Standards are lowering!!

[beginner's luck]

Please can someone come up with a good topic for this forum to talk about. Now all I see is

" Now lets all calm down in here" and that picture. If that is all this place has come too we are in troube. It was funny the first six times but now its old when thats all thats said EVERY post. :eek:

[Kuniworth]

What do you think about this then;

SeaMonkey is actually your mother.

[Keegan]

Well, I'm newb to the Battlefront forums (but not to wargaming) so how about this:

I think that the decision to make SC2 an orthagonal/isometric grid view game with modeled figures (ala Civilization II/III) is a BIG mistake.

Look, I'm not averse to eye candy, but I am not really very fond of such toys as Axis and Allies, (not to mention the Civ series itself) and while I am certain that the new product is to be a great deal more sophisticated than such a thing, at this point it looks to me as though I will prefer the original to its improvement.

Quite aside from its limitations in terrain modeling, such as coast, road, and river lines, an orthagonal grid imposes an inherent distortion upon movement and maneuver that is much better served by the traditional six sided hex grid.

I don't object to its use in the Combat Mission series, although it is a frustrating thing to use when desigining new maps, because the unit maneuver across its surface is not limited to the grid's parallel and diagonal directions, i.e. the unit itself is not 'centered' in the grid cell, as presumably it will be in SC2.

Since I have seen these other products discussed here, I assume that it is permissable to bring them up in the course of discussion. I am referring to HoI2, 3R, and World at War: 1st Blitzkrieg.

None of these are broadly comparable to one another, except perhaps 3R to SC; each has features that makes them unique.

For me, SC's great advantage over 3R is that it is easily playable. I played a great deal of 3R in its paper and cardboard format, and had a great time with it. However, I found its digital version nearly incomprehensible, and very difficult to play. SC, on the other hand, is perhaps a little too easy to play, and some further complexity is desired, perhaps a somewhat larger map, with perhaps some rudimentary rail lines, and further unit differentiation--airborne divisions, mechanized/armored infantry, and mountain divisions. A more interesting system of national economies/industrial base and technology tree would be good, too.

WaW: 1st Blitzkrieg fulfills the aching need within the wargaming community for a substitute for SPI's WiE. It looks as though they have a clear vision of what they intend to accomplish, and although I somewhat resent its 'staged' presentation along the lines of GDW's old paper and cardboard 'Europa' I can appreciate the necessity for that in view of the changing nature of the WWII battlefield and its OOBs, and the difficulty of presenting such a thing in a comprehensive whole as SPI did, so beautifully, with WiE.

HoI2 is a different case in point. Its global and area movement concept, along with a beautifully conceived movement/combat/technology system takes it light years beyond the kinds of simplistic game mechanisms the Total War and Civilization systems (not to mention the much despised Axis and Allies) represent.

As I played HoI2, I wondered, why did they not go the next step, which is to eliminate the grid or area itself, and present the conflict in real time on modeled terrain, derived from a map itself?

Just a thought, but I think that the PC has advanced to such a degree that such a thing is possible. If those air sim guys can come up with something so evolved in 3D as Pacific Air War, then why not on a 2D surface with more complex units, perhaps even a zoom-macro method of battle resolution, much as Combat Mission Campaigns seems to promise?

Just a thought. I wouldn't consider such a thing on the global scale, but ETO might be within the realm of possibility. What the hell, I'm retired, I'd have the time to play it.

OK, I've rambled, but my main point is that SC2 should stick with what it does well in the realm of a playable, small scale presentation of the ETO, and that it should merely improve on it in very small increments, and not attempt to be another Civ IV.

Just my .02--does this satisfy your requirements?

[Kuniworth]

Interesting post...I hope you will hang around and keep on posting.

Or do you got your genitals tied to the computer by an evil super villian like Kaptain Karl has???

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by beginner's luck:

Please can someone come up with a good topic for this forum to talk about. Now all I see is

" Now lets all calm down in here" and that picture. If that is all this place has come too we are in troube. It was funny the first six times but now its old when thats all thats said EVERY post. :eek:

There's a sure cure for that, BL.

Start a fascinating thread yourself and set the new standard.

Using the same picture six times was intentional as it was in response to the same profound statment about calming down.

These threads are not intended to carry the wisdom of the ages. Only passing thoughts on a wargame and some historical tid-bits. Anything deeper than that is a bonus.

Appreciate the good posts instead of complaining about the not so good ones. It's all part of the same package. Aside from which, in all the time I've been here I've never, NEVER, pointed a finger and said one thing was good and something else bad. If I'm not interesting in something, don't like it, or don't think I've got something to add, I just don't post there.

[ January 08, 2006, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Keegan]

I am tied to the keyboard and monitor farther above my waistline.

I'll post if interesting discussions about wargaming develop.

BTW, let me make one thing clear, Battlefront's Combat Mission series is THE greatest presentation of tactical combat thus far. I hope they do a good job on the new engine.

SC1 is similarly superb, for what it does, with the caveats I mentioned above.

I should have mentioned Grigsby's elegant earlier games as well as V4V's stuff, both based on simultaneous move resolution, but it was getting overlong as it was.

[Kuniworth]

you ever played Grigsby's 1993 release of War in Russia?

To me that is one of the top 3 best wargames Ive ever played.

Can't wait until they release the sequel in 2007.

[Keegan]

Many times, and the reason I haven't purchased his War in the Pacific is because his earlier Pacific War stands up just fine to what I've seen of that--again reinforcing my point that the necessary and sufficient standard for a good wargame is conceptual and not graphic, although I know that it goes a bit further in its scope.

I played Grigsby's East Front on my old Amiga in the early nineties, found War in Russia and actually got to play a few games against some of my old board wargame opponents, and now have played Matrix's upgrade a few times.

Figuring the unit 'plot' was great--one of my opponents called it, 'The Dance.'

[Keegan]

P.S. forgot to mention--WiR upgrade in 2007?

Drool. New engine, or just another Matrix team revision?

[Kuniworth]

2by3 games(Grigsbys company) is planning the release of the new war in russia in 2007, I believe they already have done the art work for it.

Reason Matrix can't publish a new version of it is because Gary Grigsby want it for his own. He refuses to give away the rights so all Matrix has done is clear some bugs.

However Matrix will soon release Norm Koger's The operational art of war again with better graphics etc. May be good.

But for now Im holding my breath for SC 2

[Keegan]

Well, hell, that's one good reason to post on forums--I didn't even know that Grigsby had a software company, so I'll check that out.

So, the 90 degree grid in SC2 doesn't bother you?

[Kuniworth]

Id posted before that what I wanted was a 2d map, hexes and NATO symbols. A better version of SC would do it for me.

But Hubert is pretty good at doing wargames so this will surely turn out well. I would'nt have stayed here for 4 years if I did not think so...

[beginner's luck]

Sorry JJ . Nothing personal directed at you. I guess I just got tired of seeing Kuniworth just post the same saying 20 times every post.

He usually has something orginal to add and it was a little disappointing to see him do that as his only comment to the 5-6 prior threads before mine. If someone else would have done that he would be all over them. He is like the forum police or thinks he is. So to see him do that was a bit surprising , if not sad.

Your right though. I do appreciate the good posts.And if you look back I "usually" dont say anything about the bad ones. I didnt jump on the lets bash Kaptain Karl band wagon.

So JJ I realize you were just responsed to as you put it -a "profound statment". Next time I will more direct on whos post I'm talking about . Just didnt want the thread to turn into a fight between Kuni and myself. But to just see if he had anything else better to say.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by beginner's luck:

Sorry JJ . Nothing personal directed at you. I guess I just got tired of seeing Kuniworth just post the same saying 20 times every post.

He usually has something orginal to add and it was a little disappointing to see him do that as his only comment to the 5-6 prior threads before mine. If someone else would have done that he would be all over them. He is like the forum police or thinks he is. So to see him do that was a bit surprising , if not sad.

Your right though. I do appreciate the good posts.And if you look back I "usually" dont say anything about the bad ones. I didnt jump on the lets bash Kaptain Karl band wagon.

So JJ I realize you were just responsed to as you put it -a "profound statment". Next time I will more direct on whos post I'm talking about . Just didnt want the thread to turn into a fight between Kuni and myself. But to just see if he had anything else better to say.

Now now, no fights allowed in here. Let's all just calm down.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by beginner's luck:

He is like the forum police or thinks he is. So to see him do that was a bit surprising , if not sad.

Omg ROFL!!!!!!!!!

You certainly is a newbie...LOL

[beginner's luck]

Well in the last 2 months, I saw a Kuni that had a comment for every thing and everyone. So to see that same comment in every thread seems out of place. Maybe you have ALWAYS done that.But I didnt see that in the posts that I read.If that makes me a newbie than so be it.

[JerseyJohn]

B. L.,

Believe me, it could be worse.

As I said, if something seems trivial it's probably meant to be that way and, if you don't choose to add to the triviality, it's best to just ignore it.

The problem is, when thread headings start appearing complaining about things, things start going wrong and some of us head elsewhere.

I stopped posting here for several months because the place became downright boring with people always complaining about things going off-topic, whatever. Who cares? We aren't getting paid to write Pulitzer Prize stuff, we write what we want to write, that's all.

Incidentally, those people who did all the complaining hadn't posted much before that and have since vanished (from what I can see).

The place should be a lot more than just droning on and on about what the best tank, plane, general, rifle, can opener of WWII was. It also has to be much more than constant suggestions for SC-2. Some of us have been doing that for three years at this point and really there isn't much more to suggest.

[Keegan]

I expect you're right, Kuniworth, though I'm not at all familiar with his name--can you fill me in on his work? I'm afraid that my most recent designer awareness is John Tiller, and although I know Kroger from his early SSI work, I never played 'OAoW,' so I can't comment on that. I don't even know the names of the guys that developed Combat Mission, or HoI for that matter, although I keep a close eye on Paradox.

It's just that, regarding the grid thing, it has always bothered me, and that goes back to Avalon Hill's original efforts, 'Gettysburg', and 'Tactics II', and what a revelation it was when I first saw the hexagonal grid when I got 'Stalingrad.'

There is no doubt that I will buy this new version of SC, although I might wait to look at a few reviews, first, or a demo, or play a few turns with a friend.

Nor do I expect that its development will change its course because of my reservations.

Now that I think of it, excepting bad tech problems, I have rarely seem a wargame that wasn't improved in its reiterations. The only notable instance I can think of is Microprose's M1 Tank Platoon II, and although that was a good game, and an improvement over the original, it was just too full of bugs to play, even patched.

Still, I would be interested in hearing a well reasoned defense of the use of a square grid in SC2.

[Kuniworth]

Jersey, Ive been called much but never a forum police. I think my record says otherwise. And Im sure Madmatt and Moon would agree, but Ive got to ask you to be honest;

Do you see me as Judge Dread?

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni,

Forum Police? Judge Dredd?

Oh, sorry, let me give this some serious thought.

Ah, saved by weekend visitors!

Will return later, hopefully with a fair and well considered response. :cool:

[Kuniworth]

rofl!

[pzgndr]

back to Avalon Hill's original efforts... 'Tactics II'

How about Tactics III for SC2?

Red versus Blue

Deja vu :cool:

[Keegan]

LOL!

You can tilt the chessboard, look at it way down low, but it's still parallel and diagonal....

[beginner's luck]

Hey JJ and Kuniworth , Forum police or not. The posts have improved so much I had to add a signature to my posts.

[Keegan]

Hey, Beginner's Luck, why don't you respond to the substantive issues I have posted, instead of being a pissy girl?

I've had quite enough of your whining, and while I won't buy into the kind of flame war you have promoted, I don't mind saying that this is quite enough.

You're all blow and no bite. Fish or cut bait. Respond to my post or STFU.