Worst Descisions for SC2

[DSEDS]

After seeing more and more of the new game i think the worst things for me are

the new graphics, "3D"-like map instead of 2D,

The new unit graphics (both options) instead of "counters". The unit look like obscure "giants", and "distubring" the map view.

and the Tiles vs. Hexes Drama.

Overall i fear that i will play SC2 not as long as SC even with the better rules, larger map area ect.

At the moment i dont know whether i can live with the new look that destroys every atmo. And dont hink that "you will get used to it" will work in this issue.

I doubt that SC2 will get more buyers just becouse of the new graphics, of course everyone will say that this was not the intend.

Any chance that the first the ponts will be patched later or can be modified with the editor?

[pzgndr]

At the moment i dont know whether i can live with the new look that destroys every atmo.

Should we send flowers to the funeral?

[JerseyJohn]

I like the suggestion made elsewhere (probably many times) of a toggle 2D/3D choice.

The nearest example I can think of is the ChessMaster series. The 3D display annoys me because if I stick the pointer on the wrong part of the saure I'm moving the piece in the next square. As I like to play 'touch move' that really ruins the game for me. The designer wiselly provided the 2D option and that's what I use. It would be the same thing here. I really don't care much for statuettes on pedastals, despite the fact I know a lot of extra effort went into making them. Glad to see I'm not alone.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by DSEDS:

After seeing more and more of the new game i think the worst things for me are

the new graphics, "3D"-like map instead of 2D,

The new unit graphics (both options) instead of "counters". The unit look like obscure "giants", and "distubring" the map view.

and the Tiles vs. Hexes Drama.

I agree on all three of your points especially tiles which makes it hard to calculate distances and strike ranges with at a "quick glance". So that's a definate problem for me that will make it more difficult to set up optimum attacks.

However I'm confident in Hubert and think the game will be good. Over the years I've learned that Hubert got a very good sense about this so we'll be fine.

[Edwin P.]

From the screen shots it appears that you can see the strike and movement ranges of each unit when it is selected.

[Retributar]

On that point EDWIN i would like to add...why-not incorporate a see-through 'overlay' to indicate the available movement area at a glance.

So, now instead of checking out each possible movement path which is time cosuming...one, could at a quick glance see where their unit can or cannot go!.

[Edwin P.]

I believe that that is incorporated into SC2. Have a look at the screenshots.

Screen Shot with Overlay Showing

Another Screen Shot

[ December 13, 2005, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

Edwin;

Problem is if you look east-west at a quick glance you will not be able to "see" the strategic situation as you do with hexes.

Example with your first screenshot; take the UK unit just west of the paratrooper unit. At a quick glance the distance to the airplane-unit just east of the parachuter looks like 2 squares when it is in reality 4. Thats the problem.

[Edwin P.]

Kuniworth,

Many thanks. Now I understand. You have to click on the unit to see where it can move, unlike SC1 where the movement range is clearer to the player.

[Hubert Cater]

"Example with your first screenshot; take the UK unit just west of the paratrooper unit. At a quick glance the distance to the airplane-unit just east of the parachuter looks like 2 squares when it is in reality 4."

In this case it is in fact 2 tiles.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Kuniworth,

Many thanks. Now I understand. You have to click on the unit to see where it can move, unlike SC1 where the movement range is clearer to the player.

Scanning the map should be the same in SC2 except that you count tiles instead of hexes

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

"Example with your first screenshot; take the UK unit just west of the paratrooper unit. At a quick glance the distance to the airplane-unit just east of the parachuter looks like 2 squares when it is in reality 4."

In this case it is in fact 2 tiles.

Hm now I'm confused. If the unit in the tile just west of the paratroop wants to move to the tile occupied by the plane just east of the paratroopunit that means 4. I assumed that moving into tile from the edges of that tile would cost a penalty of 2?

[Hubert Cater]

Each tile is 1 regardless of direction. This was something that was re-considered a while back as it just simplifies everything especially when scanning the map.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Each tile is 1 regardless of direction. This was something that was re-considered a while back as it just simplifies everything especially when scanning the map.

with all due respect but would'nt hexes be a better choice then to apply? Too late to change that?

[fischkopf]

Omg guys, it's tile based. Let the man make the game, let's play it, and we'll go from there!

[fischkopf]

Civ3 by the way is a great tile-based game. (Better than Civ4 in my opinion...)

Only problem is those damn Zulus that think they own everthing! Think they can bully me around do they?!?!!

[vveedd]

Originally posted by fischkopf:

Civ3 by the way is a great tile-based game. (Better than Civ4 in my opinion...)

You don't know how I am happy to see that. Finally someone who shares my opinion about CIV 3 vs. CIV 4.Civilization 3 is a much, much better game but let's stick to the subject.

I DON'T CARE about graphic, counters, tiles, hexes etc. I DO CARE only about playability. If playability will be like in SC1 or better, game will be great. There are good and bad points for every stuff. For instance, in Panzer General 2 graphic is similar like in SC2 and you can say that the unit look like obscure "giants", and "disturbing" the map view but playability is GREAT even today. Civilization (1,2,3) have tiles like fischkopf have said but playability is great. So, to my opinion every discussion about this is pointless until we try to play SC2.

By the way, I have seen War in Europe game demo which have hexes and counters and I must admit that graphic looks to me a little obsolete.

[fischkopf]

Heh heh, agreed vveedd, I found Civ4 to be unplayable, clunky even on my 2.8Ghz machine, and I couldn't find a map viewpoint which I liked. Back to the drawing boards Civ team!

[Kuniworth]

what da hell do civ got to do with SC? two completly different games. Stop that silly comparison once and for all.

[ December 19, 2005, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[vveedd]

I am talking about playability. Of course they are two completely different games.

[Edwin P.]

Comparing SC2 and Civ3; both have military units, a map based on tiles, production points, research, diplomacy and a map editor. Civ3 also has a WWII Pacific War scenario.

[fischkopf]

Indeed, Civ3 also includes:

the Germans, the Russians, the Americans, the English, and the Japanese and the Chinese.

As well as:

nukes,

submarines,

air craft carriers,

cruisers,

battleships,

destroyers,

fighters,

jet fighters,

bombers,

tanks (and Panzers for Germans),

various types of infantry,

transports,

paratroopers,

artillery,

rockets,

Flak guns,

roads,

rail roads,

and buildable fortifications.

[Kuniworth]

what about cconescutive fronts?

[vveedd]

Okay, okay both games have similar units and some other stuff but game concept is different. In CIV game concept is adjust for playing thru all time periods. SC is WWII time period game or I am wrong?

[Edwin P.]

It depends, CIV3 comes with a historical WWII scenario too.

Sid Meier's Civilization III: Conquests, Firaxis' second expansion pack for the mega-hit Civilization III, features nine professionally created scenarios that introduce concepts never before seen in any Civilization title. The seventh designer diary in this series provides a glimpse at the design process and decisions made during the development of the 'WWII in the Pacific' Conquest - designed by Charlie Kibler.

First Decisions

Upon hearing I'd be in charge of putting together this scenario, the first design issue was to determine the best start date, and then the featured nationalities. Although Japan began assembling her "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" in 1931 by setting up puppet states in Korea & Manchuria, invading China in 1937 and (later) moving into French Indo-China, the wider war in the Pacific (involving the United States, Great Britain, and the Dutch East Indies) did not begin until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Thus, the start date was easily fixed at December 1941.

It was decided that each turn in this conquest would represent one month of real time. Despite having "only" fifty turns, the number of units on the map combined with the size and amount of battles fought each turn - makes this one of the more involved (and intensely combative) conquests. If the game runs its full length (unlikely, at best), it ends after the January 1945 turn.