Seed od Doubt Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 my first post, but i ve been lurking around for quite some time. i just finished a couple of games of SC which i dug out again some days ago. (actually due to some internet problems that kept me from playing anything else) i still like the game, and hearing about the new project, i wanted to share some thoughts. scanning this forum i found little usefull information. over a couple of pages back, the subjects seems to center mostly around representation of bizarre weapon systems and troop strenght over the war. this is not what brought me back to play the game. so here s my list: * keep the game simple. one of the biggest advantages of SC. * more hexes/tiles (i prefer the former, btw) are great. * most important point: deny units to gain experience from combat in which they don t face any risk. (perhaps biggest fault in SC) * downgrade airforce, upgrade armor. * force limits, perhaps changeable, could prevent another airfleet desaster. * research definetly needs to be more balanced: production, antitank and the air powers are much more usefull than anything else in SC. * more options (for example some choice of starting technologies, more difficulty levels, hypothetical better/worse scenarios for later starts, more siberia options...) would greatly enhance replay value. that s all for now, i hope it s a help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 scanning this forum i found little usefull information One must separate the wheat from the chaff. most important point: deny units to gain experience from combat in which they don t face any risk. (perhaps biggest fault in SC) Biggest fault? Experience is a bit overrated in SC1 and may be toned down some in the new combat formulas. There will be a change in that elite reinforcements (strength 11-15) will be tied to a unit's experience level rather than research tech level. This will have a different effect in the game, hopefully for the better. research definetly needs to be more balanced: production, antitank and the air powers are much more usefull than anything else in SC. Agreed. More balance means more choices, and therefore more variation in the games. Some techs like rockets and sonar don't get much play because they're considered to be worthless. If all techs are more or less balanced with strengths and weaknesses, it should be much more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 Seed od Doubt i hate to agree with the K.I.S.S. principle...(Keep-It-Simple-Stupid)...as i usually prefer 'complex-games'...however in Strategic Commands case i have made the exception. Quote:'Seed od Doubt': * keep the game simple. one of the biggest advantages of SC. Hubert will certainly try to keep it as simple as he can while allowing for a little greater measure of depth in SC2!...he has as much stated that already...so...not to worry in that department!. * more hexes/tiles (i prefer the former, btw) are great. As far as more tiles...well it appears to me that SC2's map will not be any larger than SC1's...i have already voiced my opinion for a larger map...but, im not the game designer...and perhaps for this game a larger map size is not the best in the end...i dont know...will have to find out later!. most important point: deny units to gain experience from combat in which they don t face any risk. (perhaps biggest fault in SC) Here is a very good point of yours Seed od Doubt ...as far as i can recall...i haven't seen any postings on that subject... GOOD - POINT!!!. Another 'Good-Point' ... * downgrade airforce, upgrade armor. ...this has been mentioned somewhat...and i agree...airpower was too-strong in SC1...and Armour units were underpowered!. Im lost on this one...dont know what to make out of it?... * force limits, perhaps changeable, could prevent another airfleet desaster ?. * research definetly needs to be more balanced: production, antitank and the air powers are much more usefull than anything else in SC. ...these mentioned items will be in good shape from what i have read in this discussion forum!. * more options (for example some choice of starting technologies, more difficulty levels, hypothetical better/worse scenarios for later starts, more siberia options...) would greatly enhance replay value. .... NOW!!!... this is one area where i heartily do concur-on!...and to some degree i think these will and are being addressed!. We need pzrgndr & SeaMonkey to elaborate more on some of your points...as they are very-much involved in and with the mechanics of SC2!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 As originally posted by Retributar: As far as more tiles...well it appears to me that SC2's map will not be any larger than SC1's... Well, I am not a "mechanic," other than fine-tuning and razzle-wrenching all those 60s hot-rods I used to own , but here youse go anyways: Not true. The map IS... VERY much larger. MUCH more space down in the desert sands of North Afrika, so that The Desert Fox can try for shimmering oasis of Alexandria WITHOUT having to amphib-invade the far shore (... though that Quatarra Depression WILL cause you to focus and fine-tune yer attack!) MUCH more space in the Atlantic Ocean, so that U-boots CAN indeed parry & thrust and strike and dive! And, be depth-charged by Cruiser groups in the vicinity! MUCH more space in Russia, so that Moscow is more centrally situated... a long, LONG way to go before you can even see the peaks of the Urals. MUCH more space in Finland, so that you CAN cross over into Sweden by land. So, if playing UK, you CAN plan that commando sortie into Northern ports like Trondheim! Etc. Vroom! Vroom! You gots... PLENTY of free-wheeling room! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 Thank's Desert Dave...those are welcomed improvements... ------ By the way Desert Dave will there be any provision for having a full-sized North America...as i feel like invading it...after Russia is defeated?. It would be more fun...if the North American continent was represented as a complete product instead of an Eastern Seaboard shelf!. [ August 08, 2004, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 FIrst I'll do when I get the game will be to do an eastern front scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 As originally posted by Seed of Doubt: * most important point: deny units to gain experience from combat in which they don t face any risk. (perhaps biggest fault in SC) * downgrade airforce, upgrade armor. 1st Concern: This, as pzgndr has already mentioned, WILL be modified so that you will NOT be able to develop "killer units" that can hardly be challenged. :eek: Perhaps, through judicious use of your time and MPP materiel, you CAN patiently develop "elite units" as Bill has suggested, BUT you will not have undue advantage due to that aggregate experience. IOW, those powerfully honed GErman units will have the capability to inflict massive mayhem, due to larger formation, but they also will be liable to some effective counter attacks. 2nd Concern... Hubert has already clearly and deliberately stated that he wants the tank to become more of a deciding factor... hence, the new - name of the game... SC2-Blitzkrieg! * more options (for example some choice of starting technologies, more difficulty levels, hypothetical better/worse scenarios for later starts, more siberia options...) would greatly enhance replay value. There are VERY many more new features and options. So many (... though, largely unobtrusive, so that KISS remains a very popular reflex choice!) in fact, that there will be an IMMENSE number of ways to play this game! No longer can any one Player "fixate" on a particular scheme or strategy or style... rather, it will truly be a test of "wide-angle" visions and carefully "applied ferocity." :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 Retributar, thanks for the plug, but my opinion carries no greater weight than anyone else in this forum (as it should be). HC is the man, with guidance from Bill and Dave and a few of our off the wall comments should be all that's necessary. And definitely SoD has a good point about experience and risk taking, I mean there are even accidents in training exercises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 By the way Desert Dave will there be any provision for having a full-sized North America...as i feel like invading it...after Russia is defeated?. Retributar: North America WILL be larger and much better detailed, and so... an invasion scheme, no matter how ill advised (... who? Would DARE try it! The lingering ghost of Paul Revere would let the minute-men know in PLENTY of time), would have many more shore tiles so you might have greater land areas for your intrepid marines to fight for! Stacks & stacks of valuable resource icons are located there! :cool: ***But... IF it is not QUITE to your liking, THEN... you CAN use that fantastic Editor and make it PRECISELY the size and shape that you want! :cool: Well, I have seen the next great thing, and I only have one word for the Editor that Hubert is very generously providing for all of us old & new WW2 Grand Strategy players... Breath-taking!! (... is that two words? Even with the dash inserted? :confused: ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seed od Doubt Posted August 9, 2004 Author Share Posted August 9, 2004 thanks for all the replies and the informations. lots of stuff looks rather promising. the target of my post was, to show why SC is among the games that i ll dig up again once every couple of month. my hope is, that the SC2 wil do the same and keep me attracted a little bit longer each time than for 1 or 2 campaigns. finally, please realy consider to not allow units to get experience from attacks on defenceless targets. it s an easily abused gamespoiler and makes little sense as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 My list is a bit shorter, 1. A cunning, unpredictable and devious AI that uses the strategies of the best players to secure victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts