don't get it

[walpurgis nacht]

I've been reading through the posts here to get some idea whether I wanted to spend the $ to get this game. Well, I've read mostly good, if not spectacular reivews so today I picked it up.

For the life of me I don't get it. This game is EXACTLY like the original SC. Don't get me wrong, SC was a great game that I played fanatically for em . . . 1 month and then it became used and boring.

I could be being a tad premature as I've only played for a whopping 20 minutes (I know, I know) . . . so I'm invading Poland and this is exactly the same game. Unit positions . . the works. Just the same. Slightly sexier graphics but come on . . .the graphics are still practically stuck back in the 80s and if that's supposed to make this thing great it falls dead and flat.

I will keep playing but will someone please screw my head on straight and explain to me why I just wasted $63?

Hope I find out I'm wrong about this btw.

[Lars]

Er, it's only $45.

Yeah, if you got bored with SC1 in a month, you'll get bored with this. It is the same game, only much improved.

What did you expect, really? It is called SC2…

[Cary]

. Diplomacy, weather, editor, some changes to the rules. Mod-ability... But yes, it's pretty familiar.

Though early 80s graphics may be a bit harsh -- I remember early 80s graphics... and in fact the game seems hauntingly similar to Empire, except Xs were carriers and Os were land armies...

[walpurgis nacht]

Lars, you monkey. YOu probably don't remember me. WE've played a few CM games back in the day.

I personally blame you for me wasting this $ I do believe it was one of your posts that tipped the scales and encouraged me to pay up. Sigh. How is it I respected your judgment so much?!?!

[Timskorn]

You wasted your money if you were bored with SC after a month, read the posts here, had access to a demo and still bought the game. I take that back, HC could use the dough, so money well spent my friend.

[Cary]

AI seems pretty good. The basic engine is very nice. Get to playing it against a real person as quickly as possible -- it's a blast.

[JerseyJohn]

walpurgis nacht

You can't judge it by the Polish Campaign, that's bound to be similar to any game that has units of the same scale.

I haven't played SC-2 much either, but I've seen that as the game moves along the differences between this and the original become ever more apparent. The U-boat war, for example, is much improved in SC-2.

And, most importantly, the scenario editor is tremendous. As Hubert said a couple of years ago, he wanted it to be along the lines of a wargame construction kit, and that's what he's done; complete with map creation.

[David Chapuis]

Hubert needs to make a SC2 quick-battle generator. it would definitely allow for lot of variety.

[Tigleth Pilisar]

The strength of the game is the community of players. SC2 is nice because the game isn't all about eye candy like a first person shooter - its about strategy that tries to get a balance between history and gaming.

If you are playing against AI on expert level with full handicap, it is tough to lose. Admittedly, at that difficultly it takes time to learn how to win and you do have to understand the game pretty well, but AI is repetitive.

Only playing a human player through PBEM or TCP/IP can bring the game to life for you. Will the Axis player try to take too many neutrals first? Will he use a sub strategy, rocket strategy, air strategy? What will he do with North Africa? Will a Sealion work? Or if the Allies, how will he form a Russian defense? Will it be an orderly retreat or a constant counterattack? How will fortifications be used? Will he build for D-Day or try to hit neutrals, or come in through the Mediteranean? Research plays a large role. One key to replayability is that a "good" player can't do a canned strategy - it must be partly based on reconnaissance and intuition of the strategy of the opponent, and be able to react to it.

Ultimately, AI just doesn't compare to humans even though the scripting frenzy for modders seems to be alive.

As others point out, a major difference is the editor, allowing alteration for different custom campaigns. However, I'm not a programer and don't have the kind of time to make my own maps and scripts, so maybe like me you can't really use it. However, there are others in the community who seem to have the time and inclination to add variety to the game.

As for your real point (comparing SC1 to SC2), I think SC2 is significantly better. Reasons:

1. Squares instead of hexes. Yeah I thought real wargames only had hexes, but the squares allow more ground combat to occur rather than the mandatory air strategy in SC1.

2. Research is designed far better. In SC1, a small investment in research paid a lifetime of dividends in tech advances, which made no sense.

3. Unique units - one simple thing this fixed is allowing to continue to build cheap, low tech units for defending areas in the back while more expensive high tech units for fighting at the fronts.

4. Greater diplomatic consequences for attacking neutrals. I'm not sure I love the new diplomatic chit system, but I do like that if you invade a neutral, the neutrals around the invaded one react. Further, there is a tangible MPP increase to Allies when war readiness improves due to attacking neutrals.

5. Control of countries prior to joining the war. This is a great feature that eliminates the ability to do a "scripted Barbarossa" for example. Further, attacking Allies earlier means they likely have not built up as much, while building up as the Axis to the last turn benefits the Allies by giving them more MPPs and time to prepare.

6. Bigger map, convoy routes, enhanced Middle East and Egypt, commonwealth forces.

And I guess the final thing I like is that the combat system, most units and the way supply and command is used is exactly the same. I think it is a good system and so these things have remained the same.

So could this have been SC1, version 1.08 rather than SC2? I don't think so - too much of a structural change. I like what was changed and I like what has stayed the same. I'm hopeful that projects like Kuniworth's Eastern Front mod will keep the game fresh for a long time.

As for the cost - 45 bucks - it is absolutely nothing! Probably less money than your phone bill, or connecting to the internet for a month. Or depending on your income, ten minutes to four hours work.

If you really want to have fun sometime, I'll play against you in an email game. tigleth.pilisar@shaw.ca

[Retributar]

Tigleth Pilisar !,...TREMENDOUS!!!,...I couldn't have stated it any better!.

It would be great if 'Hubert' would put your commentary where it could alway's be readily accessable for anyone else who is not of the same mind on this game!,...so that they would be able to see the game and what it is to other's, from another point of view!.

[Maverik]

The game comes into its own when playing against another human. I have spent many nerve racked hours pondering where to open up second fronts. Trying to establish troop positions and worrying about whether the Leningrad garrison will last another turn.

I think Tigleth Pilisar has summed it all up with his review and I agree with Retributar that it should be fixed as a sticky where people could see it. ‘Hubert’, are you listening?

[theike]

Although the basis is the same, sc2 does alow for alot more. Indeed the editor will in time hopefully do to the game as intended, namely provide for months and months of playing on different battlefields and, make perfect h2h games. As in cm this game doesnt have to end, you see, its to be kept alive by the people that want to keep it alive. (good games alow players to recreate the world in it) (because ofcourse as all games, the game itself will only do so much, especialy if you think an ai can be a match, or one map will not get boring)

I liked the remark about the quickbattle generator.

[walpurgis nacht]

Yeah you know I typed too soon . . . knew I shoulda kept my trap shut.

Sure enough it clicked with a little more fiddling. Stayed up all night playing. Go figure.

[Lars]

Oh, so it's my fault you're easily bored.

Go try Timskorn AI mod for a challenge. Or send a setup.

[Hubert Cater]

Tigleth Pilisar, thanks for the review and I think you hit the nail on the head for exactly what I was after in this second game... glad you seem to be enjoying it

Hubert

[jon_j_rambo]

@Tiger Pillsboy --- Nice take son, appreciate the support.

[Tigleth Pilisar]

I'm glad some members agree with my comments about a few of the positive enhancements with SC2 - hardly review quality text though Thanks for your feedback, and particularly yours, Hubert.

The next thing is to take my own advice and get some more PBEM games going!!

And walpurgis, I'm glad to have read your initial criticism came when you had only played for 20 minutes, when we all know that full and irrecoverable addiction requires beginning at least one Russian campaign. (What Axis player could get fired up about taking Poland, or even France for that matter?)