Sneak movements through defense : why?

[SeaMonkey]

These last 3 posts pretty much sum up the SC legacy, obviously these guys "get it".

I too am enjoying SC2 world version and one of the best things about it is its full of surprises. First time to play the scenario, IMO, is the best opportunity to capture the essence of the unknown that the belligerents surely felt in that historical period.

You can, in hindsight, predict a general flow for the game, but the scripts (don't read them prior to)stream a constant set of dilemmas or benefits to each player.

This is really the true creative genious that SC is, like TOAW had, a never ending potential to provide scenarios on different scales that can captivate its players with doubt of reality, the unknown of the future.

And you can forever tweak them, modify, recreate and place them out there for your fellow SCers to enjoy.

You are giving back.

[Lars]

Perhaps somebody should do a Tactics II type scenario.

Even odds then.

[pzgndr]

Perhaps somebody should do a Tactics II type scenario.

I did for SC2. When I get a chance, I intend to dust it off and update it for SC2-PDE. With all the new feature additions in WaW and PDE, plus my scripting experience gained along the way with A3R, I'm pretty sure I can get the old Red-vs-Blue campaign to rock&roll. :cool:

[Liam]

CHQ ???? Scenario was the staple The WW2 scenarios didn't catch the feel of the era to me. Though that game was years ahead of it's time. Very addictive, and fairly good speed headsup Modem..Even 2400 BPS Lordy, to think it took up to 15 minutes to load a webpage with 14.4 in '95 and in '89 that game was Out... Played a guy in NC and we even had a Challenge Board on Prodigy Wargame Club back in '92

Originally posted by Timskorn:

The real trick is finding that middle ground between grognards and casual. To create the "beer and pretzel" style wargame that appeals to both. I know some argue that you can't try and cater to both or you'll alienate both, but that's wrong. It can be done, and SC2 is proof…albeit, *early* proof. It can certainly be even better.

There is always a temptation in a game like this to add more depth through features and more realistic modeling of war. This is both rooted in the desire to add more strategic options (and in theory, making repeated play throughs more satisfying) and to make it more historic. Adding oil, for example, would create a whole new layer of not only the decisions you make for your own troops and strategy, but how to deny those same options from your enemy. It also risks actually narrowing down your overall options if winning is heavily dependent on having it.

The other desire is simply to make it more historical. There's a major threshold for each player in determining what is acceptable or not to have, or not have, in a wargame. Does it make it too gamey, or too rigid? Is it actually fun to include this or that, simply because that was in the real war?

SC2 has done a fine job of finding that balance. I think the risk outweighs the reward at this point in adding too much to it. SC3 would have to be the game to tackle a new system from scratch, in my opinion. Also, I too went back to SC2 vanilla recently to play the Global War mod. It's refreshing to actually NOT have the extra units, allowing the game to go back to more of a chess match. I do miss the double-strike armor though… WaW is also great because it created a new gameplay experience, but didn't obsolete SC2 vanilla in the process!