Strategic Command Developer Diary (Blog) Now Active!!!

[AZGungHo]

I too am concerned with the arty and AT units, as I didn't like PG and LOVE SC and SC2.

But, I have faith in Hubert so I'm gonna wait and see, and know I'll be buying as soon as its available.

[Hubert Cater]

Stalin,

Not to worry, villages like Siwah and others in this particular campaign are set to 0 MPP value and max out at Strength=5. This of course can now all be edited via the updated Editor for each resource type, i.e. max strength as well as maximum MPP.

For the new unit types like Artillery, Anti-Tank and Anti-Air etc., I had the same initial feelings and always felt that they would not be appropriate for this type of scale... but when we used Paratroops and Engineers for SC2 Blitzkrieg I slowly realized that this was perhaps a mistake.

Generally while the scale argument goes that these units would be a part of any Corps/Army etc., just like in SC2B where players had lots of fun with sneaky air drops and/or building fortified lines, there is simply no way to re-create some of the tactical excitment in a grand strategy game without the introduction of these new unit types.

In fact I think Dan said it himself he simply loves using the new Artillery unit and wonders what he did without it

[Moonslayer]

I too, was wary of using such units on this kind of scale (although loved the idea of further unit types for smaller scale campaigns). However, after testing them I have reversed my position. True, they may not be 100% realistic at the large scale campaigns but this is a game not an historical recreation of WWII. As game components they are very satisfying.

Watching the German panzers fall foul of a sneak counter attack by a French anti-tank unit is most satisfying as the allied player

[Hubert Cater]

Moonslayer, agreed and I guess everyone will see this in action soon enough

As an aside I too wanted to include these new unit types especially for the smaller scenarios but at the same time was curious how they would work in the larger campaigns and I think in many ways they worked out better than expected.

For example, with Artillery it was possible to create a true V1, V2 type unit with Rockets as I was now able to completely separate the roles, i.e. Artillery is only good against Soft and Hard targets while Rockets are now only effective against Resources. Research upgrades also reflect this. So what we have now is Rockets that increase in range and resource attack only and it is a better overall representation of the V1 or V2 super weapons strategy as originally desired.

FYI, with the new Editor you can adjust each increment level for each research type and with the current schematic Rockets increase in range 2 tiles per research level as well as increment in RA by a factor of 2 for each level. They are still reduced in effectiveness over longer ranges but this too can be controlled in the Editor and they are reduced 10% per tile beyond their base range. Essentially Rockets can now be quite deadly at higher levels againsts various resources and very deadly at shorter range targets once they reach those higher levels.

With the introduction of the Tactical Bomber we've also been able to completely separate the roles of Bombers, Tactical Bombers and Figthers... a true Rock Paper Scissors if you will and it has worked out quite nicely as well. Another addition is that Bombers have double strikes and can now spot enemy resources (i.e. full spotting for those in range). To counter the increased effectiveness of a Strategic Bombing strategy the player now also has mobile Anti-Aircraft availalbe but these are limited in the Hard Builds option so even here there will be some cat and mouse tactics as ranges increase and targets become plentiful.

Similar situation with the new Destroyer unit and so on... I could go on as there is much to say but I think this paints a pretty good picture of some of the things that can be expected with the new Expansion pack

[AZGungHo]

It all sounds good to me! I can see that with the addition of these new units and the improved AI this is going to be a new game.

BRING IT ON!!!

The current AI gives me a huge challenge, I'm looking forward to being soundly thrashed by the new one!!

[SeaMonkey]

Crap all over y'all. I knew these new units would work, that's why I kept pushing for artillery, simple deduction the rest would follow.

Got to think outside the box!

[Hubert Cater]

It really will be a new game as the weather changes and roads and rail add a whole new dynamic. Spotting has changed as well as it now has two separate categories, Land and Sea and even sub action will be more involved as subs can pass through enemy units except destroyers and can dive and evade depth charges as outlined in previous posts.

For weather, and I'm not sure if I've comletely outlined this yet, but air units are no longer restricted by mud or ground snow but only by rain/fog, sandstorms or snow and all bad weather now affects unit movement thus making roads that much more important as they not only nullify terrain effects but bad weather as well.

Roads are also helpful in the mountains as units will no longer get stuck provided they travel by road, i.e. Greek units on the border with Macedonia/Albania can retreat back to the capital if they are given the chance.

[SeaMonkey]

So Hubert, I'm not getting my panties all in a wad here, but frankly the forum is all about a bunch of nonsensical philosophy, discounting the AARs.

Now I'm needing to get started with some WaW scenarios, since I'm awaiting these humans to get to their next quantum leap(presently in a quagmire of debate), it sure would be nice to get rolling into unravelling the secret strategies.

Sooooo.... when might we get our hands on this puppy? Nothing specific mind you, a generality will do...subject to change of course.

[targul]

Look at his earlier post seamonkey he said late August when I was whinning for a date.

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah I remember Targ, but now we have some additional ideas working, so I'm kind of looking for an update.

Presently, I'm thinking more like October. Just trying to get a fix so that I can either start some new SC2 games or wait.

And by the way, hows your take on CEaW with the new patch, other than the Med region?

[n0kn0k]

In about a month if all goes well.

[Retributar]

'Personally',...as much as i would like to have it 'RIGHT-NOW!!! ', i will Excercise 'SELF-CONTROL!!! ' and wait for the Product to make it's appearance which will be when 'Hubert' deem's it 'Fit-For-Release!!!.

[targul]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Yeah I remember Targ, but now we have some additional ideas working, so I'm kind of looking for an update.

Presently, I'm thinking more like October. Just trying to get a fix so that I can either start some new SC2 games or wait.

And by the way, hows your take on CEaW with the new patch, other than the Med region?

The patch greatly improved play in Russian and the Atlantic. The AI is challenging and fun. Without the Med and Africa though it still remains a mystery how good the game will get.

I would give the patch a D since it didnt fix a single major issue only did things that any two year old could do.

Game is still a C+ which will be moved depending on the next patch up significantly or me out of playing it.

[The K Man]

Curious how the new AA unit will work. Does it defend against bombers only, or are fighters included in the defense? Also how will it defend? I assume that you would have to be within so many squares of a unit or a city thats under attack.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Stalin,

Not to worry, villages like Siwah and others in this particular campaign are set to 0 MPP value and max out at Strength=5. This of course can now all be edited via the updated Editor for each resource type, i.e. max strength as well as maximum MPP.

Phew!

For the new unit types like Artillery, Anti-Tank and Anti-Air etc., I had the same initial feelings and always felt that they would not be appropriate for this type of scale... but when we used Paratroops and Engineers for SC2 Blitzkrieg I slowly realized that this was perhaps a mistake.

Generally while the scale argument goes that these units would be a part of any Corps/Army etc., just like in SC2B where players had lots of fun with sneaky air drops and/or building fortified lines, there is simply no way to re-create some of the tactical excitment in a grand strategy game without the introduction of these new unit types.

Um.....this doesn't make me happy - grand strategic games are not suposed to have tactical excitment....at least not at a tactical level...they're supposed to have strategic excitment....if I want tactical excitement I will go get a tactical game.....

In fact I think Dan said it himself he simply loves using the new Artillery unit and wonders what he did without it

I have no doubt they will work as intended, and will add to the "fun".....but I don't think they will add to a strategic level simulation of WW2

I guess it's a matter of taste - I want a strategic WW2 game to refelct strategic considerations of WW2...PG-style seperate units don't even come close IMO, indeed they're an indication that simulation is going out the window, even tho they can still be a good "game".

[SeaMonkey]

Here I am dreaming of the new unit strategies for WaW and what do I get.........negative vibes..........

Just can't help it can you SO? Always pessimism and sending out those negative vibes.

Now I'm completely bummed out!

One of the few enjoyments I'm allowed on this planet, playing SC and interacting on this forum........but NO!!!!!

We have to go and ruin that too!

Always whining and crying, you humans really take the cake.

If y'alls ancestors would have acted this way, they wouldn't have discovered crap.

They'd have been to worried about facing the unknown, what with no HealthCare, and poor ole blind Sam on the corner selling pencils doesn't have an Ipod to listen to, and the world is too warm, and ....and...

AAAAIIIIIEEEEEE!!!! Someone come shoot me....please.

[targul]

Actually the largest computer strategic game is CWIE. It has artillery. Only for the Russians but it still has it. It also has AA and antitank.

None of these make the game any less strategic.

I suspect the addition of these units will just mean we have more fun because we have more options.

There is always the option not to buy those toys though then you can play it your way also.

[n0kn0k]

The editor can change all of that.

You can even put in Rambo and of course Superman!

[AZGungHo]

SeaMonkey - I took a shot at you but I missed!

Seriously - don't sweat it. Everyone has their opinion, but they don't mean a thing until we actually see and play WaW. The Beta testers have a huge leg up on us, otherwise it's all just stuff and nonsense until we see and try out the finished product.

May it be soon!!!!!!!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Here I am dreaming of the new unit strategies for WaW and what do I get.........negative vibes..........

Just can't help it can you SO? Always pessimism and sending out those negative vibes.

Only where I think it's justified.....the intel system looks great.

Now I'm completely bummed out!

I'm surprised by that - if you dont' like what I wrote then why let it bum you out?

One of the few enjoyments I'm allowed on this planet, playing SC and interacting on this forum........but NO!!!!!

We have to go and ruin that too!

"We"??

What is it that stops you from enjoying the game?

I'm playing the game and enjoying it - despite wanting it to be better.

AAAAIIIIIEEEEEE!!!! Someone come shoot me....please.

how sad - I can't imagine how someone can get so upset over a game!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by targul:

Actually the largest computer strategic game is CWIE. It has artillery. Only for the Russians but it still has it.

Which is fine IMO if you'er punting the game at division level - the Russians had artillery divisions (actually so did the Germans, but not concentrated like Soviet artillery, and British AGRA (Army Group Royal Artillery) units should probably be seperate units too.

It also has AA and antitank.

AA I can cope with - there weer a lot of AA troops in Europe - but for city/resource defence, and stackable with other units in teh hex/square. AT didn't exist AFAIK.

None of these make the game any less strategic.

No reason why they should (except for AT IMO) - but IMO the way they are usually implemented makes the game less of a simulation.

Let me put this plainly - I have no problem with the game as a game....but I get lots of enjoyment from it being a good simualtion of WW2 - and much of this stuff doesn't help that aspect for me.

there are still good games "based on WW2". PG is one such - a better simulation (or at least more interesting...) than "Risk", but IMO not as good as "Europe Ablaze" for TOAW (despite all it's shortcomings)

SC2 fits "above" PG, but also below EA IMO.

[targul]

Well, I do not find the game a good simulation except when I play vs the AI verses players it simulates no known war.

But then none of these small games make very good simulations. I only find the large games at division and below to simulate anything. Corp and up games maybe strategic in level but have never simulated anything I can think of. Since the military never really thinks in those levels.

The militarys primary operation level is Division. Corps and Armies are much more figurehead type units then active. They provide supply and G5. They also are the primary on most G3 functions but none of those functions are strategic or combat related. They are more populace and intelligence related.

I therefore find corp level to be a decent game but not a simulation.

[ev]

I welcome the idea of having Artillery Corps level units provided they recreate the advantages and disadvantages of having very large Artillery "Corps" units in real life.

...well I know this sounds odd, but allow me to elaborate.

The Russians did try very large artillery concentrations during WWII. Whether they actually reached corps level is besides the point. They did strip artillery out of front line units while making huge concentrations of artillery which "front" commanders would move around as needed.

The Germans, Americans, and every one else could have done so as well, but, decided not to.

Of course, the Russians were facing very different circumstances. The Russians were very short on radios, and very very short on qualified spotters and officers capable of coordinating fire support.

Clearly, there were important advantages to fully integrating your artillery within each Corps. The challenge is to accurately represent the pluses and minuses of independent vs. integrated artillery within a simulation.

...and, that may be SC3 stuff...

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by ev:

The Russians did try very large artillery concentrations during WWII. Whether they actually reached corps level is besides the point. They did strip artillery out of front line units while making huge concentrations of artillery which "front" commanders would move around as needed.

They did reach corps level. Ten Artillery Penetration Corps were formed, begining in march 1943.

[ev]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

They did reach corps level. Ten Artillery Penetration Corps were formed, begining in march 1943.

I remember reading somenthing about this, but cannot recall the details.

On the other hand, the order of battle in the Russian Army was pretty screwed. ...and not just because of combat losses, but also because of lack of officers (courtesy of Stalin's purges)...

In any event, because the Russian Order of Battle was so screwed up, it would be good to know the actual compossition of any unit before taking for granted it was actually "corps size". ...though I would imagine that, in this particular case, a corps was a corps.