Terif vs Liam, Stalingrad & Atlantic

[Timskorn]

I don't mind long games either. I don't care for stalemates too, but who does? At least it's good to know that SC2 vanilla and WaW both can offer two distinct experiences. It's always a tough line to toe in pleasing both the hardcore (or veteran) audience and gathering new players to the franchise. Starcraft has lasted as long as it has because of the reasons Terif describes for SC2 vanilla, which is extremely hard to achieve for any game.

[Minty]

Is it possible that Terif has learnt all the SC2 exploits to perfection (witness in those screen shots the Italian and Romanian fighters that wipe out the russians) has less interest in Waw as the playtesters have done a much better job of not having so many exploits available. Put simply there aren't as many SC1 aircraft carrier type situations.

The micromanagement argument is bunk, WaW has typically 10 to 20% more units in the theatre.

Terif, you're the master of this, we miss you playing WaW, it's great. kick our butts on it so we can learn more.

[SeaMonkey]

Liam, you're wishing for a Russian Winter strike is realized in WaW. I'm just not convinced by Terif's position although I have to abdicate to his experience level.

I understand that his viewpoint is from a strategic position and he is right from that perspective, but WaW crosses into operational aspects while remaining in the strategic abstraction. The new naval features along with the new units add the variability through the operational scale and the road supply, rail operands add a greater depth of realism to the strategic struggle.

See..SC is approaching the simulation side with WaW and moving away from its gaming annoitments. Terif said it himself when he related to the success path that is highlighted by historical player actions.

Yes... there is a greater potential for exploits but not necessarily "gamey" ones. That is for us players to workout and solicit Hubert for change in order to continue the development.

There are many of us that long for a return to some features that may have fallen by the wayside as the human/SC experience progresses, but to turn away from the obvious improvements actually detracts from the evolution to perfection.

I'm glad Terif is happy with SC2, but Terif are you completely satisfied with its current state? If you are then fine, I'm glad for you, but for me, perfection has not been attained.

Actually I see the world scenario eventually eclipsing Fall Weiss as the prefered gaming platform, with all its fluctuations, and granted it will not be a short gaming experience, hence I'm locked into the longevity that will be SC.

[Colin I]

I'm also for WaW over SC2.

The higher density of units is better, especially in Russia. Also, now Axis can garrison more widely and fight under Allied air power with AA cover. Operational movement only down rail lines improves encirclements in this theatre too. I think Barbarossa plays much better, though why not put some extra Russian units on production line and reduce Siberian transfer. Like the Tac Air, AA, Special forces and destroyers. Like more ways of knocking down fortresses. Like bomber and armour double strike - if you are superior they become very effective but you take huge losses if not - this is accurate. I'm not convinced by strategic antitank and feel artillery should be factored into units.

British can get some antitank capability or other specialised units fast so they can make a useful strategy with few MPP and battle of Atlantic better - hunting subs WAS frustrating. Italians can finally do interesting stuff if the UK doesn't hammer them too hard.

The larger map is useful in North Africa and Scandanavia.

The weather model gets better - and unpredictable weather giving opportunities or frustrating offensives was a fact of life in WWII. Would like to see even more subtlety here, hate that sharp line down the map, maybe make boundaries more uncertain.

For me Axis have more options - two bombers early on adds a host of interesting tactics. Special forces too. Upgrading minors is excellent, more costly but possible. Its a strategic option that existed and was often used - one I find useful for Commonwealth forces.

Not convinced by all the historical pop ups - some can be very inappropriate (such as Yalta when Axis are winning). Would like to see improved diplomacy model and there are still some rather strange triggers to events - naval asset transfer related with Spain can still lead to gamey tactics. I would prefer something a little less related to a single even that the player has unhistorical knowledge of.

Intelligence is fantastic - the random spotting seems realistic when you consider leaked documents, Ultra/Enigma etc. I can imagine it makes it harder for Terif to pull big ambushes with certaintly though - but again that is like it was. WWII wasn't simply about the perfect plan.

[Liam]

Terif rarely lies, as I have noticed, but he may omit a few things here or there.

Truth be told, the SC2 vanilla may not have all the whistles and bells, but he may prefer the more streamlined perfection of it. Afterall once you learn it's intricacies it's not so easy to adapt to an entirely new platform. There may very well be a lot of room to keep SC-WAW open as far as strategic and tactical decisions. Though it may require some alternations and editing in order to remove certian features and to add in others. Also you must remeber there is no "top dog." No Artisan of the Tactical Genius yet to immerge from WAW. SO if some people who are great at it, and are learning some truly inspiring strategies start posting Screenies, and indepth AARs it may bring others, including Terif to adore it and see the Light, that he must adapt to the New Age of our little Baby Strategic Command. I personally have never been the student of this game that Terif is, I have am a 6th grader. Though he really has a very fluid movement in game, and he really sees the bigger picture. It may require that some units be except from WAW, it may require some alterations to scripts... but WAW may indeed with some patching, and some "great Players," become the Standard.

I do not rule it out, I think that SC2 varies form SC1 but remains a bit similar to it.. just a lot more evolved. Though WAW is the edge that heads a lot more to a tactical wargame. Not that it cannot be fun or adapted for more Strategic Play, especially with it's cosmetic Map...

[n0kn0k]

Tnx for the pics

I'll keep bugging Hubert about a demo recording function

[Terif]

Everyone has his personal preferences and individual playing style – so it is good that SC2 and WaW coexist, so you can choose the one you like at the moment the best – both have their strength and weaknesses .

I probably have played WaW already much more often than any other player (just like SC2 ) – at the beginning it is a lot of fun to try all the new things and the first few dozen games WaW indeed appears to have a lot more options than SC2 . In the operational area that is without a doubt the case (where to place artillery, anti-air, anti-tank etc. so they can provide cover for each other...in which tile to advance...etc). But strategically Fall Weiss extremely narrows down when you get more experience as there is now longterm an optimal path which you have to choose if you want to have a chance of winning against another veteran player – and this is something I personally don´t like: In the end WaW plays on the operational level - here it is important to place your new units at the right tiles to maximize their effect, strategically you don´t have much choice. But my preference is to have a broad variety of strategical options I can choose from and having to decide which is the right theatre to send my units to – in general: the broader picture .

@Minty:

In SC2 there are no real exploits any more after 8 patches, but in WaW there are a lot of things players can and will do that you would consider exploits and are/will be very annoying when you encounter them...just read some of the already existing AARs from more experienced players like Sombra to get a brief glimpse... .

@Colin I:

Yes, there are a lot more units now in WaW – but that is not necessarily a good thing. For not so experienced players it certainly makes things easier and Barbarossa may play better (just like the AI needs extra corps via script for garrison duty to free enough for offensives..), but with some experience it turns just the other way around and in the end SC2 is much more historical and fluid.

All those additional units in WaW lead unfortunately sooner or later to continuous frontlines with a WWI type trench warfare where you have to use your artillery and bombers to slowly fight your way mile after mile forward...nothing with Blitzkrieg any more. Especially since WaW knows no real side theatres which could absorb units... everything will be concentrated in Russia.

This effect is even more increased by the railway system: as you noticed it is very easy to cut the enemy off if he tries to defend in pockets, so an experienced player won´t do that and only go into battle when he can establish a continous frontline and is sure he doesn´t loose the battle – cause loosing a battle would mean all units employed will be lost since they can´t operate away. In SC2 you can fight until you see the tide is turning and then retreat your troops when necessary – doesn´t work in WaW any more.

And among veteran players this leads to simply building up troops until there are enough forces to build a continous frontline and face the enemy – resulting in trench warfare where the game revolve around the right tactical decissions for artillery/bomber support etc. and not around strategy. In the end the deciding thing is often which side has the clear weather on its side to bring the super-bombers into battle...which is another weakness of WaW: there are several units now which can be built up to super units that can´t be really countered any more (which is a strength of SC2: here all units are perfectly balanced) – and here tech luck plays a large role if/which units reach the superunit-status and tech advances have a much higher impact. Something that doesn´t happen in SC2.

P.S.: all those double strike units and small units with de-entrenchment capability have also the consequence that fortifications (even if you can build them with the much increased build times...) and entrenchment in general is pretty much worthless in WaW now – also not a good development for Multiplayer games.

@SeaMonkey:

WaW implements a lot of forum wishes to make it more historical/realistic – in fact it seems to be pretty much a conglomerate of those forum suggestions. This makes it certainly the game to choose for the more historical oriented players or the ones that prefer more of a simulation and also for casual/new players it provides a very good playing experience .

I personally don´t want to always follow the strategical historical path or simulate the desert sand storms correctly....after a while this is not that interesting any more and the replayability suffers. It is fine if you play against the AI or don´t play that much games.

But my preference is to have a balanced Multiplayer battle with an experienced opponent who knows what he is doing and where the player choosing the right strategies for the situation will win. Concerning this, SC2 is pretty much a classic for me (similar to Starcraft (which I also played btw ) - only turn based):

So for competitive Multiplayer with unlimited replayability, SC2 is for me still the unchallenged standard .

[Liam]

Too bad I couldn't get you into Europa Universalis II when it was a hot title Terif... Very very deep diplomatic-warfare-trade, but major wargame. Took years and 2 releases to perfect... It is based on 1400-1820 and had a lot of the features of SC2... Flexability, depth, speed, although very very long games with RTS style play. HOI is modeled after it..

It is very very unique to have 8 Major Nations all human controlled all making independent decisions, all etching special tactics, over months and months... Things happen that are just impossible in turn based games... The only shortcoming I have with SC2 is speed and 2 player... They released Europa Unversalis III, was not as good as II.. Really hard to Trump a Great Title... Some things are too perfect to improve upon.

[SeaMonkey]

Clearly its not difficult to follow your logic Terif, as Liam states, you are the Chess Master.

I can understand that probably before playing even a few hundred games of any platform, things could get monotonous.

To tell you the truth, I admire your patience and dedication to this game, it is a paramount compliment to HC that it has garnered your attention for so long, mine too! :cool:

[Terif]

Yep - for more than 5 years now starting with SC1 - the Strategic Command series is indeed an excellent series and provides fun for a very long time :cool:

[lparkh]

So Terif,

What other wargames do you admire? Curious.

Thanks,

Lin

p.s. disturbed as a newbie to hear about less strategy variability in WAW. Putting my limited hours into learning WAW well and sad to hear it might not be the best investmetn from a multiplayer standpoint.

What do you think of the world at war scenario?

[ December 29, 2007, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: lparkh ]

[Timskorn]

lparkh: Depends on who you play against in multiplayer too. As Terif put it, and most of us wouldn't know, you need to play WaW as much as he has and at the skill level he is and against similarly competent players to be in his situation.

Everyone else can probably still try varying strategies and get away with it.

[lparkh]

Do the experienced players play any of the other scenarios or campaigns much? any of you'all been able to try the world at war for WAW yet?

[Blashy]

I can never go back to SC2 after playing WaW.

The roads and rail alone make it a much more realistic battle, requiring more long term planning on how to defend infrastructure.

[Bill101]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I can never go back to SC2 after playing WaW.

The roads and rail alone make it a much more realistic battle, requiring more long term planning on how to defend infrastructure.

I feel a bit like that. The map looks bare without them now! It's amazing how our perceptions change as we are given more features.

[Minty]

Terif, whilst your concerns about super units and exploits are clear, I have to disagree. You referenced Sombra highlighting Tactical bombers and subs. Whilst the subs are much more potent in WaW, they are far from unbeatablenad if the Axis do invest so much in them that they are all powerfull then he's probably light in the east.

Exactly the same for Tactical bombers, they are extremely vunerable to interceptors and air defence. You'll get your butt kicked by them if you don't defend and invest in appropriate counters but not if you do. I really feel WaW has a full range of rock , scissors and paper unlike SC2 where the airfleets are all powerful with less effective defence.

As for superunits, yep my brandenbergers special forces and Decima marines fight like they are cyborgs from the 26th century IF I look after them and use them carefully. Same with other superunits, but this is nothing that has changed from SC2 with the arifleets or tanks there.

[U8led]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I can never go back to SC2 after playing WaW.

The roads and rail alone make it a much more realistic battle, requiring more long term planning on how to defend infrastructure.

Just thought I would pipe in with a perspective from a 'new player'.

I had tried SC2 when it first came out and it did not 'grab' me at all.

I have bought WAW mostly because the new strategic modeling of road/rail and weather. I am only on my first pbem (vs another non-vet) and this time I must say the game has 'grabbed' me.

My only two issues so far is how expensive everything is, and the naval model just doesnt feel right to me. But I am learning to adapt and I doubt I will ever go back to SC2 vanilla.