes is an option. If you go with tiles you're going with them. So true: I can just choose to play with the military icons but that doesn't really solve the problem - just reduces it a little.

[SeaMonkey]

Sombra you are right. But you must agree that this group craves more. Even if the mechanics stay the same, the decision making process alone will double the time of a move as I currently see it. This is what this crowd wants, a more in depth SC experience, there is a consequence to that. There will always be SC1, it is time to move on and trust the "creator".