J P Wagner Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Has it been announced somewhere that an SC3 will once again be a 20th Century War? I ask because everyone seems to assume as much. How about the American Civil War, the Franco Prussian War, a Napolean Campaign? I'm a bit tired of the glut of WWII games, and suprisingly, ever since Frank Hunter paved the way with GUNS OF AUGUST, WWI games are becoming many as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrat618 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I really don't want an improved SC1 for SC3. I love all the new SC2 changes, and when it comes to WW2, i still believe that Global Conquest is the best game out there. Period. Maybe the map could get 20% larger (and the oceans 50%). Personally i don't love single theater maps anymore, not after i played GlobalConquest. The only way i could accept single theater campaigns (in SC3) would be it they would be linked together. Play your turn in Europe, while the AI plays in the Pacific. Than change, first watch your opponents move, than move yourself in the pacific while the AI plays in Europe. While a European Map fof WW1 is very reasonable and well, i don't want anything less than a Global Map for SC3. Graphics, as much people cry may out for them, well, i don't care about them. Hell, i play board games with paper counters, and i love it. I still play MS-DOS Games with graphic you might get eye cancer from, and i really really don't care. I care for gameplay, content, and if the game is able to create the illiusion that i'mreally in command and in the time line where the game is set. In these categories all SC2 games have been extremly good, espacially Global Conquest and WW1. iOS games are nice, but i wouldn't play a strategic command game on my ipod, and i don't plan to ever buy an ipad. When i want to play a game like strategic command, than only on my computer, or with real dices, counters and a board on my living room floor. And when it comes to play time, well, i fear that the moment a future SC will take less hours to play, than the community will cry out for more features, more possibilities, more content, and, of course, more play time. +1 i really don't want a simplified game either. i loved numps map SCGC. hopefully sc3 will have somthing similiar. however,imo nicer graphics wouldnt hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Have to concur with xwormwood, Kalkwek2 and patrat618. I realy wouldn' want to purchase a trimed down version. I am loving the detail in the current title and actualy think Kalkwek is on to something with his ideas for more detail. I think his ideas strike the right balance between enjoyable game plan and realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 For SC 3 i would love to get an new revision of GlobalConquest. Most dear new features would be: - allow more than two different alliances - allow changing of alliances (country a leaves alliance 1 and joins now alliance 2) - allow peace treaties and new borders after the peace treaty - allow me to change sides with the AI (what is very much fun once you are on the sure way to victory) - introduce optional detailed battles ("zoom in" to fight out the battle on a tactical level) Well, whatever Furysofts new game will be, i'm very confident that it will be just great, as until today no title disappointed, and very title refined the existing game mechanics, and much content reaches the users for free. What more could silly me ever wish for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glabro Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Well, when you get down to it, what would be the elements we'd be willing to give up for simplicity's sake? I find it a bit hard to start making a list, but what I do know is that I want the next game to be smooth. SC2's engine seems to be quite cumbersome. What about a global Cold War going hot scenario? There are few of those around. Of course, strategic weapons would have to be limited due to MAD, I just wonder if was really possible both sides would be scared into playing fair, even on the losing side? Maybe it'd make for an interesting human experiment, since the focus is on multiplayer. The best period would then be before ICBMs, when Europe, the Pacific and even the Soviet Far East and Alaska would become battlegrounds. Maybe it could all start from the late 1948 splitting of Korea going wrong. I hear you on the fantasy front, I just don't think that's something Battlefront will consider for their audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 This is easy. WW2 is the must setting. Make one global scenario, one european theathre and/or pacific to be included. Simplicity of sc1 with the possibility to expand and deepen the game as made in sc2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted August 21, 2011 Share Posted August 21, 2011 An iOS simplified back to basics version just using units from the original SC, keeping the game purely on a strategic level. I like the idea of an iOS version. I own an iPad, and I would buy SC for the iOS if it ever was available. However, I would like it to be as close as posible to the full SC. If it is too simplified, then, I would just stick to the pc version I currently have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts