Strategic Command 3

[arado234]

The only reason I mentioned stacking was so you could move your airfleets right up to the front to give them max.range without fear of being attacked by ground units unprotected.

The ground unit stacked with the airfleet would have to be destroyed first then you could attack the airfleet with any ground units that were capable.

I do agree that it would add more time to each turn but you could limit it to just one airfleet being able to stack with one ground unit.No stacking ground units.

[Bill101]

I'd rather have my air units just a little bit behind the front line, otherwise they would be in range of the enemy's artillery. I see your point about maximising range but a difference of one tile surely isn't worth changing the game engine for?

In the normal scheme of things I think it would really be too risky to put them in the front line, even though I occasionally do when carrying out a Blitzkrieg type operation - but that's the risk I take!

[arado234]

I dont know whats involved in changing the game engine but there would be instances throughout a game where one hex would make all the difference,especially in Russia.But like you say Bill if it requires alot of programing then you are right its not really worth it.

I do know in Third Reich it does make a difference.

[carverrt]

I guess these changes would require programming.

But, if they add to game play, it might be worth it.

I think stacking might be hardest to tackle and might be the least return on time and effort. Two additions that would add to game play are a defensive retreat option and an amphibious attack (from a sea hex) on an occupied land hex option.

Robert

[Kuniworth]

In Commander units retreat automatically when taking to much punishment. The exception are units in cities, they never retreat.

[justanotherwargamer1]

I want to comment on game engine.

In SC3, I am not interested in beating SC3 out of SC2.

I think SC3 should be new software if it's going to be done at all.

I don't want a mangled SC3 with hidden gems that will plague the game for years.

HC was ok with dumping SC1 and giving us a totally new looking game in the form of SC2. Not sure if the SC2 code is remotely the same as the SC1 code, and not interested in knowing I suppose.

I just want SC3 to look like I thought SC2 was going to look before all the learning in SC1 was thrown away.

As I see it, SC1 was abandoned for SC2.

I won't feel any pangs of regret abandoning SC2 for a better SC3.

[SeaMonkey]

So you want it as it really occurred or as close as posible....sorry not going to happen in a game, simply because life is full of unreproducible intangibles. But there is hope of a relatively accurate simulation, although that fact is opinion driven, but there will always be a need for a player's rationalizing imagination.

A map is a map, is a basis for interaction, tiles, squares, hexes, a grid.....doesn't matter if it produces the effect.

Think about what actually occurred, millions of human beings collectively and at odds with each other in conflict for a sometimes shrouded goal. You're going to simulate that in a game of perhaps two humans representing those multitudes of decisions? You're going to have to represent the different scales of delegation from the strategic to the tactical in some manner of reproduction.

There is but one model, generally unrefined at the SC scale, that even has a chance at the possible reinactment and it will take an evolution like SC has seen to bring it into the realm that we would consider successful.

That model, understanding that it is only a basis for ideas for the future of SC3 is the Airborne Assault software developed by Panther Games.

[JerseyJohn]

Actually, SC3 out of SC2 isn't what Kuni was talking about.

It was, or at least as I see it, a suggestion for Hubert to move ahead with a hex-based game incorporating the ideas he mentioned and that some of us added in subsequent posts.

There's no reason for SC2 to be junked. I have no idea where that came from. People like it and play it.

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, it seems unlikely that a single designer, especially one who works alone, would want to go off now on a different game system when he's got one that is already doing the job.

-- Also, as was already said, a lot of this only an expressing of personal preferences, such as hex maps over tile maps.

[justanotherwargamer1]

90% of my need is stacking.

With stacking you get Advanced Third Reich.

A person can't ask for much more than that.

Hexes are better than tiles. Well at least according to my eyes. I have never gotten a head ache looking at hex gridded wargame maps. Easy enough to just not use grid.

Realism. If I can't place a ground unit to garrison Malta (best example normally available is Malta), and have an air unit to defend it. As well as have naval units based there, the design needs fixing.

Being forced to pick garrison and no air defense, or air defense and no garrison is just plain clumsy designing.

I don't expect a massive garrison, and I don't expect a massive air fleet. But to have to pick is unacceptable.

If the game goes global, how will it depict invading an island?

They only took those islands to provide air cover or air bases in a lot of cases.

Are we going to be stuck unable to garrison AND base air on them?

That will make having the Pacific included in the game a total waste and a reason to just not play it at all.

Suspension of disbelief has it's limits.

Ability to invade vs a coast that is defended. Well lets see, Torch, Husky, Overlord, several islands in the Pacific do we need any more examples of why a unit being on a coast hex should only mean casualties will be higher.

The idea "hah ha I am in the hex so you can't invade it now" is the same as saying the game is a farce.

[Timskorn]

It's abstraction and it works fine in SC2. The "Malta Effect" abstracts the British ability to interdict shipping, even if you don't have air their.

[Lars]

Actually, you do have air there in a sense if you upgrade the AA. Just because it isn't a whole air wing, doesn't mean there's nothing.

Justanotherwargamer has a few points, but most of what he's arguing for is really just different abstractions.

[Timskorn]

It's these kinds of gameplay details that are not in the game for a purpose. Among many, many others in SC2 which are either abstracted or represented in some other way. There's a tradeoff for every design decision. If you view SC2 in that light it's an extremely well designed and balanced game. HC could have diverged from that and kept tacking on details here and there, slowly whittling away abstracted elements. Then you're in this weird area where you don't know what the game is trying to be. "Why is this so detailed, but this abstracted? It's clearly just important!".

[xwormwood]

Carriers are sea units with a limited air strike ability.

Therefor they should always do worse air strikes than regular air units.

So, if i may dare to ask, why not introduce land units with limited air strike ability?

a) Infantry with air strike ability (limited and worse than regular air fleets).

Use them in Malta or Crete.

Choose, if it should do strategic, tac or cap duty. Choose it with buying the correct upgrade.

b)Tank units with air strike ability (limited and worse than regular air fleets).

Use them for tank breakthroughs. Buy the correct upgrade.

etc. etc.

Call these units "stacked" units, or call them whatever you want.

Create a new navy unit with an infantry upgrade.

Allow these specific navy units to invade coastal hexes / tiles. Don't allow them to move further inland.

Enable these new unit with a switch (on / off) before starting a game. Those who don't like it can make it away with a little click.

Should solve pretty much nearly all problems we are talking about in this thread without changing to many things and without too much effort.

And than give us back hexes. Because tiles are the worst solution. If you don't believe it, start a poll and ask your customers.

Thank you for your attention.

[ January 02, 2008, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Lars]

Circles! I want circles!

Actually, I've played many good games that have that system. Hexes are just as much an abstraction as squares.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Lars:

Hexes are just as much an abstraction as squares.

Yes, they are.

And they are better abstractions as well.

[ January 02, 2008, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Lars]

Define "better".

[SeaMonkey]

Well I guess we are discussing a continuation of the same or similar platform, so I will limit myself to those parameters.

What I would like to see is a return to the basic combat units, like infantry, armor, airwing, CV, BB, etc. Taking that basic building block and adding the additional features in the form of assets, enhanced and controlled by the army group commander/flagship admiral/airmarshall, etc. historical characteristics.

This pattern can be reassigned from the strategic scale to the grand tactical by simply using the commanders at...say the regimental level and giving units a various strike range, number of strikes, etc., depending on the asset attachment configurations.

The assets are the smaller unit task specific organizations of artillery, fighters, dive bombers, anti-tank/air, CAGs, engineers, heavy armor, naval escort, motor pool, etc.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Philippe]

Wargames switched from squares to hexagons in the early nineteen sixties. The reason for the change was that a one hex movement on a field of hexagons always covers exactly the same distance, regardless of the direction of the move. On the other hand, a one square move on a field of squares covers different distances depending on whether the move is on a diagonal or not.

If a force is arrayed in a diagonal line on field of squares it is possible to slip a piece through the line by moving along the other diagonal if there aren't any zone of control rules in effect. This can never be an issue with hexagons, because you always move across the side of a space and never through the corners.

You're over forty years too late to even be discussing this. A designer chooses to use squares, hexagons, areas, or points of intersection on movement paths based on what he feels works best for a particular simulation. It's absurd to talk about one system being inherently better than another. You either like the designer's choice or you don't, and if you don't, then go out and design your own game.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Hexes do have one issue tho, and that is the "grain" of the boards, which makes movement work differently in the N/S direction than it does in the E/W.

Me, something like how Command HQ handled it might work-pausable real time and if the vectors of two units got sufficiently close they fought it out until one retreated or died. Since the old Microprose classics Decision in the Desert and Crusade in Europe handled pausable RT quite well (my two first computer wargames), it wouldn't offend my sensibilities at all. Just an idea...

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Philippe:

and if you don't, then go out and design your own game.

Yes, very smart, my friend, but please let me help you here, because it spells

and if you don't, then go out and purchase a game from a different designer.

We (or at least I) like Hubert for what he did with SC 1 and SC 2, and so we (or I) take the liberty to ask him to design an even better game whenever we (or I) want to.

This constant "shut up or go away" attitude here is starting to be very annoying.

You have seen the title of this thread (SC 3), haven't you?

So for a new and probably improved game the fan base shouldn't ask any wishes and start design their own game instead?

Great!

[Marty Ward]

The only thing I want from SC3 is for it to be as much fun to play as SC2. This is one of the most enjoyable titles I've played in years. The freaking map for SC3 can look like a 60's album cover for all I care.

[Timskorn]

Haha, Command HQ! My first PC wargame. What a damn blast that was. First time I played multiplayer over a modem too. That game is a great example of being able to abstract a war like WW2, yet give you that great feeling of having control over the entire war. It's an abomination of historical accuracy, but it was fun.

[justanotherwargamer1]

I require one thing from a game in order for me to buy it.

It better run.

Now, as for liking a game, if you want me to like it, it has to do more than just run

SC2 is likely a lot less buggy that a great many other games out there. That's nice.

But, in a market where everyone is clamouring for my money, you have to give ME what I want, in order to win me. Soooo it's not an option, for the designer, to just do it his way, unless they are merely interested in making the game for laughs.

I suspect HC wanted a profit. I suspect he's made at least some profit, because his game appears to run at least.

But, he hasn't made a major classic in SC2. Nope, SC1 was the classic. SC2 is just a less than perfect round 2. And like a lot of sequels, often the sequel is just not as cool as the original.

So, while he likely will enjoy making and selling SC2, I'll likely stick to playing SC1 until I get something "I" call better.

[Timskorn]

In that case, he just needs to determine how many people want to buy the game you'd like, and how many people would buy the game we like and then make the one that'll make him the most money.

[JerseyJohn]

Why does this keep coming down to one or the other?

What Kuni is suggesting, and what a lot of us would also like to see, is a companion game that uses things like hexes and stacking. Hubert gave an interview a couple of years back (with Curry) in which he said he enjoyed DOS games like HighCom and Clash of Steel and the original SC was influenced by them and similar games.

So the suggestion in this thread is that Hubert design a parellel strategic warfare system using hexes (and possibly sea zones as in COS), with tactics using retreat as part of combat etc & etc. This is not unreasonable, especially as most of us thought that would be SC2.

-- And Hubert was perfectly justified to design SC2 in a way that satisfied him; he's its creator, the rest of us are only players.

Kuni, in that he's been one of the biggest fans of SC2 from the start, and was one of the first to make user scenarios for it, also has a right to say he's in favor of an alternate game system.

Please don't tell me, or anyone else, to design it themselves. I'm neither a programmer nor a game designer and at this stage of life am not about to go into either activity. Aside from which that kind of remark is like telling a motorist to build a new highway if he doesn't like trafic jams.

All that's being offered in this thread is suggestions to Hubert. He can take them, or leave them. No big deal.