Standards are lowering!!

[beginner's luck]

LOL Keegan,

Now you sound like I was.What has this forum done to me.lol KUNI- JJ please help me!!!

The reason I didn't respond to your post HERE ,was cause everyone has already talked about Hex or no hex to the ground. Hubert isnt going to change it at this late stage so lets move on. But like I was correctly reminded to do, I didn't post anything against your topic,just didnt responsed to it.

Like I said before keep up the good posting. Its good to see new blood here every week. Honestly,read my prior posts.I beleive in what your saying.

[Keegan]

LOL, BL, I think I like you. You have some cock.

Kuni y JJ can't help you, and I guess I don't understand the argument to begin with, which I think is bull**** in a technical forum like this.

Yes, it's a technical forum, just like the ones that applied to my profession before I retired, where relevant posts are precisely applied, and those inappropriate or, better yet, aside the point, should be cast away.

Do you understand me? It is pointless, here, to aattack the contributor in any way, except by what he has suggested and said.

There are other places for you to do that, and I have been there.

But here, our motives should remain pure, and entirely aside from whatever makes you dislike someone else; or, conversely, like them.

So, having said that, what do you think of a square, orthagonal grid, from the point of view of a wargamer?

That would be responding to my post. Further, don't you think that a real-time, real-map, real-force game would be possible, with the inclusion of a zoom-time compression battle resolution?

This is really, the big question.

I guess that those others have already been asked.

Don't piss off at others like a little girl. We have more serious things to discuss.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Keegan --- Dude, or should I say dudette? Quit this kissing the neck of Kuniworth, unless you are serious.

[Keegan]

Rambo, serious regarding--what? And kissing the neck of Kuni, what do you mean by that?

Are you a queer or something, to read such a thing into our exchange of posts, which are entirely my first here?

It sure sounds that way.

[SeaMonkey]

Keegan, let me contribute to your orientation as far as your posts seem to warrant.

If you have never been exposed to Norm Koger's TOAW, it would be well worth your time to explore its mechanics, at bargain prices by now. Hex based and operational in scope, with one of the best editor's of all times.

The scripting feature of SC2's editor will be cut in the flavor of that Hall of Fame game.

As far as CM, I have CMBB. It is quite good, but the camera manipulation and UI are a bit clumsy for me and not near as crisp as SC1. More micromanagement than I like and of course the scale is not my favorite. I believe that is why a lot of the people here don't relish CM as their gaming genre staple.

Gary Grigsby's company is called 2by3 and he and his team coordinate their releases with Matrix. His legacy is well known, no need to comment. I have his latest release, WaW, and it is an excellent game. But... it is not SC, meaning that it is lacking, but has some extraordinarily good features dealing with logistics.

As far as innovation, nothing can touch Panther's Airborne Assault engine. Their last release, HttR, was, to put it mildly, the greatest leap in wargaming mechanics I have ever been exposed to. An amazing interface, a wonderous AI, superb grid map, but there are some drawbacks. The AI can get a little incompetent once you've mastered gameplay, not always, and there is no PBEM, only TCIP. This is the future.

In conclusion, I guess what I'm leading to is that after playing all these unique game systems, some traditional, some not, the fact that SC2 is based on an isometric tile view is totally inconsequential,trivial, and insignificant, IMO.

My advice,,,get over it.

And Kuni, I'm not BL's mother....I'm your DADDY!

[Keegan]

Furthermore, do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, or are you just an ignorant jackass?

One more reply like this, and I will report it to those who maintain this board.

This is, as I said, a place for intelligent discussion of a technological nature, and not for a brawl.

Look, I've had brawls, and I'm not here for that.

Though I'm at your service, fnckhead.

[jon_j_rambo]

Serious discussion? What do you want to talk about? SC-2? SC? You want the best hex game ever? Civil War by Victory Games, how do you like that? 3R sucks, slow & boring, made for e-mail. Squad Leader? Cross of Iron? Crescendo of Doom? G.I. Anvil of Victory? Panzer Leader? Conquistador? 1776? Beer & pretzel games like Axis Allies (4 versions) are fun. Supremecy? Traveller? Pax Romania? Red Star Rising? Alamo? Risk? Shogun? Computer games?

[Keegan]

Sea Monkey...what on earth are you talking about?

As far as CM, I have CMBB. It is quite good, but the camera manipulation and UI are a bit clumsy for me and not near as crisp as SC1.

What camera manipulation exists in SC1, and even if it does, for what purpose? In CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK, the camera manipulation is vital to the fun and appreciation of the game, and while it's not quite up to par with air sims like Il-2 Forgotten Battles or Battle of Britain 2, it's still very good.

On the other hand, SC1 is a strategic wargame, entirely concerned with strategic considerations.

I think you had better show me a critical example of camera consideration, such as the contributor above has done do demonstrate its lame characteristic.

Can you do such a thing?

I am just so completely flummoxed by such a response that I do--not--know--what to say.

No, I have never played TOAW, but judging from Kroger's 'Tanks!' it wasn't something that I missed too much. At the time I was really too busy playing Grigsby's games, and later, when I really picked up on the amazing renaissance of the wargame, through V4V's stuff and then Tiller, it was pretty irrelevant. Maybe I will pick up the original, but I seriously doubt it will challenge 'Panzer Campaigns' in its role as the heir to SPI's operational series.

I play a lot of Tiller's Panzer Campaigns series right now, and don't think it's entirely satisfactory either, except in a very broad sense of adherence to the way it carries forth the presentation of the division begun in SPI's 'Wacht am Rhein.'

I have checked out the preliminary on Panther's 'Airborne Assault' and I'm downloading the demo now...THAT's what I'm looking for, new games that challenge that box that I knew.

However, I should also reply that while I've not played Total Art of War, I have his 'Tanks!' and found it pretty lame. Actually, I've played so many wargames, both on paper and on the CPU, that it's getting pretty hard to remember all of their salient features.

I played some game that was tactical in nature, maybe it was 'Close Combat?' that detailed the movement of an infantry squad so closely that it was just dull as hell.

I do, however, remember some aspects of games like SPI's 'Next War, like precisely the right sequence to apply NATO airpower in the air superiority phase.

So, you say, 'Get over it.'

Well, I may, if the game is good. But I've never found a square grid game to be good. Lump it. It's just like one's taste for broccoli. Either you have it, or you don't, and no point arguing about it. So, I'm way over it. But that doesn't mean that I will like it, nor will many other wargamers.

Some might. That won't make it the overwhelming success that SC1 has been, and that's all I have said.

It looks like Tactics II all over again, as the contributor above so sharply pointed out.

Edited and BTW: This Panther game had better not be a RTS thing, like those bull**** mouse pointer, build, shoot, construct things, short of the vision of Paradox or even TW, or I will so savage you here. I'm downloading the demo now.

[ January 08, 2006, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Keegan ]

[Keegan]

rambo:

I assume you'd like your name in lc.

Your point, being?

[SeaMonkey]

Keegan, I was afraid this thread had gone a little far to continue a train of thought. I was just putting your CM experience of tile configurations relating to SC2 in contrast to my perspectives of certain different aspects of CM that were perceived by me to be shortcomings.

Not game breakers, just things that I had difficulty getting comfortable with(like you with SC tiles). That camera manipulation to a potential position(unit) check for viable LOS (blockage check) to get a shot at my opponent.

As far as Tiller's PzCs, I found my one venture into them(Bulge44) as fun, but a little tedious moving all the units individually. And then of course the incompetent AI. That is also one of the consequences of TOAW's larger scenarios. Like I said, the real brilliance of TOAW was the editor.

Glad you are getting the demo of what??? Panther game. Red Devils over Arnhem? Is there a Highway to the Reich demo? RDoA is a bit dated, well dated, even HttR is at this point, watch for CotA.

And Panther's game is RTS, or should I say CTS(continuous), but not like you expect. See what happens when you prematurely judge something by its cover? Don't worry...I won't savage you for it .

[Kuniworth]

Hillarious thread. I'd say this Keegan guy is definately for real.

"Are you a queer or something, to read such a thing into our exchange of posts, which are entirely my first here?"

Welcome Keegan!

[Kuniworth]

I never played The operational art of war more than the demo but it is very highly regarded for its mechanics. It cant be bought any longer, Matrix is remaking it to clear all bugs and improving on the AI. TOAW has both 3d and 2d units to chose from.

I'd like Matrix for that. They know the value of old games and try to improve them. Pacific war is a game I played way too little and might just stick my teeths in one day.

Next up is the battlefield-series which also will be polished. So thats good.

Otherwise most people are waiting for what will happen to the "World in flames" which they will publish. If that will work out it will be War in Russia on a world scale.

[Keegan]

Well, you sound very reasonable, Seamonkey.

(Jaezus, how can I take a name like 'Seamonkey' very reasonably? But I will let that slide.)

Still, you have yet to explain this:

As far as CM, I have CMBB. It is quite good, but the camera manipulation and UI are a bit clumsy for me and not near as crisp as SC1.

Honestly, it's a bit difficult to understand without a more substantial explanation.

Yes, I know you've offered this:

Keegan, I was afraid this thread had gone a little far to continue a train of thought. I was just putting your CM experience of tile configurations relating to SC2 in contrast to my perspectives of certain different aspects of CM that were perceived by me to be shortcomings.

The drawbacks and insufficiencies of CM are well known, so why don't you address them directly here?

Or are you just trying to set up a Strawman for your defense of the Orthagonal Grid in SC2? Please stop it, now, because you won't get away with it.

Because you have offered no real advantages for it, nor any reason why it should be any better than its previous plan view, imposed hexagonal grid.

In any case, what you have said sounds like bullsh!t, doesn't it?

So, go on...show me why this is the case?

This is entirely free of market considerations. Just show me why your isometric view with its little figurines is somehow better.

And then I will show you how it is not, at least not necessarily so.

Oh, you are so owned.

[Keegan]

Sigh.

Look, I'm not here to fight. Though God, I do love to.

I would just like to offer some distinct and very viable observations on the conduct of this game.

That's all.

Honest. That's all.

[hellraiser]

'Look, I'm not here to fight.'

Yeah...telling ppl that what they say is bull**** is a very polite attitude indeed

Your first post regarding the tile/iso view was indeed interesting but after that you went nuts on ppl having different opinions/posting off topic.

To quote a classic still alive: 'Calm down!!!'

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Keegan:

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

I don't think it much matters

How you look at it,

High or low,

Without hex, hoo-doo, superstitious sense,

Or... "in the know,"

Just so long as you can figuratively

Manipulate them chess-pieces

To get where at - you need to go! :cool:

The world is hardly "technical" merely,

Rather, as I see it,

An ever-changing Gestalt,

And yep,

We here on the board do indeed,

Ah, and perhaps, a'times, to a fault,

Truly ENJOY having FUN

With a-topical subject matter,

And not merely assembling and RE-assembling

Them "nuts & bolts." :eek:

I have heard tell of... one Keegan. :cool:

Hurled & twirled the stitched leather

For them White Sox,

Outta C Sandberg's big-shoulder Chicago,

Circa, 1953 to 1958.

His very best year was 1954,

The same year my beloved Indians

Tore! the American League

All apart.

Then he won 16 games, with only 9 losses,

AND!

Had a sparkling E.R.A. of 3.09!

Trouble was, he usually walked as many

Or even more! than he struck out,

Which is ALWAYS a pre-cursor

For final failure in the Big Show,

In general,

Since that oft indicates

One is not... in control.

Well,

NO-ONE is ever in control, even when

They imagine - that they might be!

[SeaMonkey]

Well keegan, my point was not in defense of any particular feature of any game, just the possibility that some seemingly inclement features are not as significant as one may wish to believe.

"I would just like to offer some distinct and very viable observations on the conduct of this game."

How about we wait to see how SC2 plays out, or are you a beta tester?

As far as Seamonkeys are concerned, this was a 60's nickname for surfers(I started in 67). Being 6'3" and 190 lbs, I have been told that my long arms are ape like in comparison, not to mention the rest of my upperbody physique. Surfers usually obtain this physical characteristic from the inherent need to propel(paddle) themselves through the water when the forces of nature(waves) do not cooperate with their endeavors or they wish to harness one of the forces of the universe(aquatic inertia in this instance).

Now about the UI of CM and SC, I'm sorry I confused you as to implying that SC had a camera similar to CM, my literary mistake. Simply put, the difference is that SC's UI allowed for a more expeditious handling of the game features then did CM and a quicker turn completion, complications considered.

Oh....and about being owned,.......get in line, your place is well in the back.

[Comrade Trapp]

"Standards are lowering!!"

heh, when did you figure that one out highspeed, standards have plummeted over the past year. Its called boredom.

In all fairness though, I don't really blame you for making this thread. You (and anyone else who joined in the past year) never had a chance to experience the SC/SC2 forums in their former glory. So you don't know any better, you just joined and found this godless mess.

Believe it or not, we had all the threads consisting of intelligent conversation one could ask for. We had tons of SC tournaments, ladders, and “big name games” going on at any one time. And we actually had REAL smack talk / competition, not the cheap shots you see today.

Unfortunately, all that stuff is gone for the time being, but it will return when SC2 is released.

So "lets all calm down in here"....

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Keegan:

Furthermore, do you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion, or are you just an ignorant (bleep)?

One more reply like this, and I will report it to those who maintain this board.

This is, as I said, a place for intelligent discussion of a technological nature, and not for a brawl.

Look, I've had brawls, and I'm not here for that.

Though I'm at your service, (bleep).

Don't mind the bleeps Keegan.

1) Don't waste your breath, you will see if you are fairly new to this forum that most all threads degenerate into insults, poor taste and then take on a topic line that probably has little to do with the initial post.

2) Responding because you take offense or want to defend someone else will increase the attacks.

3) And if you decide to join in as you have to rectify the problem, it just adds to and promotes the "lower standards". The old saying "If you can't beat them, join them!" usually ends up applying.

4) Those maintaing the board always have a difficult decison to make between censorship and standards. You probably are aware of other boards however that would banish a number of the contributers to these discussions.

[SeaMonkey]

Hey Yogi, just imagine this as an initiation period.

Just like anything, anywhere else in life there is a term of orientation/acceptance.

Fads come and go, the SC folks that frequent this forum are looking for something other than "oneshot wonders". I believe you'll eventually find that perseverance and realiability are good traits to expose in your fellow humans.

Think of this forum as a good place to practice at your tactics of disclosure and exercise your management of the other two I mentioned.

[JerseyJohn]

Yogi,

I've most surely been missing something the past three or more years because it never occurred to me that we were trying to compile something profound.

As I said, if something goes up that's interesting and useful and enjoyable to read, that's great. If not, it doesn't get written up by the NY Times literary critic.

You guys ought to lighten up and enjoy the place. This standards nonsense is a lot of manure.

Also, it always seems to be people with a small number of posts who make these comments. Yeah, sure, they don't want to go wading through the sewer with the rest of us, or whatever. Well, that's a lot of manure too.

So many damn critics and between all of them -- I'm talking about since this forum started -- there's enough actual contribution to the site and the game to perhaps half fill a thimble.

The only good thing is they come and they go without lingering very long. I've seen dozens, maybe even hundreds already. No doubt I'll see as many more come and go and the same thimble will still be sitting there, not quite full.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

[QB] Yogi,

Also, it always seems to be people with a small number of posts who make these comments. Yeah, sure, they don't want to go wading through the sewer with the rest of us, or whatever. Well, that's a lot of manure too.

So many damn critics and between all of them -- I'm talking about since this forum started -- there's enough actual contribution to the site and the game to perhaps half fill a thimble.

[QB]

Ok Jersey John, I'll bite.

Remember on number of posts, as on many things in life, the quality of the matter is much more important than the quantity.

On your other thought above about contributions, yes you do have a keen perception of the obvious.

I've been coming to the site like you since 2002. Number and type of posts aside, I do enjoy much of the reading. I even have to laugh at some of the "inane comments". Still, it is true that the email discussions and our being apart and unknown, makes many make remarks that would seldom be made face to face or if we were fully accountable.

[Kuniworth]

Yogi,

that's inane!

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Yogi,

that's inane!

Thanks Kuniworth,

At last the acceptance and understanding I have sought over the years! I am now one with all.

[Comrade Trapp]

No responses to my post?

damn, what a disappointment.....