Marky Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 just a question here if i may... is SC2 historical, semi historical or? im just wondering, as there is no sarcasm in how i say it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 We want both!...Historical First,...then the rest for fun & experimentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky Posted December 12, 2004 Author Share Posted December 12, 2004 ahh i see well then, shouldnt it be made to be as historical as possible? within some kind of limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 Do you want to initiate a game when you already know the outcome? SC begins in an accurate, albeit abstracted, historical environment, from there it is up to you and your opponents if the game continues to an historical conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky Posted December 13, 2004 Author Share Posted December 13, 2004 lol i dont mean the endings lol i just mean the ports and bases and things like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
it's Les Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 You might need to clarify further. Do you mean period and regional spellings? I mean, the ports have in most cases been there for centuries eh I don't recall HC being funny and putting ports etc in places where there weren't to see if anyone was looking hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky Posted December 13, 2004 Author Share Posted December 13, 2004 i mean the ports and things like that the nile, the somme the port of cherbourg, le havre, dover, a port in iceland, crete, cyprus, sardinia, corsica, all their ports are msising lol and bases and things all that is missing im not saying it should be a monument to micromanagement, im just saying a few things maybe could stand to be adeded to the game lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 That was one of the first threads we had in this SC2 Forum and the subject itself was a recurring issue at the SC forum from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 GM, if you want those things, the editor will allow you to create them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted December 13, 2004 Share Posted December 13, 2004 Note: The Nile is in a SC2 screenshot. Note: I believe that Iceland will have a port, as this issue was covered in a prior post. Also note that at the scale of this game that some of the features you mentioned are geograhically located in an already existing hex along with another port/city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 o ya, i forgot about the nile - my bad lol ill have to look at the screenshots again but i do believe that cherbourg should be a standatrd (in the game) port lol im jus trying for some more hist accuracy lol i mean retributar did say that we want both historical and abstraction whiole it is true that a wargame cant really be made without at least sum abstraction, it is IMHO, that the dgeree of abstracion should be as small as possible to preserve mopre historical accuracy 1 of my favorite sayings for myself is this - "i dont mean to be a pain in the a$$, i just AM" lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Cherbourg would be located along the central northern French coast. One problem with including a port in this location is that it may block the movement of allied ships, if the channel is only 1 or 2 tiles wide. On the otherhand it does give the allies another place to invade. It also increases French production and this would benefit the Axis. Adding Cherbourg would also make the French line too strong early in the war and the Axis line too strong late in the war given the scale of the map. It would be interesting to hear the designers comments on why some ports/cities were or were not included. See this location for a map of Cherbourg and Northern France: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/BOOKS/WWII/utah/maps/Map2.jpg For a view of the English Channel in SC2: http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/pages/add%20unit.htm [ December 13, 2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 i agree with that, tho it just seems weird to not have it in and it makes it more realistic plus wen ur the allies u can use cherbourg to - A. evac the allied army and get the french army to safety before france collapses B. use it to reinforce allied lines during the battle of france C. invade there and temporarily bypass Brest or maybe instead we we could have Le Havre? it just seems weird to not have it in ya know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 See that map of the English Channel Edwin P., ... that's why since i posted my 1st comment or two...i was ranting about having a larger map...since it appear's to me that there is not enough manuevering space. If you have a pair of Dolly-Parton Artillery Pieces on your chest ... you can't get by through that choke-point in the channel,...this is a classic example of too-small-a-map!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Retributor you are correct. At this map scale you can't included every city or every port or every river. If you did then every third tile would have a port or a city and instead of simulating the WWII Blitzkreig the game would play more like a static recreation of WWI trenchware. Overall HC has made a good decision of what to include and has made many changes since SC1. For example; a 2nd port in Libya and a 2nd port in Egypt along with the Nile River. The one thing I do miss though, is seeing the pyramids of Egypt in the Cairo city tile or the Empire State Building in the New York City tile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 Edwin P, being persistent: The one thing I do miss though, is seeing the pyramids of Egypt in the Cairo city tile or the Empire State Building in the New York City tile. Counting, counting... hmmm, That's about... the 19th time? You have importuned for... Pyramids and Empire State Building. But... what is that needed but elusive connection? Ah, bingo! I see! The answer might be found and re-viewed... on the back of... the USA dollar bill. That Pyramid with the "all-seeing EYE" situated oddly atop! :eek: You are... Illuminati!! Entrenched deep within the infrastructure of American Industrial and mason-made Wall Street! LOLOLOLOL! JK, Edwin P, ... JK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted December 14, 2004 Share Posted December 14, 2004 That's good, really good. I was so impressed by the different and unqiue depiction of each major capital city tile in the SC2 screenshots along with the new 3D units. that wanted the Pyramids for an campaign of the Ancient Roman Empire. Same map, capitals for Rome, Greece (Acropolis), Persia, Egypt (Pyramids), Carthage. Weather effects for non coastal tiles in the Mediterrean. Turns are bi-monthly. Ships become galleys, armor becomes cavalry, army becomes legions, Corps becomes light infantry, Roman movement advantage simulated by a renamed Motorized Tech, etc. [ December 14, 2004, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts