dicedtomato Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I estimate the average turn is about seven minutes per side, or about 15 minutes for the whole turn. In a PBEM, by the time you watch the replay and e-mail the file, it's about the same. If there's about 150 turns in a campaign game, then we're looking at close to 40 hours to complete a game of SC2. Add in a 140-page manual with lots of formualae, and we're not talking Panzer General here. For 40 hours - the same amount of time as standard full-time work week - I am going to have higher expectations than for Panzer General or some goofy RTS. Most RTS and FPS players wouldn't touch SC2 with a 10-foot pole. The people playing it are wargamers, and it's going to be judged by wargame standards. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 FWIW, without the name-calling, we did take a look a force pool limits. In comparison, the USA gets 15 corps in Advanced Third Reich and 20 corps in A World at War. Assuming an Army in SC2 is about 2 Corps, one recommendation was for USA to get 9 Corps and 4 Armies. Hubert adjusted that a little and made it 4 Corps and 6 Armies. That's fine, and provides a little more concentrated offensive punch. And it's still consistent with some other games. Should it be more? With the soft build limit option you can build more USA Armies if you want to, so I don't see what the issue is here. Is there a problem maxing out the entire USA force pool of corps, armies and tank groups in SC2?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Pzgndr, the game may be correct in terms of the number of U.S. armies. The problem is that a U.S. army should have more firepower, supplies and mobility than a German or Soviet army. SC2 tries to model this through tech, but Germany is likely to have the same or better IW and HT than the U.S. I never got into Third Reich, but I have played a lot of World in Flames and War in Europe. Those games give the U.S. a lot of aircraft, plus WiF has offensive chits (which give extra combat power). The U.S. may not have a huge ground force, but it can build lots of O-chits which magnify its ground strength. All those U.S. MPPs don't do any good if there's nothing to spend them on. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Hey Bill you forgot to mention the most adequate air forces the USA can deploy also. Talk about an enhancement of firepower, use those babies before attacking with ground troops and who's going to stick around long. Rommel noticed those Eagles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Originally posted by rclawson007: But if you do, US and Russian activation increase. In my Game versus AxisGeneral, when it said US and USSR whatever to axis agression in Egypt, they only rose by 8%. Prior to the 1.02 patch, it rose by like 20. I remember USSR jumped from like 48 to 74. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 18, 2006 Author Share Posted June 18, 2006 3R sux. Was at best, okay, back in its day. @Bill --- Dude, the firepower & supply just isn't there for G.I. Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: 3R sux. Was at best, okay, back in its day. @Bill --- Dude, the firepower & supply just isn't there for G.I. Joe. Your allied play must be very very VERY bad Rambo. Get yourself a decent internet connection and I will gladly teach you the basics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 18, 2006 Author Share Posted June 18, 2006 Dude, you're always lurking on ICQ! You hide from me punk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Dude, you're always lurking on ICQ! You hide from me punk. Actually I am playing Sc2 much of the time Unfortunately SC2 doesnt like it all if you alt tab from the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I'm hoping for a windowed mode in the futur Sombra . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 18, 2006 Author Share Posted June 18, 2006 True, SC2 doesn't allow you to leave the game, not cool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZGungHo Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I've found that I can alt tab out of it fine as long as it's not running the AI. If it's my turn I can alt tab out, check e-mail etc. Do it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I Alt-Tab out of TCP/IP game all the time. As long as you wait until the "turn has started" message flashes, you should be okay. The problem is Alt-Tabbing back into the game. At least on my machine, I watch a black screen for about 30 seconds until SC2 appears. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 DT while I play with other people with the US Version of the game it works. Funny is tried it with somebody who has the german version and wow you get an direct x failures faster than you can say amen. Really annoying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 That's funny I never alt-tab, just hit "Esc", one finger, 1 click on the tool bar for the cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markpoll Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I think most of you are missing the point. If you make it realistic, you break it, because the balance would be way out. I assume Hubert did this intentionally, with input from playtesters, to balance the game. Thank you. Also, re the inference that the US came in when all was decided and hence were "yellow", that's very unfair. That's just being cautious with your mens' lives. The war probably had already been decided, but D Day hadn't and that isn't something you would gamble on, at least after Dieppe. You would wait until you were sure. As it was, Omaha was touch and go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 ESC is better than alt tab for SC2, I find so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 No, we're not missing the point. The game has no point. When we complain that the Allies are too weak and the Germans can conquer everything, we're told that's historical. When we demonstrate that the game isn't historical, then we're told that it's meant to be fun. The designer and playtesters can't make up their minds, so neither can we. DT Originally posted by markpoll: I think most of you are missing the point. If you make it realistic, you break it, because the balance would be way out. I assume Hubert did this intentionally, with input from playtesters, to balance the game. Thank you. Also, re the inference that the US came in when all was decided and hence were "yellow", that's very unfair. That's just being cautious with your mens' lives. The war probably had already been decided, but D Day hadn't and that isn't something you would gamble on, at least after Dieppe. You would wait until you were sure. As it was, Omaha was touch and go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 :confused: Ok before the patch the Allies needed some help but now? Most player in multiplayer want to play the Allies and soon it seems you have to start bidding to get the Allies from time to time. [ June 18, 2006, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Sombra ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Now now let's all calm down and be gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 19, 2006 Author Share Posted June 19, 2006 JarJar? Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 I'm currently playing 5 games as Allies, trying different strategies in each one, the life of testing, hehe. Anyways, in 3 of them I'm winning and it is 1943. I have not even done a major landing with the Allies yet, this occurs in summer of 1944. The other 2 games are early and I'm trying some really weird strategies, I have a hunch they'll both fail in the long run. I might be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 gay = happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillerTomato Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 Why is it that all discussions here end in a series of numbers to prove u are right. USA had X of this Germany only Y of that etc etc. This is a GAME guys, treat it as such. Only thing i want is a balanced game, don't care if corps number are exact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iriemon Posted June 19, 2006 Share Posted June 19, 2006 [dispalor] You speak about a game... A game has to be balanced... Of course, the Germans are superhumans. If not, how could they stand a chance to win this game? Remember, Germany has lost and for good reasons. UdSSR had sooo much more manpower, the US too and even more, they had so damn many ressources and yes, the British controlled a large part of the world. How could the Germans have won with such a big part of the mightiest powers in the world on the other side? How could Germany have possibly won against the combined superiority of Poland, France, and the UK? I don't believe that the Germans could have beaten the Russians, even without a second front. It is speculation, but had the German's invaded Russia in early May as opposed to late June (giving them another couple months of good weather); and had the Japanese attacked the SU instead of the US, preventing transfer of the Siberian troop, it is quite possible the Germans would have taken Moscow and Leningrad, and additional strategic objectives in '41, and Russia might have capitulated. I think most people, whether they critizize the US or not, do definitly know what the US engagement in ww2 meant: freedom from Hitler. Or freedom from Stalin, more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts