Someone is doing it again!

[SeaMonkey]

It seems another company, this time, Polish, IQ Software, is entering the field of "WW2, Road to Victory".

Definitely sounds like a knock off of our fav, SC series.

I smell copyright infringement!

Will this ever cease.

[Moon]

No, it will never cease. The base concept of a WW2 strategic war game is so broad, in some way or another it's been done, and will be done, all over all the time. I have yet to see one that pairs ease of play with play depth as well as Hubert's does, though

[SeaMonkey]

Hey, I'm hip! Looking at the screen shots, this one needs a lot of polish(pun intended) to even get to SC1 status, much less SC2 and its derivatives.

[Kuniworth]

The idea of political points seem interesting.

And it got hexes.

[SeaMonkey]

I elect Kuni to buy it and provide us with an eventual review!

There is always something to learn and probably a few good ideas to be incorporated into SC3, like what CEaW did.

[Kuniworth]

Look I think this community needs to look at itself and realize competition is getting tougher. I don't know how many times Ive pointed out improvements and the problem with sc2, which is in short that the combat system is not simulation ww2.

Now, we see this new company and we've seen Commander, and know there are companies evolving this genre very rapidly.

So what do Hubert and BF do? Release another expansion.

Nothing wrong with that but it's time to move on. Time for SC3 and back to basics.

SC1 is still one of the best strategy-games ever made, and with multiplayer-capability(came with patch 1.03 I think) this was just awesome. I have never played such a frustrating game but also so rewarding if you won. The french campaign of SC1 was outstanding.

Now with sc2 much improvements happened. Much of it was good but some were not. Tiles instead of hexes, no retreat rules, isometric view(what was wrong with top down or possibility to shift angle I don't know), convoy and fleet function and not possible to play just USSR or one country if you so liked.

What was good was of course the editor-capabilities(although editor is still not that user-friendly) and above all the best AI so far.

However Ive been around here now for 6 years and Im disappointed of PDE. Not that it's not a good game, but that Hubert and BF did not move along. I mean expansions yes, but we've been playing now since 2004-2005 with the same game-engine of sc2. What we need now is to move on, make the game much better.

And you can speak all you want about players coming and going but what happened here?

Where is Rambo, Terif, Condor, BriantheWise, Dragonheart and all the others??? The hardcore players have left. And don't tell me they would have left anyway, that's crap, these guys played every night for years. That's dedication.

Where are they now?

We had one of the best grognard-communities here and we need to get them back. Announce sc3, ww2 as the theatre, and I will be glad to help the dev-team make some campaigns of the russian front.

[SeaMonkey]

If Dave will help me, I'll do North Afrika/Med version.

[Moon]

Lighten up. Just because we haven't announced anything yet, doesn't mean that Hubert hasn't been doing anything. Quite the contrary. Together with PDE, work has begun on TWO new full-featured SC2 games. Both are WW2. One should be getting its announcement within a few weeks I guess.

Will they be "much better"? Uh, well, they're still SC. It took years to create the engine and it would take years to create "something much different and much better" I guess.

Which is why you have many companies working on many games out there. No one developer (and certainly not essentially a one-person company) can do it all. That's good, more choices for players. Just because some new game comes out doesn't make the "old" game any bad. There is no better compliment to a game than to say that you're tiring of it after 3-4 years

Having said that - certainly both games will have a bunch of really new features in them. Unlike PDE they are not planned as "mere" expansions. An expansion, by definition, is just that (and not something groundbreakingly new). And PDE fits that term perfectly - it (quite literally) expands the timeframe covered by the originsal SC2 game into the post-war years. Judging from sales, quite a lot of people enjoy this for what it is.

As for people moving on - that's how communities work. If anything, it's unusual for people to stay around longer for more than a few weeks. Today's games often don't hold interest for that long Not for me anyway. Most don't make it past the demo (if there even is a demo that is...)

[Hubert Cater]

I'll reiterate what Martin just posted as there is actually quite a bit going on behind the scenes over here at the Fury Software development headquarters

The one game that we are planning to announce in the next few weeks is built using the latest SC2 engine as a base but incorporates quite a few new features and in general I think the subject, depth, quality and feature list of this new title is going to be a pleasant surprise to the SC community. Long story short is that we pulled out all the stops on this one so stay tuned!

[SeaMonkey]

So Moon/HC, are we talking PTO here?

[Hubert Cater]

Kuniworth, I think part of the problem wrt maintaining a hardcore Multiplayer community is as the game evolves with more rules and complexity it can take away from the simplicity of head to head competition.

SC1 was groundbreaking in that it attracted a very large Multiplayer fanbase due to the simplicity and elegance of its design, in fact it was ranked as one of the 5 best play by email games by PC Gamer of all time, but while the single player experience has been enhanced with SC2 and its expansions (new rules, multimedia, depth, AI++), it can very often take away from the quick and exciting head to head games as they take longer to play.

It is a careful balance for sure and as Martin has also mentioned it is also a series that has been around now for 6 years so it is no surprise if not everyone that was around in the beginning is not around today.

That being said, we are always listening and looking to improve the game, game play and experience for each new iteration of the SC series as we move forward

[Hubert Cater]

So Moon/HC, are we talking PTO here?

Maybe... but then again, maybe not

[SeaMonkey]

Well I see my enquiry got the famed, desired response.

Now...since I do rank as a longtime player of SC, my response to the evolution of this series is very positive. I have never been associated with a game developer as dedicated as Hubert is, I'm really not sure anyone out there is even comparable.

He's in a league of his own. So sure, there are things I would like to see done differently and there are things I've suggested that I'm glad Hubert had the foresight to not include.

Its easy in hindsight to be critical, and man do we live in a world of media second guessers, downright propaganda, and worst of all, misrepresentation.

But after 6 years, HC is someone you can count on, you can trust, to endeavor to persevere with the simple motivation to make SC better. I think he has accomplished that. I would like to think that I'm cut from the same mold. I mean when you find something in life that simply presents the degree of fulfillment that SC provides don't you think that it deserves a bit of loyalty?

I've been married...to the same woman, 37 years, and most probably will be for the rest of my/her life. It hasn't always been great, but it was always good, mostly. That's what it takes to be great, knowing its good and interacting to make it great, and it won't happen overnight.

So I see all these other games getting started knowing that they are behind this Cater creation. I only have one life's time to give and I trust Hubert to evolve to "great" with the SC series, but it takes sacrifice.......And not just HC's, so I remain and I play, but best of all, I'm a recipient of a gamer's fulfillment of fun and I expect and endeavor to make it better.

[Retributar]

ORIGINAL QUOTE...by...'SeaMonkey!'.

"So Moon/HC, are we talking PTO here?"

Response!:

"DO-I-EVER-HOPE-SO!!!".

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the kind words SeaMonkey, it is comments like this that definitely make the whole process worth it

[arado234]

Hubert I still say you should somehow get the rights or whatever you have to do to Third Reich and make it the game it could be.

[Minty]

Am I to understand from all this that

A) SC3 is a while off but SC2 expansions will keep coming

the loss of heavy weight players is regretable but inevitable after a certain time

C) Seamonkey is considering marrying Hubert for a period no shorter than 37 years !!!

[SeaMonkey]

Well maybe Minty, .....then again maybe only one out of the three.

Of course we have to consider there could be possibly two statements out of the three you represent as being true.

Don't forget there could be some that consider all three as a possibility.

In any hypothetical situation you do realize that actually all three possibilities could of course be false.

Is this a contest?

[Kuniworth]

Is it possible to keep sc2 engine and get hexes instead of tiles?

[Retributar]

Whynot...have the option to play either-way!,..."Tiles or Hexes???".

I am comfortable with either!,...and the angled-view is just fine with me,...if your 'Cross-Eyed!'...for example,...then...the 'Angled-View' might 'Bend-Your-mind!'.

[Colin I]

Re: Ongoing discussion.

As the game progresses and diversifies it tends to fragment the player base.

I loved the simplicity of SC1 and 2D counter look. SC2 fixed some major realism issues and seemed the most balanced/playable and most strategicly valid, though I did not appreciate the 3D graphics. WaW added excellent operational movement and a better map but the extra unit types (except maybe at sea) seemed unnecessary and unsuitable to a strategic game. PDE had a nice touch in the decision events and the option to simulate the prewar maneouvering in Storm of Steel but the post WWII stuff seemed deeply unrealistic.

So each version has fragmented the features I liked between the various versions as well as serious improvements.

Like others I want a well balanced scenario with lots of options for PBEM and realism not to go out of the window. I'm playing much less of this now. So if the new games provides common ground for head-to-head that would keep me playing.

[Kuniworth]

There is a great thread going now in the sc1 forum.

Seem people would wanna buy an enhanced sc1 again, with some new great features.

[Colin I]

Thanks.

I guss I'd add that whilst diplomacy from SC2 isn't perfect we do need some measure of political leaning short of a DOW.

Perhaps to add one other thing that I've not seen others say - or at least recently. Many of the scripts are illogical and prone to gamesmanship. For example, I think Allied reinforcement of middle East is based on events in France. At one level logical - this means Germany is a major threat. But its also illogical - surely if France was in danger I would reinforce the UK mainland to prevent SeaLion at a greater priority? There is quite a bit of this. I think we need to keep scripts open for modders but triggering conditions could be thought through better (more historical motivations) and might have multiple IF statements any of which trigger the event. Another example is the US fleet reinforcing in response to Spain but not necessarily other naval threats.

[Hubert Cater]

Colin,

I believe the Allied reinforcement events for the Middle East that you are referring to will happen regardless of France as they are mostly based on the historical arrival of these units to this Theater.

In fairness though there are other events that are tied in more closely to player action but I would actually disagree that these are prone to gamesmanship since in most cases these are actually scripted in to take into account gamesmanship and maintain the necessary balance that otherwise would not exist.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[Colin I]

Hubert,

Thanks for the positive response. I'm not looking at scripts when writing, so please look at overall thrust of argument and less at specifics - hopefully what I mean should be clear.

The event I was referring to was the arrival of the British armour - could be wrong but seems linked to France, but could be timing.

More generally, what I'm trying to say is some scripts seem more play balance than historical - at least in the sense of motivation, the degree to which they reflect the strategy and personalities of Allied or Axis high command.

For example, Rommel shows up in North Africa by script when playing AI I think. I'm sure its historical in place and timing. However, lets consider what happens in some variable situations which can and do occur. For example, in one game as Allies I completely trash Italian fleet and most of their forces in North Africa. I'm driving on Tripoli (but not there yet) and isolate it completely with most of the UK navy. Rommel still shows up. How? Any naval transport movement would be intercepted so the script does not reflect the situation which is his army would take major casualties in getting there.

You can also consider that North Africa has fallen very fast so I guess script will not function. This is reasonable at one level - Rommel would not be deployed there by transport on a suicide mission. However, surely his forces would be redeployed to Russia or given another assignment - does this happen?

The criticism I'm making is partly that script work fine when situation is 100% historical but give illogical results when situation is a bit different which happens all the time. Secondly, scripts require detailed knowledge of their details to play the game best. Thirdly, they sometimes seem pure play balance and not very historical.

You can never deal with this completely, I realize its a difficult task,but by using slightly more flexible scripts you can reduce this. For example: IF Italian navy > 3 ships and IF Tripoli port strength 5 or better and IF Triploi held by Axis THEN operation move Rommel and army to ports and embark for Triploli (chance x % per turn after a certain date). If conditions not met after X date send Rommel to Russia (70%) or other target (30%) instead. Yes, its still got problems but it is better.

To take another example, its reasonable to know that its unwise to garrison the Soviet border too lightly (Stalin gets aggressive) or too heavily (Stalin gets scared). But knowing tile Y is critical is a bit of knowledge that is ahistorical (in some versions I want to know why the area East Warsaw was more important than rest of the border - it was a critical/hex tile in the script). Thats easy to improve too, define border region hexes and demand x units be in this region. If you think garrison of Warsaw critical simply weight occupancy of the city in some way.

To take a third example: I attack Soviets in 1940 in Storm of Steel - but the nasty winter is not end 1940 but end 1941 still. I guess this makes some sense if the 1941 winter was worse that 1940. But a major reason was German lack of preparedness, the sheer shock when they realized how cold it could get - so logically its the first Soviet winter they experience that hurts the most, after that they prepare better. Again, could be fixed, move winter event to first winter after USSR in war - or even more subtle have it trigger off weather events - add up number of snow/freeze events in the various Russian weather regions for the first winter and once it gets above a certain level trigger global nasty winter event. Even better, on turn Russin winter event strikes make it nastier in frozen/snow areas and less harsh if climate area gets a freak warm spell. In this way script works more with the real situation.

So, I'm campaigning for more work being put into scripting events. I didn't say it would be easy and DO appreciate the effort.