I've been permitted to help HC out with questions about the game.

[SeaMonkey]

Sheesh!! It never fails to amaze me, how so called facts are really nothing but overblown opinions...a different perspective.

Live with it guys, we are all different, let's please have a little mutual respect for each others' points of view.

Ok we can all sight the data, crunch the numbers, but there is always the ambiguity of the reporters' agenda, and unless those reporters are some specie other than Homo Sapiens, we cannot hope for an unbiased factual representation.

So just remember the editor is the key to your opinion, the default scenarios are nothing but a basis for more discovery. In the end, we will have a consensus for balanced historical scenarios for you league players. Don't worry if you don't design scenarios, there will be plenty of others who will, examine TOAW.

The fun is in the path to discovery and the satisfaction in the conclusion to the effort. Be happy we have a designer who has bestowed us with an effort worthy of our interaction, a tool of creation. I for one am grateful, Thanks HC.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Lars:

Hubert, delete all leader names and just make them a number.

There, Kuni, ya happy?

Whats the point here, insulting people? You get your kicks from typing stupid remarks on the internet?

[J P Wagner]

I can envision Blashy sitting in front of his monitor, muttering: "Why did I ever start this f***king thread!"

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

[QB] You don't think - by now?

He can create a WW2 GS default game

Which would be historical - and also allow

Some within-the-bounds... "what-ifs?"

I'm confident Hubert will succeed. ALways been sure of that.

However if an overhaul of the leaderfiles is not to be done one could already at this stage critisise the historical accuaracy. No one wants that to happen and is something completly unnecessary.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lars:

Hubert, delete all leader names and just make them a number.

There, Kuni, ya happy?

Whats the point here, insulting people? You get your kicks from typing stupid remarks on the internet? </font>

[pzgndr]

Hopefully HC isn't going to fall-back on the "use-the-editor" for every shortcoming in the game.

Of course not. But by the same token, please recognize that it is impossible to create the ideal default campaign that will satisfy every single player out there. The goal is to find that happy median for a campaign that most will enjoy playing, and prefereably the one that would be used for competitive play. Such a campaign should be fun to play and relatively balanced so that either side could win, while also striving to be as realistic and historically accurate as possible. That's really tough to do! Hopefully we'll get as close as possible with the release. Then, based on player feedback, I would expect that the default campaigns would be tweaked accordingly.

But even still, given such a hypothetically "perfect" default campaign at some point after many complete games have been played and a few game patches released, there will still be many players who will want something different. Something more realistic and accurate. Or something completely open ended and full of ahistorical surprises. Or whatever. For them, the Editor will be available.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Lars:

You get your kicks from insisting Rokossovsky was so uber he must be in the game or you'll sit in the corner in a snit.

The rest of us just don't care.

You want Rokossovsky, type his name in.

Me, I'm naming all the Soviet HQ's Boris & Natasha.

Well too bad that you do not care.

Let me take the example of Rokossovsky;

- Keyrole in Defence Moscow 1941, vital for the victory as commander of 16th army

- Commander of Stalingrad Front(Don Front) 1942-1943 that won the battle of Stalingrad

- Stopped the germans at the battle of Kursk

- Liberated northern Ukraine and Kiev

- Vital Commander of operation Bagration 1944 that smashed army group center and enabled the red army ro reach Warsaw.

-Liberated east prussia.

Obviously(and I still can't believe the designer's decision to be final) he is not regarded important enough to be even in the leaderfile.

Historian Harold Shukman writes; "(Rokossovsky is)...considered by many senior german wartime commanders as the red army's best general"

Too bad Lars that you dont care if he or anyone else of the other vital leaders that are missing is in the game or not.

Im trying to help out here. I dont need no editor arguments, I will buy the game anyway. I just think its a shame if thing are not corrected.

[ October 07, 2005, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Lars]

Look, a quick count show 17 field marshals for the Soviet Union in WWII. We won’t even go into generals.

But we only have so many HQ units in the game. And you may not even get the chance to buy them all, depending on how things go. Plus for game play, you need some good ones, and you need some incompetents.

So get off the leader kick, it's purely a subjective thing. Somebody is going to be on the cutting room floor. What you want is for your leader to be picked, or else. I disagree, I want Lavrenty Beria. A far, far more influential figure than Rokossovsky.

Or else.

[Kuniworth]

So you don't think it's a problem that the game comes with Pavlov who got shot 12 days into Barbarossa, but not Rokossovsky?

Well my oh my.

[Lars]

No, I look at it as a feature. I always enjoyed picturing my drooling HQ.

Who you going to pick to reflect the early incompetence of the Soviet commanders?

See? This discussion is really pointless and adds nothing to the game. The HQ is a 4, or it's a 8, and everything else is irrelevant.

[Kuniworth]

>>>LArse

don't you think there at least should be motivated why the current leaders are picked for the standard scenarios?

[Kuniworth]

From your game perspective this is irrelevant. From my historical perspective that want both playability and accuracy this is not ok.

The only compromise that both can agree upon is if this is changed so we can drop this. Support my case for the sake of the game instead of just saying you dcouldnt give a ****.

[Lars]

I fail to see how the personal name of the commander adds to the game.

Why not just name them Army Group North, Center, South, etc. and be done with it.

Far more accurate as commanders came and went.

[Blashy]

Exacly, you said "from my historical perspective".

Everyone's perspective is different and you can't please everyone.

You think I agree with everything in the default campaign? Ask Hubert, I'm sure he can attest how much of a fuss I make over submarines, but I leave as is because I know he can't make changes for everyone according to "their" historical perspective. At least he was generous enough to give us tools to mold ww2 how we see fit, accurate or not it may be.

[Kuniworth]

I'm clearly bashing my head against a closed door here. Why a marshal often regarded as a top 10 general of the war is not in the game is baffling.

But I'm still hoping for a change.

[Lars]

If he's in, does it magically become a better game?

SC2, Now With 30% More Rokossovsky!!! And 20% Less Popov!!!

Yep, should just fly off the shelves.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Blashy:

You think I agree with everything in the default campaign? Ask Hubert, I'm sure he can attest how much of a fuss I make over submarines, but I leave as is because I know he can't make changes for everyone according to "their" historical perspective.

What do you mean "their" histroical perspective.

I have a challenge for you:

Can the developing team motivate the current leader-ratings in the game and choice of commanders?

Yes or No.

What was your guidance, how did you chose those, why no Rokossovsky among others.

Please tell me so we can drop this and talk about other aspects of the game.

I think you know I'm right about this issue but don't want to discuss. So now you got a challenge if you dare, tell us how you came to your conclusions...

[Kuniworth]

Hey why not drop Manstein when we're at it?

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Lars:

If he's in, does it magically become a better game?

SC2, Now With 30% More Rokossovsky!!! And 20% Less Popov!!!

Yep, should just fly off the shelves.

(L)arse

So let me see. YOur new bright ironic conclusion is that the game will not be better with a realistic leader-file. Hm maybe we could reshape the map too when we are at it. To suit your logic.

Well the fact nthat Rokossovsky was one of the best commanders in the war didnt help his case. Now lets try your logic. Hm Spain was a top 10 european military power back then. Lets change the shape of spain to look like a banana and call it Uganda.

Hey does'nt matter does it? I mean 30% more Uganda or 20% less Spain doesnt matter does it? And I mean you like to rename things so just use

The editor

if you're not satisfied with having Uganda in the game.

[Hubert Cater]

Kuniworth, relax, the game is still under development and remember there is only so much one person can do.

FYI, I'm still aware of your leaders thread I honestly just haven't had the chance to look at it as I'm continuing to work on more pressing issues for now.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

Hey why not drop Manstein when we're at it?

Ah, there you have a point.

In March 1944, he should disappear. Don't think the German player would be happy with that little "feature".

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Kuniworth, relax, the game is still under development and remember there is only so much one person can do.

FYI, I'm still aware of your leaders thread I honestly just haven't had the chance to look at it as I'm continuing to work on more pressing issues for now.

Ok thx, all hope is not lost.

[xwormwood]

"So let me see. YOur new bright ironic conclusion is that the game will not be better with a realistic leader-file. Hm maybe we could reshape the map too when we are at it. To suit your logic.

Well the fact nthat Rokossovsky was one of the best commanders in the war didnt help his case. Now lets try your logic. Hm Spain was a top 10 european military power back then. Lets change the shape of spain to look like a banana and call it Uganda.

Hey does'nt matter does it? I mean 30% more Uganda or 20% less Spain doesnt matter does it? And I mean you like to rename things so just use

The editor

if you're not satisfied with having Uganda in the game."

That was funny, thank you for the laugh.

[hellraiser]

Regarding leaders, what I see as truly important is that the leader list of every country to be greatly expanded. In SC1, USA getting 4 commanders is a joke - german air can snipe them and bye bye game. Add a lot of them just in case and Kuni can have his Badassovici HQ among them

[hellraiser]

A question to PR Officer Blashy

How do the tanks perform in SC2? In SC1 they were not properly modded imho. Is their great overruning capability represented? The 'tanks vs AT lvl X Infantry' was too much in favour of AT tech. Imagine a Tiger batallion facing a Soviet Infantry division equipped with anti armor rifles...but over a distance of 1500m, in the open terrain ... Odds wouldn't be 2-3, no way

Plus, the 'tank group' concept of SC1 I understood as a powerful unit in which armor was very well represented not an unit consisting of 100% tanks. Thus the tanks should have a proper infantry/artillery support attached to the unit, making the unit more able to fight enemy infantry than an unit consisting of 100% tanks.