ROFLMAO Can't Hep it!

[Steve Rogers]

What game are you talking about?

[Canuck]

Well I just played for a good 6 hours today. Possibly longer I'm not sure. My first full game (actually I'm still only in September of '42). First it was 4:30 and I thought, 'jeez I better go make dinner soon.' Then it was 5:30. Then 6 o'clock. It wasn't until finally after 8:00pm tonight that I was able to stop playing!

There are a few problems which everyone has already mentioned-I'm not a hardcore gamer so I probably won't find any more to add to the list. But it totally has that 'one-more turn' aspect to it. I can actually see how the research is working-from what I recall from SC, research was sort of hit and miss-you invested points and sometimes it worked and you got a tech and sometimes it didn't. With this game I can actually see how I'm progressing.

Oil is definitely one of the best parts of the game. I had no trouble conserving oil while taking over most of Europe. But after invading that vast expanse known as Russia, I could but watch my oil slowly receding. Then there was the tough winter of '41 where the Russians went on the offensive and the severe weather slowed my tanks down so much that I finally decided I would be better off to just let them sit and ride out the storm for 3 months. When spring came and the flowers started to blossom we got back on with the race for Caucasus and that precious, precious oil.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Steve Rogers:

What game are you talking about?

Commander: Europe at War

[Timskorn]

Thanks for all the info guys. Luckily it'll be awhile before I have the time and money to sink into an all-new wargame. SC2 and WaW will keep me busy for a long time. By the time I do get CEAW, hopefully it'll be all patched up and ready for me.

[Desert Dave]

Dave is way off here. I like SC2 but for Human play you cant beat CEAW if you want a historical playing game. It is exactly what I have been looking for. It is missing a end of turn show for the opponent but that will be fixed.

Yep Targul, I am OFTEN

Way off - in the wild blue,

Or,

Failing that - same as the Aero Cat

With them wax-wings daring! to go

Too close to the Sun - it

Was - Icharus?

No matter,

I am certain to be - LESS "way off"

Once the new!

SC-2 WaW arrives

In a theatre near you! :cool:

WRT to your unswerving - not near!

ANY sun going preference

For more straight-line linear

And historical HvsH game-play.

SO many!

More options also - for the Mod Cats

So to have precisely

THE GAME

Of their deep delirium dreams!

For instance,

Just now I am working the numbers

For '41-42 North Afrika,

And I have discovered this:

There are an amazing!

# of Editor permutations possible, so many

In fact,

That I must be VERY careful

And, conduct much testing,

So to insure that they all "fit together"

In a synergistic and complementary

Way - what say you?

How far off am I nowadays?

[Yogi]

Originally posted by targul:

I presently have many Human games with it and simply find it great to be able to finally play a game that plays very historically by Humans.

I find SC2 when played with Humans to be fantasy WWII.

Hexes are a huge pull for me.

Note: Above quotes are part of a larger post.

My intent is not to continue two old and sometimes heated debates, but I just want to express some agreement with Targul on his overall comments.

"Historic Play" is important to many of us. Despite what many have posted, this does not mean that it always turns out the same and/or that the Axis have to lose. It simply means we want a simulation with reasonable realism.

I think the hexes vs squares debate can certainly go on, but for many, hexes are the preferred choice. Like it or not, it is already evident on another forum that this decision alone may have a number of people preferring the other product. To use an old saying, "Perception is more important then Reality". True or not, many people perceive that hexes are better.

[Blashy]

I'll never get this thing of prefer hexes or squares.

I like them both equally and find that games pretty much play the same.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I'll never get this thing of prefer hexes or squares.

I like them both equally and find that games pretty much play the same.

Hexes make encirclements easier, with squares there almost impossible, which is a bit ahistorical.

[ June 27, 2007, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: borsook ]

[Blashy]

Well I sure don't find that to be the case.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Well I sure don't find that to be the case.

You may find it or not, but the easier encirclements with hexes are a fact, a hex is surrounded by 6 hexes a tile by 8 tiles. In a hex game of SC scale two corpses can encircle 1 on hexes but they cannot on tiles. I can think of plenty of WW2 situations that prove that 2:1 strength ratio should be enough, with tiles it isn't, you need at least 3:1.

[Guest Mike]

Hexes are, IMO, a lot easier to play with because we're all used to them.

Squares are OK, but they are "non-standard", and movement across corners seems odd to those of us with 30-40 years of playing on hexes........

[Blashy]

I can encircle a unit with 2 units in SC2. You simply need to move them behind and it will cut them off. I do it quite often and have had it done to me as well.

[Yogi]

Well, as mentioned, this debate has gone on a long time ever since it became known that SC2 would be squares. It can be continued to be argued I suppose that squares are as good as hexes. I happen to like SC2 and think it's a great game. However:

I'm reasonably sure that if you took a preference poll of seasoned "wargamers" that hexes would easily be chosen as favorite.

If thats the case and there is no difference as suggested by some, the obvious choice for a game to make is hexes as it satisfies the most people.

If squares are better (not just as good) then someone is going to have to figure out how to make that case to the majority of gamers before it will be more readily accepted.

I have no objection to those who don't care and feel it makes no difference. I do suggest however that hexes are better recieved by the majority of gamers. If that is the case (and it certainly seems to be) hexes would seem to be the better choice for marketing and selling of a game.

[Blashy]

Seeing as Axis & Allies board game (I hate that crap luck of the dice factor) and SC1 are the only military games I played prior to SC2 (tried a bunch of demos never liked anything until SC1).

I'm not "old school" .

[Timskorn]

I see your point Yogi. Bottom line, hexes are just more widely accepted. However, this doesn't mean it's always the best system to go with, even "sales wise". Gamers always think they know what they like best until they experience something better.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of old fogies who scream "hexes or death!" because it's just been the way of the war gaming world. If HC is really looking to make more cash I say focus on graphics, not bringing hexes back. Thankfully, HC likes to do things his own way and it's always seemed to work out. I mean we're even getting expansion for SC2!

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I can encircle a unit with 2 units in SC2. You simply need to move them behind and it will cut them off. I do it quite often and have had it done to me as well.

Yep - but the control rules give half the area back to thh other guy next turn, probably including a corner contact to his hearland somewhere so he isn't any more.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

I see your point Yogi. Bottom line, hexes are just more widely accepted. However, this doesn't mean it's always the best system to go with, even "sales wise". Gamers always think they know what they like best until they experience something better.

Absolutely.

So when are we going to experience something better than hexes then??!!

Blashy all I can say is that you don't know what you're missing!!

[targul]

Hexes identify the movment of units more accurately. Do we pay the extra movement for moving across a square? I dont know. Do we account for the actual flight range based on straight line or the angles? Again I dont know.

It requires some trig and a little calculus to compute squares movement with the strange angles but that is not as true with hexes. There isnt an extra hex every two like in squares.

If we couldnt move at angles squares make sense. You can easily turn squares into hexes. Computers use squares not hexes for there basic setup so they are easier to program but not easier to calculate.

When Avalon Hill made the first hex based wargame in the 60's they received much acclaim by the industry. The first hex based game was made in 1942 by some math dude.

Today many games use areas instead of squares or hexes. Personally I am not happy with that form but I will admit is decisively preferred over squares by me.

Hexes do make placing units out of supply much more difficult because of the corners. I have tried and the corner hexes inevitably go back to the opponent supply unless controlled.

Cant really tell which is better squares or hexes but I also with the squares cannot determine how far air will go in the game since it seems to change. I never have this problem in a hex based game because when it say 3 it means 3 not sure that is true with a square and if it does then it is really messed up because 3 is really 4.5.

Anyway people do what they wish but I for one do not wish to move back 50 years to squares but this game has such great AI I will probably be stuck doing so.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Seeing as Axis & Allies board game (I hate that crap luck of the dice factor) and SC1 are the only military games I played prior to SC2 (tried a bunch of demos never liked anything until SC1).

I'm not "old school" .

Wow, you sure missed some great games. I'd recomend having a look at some of them to see how well hexes work in practice, esp. Steel Panthers, first because it's a great game, and second because it is nowdays a freeware!

[Ottosmops]

Concerning hexes vs. squares:

While the unit icons must have a certain size, so that the players can easily recognize them and move them around, I see no need, that the hexes/squares must have the same size.

To approximate reality, i. e. the circular movement radius in flat terrain, the underlying grid of the map could have a finer granularity than the size of the unit icons.

If the side length of the hexes/squares would be a tenth from what they are now, their shape would no longer be relevant for the players.

Of course, the calculation of movements and supply ways would need more time, but with computers becoming always more powerful, this will be doable in the future.

[pzgndr]

I'm reasonably sure that if you took a preference poll of seasoned "wargamers" that hexes would easily be chosen as favorite.

Amongst the aging population of grognards (myself included), probably true. For the yearlings, some of them have never played a board game with hexes and do not care. :eek:

Having played a variety of PC wargames now with hexes, tiles, provinces or no grid at all, the old hexagon "standard" is largely irrelevant. Turn the grid off! Game play is the real test. How well do the game mechanics work, how is play balance, how is replayability, how extensive is the game editor so players can mod the game (or create new games themselves), etc. Bottom line, is the game playable and is it fun??

[Desert Dave]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I'm reasonably sure that if you took a preference poll of seasoned "wargamers" that hexes would easily be chosen as favorite.

Amongst the aging population of grognards (myself included), probably true. For the yearlings, some of them have never played a board game with hexes and do not care. :eek:

Having played a variety of PC wargames now with hexes, tiles, provinces or no grid at all, the old hexagon "standard" is largely irrelevant. Turn the grid off! Game play is the real test. How well do the game mechanics work, how is play balance, how is replayability, how extensive is the game editor so players can mod the game (or create new games themselves), etc. Bottom line, is the game playable and is it fun?? </font>

[SeaMonkey]

Time will tell DD. We'll see how long the legs are on this game, how it evolves and sustains the enthusiasm.

Hexes vs Squares......actually I've got a preference for the squares, but I understand the attraction to the hexes and I would like access to both. Square movement is weird, but it excels in combat.

Supply could be handled better if it was calculated at the instance of combat. For a defender that endurs multiple ground attacks(excl.air & bombard.) it would be on a deteriating scale just like readiness and morale if subsequent movement of the attacker puts the defender "out of supply".

Once the attacker has enveloped the defender subsequent attacks would decrease def.supply by 50% per attack, never reaching zero, but slowly eroding away as attrition usually does in high combat situations.

Remember our time scale here, a week to a month, sequentially. The instant supply feature would be a valuable addition to an already great game.

[borsook]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Same as THE greatest waste of money

I have EVER spent - in

My ENTIRE life lived thus far - 50 bucks

For... HoI.

Now I begin to understand your previous posts. HOI is probably the only WW2 grand strategy that is close to the "war simulation". No other game encompasses so many aspects of the war - military, economic, diplomatic, weather, infrastructure, leaders, doctrines, government etc. You name it - HOI has got it. But yes it does require a certain amount of patience, planning and use of intellect, so those looking for a light-weight gaming won't like it obviously.

[Guest Mike]

I just got HOI from the local "cheap old software" publisher Red Ant...$10 NZ - about US$7.50...haven't actually tried it but at least I've got it

Some other good games are around in the same format/price now like Rowan's Battle of Britain