Tiles / Hexes

[Hubert Cater]

With all the questions and comments relating to tiles and hexes I thought I would throw in a few screenshots displaying the various similarities and *perceived* advantages ;) .

While there is always give and take with any new system, hopefully this can help paint a better picture.

Similarites (Frontlines):

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/frontline_hex01.jpg
http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/frontline_iso01.jpg

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/frontline_hex02.jpg
http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/frontline_iso02.jpg

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/frontline_hex03.jpg
http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/frontline_iso03.jpg

[ April 14, 2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Hubert Cater]

Differences (Attack):

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/attack_hex01.jpg
http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/attack_iso01.jpg

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/attack_hex02.jpg
http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/attack_iso02.jpg

Primary difference here is that isometric tiles allow you to bring more units to bear on otherwise stagnant fronts, think trench warfare descriptions from SC1 ;)

[ April 14, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Hubert Cater]

Differences (Movement):

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/move_iso01.jpg

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/move_iso02.jpg

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/move_iso03.jpg

With isometric tiles, movement is now possible in 8 directions as opposed to 6, while (current plan) action points across diagonals is 2, otherwise it's 1 for regular movement from tile to tile (see move02 and move03 above)

[ April 14, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Kuniworth]

ah movement penalty. I knew there was something like that involved.

[Kuniworth]

Hubert, maybe dumb question. Are you considering that there may be too easy to punch a hole in the front in the new system? Love to hear your thoughts about this.

[Some_God]

Thanks for listening and responding to the community's questions, Hubert.

[Night]

Kuni I was just thinking the exact same thing when I saw the picture of the 5 armies attacking 1.

However note that it is because there is a turn in the line insted of it being a line where only 2 or 3 units could come to bear, in other words it's a weak spot.

[J P Wagner]

Originally posted by Night:
Kuni I was just thinking the exact same thing when I saw the picture of the 5 armies attacking 1.

However note that it is because there is a turn in the line insted of it being a line where only 2 or 3 units could come to bear, in other words it's a weak spot. You will need to be very careful when advacing your units so you do not create these pockets...gives a whole new meaning to flank attacks.......

[Kuniworth]

Yes. ANd many weak units can maybe bring down a strong unit.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

[Couldn't find my old login-grrrr] :mad:

Well, the actual movement along the diagonal would
be equivalent to the square root of two. I've
seen some games where it is rounded to 1.5 for
simplicity's sake-other option then is to double
movement points (a tank now has 8 instead of 4
for example, and expends 2 across an edge and 3
along a diagonal) so that there aren't any
fractional movement points floating around.

I am assuming that ZOCs prevent movement through
the gaps in that one N/S frontline?

John DiFool the 2nd

[CraigRS]

I would have to agree withe two comments her. One is that this seems like it would make it easy to punch a hole in the lines and two that it will make you think about your own lines when the counter attack comes in the next turn. It seems the "Blitzkrieg" part of the title can come into play here.

Also, thanks to Hubert for taking time to read these fourms and try to address the concerns of the fans. It's easy to say you care but not many people take the time to show it.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks!

[japinard]

Very interesting. This would seem to increase the capabilites for counter-attacking and create a much more realistic penalty for being caught in a "bulge" unless a true breakthru created. Hmmm, lots of new strategies to think about...

[KDG]

I am assuming that ZOCs prevent movement through

Hubert stated on another thread that yes, this is the case. Diagonal along a line is considered a complete line that can't be moved through.

[Friendly Fire]

Great, thanks for elaborating Hubert, this posting goes right to the heart of my initial concerns about the new design. Good job and enjoy hatching your baby!

[Exel]

As John DiFool stated, the diagonal movement penalty of 2 is too high. Whereas diagonal movement without any increased movement cost would be advantageous, a doubled movement cost makes it highly disadvantageous. Diagonal movement should take (~) 1.5 times the movement points that ordinary movement does in order for them to be equal.

Or then you could just go to hexes. tongue.gif

[KDG]

Have to agree. 1.5 times normal AP cost sounds right for Diagonal movement. Pretty standard for all games of this type, and fits pythagorian(sp?) theorem.

[J P Wagner]

nevermind

[ April 15, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[SeaMonkey]

It all works out the same, no matter how you move, diagonal, in line, in conjunction, as long as the diagonal move costs 2 APs.

[Wodin]

Hello All,

Im very happy with the new improved unit graphics.

Im sure SC2 will play like a dream. Im really,really looking forward to it.

[KDG]

It all works out the same, no matter how you move, diagonal, in line, in conjunction, as long as the diagonal move costs 2 APs.

Not quite. Lets say each square is 50 miles across and you have 4 AP's. You could move horizontally 4 squares, total of 200 miles, or you move diagonally 2 squares, a total of 141.5 miles.

Thus you need to set the cost to 1.5 AP's for diagonal moves to get the moves fairly equal in milage.

[marklavar]

I don't like the new tiles. Why not just stick with the hexes and introduce stacking? This would seem to me to be more historically realistic.

[SeaMonkey]

KDG think abstractly, this is not about specific distant measurement, its about moving from point A to point B.

[KDG]

Ahhhhhhh, your killing my brain....thinking abstractly hurts.....

OK, now that I got that out, point A and point B still wouldn't be perfect.

The distance between A and B in a horizontal or vertacle line would be greater(4 spaces away) than the distance diagonally if it takes 2 AP's to go diagonally(the equivalent of 3 spaces away). 1.5 AP's corrects this problem.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
Hubert, maybe dumb question. Are you considering that there may be too easy to punch a hole in the front in the new system? Love to hear your thoughts about this. I tell you what.

If it is easy punching a hole in the line, compensating rules must balance the game. Retreat rules and/or lower difference between buying vs reinforcing cost MUST be considered to hinder attacking nation from having too big advantage.

Finally, we might get the tank exploit strategies that SC missed so maybe something good come out of it.

[ April 16, 2004, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[SeaMonkey]

One more time KDG forget distant measurements, draw up a bunch of squares and calculate the amount of APs it takes to get from point A to point B using different routes. APs is the basis for measurement.

[KDG]

I agree on the "A" to "B"

What I'm worried about is one unit moving from point "A" to point "B"(a horizontal move), and the opponents unit moving from point "C" to point "B"(a diagonal move).

I don't want the "C" to "B" to take 50% longer but only covering the same distance as "A" to "B"

This could make attacks and defense of certain regions unfair, reminding me of the kid game "chutes and ladders" as one player has his men show up much faster at a location(the chute) while the other player slogs along(the ladder).

The game would be screwy if you purchased new units at a city, and it took you 3 turns to get it to battle, while an opponent purchases his units at another city(same distance from the battle) and it takes him 5 turns to get to the battle.

[Cheesehead]

You can argue about the triganometry all you want. Hexes just look better. If this were not so, why do the vast majority of turn-based wargames uses hexes? Maybe I've been conditioned to hexes, but they just look better to me. There is more 'logic' to it in my mind. I will buy the game and hopefully I'll like it. I'm just a little disappointed.

[Wolfe]

I've been reading concerned posts about the new tile layout as opposed to hex-based, and I'm honestly not sure where I stand. Mostly because I'm not sure how it will play or, as KDG said, if there are some locations that will see a significant advantage from the layout.

The decision to use tiles is obviously set in stone, but how about this: What if instead of having both north-south and east-west incur a 2-move penalty, only have the east-west move incur the penalty and be subject to ZOC. This way, you would have 6 directions of movement (the two diagonals and north-south), just like you do with traditional hexes, but also have the option of east-west if you wish to incur the movement penalty. You still get 8-sided attack/move choices, but it more resembles the more familiar hex moves.

Just a thought.

- Chris

[Shaka of Carthage]

Cheesehead
Because your early wargames were boardgames and for a manual system, the hexes worked out best. Some of the earlier game design books go into some of the pros and cons of using hexes.

Todays boardgames have some excellent games that are not based on hexes. For games up thru the American Civil War (Strategy and Grand Strategy), point to point movement systems are a superior method.

Todays computer games, now have the processing power to start exploring alternative movement systems as well.

Does this mean that the tile approach in SC2 is a better method than hexes? Time will tell. But you've got to admire Mr H for looking at possible alternatives to the traditional design choices. If people never did that, then we'd all still be doing wargames with little lead soldiers and rubber bands.

[Exel]

Here I give you few (extremely crude) examples of movement with different setups for diagonal movement. The black box in the middle represents the unit, the grey squares are tiles into which it can move.

#1 - Movement to all directions costs the same:

http://www.edu.lahti.fi/~aroinila/movement1AP.jpg

As you see, this results in the unit being able to move to an area shaped of a square. Looks horrible plus diagonal movement is very advantageous. Not good.

#2 - Moving diagonally costs double the normal movement cost:

http://www.edu.lahti.fi/~aroinila/movement2AP.jpg

This is Hubert's initial choice. Diagonal movement is disadvantageous (practically disabled since it's the same as moving via two adjoining squares).

#3 - Moving diagonally costs 1½ times the normal movement cost:

http://www.edu.lahti.fi/~aroinila/movement1,5AP.jpg

Now moving diagonally actually makes sense without being advantageous compared to normal movement. The pattern is not easily predictable however, and the system makes movement calculation tricky. The tiles marked with red dots indicate squares in which the unit would still have some action points (or fractions of them) left, but not enough to move.

For comparison, here's the situation with hexes (screenie from SC1):

http://www.edu.lahti.fi/~aroinila/movementhex.jpg

The movement to all directions is equal and the movement pattern is both predictable and aesthetic. Simply beautiful. ;)

[ April 16, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[Exel]

Double post.

[SeaMonkey]

If you guys really want to see how an innovative wargame system works and the power that the CPU potential has to make it easy, try Panther's, "Highway to the Reich", you can thank me later.........Les are you out there?....would you like to comment?

[SeaMonkey]

Great example Exel, thanks. Now would you like to show us the dynamics of the combat comparison. Don't get me wrong here guys, I'm a hex based wargamer from the 60s, but HttR has opened my eyes to other possibilities.

[Elmo]

If the game must have tiles then at least offset the rows so movement is equal in all directions (basically square hexes smile.gif ). Crude drawing:

___ ___ ___ ___ ____
I___I___I___I___I___I_
__I___I___I___I___I___I
I___I___I___I___I___I

[ April 16, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Elmo ]

[Exel]

Originally posted by Elmo:
If the game must have tiles then at least offset the rows so movement is equal in all directions (basically square hexes smile.gif ).That would reduce the movement directions to 6, which would neglect the point in moving to tiles in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hexes.

I wasn't sure about what to think about tiles at first, but after conducting a little experimentation of my own (results posted above) I came to the conclusion that hexes are superior to tiles in a game like this. In Civ3 tiles with equal movement cost to all directions works well, but it is an altogether different kind of game.

[Elmo]

Never mind, we're obviously stuck with tiles so no sense prolonging the debate.

[ April 16, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Elmo ]

[Exel]

One more thing that is against tiles; grid. With hexes you don't have to play with the hex grid on, since the simple and apparently somehow very natural form of a hex makes it easy to picture the grid in your head. Likewise, estimating distances is easy and there aren't any hidden gaps in the front lines. With tiles all this is different. Diagonal movement causes problems for perception and you have to keep the grid on - not doing so will greatly increase the risk of misestimation of distances and movement routes, as well as the risk of not noticing those "hidden" gaps in the front lines. In games like Civ3 where the tile system works all this is irrelevant and only a very minor nuisance, but in a game like SC where keeping a continous front is crucial it suddenly becomes a major issue. This results, at the very least, in the need to keep the grid visible at all times, which at least I would find annoying. :(

[KDG]

Thank you EXEL for illustrating my point that diagonal should cost 1.5 AP's to give the game its most accurate and equal movement in all directions.

Since we are going to have tiles(for many reasons listed other places) it would be best to make the most of it, which happens with the 1.5 AP diagonal cost. The decision on whether to round up or down is up to Hubert(most likely if a unit has a .5 AP left, it won't be able to move any farther).

[RobRas]

I'm still not sure as to WHY tiles were selected instead of hexes. True it will be easier to attack a given hex...sorry, tile...from more directions and yes, somtimes stalemates did happen in SC. But did it happen very often? Stalemates can obviously happen in any game - and some of the fronts in WW2 were stalemated for months. And true: Tiles make it possible to move in 8 directions from a well..tile. But is that an end in itself? I'm not against innovation and change - area movement and point-to-point movement are great additions to the movement schemes in strategy games. But using quadratic tiles seem to be to return to the old ways of Tactics and Tactics II.

[Blashy]

I like the idea mentioned about making diag cost 2AP and normal cost 1, and increasing the AP of all units, this way they are no "left overs" from diag movements.

If that will be the case, then tiles I prefer.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually I want to put forth the premise of "Perfect". In my "Perfect" all things being consistent and symmetrical, a grid system is the best choice presenting a "Perfect" circle of movement. Unfortunately "Perfect" only exists in my mind and the real world is asymmetrical and inconsistent. So no matter what system we end up with I'm just going to imagine in an abstract way that its circular and "Perfect".

[pzgndr]

The decision on whether to round up or down is up to Hubert(most likely if a unit has a .5 AP left, it won't be able to move any farther). All very good arguments. I am also campaigning for something like this and hopefully Hubert is warming up to the idea. ;)

We could either consider fractional AP, or double AP and MC with a +1 penalty along diagonals. So 1 to move along a grain and 1.5 across a diagonal, or 2 and 3 respectively. Either way the computer would highlight a unit's movement radius when you select it. And the radius would be more or less circular.

I see two advantages with doubling AP and MC. For AP, this gives a larger spread in movement values which could allow us to let mechanization research go to the higher levels (ie, +5 AP would be much more reasonable). For MC, this allows us to fit in some new costs for forests and swamps that are more than clear but less than mountains.

Win-win-win? smile.gif

[KDG]

So 1 to move along a grain and 1.5 across a diagonal, or 2 and 3 respectively

A very good idea, doubling MC's and AP's. Solves the fraction problems immediately, while opening up additional benefits. A tank still might move 5 squares, but it now costs 10 MC's to do it, which still equals the tanks AP(10).

This makes incremental changes using the editor to AP easier. Changing an Army from 3 to 4 would have been dramatic, but changing it from 6 to 7, a lot less.

[ April 16, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I agree with KDG, a movement cost of 2 and 3 would work out fine, as well as allowing for different terrain costs.

Not to mention, the lattitude it gives for the various weather effects on movement (assuming that is the path Mr H takes).

[Lars]

Originally posted by KDG:
I am assuming that ZOCs prevent movement through

Hubert stated on another thread that yes, this is the case. Diagonal along a line is considered a complete line that can't be moved through. So I can attack along the diagonals but I can't squirt though this front on a diagonal? Is this correct?

http://www.furysoftware.com/images/sc2/frontline_iso03.jpg

[KDG]

Exactly, no squirting in SC2(I'm trying to keep a straight face, but, no I can't do it, I'm rolling on the floor laughing).

Seriously, the line is an effective block(until each unit gets attacked from 3 places by 2 armies and tank, along with 2 jets).

[Lars]

Since you can't move through on the diagonal, could I could surround a unit with only four units? Or will supply still get through on the diagonal?

[KDG]

I don't think so, since a unit surrounded like that could still have have one of its own units move next to it, providing supply.

I believe you need 8 for complete surrounding(not that you need it, 8 guys should be able to take out one unit).

[marklavar]

The more I think about it, the more I hate the tiles layout. I hope Hubert will rethink this decision, because it will go directly counter to the majority of wargamers' wishes. Hexes work best - it's as simple as that. Why change something that works?

[SeaMonkey]

I've been thinking about this some more. Even though we are willing to try out the new tile concept, it seems the legacy with hexes is hard to shrug off. Simply they work. In lieu of the grid system, which is ideal, hexes seem preferable over tiles. Now what about the combat model and the so called "frontal quagmire" problem? Remember the name of this game is Blitzkrieg. Let's take a history lesson. Operations of WW2 frontal penetrations of prepared defenses usually involved a concentrated attack by massed infantry/artillery formations, followed by the mech. forces, ...usually,and I use that term loosely. Well it seems there is a movement afoot to somehow derail the omnipotency of the air forces as being unrealistic, so thats out to complete the penetration. We don't have an artillery unit to contribute firepower to the two attacking armies that are supposed to make the penetration (in the case of hexes). So how do we accomplish it? A realistic suggestion please! Anyone,...hello? Okay SeaMonkey...what have you got? If the two attacking armies have not moved into the attacking hexes(SC1 blitz attack) isn't it reasonable to conclude they may have been making assault preparations in that immobile turn for the attack next turn. Should they be perhaps granted a combat bonus for doing so? Like an assault bonus? And perhaps if an Engineering unit or Para unit(dropped behind the lines) is in the vicinity(adjacent hex) could/should an additional combat bonus be applied to the attack of the two armies/corps. Would this finally be enough combat power to open up the defense for the blitz of the mechanized forces and break our stalemate, simulating WW2 operations? Well,... would it?

Disclaimer: in no way is this meant to imply that this type of attack should be successful in the face of a prepared defense in depth.

[JerseyJohn]

The only sqaure oriented war game I recall liking was Avalon Hill's original offering, Tactics II (there was no predecessor, the II part was their little secret). Unfortunately this is over forty years back and I don't recall much about the game except there certainly weren't any guys squirting on one another -- where the hell did that come from anyway! :D

Because hexes were difficult to draw on blank pages and it was easy to make a grid, as a kid I came up with a lot of homemade games using squares (tiles as we're calling them) and as everyone is saying, they were awkward, but tenable, advantages and disadvantages over hexes. But I'd like to have a better idea of how Hubert is treating this before going any further.

The arguments against tiles are all very good, but I'm sure Hubert was aware of all of them before ever making his decision.

I'd like to see the system in action.

[ April 16, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KDG]

I believe the switch to squares is this:

1) Programming. Map can be larger, programming language being used will work better with squares.

2) Three units can now make ground attacks, instead of two. This allows Hubert to knock down the power of jets, increasing the importance of ground units, and tanks.

[ April 17, 2004, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Friendly Fire]

Yes, agree with KDG, the use of squares could actually better reflect blitz penetrations:

- air units attack and reduce entrenchment/supply
- 3 adjacent units attack one point and blow a hole in the front
- armor rushes in and cuts off defenders

we don't really see this much in SC1 unless the line is weak (like on turn 1 of Barbarossa)

one way to fix the problem with hexes would be allow unit stacking, but maybe this is a better solution. I look forward to trying it!
FF

[Exel]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:
-- a grid system is the best choice presenting a "Perfect" circle of movement.That is not true. As you can see from my example pictures, the hex layout offers the most round-like movement pattern where moving to all directions is equal. Tiles with 1.5 times penalized diagonal movement is quite round too, but it still leaves with the problem of unequal movement to all directions.

Originally posted by marklavar:
The more I think about it, the more I hate the tiles layout. I hope Hubert will rethink this decision, because it will go directly counter to the majority of wargamers' wishes. Hexes work best - it's as simple as that. Why change something that works? I completely agree with you. I can only hope we can make enough uproar to make Hubert change his mind. :rolleyes:

[Exel]

I think a better way to fix the stale mate front situations than moving to tiles would be to increase the significance of tanks. In SC1 they weren't nothing but more mobile versions of Armies with better defence. They didn't have any "blitz features" that would have allowed them to exploit a gap if one was created. An attack-move ability together with some combat stat refinements could be all that is needed.

And remember, even in SC1 three-to-one attacks did occur, but breaking a stale mate was still difficult without extensive air support. So that obviously is not the best solution. Now, the only reason why WW2 wasn't the kind of trench warfare as WW1 was is because of the use of tanks (and well, air power). Without tanks (or with ineffective tanks like in SC1) the fronts would have become just as stagnating as in the Great War. This is how it should be in SC2 too; boost the significance of tanks.

[ April 17, 2004, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[RobRas]

Another way of reducing stalemate situations would be to give bonuses to units beyond the first attacking a hex. Or even better: To introduce retreats

[Bill101]

I'm more than happy to use tiles as I don't understand the fixation with hexes.

If playtesting shows that tiles work, then tiles it is!

Tiles will have the effect of making ground war, and the use of reserves, more important, with the air war slightly less important. Isn't this historically correct?

[J P Wagner]

I think you could have achieved breakout and exploitation attacks very easily with a hex based map if stacking was allowed...something that has been mentioned before, but bears repeating here.......

[Arngrim]

I seriously dislike the squares. Hexes are a more flexible system, and works a lot better. Don't forget that there was a reason to start using them when wargames evolved from chess.

Actually, the squares means that I won't purchase the game until I have first played it myself. If I like it, fine, if not I'll just have to wait for SC Pacific /SC Total war

[Arngrim]

I just realised something: Physical movement=*1,5 diagonally, but what about spotting: will it be *1, *1,5 or *2?
I twill make spotting/hiding units _rateher_ different.

[Exel]

Originally posted by Arngrim:
I just realised something: Physical movement=*1,5 diagonally, but what about spotting: will it be *1, *1,5 or *2?
I twill make spotting/hiding units _rateher_ different. It'd all be easier with hexes... :rolleyes:

[Shaka of Carthage]

Its easier with hexes, because someone else has already figured out the answer to the questions.

But that doesn't mean its the superior system.

So while the "squirting" issue needs to be addressed, the AP cost for diagonal movement, etc, we have a system that appears to allow us to concentrate ground attacks without stacking. That alone, is a major concept change that takes us past what hexes allowed.

I think in this case, we should concentrate on how to make the system work, and solving problems as they are being presented to us.

[Arngrim]

Well, I think that the new system will be great, but I might continue to play SC1 because: I dislike 3d graphics hiding features or being distracting/confusing in startegic games. I like the graphics in PG, but that's as far as I go. This is mostly because the top-down view is superior in clarity. And since I feel that the squares are perfecty for chess, but obsolete in wargaming I have a very bad feeling about SC2.

Finally, _we_ shouldn't make the system work, merely providing the developer with our honest feelings about it. I hate to see good games dissolve into poor secuels with good graphics but destroyed playability.

[Leopard]

I haven't posted here much lately during my sports gaming season, but am excited about SC2. Just a quick point on the tiles vs hexes argument.

I had looked at this also while working on a war game many years ago, and feel there is a lot of merit to a tile based system. Hubert has shown a great understanding of strategic war games with SC. Despite imperfections, SC is the best game of its type.

I had planned on reducing attacks which come from a diagonal compared to a full facing tile unless both adjacent tiles were controlled by the attacker. I also planned on having a movement penalty through diagonals if the 4 adjacent tiles were not controlled by that country, the penalty greater for each tile not controlled.

I also would reccomend placing movement bonus tiles (which can be damaged) to simulate roads and railway systems. These could extend the movement range if these roads/railways are intact, and adds strategic value to tiles away from the front.

There are so many of the ideas we presented in this forum mentioned for SC2-it is such a nice feeling to think the game designers are listening and using the suggestions offered by their customers. What a concept! WWII Online would prefer to have no sales and a poor game than to listen to its customers, and failed majestically where others have succeeded. Thanks BF and Hubert.

The tile system can work if well designed, and I have faith Hubert will do it right again.

[KDG]

Guys, its starting to look like you are just repeating yourselves on the hexagon/tile debate.

1st, I'd expect movement costs to jump to 2 for horizontal/vertical, and 3 for diagonal. Then expect all units to have their AP's doubled. Thus no fractions, and the chance for a more diverse set of movements by different units.

2nd, Its been stated that a diagonal line of units will block the same way a horizontal or vertical line will.

3rd, three attacks instead of two on a defensive unit in line makes a huge difference, giving Hubert the ability to nerf jets, allowing them to support attacks in the attempt to blow a hole in the line.

4th, you are also forgetting the fact that there is a map size limitation that Hubert faced in SC1 with the hexagons. This is one of the reasons for the move to the squares.

5th, don't worry about the graphics, they can be toggled various ways, and from everything I've read here, its not Hubert working on them, thus its not costing him programming time.

6th, moving from hexagons to tiles isn't like moving to real time, or moving to spaces the size of squares(like Axis/Allies), its just one of many, many different minor enhancements, not something that changes the game into a new genre.

[Desert Dave]

So while the "squirting" issue needs to be addressed, the AP cost for diagonal movement, etc, we have a system that appears to allow us to concentrate ground attacks without stacking. That alone, is a major concept change that takes us past what hexes allowed.

Shaka, I have to agree wholeheartedly with you here.

Concentration.

WITHOUT stacking.

I prefer the "chess-like" aspect of SC, where you have one unit per tile.

You can very easily glance and see the "big picture" since you don't have all those units hidden in stacks, which you would have to take time to manipulate somehow to find out just what you have and where; and then... try to keep that firmly in mind while you proceed to examine all those other stacks. :eek:

Additionally, no need for ground support units to be rated beyond their capabilities, as with Air Fleets currently constituted.

Just two more very compelling reasons to give this new concept a fair chance. smile.gif

[Skanvak]

IMO, the tiles set is simply making the game look like Civ III. I am disappointed by this choice.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Skanvak:
IMO, the tiles set is simply making the game look like Civ Agreed, just my thoughts when i saw them. Looks like the whole map / units were created with the Civ II-Editor.
I am very sure that SC II would be selling better with hex-system, because we, the wargamers, expect, know and love hexes. We are not seeking fancy 3D graphics, we want playability.
The "normal" customers who don't know any real wargame won't buy this game anyway, because even the new tile-set is looking so oldfashioned compared to "Call of Duty" or "Panzers".

[ April 18, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[John M]

A 5:7 AP ratio between a horizontal/vertical of one square and a diagonal movement of one square is pretty close to perfect. The actual number is 5:7.07168, but who's counting. If a unit is charged 5 APs for a horizontal or vertical move into a given terrain, and 7 APs for a diagonal move into the same type of terrain, the different movement costs are fairly accurately reflected. And you get all the advantages of the isometric view over the hexes.

[japinard]

How about octagons?

[Hawk]

Why not wait for the verdict from the beta testers? Yes, I know it's hard changing fundemental parts of a program that far into the process, but by the looks of the screenshots, Hubert can't easily convert to hexes now either.
If absolutely all the beta testers agree that tiles are bad for gameplay, then we would probably have a different situation.

However, I'm fairly sure that it won't happen. Hubert has spent a lot of time on SC2, and I'm pretty sure he has thought this through thoroughly!

Tiles or hexes, I for one am pretty sure that SC2 will be a very good game with next to unlimited replay value thanks to the editors!

So, anybody working on a world map yet? :D

Oh, and by the way, octagons won't work well I'm afraid.
http://home.online.no/~paaar/artimages/octagon.jpg
Although they would create some interesting strategies...

[ April 19, 2004, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Hawk ]

[Bill101]

Xwormwood wrote:

"I am very sure that SC II would be selling better with hex-system, because we, the wargamers, expect, know and love hexes."

Actually, I think you'll find that there is more diversity in the wargaming field than you think. Boardgamers may use hexes all the time, but in my experience table-top wargamers very rarely do.

In my club we have fought a very large number of historical campaigns over the years, and last year we fought the very first ever with a map system using hexes (bear in mind that we've been doing at least one campaign a year for the past 25 years, in all the others we have used a wide variety of maps and mapping systems).

Therefore I would suggest that one half of the wargaming community will be open to a non-hex based game. Their questions are more likely to relate to other things, such as the game's playability.

[Exel]

One more thing about tiles: they make the map look awfully blocky. Hexes make an overall nicer looking map with less angular country borders. And it's not just about esthetics, but realism too. Just look at Albania for example, and compare the screenies of SC2 (where it is a square of four tiles) to SC1.

I wouldn't like to rant about the issue so much, but I just think that hexes would have been a better choice - hopefully changing back is still an option.

[Skanvak]

I know a napoleonic game that use Octogone. Though I will have to try the CivIII WWII scenario now. To see the differences (there are no supply that Civ III downfallon the matter).

[Elmo]

Originally posted by Exel:
...

I wouldn't like to rant about the issue so much, but I just think that hexes would have been a better choice - hopefully changing back is still an option. Well perhaps Hubert will weigh in and tell us whether this thread is a waste of bandwidth or not. If it's tiles and no going back then that is that. If not then I'd certainly urge him to reconsider.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill 101:

Therefore I would suggest that one half of the wargaming community will be open to a non-hex based game. At least.

Then you have to consider some of the other less "hands-on tactical" possiblities that game designers have been, and are now investigating.

Such as... area movement games.

With or without card-based "special events" for combat results and historical variations.

I can think of many area based board and computer games... that old stand-by, Axis & Allies for the quick fix, and... HoI comes to mind, but that is not typical since they are still trying to patch the Alpha version. :eek:

Anyway, at least with SC 1 or 2, you still have those fairly intricate maneuverings in ~50 mile delineations, only...with tiles instead of hexes.

Really, what difference? When you get right down to it? Other than... it's the way it always used to be?

Why not give the new approach some serious consideration?

You might find a whole lot of new possibilities. :cool:

Hexes are ingrained in many wargamers thinking mostly because they were the "standard" way of looking at the world for so very long.

Since Avalon Hill and GDW and some others did it, that makes it the ONLY way to do it?

Since THEY did it, it is necessarily the BEST way to replicate WW2 or any other conflict?

Here we have a beautifully simple "chess-like" game, which is recommended IF ONLY it removes those very cumbersome "stacks" of units.

Well, no doubt, there are good arguments on all sides of this issue, and at the least... you are not shoving ONE HUGE MEGA UNIT from one area, say, like from Ruhr to Low Countries, and having to sit back and admire just how adroitly the AI re-enacts all those small combat routines. ;)

[Holyman]

Bit of a disappointment really...

Hexes, stacking, expanded map and the focus on strategy (as in resource controlling) was what i was looking forward to in SC2.

The thing is that a hex-strategy game on grand strategy level was the gap SC1 was filling and what also SC2 should be about. You were on the right course with SC1 it just needed to get "deeper" to be perfected. But this is a common mistake when developing games if you ask me. To overthink. If its not too late please reconcider...

sorry....

[Bill101]

Holyman, why the fixation on hexes - surely its the quality of the game that counts?

And as to stacking, well it would just make a quick and easy-to-play game far more complicated and time consuming.

Just imagine a PBEM game where your opponent does a move every 3/4 days. That means that every time you play it you'd have to remind yourself of what units were in each and every stack. Talk about boring.

And sitting waiting for your opponent to finish looking at their stacks would kill online games too.

[Holyman]

Well, Bill101:
i prefer hexes and this is based on my experience. It is really simple - i wanted a "High command 2"! In my eyes it was a brilliant game that deserved more. When i saw SC i got extatic, but in the end it lacked some features that is important to me when it comes to wargaming, so i had to wait for SC2 to get the perfect sequel (i thought..)

See now why I am disappointed? I will still have to look for MY perfect wargame and i cannot se anything else that is worth hoping for.

[KDG]

Still having trouble with the "not hexes, oh no!" crowd.

I've played hexes, tiles, areas, real time, etc. The design of the board/computer never made or broke a game. It always came down to depth of strategy, ease of play, AI, variations of the game, replayability, etc.

People that want hexes seem to want it for two reasons, the look of hexes, and the movement/combat. Any other reasons?

1) The look - On one had I hear people say, don't improve the graphics, keep them 1 dimensional, make it look like basic cardboard squares, etc., giving me the impression that the look of the game doesn't mean much. Then they say, I don't like the look of tiles. Hmmmm... somethings funny there.

2) Movement/combat - Hexes 6 directions. Tiles 8 directions. So we have greater variation with Tiles, yes? Sounds like it to me.

Besides it being what you are used to, why are hexes better than tiles? I've played great games on both type of game surfaces.

Why we are going to tiles.
We had a limited size map with hexes, and jets had to be powerful becuase you could only attack from two places on the ground.

Now we have a huge map, up to 250 X 250, and you can now bring three ground attacks into play, thus allowing jets to be nerfed.

[Exel]

Sorry KDG, but again I must jump at your comments. The pro-hex side has given more arguments for hexes and against tiles than the tile supporters have given reasons to move to tiles. Most frequent supportive arguments for tiles have been "why stick with the old hexes, let's try something new; tiles!" and "tiles have 8 movement directions, hexes only 2." First, "new" doesn't always equal "better". There is often a reason why something has become standard or traditional, and that applies to hexes - simply put, they work well. Second, the numerous advantages of hexes outweight the fact that they have 2 less movement directions than tiles do, in my opinion. I'm also sure that the problem with map size can be solved without abandoning hexes (what magical limit causes it anyway?). And finally, the "stagnating front with hexes argument"; there surely are other means of solving the issue than moving to tiles and allowing more units to attack the same target - namely increasing the importance of armored units as the breakthrough units they historically were. WW2 would have been the same trench war as WW1 if it wasn't for tanks. In SC1 tanks are subpar with their historical capabilities and by fixing that you would fix the front problem without having to move to tiles.

[ April 20, 2004, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[RobRas]

In my view there are two sides to this debate:
* Are tiles or hexes best to simulate the movement and placement of units and what are the advantages/disadvantages of each. I believe that hexes are best but I can accept tiles if I have to. I don't buy the stalemate argument though. To drastically change the format of the game board in order to adjust some simple game mechanics seems odd to me. A lot of other options could have solved or reduced that problem: Increased armor effectivenes, retreat rules, stacking, extra effectiveness for each attacking unit beyond the first etc. Furthermore a stalemate is possible in any game and stalemated fronts did occur for months in WW2.
* The other discussion is the look of the game. I seriously dislike the look, I think isometric boards distorts the board making it much harder to estimate distances and placement of units. Especilly combined with all the fancy graphics of the counters and the board. Making it harder to recognize units and making it all look like some kind of diorama.

I could live with tiles if I could get the Top-Down simple graphics look as an option. I can't help but suspect that the isometric tile-based board primarily has been chosen to accomodate the new graphics engine (though I may be wrong in this). Which means that in order to get some graphics I don't want or need I have to get a game based on tiles which I don't like. Not excactly a perfect situation :)
But no biggie - it's just a game. I'll just keep SC1 and Clash of Steel and join Holyman in waiting for the perfect WW2 strategy game.

[Exel]

Originally posted by RobRas:
I seriously dislike the look, I think isometric boards distorts the board making it much harder to estimate distances and placement of units. Especilly combined with all the fancy graphics of the counters and the board. Making it harder to recognize units and making it all look like some kind of diorama.

I could live with tiles if I could get the Top-Down simple graphics look as an option.I agree with this whole-heartedly. Having made some comparison between the screenies and SC1, I've been convinced about the superior clarity provided by the latter. Tiles versus hexes don't matter much in that debate, but an isometric view does - it's quite simply inferior. I also noticed the same thing with the icons, SC1's simple plates being much clearer making it easier to form a picture of the situation, but otoh we should remember that the SC2 graphics are just a wip and probably subject to improvement. At least I hope so.

[KDG]

Second, the numerous advantages of hexes Please expand, you didn't list a single one in your whole discussion. Lets not include looks, since looks are subjective. Some people like a board like appearance for the game, while others want 3D, lets only talk game mechanics/design.


Let me show you what I mean with an example.


Advantages of tiles

1) Movement - 8 directions, beats 6 directions.

2) Attack - 8 directions, plus 3 ground attacks can be brought against a single unit. Once again beats 6 directions of attack, and only 2 ground attacks.

3) Size of map - Hubert was limited by the programming language that he used for SC1 and hexes. You can search past threads and find this. Tiles eliminates this by giving us 250 x 250

4) Map design. It is easier to design a map using squares than it is using hexes. Take a look at the picture with all the diffent map pieces available in the editor. This wouldn't work the same with hexes. Tiles will speed up the process for anyone making custom maps.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by RobRas:
In my view there are two sides to this debate:
The other discussion is the look of the game. I seriously dislike the look, I think isometric boards distorts the board making it much harder to estimate distances and placement of units. Especilly combined with all the fancy graphics of the counters and the board.

...

I could live with tiles if I could get the Top-Down simple graphics look as an option. I can't help but suspect that the isometric tile-based board primarily has been chosen to accomodate the new graphics engine (though I may be wrong in this). Which means that in order to get some graphics I don't want or need I have to get a game based on tiles which I don't like. Not excactly a perfect situation :)
...
I'll just keep SC1 and Clash of Steel and join Holyman in waiting for the perfect WW2 strategy game. I really agree from the bottom of my heart!!

[Exel]

Originally posted by KDG:
Please expand, you didn't list a single one in your whole discussion.:rolleyes:

Aanyway, I'll begin with responding to some of your arguments.

Attack - 8 directions, plus 3 ground attacks can be brought against a single unit. Once again beats 6 directions of attack, and only 2 ground attacks.

One could argue that 3 units being able to attack 1 on a straight front line isn't very realistic. Also, having more attack directions into one tile may actually make breakthrough harder, since any bulge or wedge formed in the line will immediately cause your front units in the breakthrough point to be hammered from up to 6 directions - even when your line is continuous.

Size of map - Hubert was limited by the programming language that he used for SC1 and hexes. You can search past threads and find this. Tiles eliminates this by giving us 250 x 250

Hex maps with sizes up to (or more than) 250x250 do exist in other games, so don't tell me it's not possible. Is it really the fault of hexes, or would it be programming instead?

Map design. It is easier to design a map using squares than it is using hexes. Take a look at the picture with all the diffent map pieces available in the editor. This wouldn't work the same with hexes. Tiles will speed up the process for anyone making custom maps. Okay, making maps with tiles may be easier than with hexes, I give you that, but hexes on the other hand allow more natural and real looking maps. Just compare the shapes of certain land masses or borders in SC1 and SC2. Albania is my favorite example: In SC1 it is decently close to its real-life counterpart - at least it faintly reminds of it - but in SC2 it's only a four-tile square. It may only be aesthetical, but it sure affects my immersion to the game. And on the other hand, if aesthetics didn't matter, we might just as well have black and white vector graphics or ASCII.

Now, actual arguments for hexes:

- Superior clarity regarding movement and distance estimations and frontline integrity (though isometric view is a bigger factor here).

- Equal movement to all directions. Tiles have the annoying diagonal movement issue, that can't be solved in a fully satisfying manner; the movement will never be exactly equal, and the solutions result in fractional or immensely multiplied action points. Again, hexes beat tiles in simplicity and clarity.

- With hexes you don't need any zone of control rules unlike with tiles.

- The looks: Hexes simply look better, less angular and blocky. Front lines run more fluently. It all results from the simple fact that a hex is closer to a circle than a square is. It just looks more natural.

- A hex is of a superior shape. Even the bees agree with me. We should learn from the nature! :D

[Elmo]

Take a look at the attack difference diagrams Hubert posted at the beginning of this thread. Note that with tiles he will allow units to attack if they are adjacent to the defender where the tiles come to a point. That is what allows 3 or 5 units to attack.

Note however that you can accomplish the exact same thing by allowing the attacking units to the rear but along the hex spines (between the current attackers) in the diagrams to also attack. If you do that then 3 or 5 units can attack using the existing hex system in exactly the same manner as with tiles and so there is no need for tiles.

In fact he could even program it so that in the vertical attack example there could be up to 5 attackers, not just 3, assuming the two empty hexes along the defenders frontal spines also had attacking units there. That would make hexes even better at preventing a stagnant front than tiles.

So we get the best of both worlds by keeping the hex grid and changing the attack programming code to allow those spine attacks.

Unless I'm missing something this kills the primary argument presented so far for going with tiles.

[KDG]

- A hex is of a superior shape. Even the bees agree with me. We should learn from the nature! Easily my favorite one. I know I'm in trouble since you have beeswhacked me.... :D Oh, and I'd say the female body is the superior shape. :cool:

One could argue that 3 units being able to attack 1 on a straight front line isn't very realistic. Also, having more attack directions into one tile may actually make breakthrough harder, since any bulge or wedge formed in the line will immediately cause your front units in the breakthrough point to be hammered from up to 6 directions - even when your line is continuous. That brings in the value of your tanks, as they rush around two breakthroughs, cutting off you opponents supply, allowing the ground troops to mop up. Additionally, if the other side has enough reserves to attack from 6 directions after a breakthrough, then more power to him.


Hex maps with sizes up to (or more than) 250x250 do exist in other games, so don't tell me it's not possible. Is it really the fault of hexes, or would it be programming instead? They may, but this was an issue in SC1. Everyone wanted a larger map. Hubert mentioned size limitations. Right now, I can't fault Hubert for anything, he's made my favorite game, and is working on my new favorite game.


Okay, making maps with tiles may be easier than with hexes, I give you that, but hexes on the other hand allow more natural and real looking maps. Just compare the shapes of certain land masses or borders in SC1 and SC2. Albania is my favorite example: In SC1 it is decently close to its real-life counterpart - at least it faintly reminds of it - but in SC2 it's only a four-tile square. It may only be aesthetical, but it sure affects my immersion to the game. And on the other hand, if aesthetics didn't matter, we might just as well have black and white vector graphics or ASCII. Since you gave me that, I'm taking it.



- Superior clarity regarding movement and distance estimations and frontline integrity (though isometric view is a bigger factor here).
Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes.

- Equal movement to all directions. Tiles have the annoying diagonal movement issue, that can't be solved in a fully satisfying manner; the movement will never be exactly equal, and the solutions result in fractional or immensely multiplied action points. Again, hexes beat tiles in simplicity and clarity.Diagonal is your friend. Pythagoras is your friend. 2 AP to move horizontal/vertical, 3 AP to move Diagonal. Since terrain changes constantly, it, and not the diagonal, is what makes you think about action points. Additionally multiplied action points are good, since we may now have greater variation of movement for units.

- With hexes you don't need any zone of control rules unlike with tiles. Zone of control is a staple of wargames. Hexes/tiles should have them anyways. SC1 had ZOC as will SC2.

- The looks: Hexes simply look better, less angular and blocky. Front lines run more fluently. It all results from the simple fact that a hex is closer to a circle than a square is. It just looks more natural.There you go, bringing in looks again. I said no looks, but you had to bring it up :D , ok, fine here goes.

A hex doesn't know if its a circle or a square, it has no identity. The poor hexagon :( can't even get made as a house, but squares sure do.

Front lines look the same to me either way, and now I can have front lines go 8 different directions, which looks good to me.

Now don't get me wrong, the hexagon is my friend, and enjoy playing with him, but Mr. Tile is at least the hexagons equal.

A seperate topic should be started regarding the looks, not mentioning tiles/hexes, but mentioning either top down or isometric view. I think this seems to be the actual issue.

[ April 20, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Elmo]

Originally posted by KDG:
[QUOTE] ... The poor hexagon :( can't even get made as a house...
Never heard of Buckminster Fuller and the geodesic dome?! Hexagons are far superior to squares when it comes to building houses.

[roman uk]

In my humble opinion...

The fact that the switch to tiles gives you map sizes up to 250x250 is by itself such a step foward that any other minor points (and they are truly minor) of debate between tiles/hexes are moot.

I predict sc2 (really sc construction set) will be on my hard drive a long time.

[RobRas]

Quote by KDG: "Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes.
"

True. But I need to estimate where all the unclicked units can move as well - at the same time. Easy to count hexes.

Quote by roman uk: "The fact that the switch to tiles gives you map sizes up to 250x250 is by itself such a step foward that any other minor points (and they are truly minor) of debate between tiles/hexes are moot". I don't feel that a larger map necessarily makes a better game. A better game makes a better game.

Antoher thing: I'm no programmer so I have to ask: How can it be that a map with hexes can't be made to 250x250? Why is that a problem?

[KDG]

True. But I need to estimate where all the unclicked units can move as well - at the same time. Easy to count hexes. And counting tiles is difficult? If you can plan out all the moves in your head without clicking units, then I really think you can figure out how far a unit will move on the diagonal, don't you. :cool:

Antoher thing: I'm no programmer so I have to ask: How can it be that a map with hexes can't be made to 250x250? Why is that a problem? If you do a search, Hubert answered these questions regarding SC1.

[J P Wagner]

Regarding the size of a hex based map, people need to remember what the World in Flames map looked like...it was one of the best aspects of the game.....and now that Matrix is doing the PC version of WiF, the competition for gamers money makes this a more serious issue than just one of personal preference....

[roman uk]

Quote RobRas: I don't feel that a larger map necessarily makes a better game. A better game makes a better game.


I think the advantages/disadvantages of hexes vs tiles makes very slight difference either way in a game like SC.

Tiles did not seem to hurt Civ, or Alpha Centuri, which I consider great games.

Hexes are aesthetically more pleasing, but sc is a very abstracted game, and tiles is definnitely not a deal breaker.

Thus if you use the same concept of SC1 with a bigger map, it does make a better game. Add editor and tweaked rules and you hae vast improvment. Still imperfect, definnitely. But better.

If only 'High Command' was supported, had stacking rules for units(after much though I realized it was its major combat fault! and definnitely a 'deal breaker'), and an AI worth to speak of. But it did have hexes. (g)

[jon_j_rambo]

There's a hidden demand for old hex strategy games made for computers. For some reason, the developers won't listen, they lack faith.

Please make:

Squad Leader (THE REAL ONE)
Civil War (THE REAL ONE)
Conquistador (THE REAL ONE)

"Ain't nothing but the Real thing" --- U2

[Battlefront.com]

Hi guys,

I thought it might be helpful to toss in a few bits from my perspective. For those of you who aren't familiar with me, a brief intro...

I'm Stephen Grammont and while growing up I played all sorts of war and strategy games. When I "grew up" I found I could not shake the urge to make my own games. The first one I made came out in 1994 and was called Onslaught, which was sorta a cross between AH's Blitzkrieg and Empire/Strategic Conquest type games, with a bunch of other stuff thrown in. The game was hex based, had stacking, and all sorts of detailed features. After getting crushed by the retail monster I went to work for Impressions, part of Sierra On-Line. There I was responsible, in no small way, for the development of Lords of the Realm (head of play testing) and Civil War Generals 2 (producer and jr. designer). The former is isometric tile based, the latter hex based. After that I started up a little company known as Battlefront.com. Perhaps some of you might have heard of it? smile.gif The first game we made was something called Combat Mission - Beyond Overlord. It started out being hex based but we rewrote the engine to be tile based instead. I've been involved in the production of probably a dozen games in some way or another, including (very modestly) SC1 and (even more modestly) SC2.

With this background in playing and making both hex and tile based games, including some blockbusters, I'll now toss out a few things into this discussion:

1. The main voice against the SC2's new system is, as I see it, the usual "anti-change". Every single game player group I have ever been a part in for the last 11 years of professional game development (wargame or otherwise) contains a certain highly vocal minority element which is reactionary and very much opposed to change. Especially fundamental change. They will invent 101 reasons why it is better to leave things as is, and doggedly defend each and every point no matter what the counter argument is. I am seeing plenty of this here whether the posters themselves see it or not.

2. As much as core gamers care about the games being made, they too often offer the worst advice to game developers. The above reason being the main one, but more or less because they are better at evaluating what is instead of what might be (though they don't see it that way). If core gamer advice was followed to the letter I am sure we would all still be playing 1960s type boardgames, with not much innovation beyond that. I'm serious. For example, if you guys care to go back and research the early feedback given to us regarding Combat Mission you'd see what I mean. The ones crying every day about how we should just port Avalon Hill's ASL to the computer, without any changes, later told us how wrong they were AFTER playing the game we made as opposed to the game they claimed they wanted us to make.

3. The "Hex vs. Square" debate is an old one which is voiced with more emotional attachment than fair minded thinking. The truth is either one works fine if it's surrounded by a good game design. A bad game design can not be saved by hexes no more than it can be made by tiles. Obviously that means hex or square is largely irrelevant provided the game system itself is good. SC1 is an awesome game that has succeeded not because it was hex based but because it is really good. Therefore, arguments that so much as hint at "the game will stink if hexes aren't used" has discredited themselves without any counter arguments being needed.

4. SC1 was never designed to be the ultimate "wargamer's wargame". Some people might be disappointed to see that SC2 is not trying to be that, but that's like wishing an apple to taste like an orange with the red skin. What that means is the game is designed to be what it is supposed to be, not necessarily what an individual wants it to be. I'm sure everybody knows what kind of game SC1 was intended to be and can guess what SC2 is going to be. Keep all comments framed within that context.

5. I think we can all agree that SC1 is a great game, otherwise you wouldn't be here. Is it a game that you all designed? No. Is it something you influenced into being the great game that it is? Perhaps a little after you had it in your hands, but even then the hard work was already done for you. So... who did all that great work that you are arguing about? Hubert. In my book that means if Hubert and someone on this Forum have a disagreement about game design, without looking at the details I am inclined to take Hubert's side. Sure, it might be that Hubert is wrong... but odds are very much against that. Especially when something is so fundamental to the entire game.

6. Remember that SC2, no matter how good or how bad it might be (yeah right smile.gif ), to you it is only a game. When the demo comes out you can download it and decide if it is worth buying. If most people think it stinks, they keep their money and Hubert has to live on SPAM and generic soda until he makes a new and better game. Never, ever forget this because it means that the person most responsible for making or breaking this game is also the one with the most to lose. Conversely, those with the least amount of responsibility are also the ones with the nothing to lose. You can afford to be wrong because you don't have to live with the consequences of that potential outcome. Hubert has no such luxury and therefore is more likely to have thought through the possibilities in far greater detail and with far greater insight than anybody else here.

The bottom line here is to remember to be humble and keep things in perspective. Hex or tile, neither is the Holy Grail nor the End of the World. It is all in the hands of the developer, and in this case you guys have no reason to suspect those hands to be anything but fully capable of delivering another great game no matter what system it should happen to use. The doubters in this crowd need to remember this more than they apparently do.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There's a hidden demand for old hex strategy games made for computers. For some reason, the developers won't listen, they lack faith. They listen, but they don't have the luxury of using "faith" to pay their bills, put food on the table, or to keep the roof over their head. They also have had a ton of experience with the games market and know that the tiny number of people that want such games would not justify making them. And they would still complain that they weren't done right, no matter how good and faithful they were :D

Squad Leader (THE REAL ONE) If we had done this instead of Combat Mission we wouldn't be having this discussion unless you were the guy flipping burgers next to Charles and me.

Steve

[ April 21, 2004, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[KDG]

Steve, thanks for sharing your time and your thoughts.

Now how about a new civil war game. :D

[RobRas]

Quote by KDG: "And counting tiles is difficult? If you can plan out all the moves in your head without clicking units, then I really think you can figure out how far a unit will move on the diagonal, don't you". Yup, counting tiles (with different movement rates for moving diagonally) is more difficult than counting hexes. At least it is for more. Especially when the board is isometric - if we had the Top-Down flat look it would be easier.

KDG wrote: "If you do a search, Hubert answered these questions regarding SC1." I tried to find this and I found a thread where Hubert stated that Windows itself forced him to limit the size of the boards ie the number of columns and rows but I can seem to find the hex/tile discussion. I'll try again later.

Steve wrote: "The main voice against the SC2's new system is, as I see it, the usual "anti-change". Every single game player group I have ever been a part in for the last 11 years of professional game development (wargame or otherwise) contains a certain highly vocal minority element which is reactionary and very much opposed to change. Especially fundamental change. They will invent 101 reasons why it is better to leave things as is, and doggedly defend each and every point no matter what the counter argument is. I am seeing plenty of this here whether the posters themselves see it or not".

I'm one of those evil conservatives who just oppose change for fun with no arguments whatsoever. Just inventing a lot of reasons because I don't have anything else to do. Or could it possibly be that arguments could be raised for hexes? Or for a simple Top-Down board without all the fancy graphics? Oops, sorry. I'm opposing change again.

Steve wrote: "If most people think it stinks, they keep their money and Hubert has to live on SPAM and generic soda until he makes a new and better game". True. But I don't doubt that fancy graphics and isometric maps sell more games. Me not buying it will easily be offset by someone else looking at the back of the box and going "Wow, look at that nice tank and the Eiffel Tower. I'm gonna buy this game".

[Holyman]

Mainly to Steve (Semi-god)

simple rules of life:
1. Do not fix what is not broken
2. What you dont do today you will not have to be fixed tomorrow
3. When trying to prepare for tomorrow - use the rear mirror
4. If you cant take care of your existing customers you are not ready to make new

According to me the most devastating thing one can do is to change things for the sake of change itself. It is clearly so that more wargamers can live with hexes than those that can live with tiles. You havent heard anyone say that "i will not buy this game if its not tile based" have you? SC2 will never reach the top shelves as does NO turnbased WWII strategy wargame, so i think you will gain by realising that you are constructing your games for your customers - mainly the core wargamers. To construct this game with the focus on making it sell more - to focus on money instead of on the customer itself - will most likely fail. It is STILL a WWII sim even if you make it look and even behave like CIV.

The best thing you could have done would have been to ask your faithful SC1 and potential SC2 customers by a simple questionnaire what main changes/inprovement they want. Strategic wargamers are a conservative bunch for a reason - they mainly want playability and the possiblity to explore what-ifs?

Steve wrote: "If most people think it stinks, they keep their money and Hubert has to live on SPAM and generic soda until he makes a new and better game".

Could it be that Hubert have had to listen to a "mini-retail monster" and not primarily the customers?

And i think you said it yourself: Tiles is not the key to if a game is sucessful or not. So my question is - why did you change it then? My guess is that you want to simply broaden your potential customer base and think that looking somewhat like the mighty CIV will make it more appealing. But guess what, CIV is not a success due to the tiles or graphics, its because its a great tool for the simulation of history (even if it is a populistic one). And it reaches a hughe crowd because many people are intrigued by history in general. WWII sims are a small branch of the sim market and i can promise you that it does not serve an "easily widened" customer base. But you must know this with your experience.

Now your faithful customers are going to have to wait extra time for something they majority dont care about or even worse - do not want.

[ April 21, 2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Holyman ]

[Bill101]

Holyman wrote: "Now your faithful customers are going to have to wait extra time for something they majority dont care about or even worse - do not want."

No, they can download the demo and try it out, rather than reaching rash conclusions before they've got even half an idea of how the game will be.

I can't understand why some people's minds are so closed to new ideas. There are without doubt a number of people playtesting SC2, all of whom had a good knowledge of SC1. I'm sure that they will soon tell Hubert if they think that tiles are spoiling the game.

But any amount of argument, without the experience of having actually played the new game, is not going to convince.

[RobRas]

Bill101 wrote: "I can't understand why some people's minds are so closed to new ideas". Tiles are not a new idea. Chess has tiles. Tactics 2 had tiles. It's an old idea.

But I admit that my primary problem isn't the tiles - though I believe they are inferior to hexes - but the isometric view. If I could get Top-Down map and simple graphics I would be a lot happier.

Furthermore even though I strongly suspect that it's way too late it is NOW that we can state our case and perhaps influence the decision. When the demo is out it's certainly too late.

[Bill101]

RobRas, actually I respect the argument for a top down view a lot more, though again without having played it I don't know how necessary it might be.

My view is that the game concept and its playability are the most important features, therefore if the game is hard to play in isometric, then a top down view should be offered.

I would like to think that if the playtesters come to that conclusion then Hubert will get working on one.

I played Civ3 for a while, and Talonsoft's Eastern Front a lot more, and in both of them I found their isometric view was fine. In the latter I did try out their top down view a couple of times, but I didn't like it at all.

It's all a question of how easy this game is to play.

[RobRas]

Bill101 - And Talonsoft Eastern Front games had the option of Top-Down view. Which I always used. I really hope that SC2 will have the same option.

[Exel]

Why does everyone who objects to a certain change get always flamed "anti-change", as Steve put it? The people who prefer hexes over tiles have good arguments, they don't support hexes just because they are conservative. Unless you haven't noticed, quite a few of the hex-supporters (including me) have made numerous improvement and new-feature suggestions in the other threads. The thing is, like I said in my previous post, that "new" does not always equal "good", and changing something just for the sake of changing it is not any more reasonable than objecting change just for the sake of objecting it. Let's not ruin this great debate by flaming each other by such mundane claims.

Secondly, please stop using Civ3 and others as examples for pro-tile and pro-isometric arguments. It is a totally different kind of game, and is thus non-comparable to SC. Just because 1st-person 3D view works in Battlefield 1942 doesn't mean it would work in SC2. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by KDG:
Oh, and I'd say the female body is the superior shape. :cool: Great! We agree on something as very fundamental as this! :D

That brings in the value of your tanks, as they rush around two breakthroughs, cutting off you opponents supply, allowing the ground troops to mop up. Additionally, if the other side has enough reserves to attack from 6 directions after a breakthrough, then more power to him.

Mhm. *nods* Yes, but increasing the value and usefulness of tanks as breakthrough units negate the need of increased number of attack directions in the first place. And I would still argue than 2-1 attack on a straight front is more realistic than 3-1. And being able to attack one unit from 6 directions on a continuous front can really be a game-breaker - this really needs some thought. In SC1 you could get 6-1 situations only if you had surrounded a single unit, but in SC2 such situations could apparently happen in any and every slightest wedge or bulge formed into a continuous front line.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />- Superior clarity regarding movement and distance estimations and frontline integrity (though isometric view is a bigger factor here).
Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes.</font>[/QUOTE]

That only works for my unmoved units. I also need to estimate the movements of enemy units, and that is the tricky part. With hexes it is a lot easier.

Zone of control is a staple of wargames. Hexes/tiles should have them anyways. SC1 had ZOC as will SC2.

All true, but moving to tiles greatly increases the need for various ZOC rules. Now we need them just for the simplest of front lines moving diagonally. With SC1 we didn't.

A seperate topic should be started regarding the looks, not mentioning tiles/hexes, but mentioning either top down or isometric view. I think this seems to be the actual issue. Yes, the isometric view thingy is another major issue that should be discussed separately.

[Holyman]

Bill101,
Your reasoning is strange to me.

I have tried dozens and dozens of both tiled and hexed games. Am i not allowed to have my own preference?

No ideas are new in SC2, all of what the genre has possibly to offer has been explored in hundreds of games and i can guarantee i have tried the greater part of them. (Useless info: My first encounter with this kind of games was "NATO commander" on my C64 back in the cold war days of 1984)

To imply that i am afraid of change is not the right way to put it: I dont like change that is uncalled for and i dont want.

Bill101 says:
"But any amount of argument, without the experience of having actually played the new game, is not going to convince."

By using this argument you can never influence anything that is not already built. Try using this theory when building a house of anything else for that matter... Also, If i have been in a couple a hundred houses i can guarantee you that i have a rough picture of how i want my house to look.

In my view we "the customers" that care how this game will end up, are encouraged to react on the new game. Otherwise they may shut down these threads and look another way.

I believe that what RobRas says is partly the truth when it comes to influencing the creation of this game. The sad truth as i experience it is that those who are controlling the creation of this game has started to walk down a path that they no longer can turn back from. We are going to get tiles and isometric view.

Can you remember that ANYONE has EVER mentioned that they want tiles and isometric view in SC2? No? So my conclusion is that they do not focus on their current customers, but on making a more populistic version to try to satisfy others than those who resides within this forum.

I hope they succeed, but its a dary business.

[Alexanderthe_OK]

Thanks for those screen shots and explanation Hubert. I was so disappointed to see the change from hexes to tiles and those screen shots suggest the game isnt going to be any good at all. I really was hoping for a game with the bugs fixed and not this one which I probably wont bother buying. Hopefully there will be enough other people thinking the same as me and we'll get a SC3 with hexes

[Battlefront.com]

RobRas

I'm one of those evil conservatives who just oppose change for fun with no arguments whatsoever. Just inventing a lot of reasons because I don't have anything else to do. Or could it possibly be that arguments could be raised for hexes? Or for a simple Top-Down board without all the fancy graphics? Oops, sorry. I'm opposing change again.You are entitled to your opinions and what type of game you would prefer. However, it is arrogant to assume that YOUR vision is the only one for this game and the ONLY one that matters. If YOUR vision of the game does not match the game designer's, that does not make the game designer wrong. In fact, 9 times out of 10 the game designer has it right and the Anti crowd has it wrong. That has been my first hand experience over the past decade and I don't see it changing anytime soon. Your next quote illustrates my point very neatly...

But I don't doubt that fancy graphics and isometric maps sell more games. Me not buying it will easily be offset by someone else looking at the back of the box and going "Wow, look at that nice tank and the Eiffel Tower. I'm gonna buy this game". What world to you live in? This is EXACTLY how the games industry works. I can cite case after case of half baked, crappy mass market games outselling quality hardcore games for exactly this reason. Quick reality check... how many games do you see in retail that look like SC1 and how many do you see that look like SC2? The answer is few of both, but the latter is pretty much the only thing you will see these days. There are very real reasons for this.

Now, that is not to say that the move to tiles was made strictly for graphical reasons. The Anti crowd ALWAYS accuses developers of this and here is no different. This is the game genre's equivalent to the "Race Card" played in criminal trials. Don't have a good case to make? Your position is the minority? Throw out the Sell Out card and accuse the developer of betraying his customer base. It is a pitiful, disrespectful, and highly immature response. Unfortunately it is also a standard component of the Anti argument.

Holyman,

1. Do not fix what is not brokenIllogical. If this is the case we would still be playing Tactics I in boardgame format. Innovation is not about fixing things that are broken, it is about making that which is good better. Sometimes that means fundamental shifts. Combat Mission did it when it abandoned the hex and I know for sure the game is far better for it.

2. What you dont do today you will not have to be fixed tomorrowAgain, another irrational Anti argument. Who is to say what is fixed and broken? You? I see plenty of people in this thread who disagree with you, and yet they are also customers. What makes your opinion more valuable than their's? It is also my experience that for every one Anti there are dozens more who keep silent because they don't like arguing with such people. We have internal statistics compiled over the last 6 years of business that back this up.

3. When trying to prepare for tomorrow - use the rear mirrorTrue, but if you keep your eyes on the rear view mirror you go off the road and crash. A successful game designer takes quick looks back while keeping the majority of his attention facing forward. Otherwise, why be in this business in the first place? To keep churning out the same thing year after year without doing anything different?

4. If you cant take care of your existing customers you are not ready to make newHere is the #1 fallacy of the Anti crowd... they presume that there is only ONE type of customer and that they are it. It is arrogant to say the least. The truth is that there is no one type of customer and that it is impossible for any one game to completely satisfy this group. It is also a fact that the Anti crowd is in the minority. If they had their say, and the game developer catered to THEIR narrow concept of what games should and should not be, the game developer would soon be out of business. That is reality and unless you've been in Hubert's or my position you have zero credibility to argue to the contrary.

According to me the most devastating thing one can do is to change things for the sake of change itself. It is clearly so that more wargamers can live with hexes than those that can live with tiles. Another common tactic of the Anti crowd is to charge that the changes are made without any rational reasoning or benefit. It is one of the easiest, though intellectually hollow, forms of argument. In other words, pretend that the opposite side has made no rational case. You can ignore the benefits and reasoning behind the tile system as much as you like, but that does not make it what you claim it to be.

You havent heard anyone say that "i will not buy this game if its not tile based" have you?I also never heard "I bought SC1 because it had hexes in it". People bought SC1 because it is a great game. The game is what is important, not the presence of hexes or tiles. I made that point very clear in my previous post, but I'm not surprised to see it ignored.

SC2 will never reach the top shelves as does NO turnbased WWII strategy wargame, so i think you will gain by realising that you are constructing your games for your customers - mainly the core wargamers. To construct this game with the focus on making it sell more - to focus on money instead of on the customer itself - will most likely fail. It is STILL a WWII sim even if you make it look and even behave like CIV.Again, you dismiss the game benefits of the system because you have emotional baggage tied to hexes. Not a persuasive argument. As for sales, I can promise you that the "core wargamer" makes up only a fraction of Battlefront's customer base, SC1 included. Your concept of how many people fit into your mindset is very off base.

The best thing you could have done would have been to ask your faithful SC1 and potential SC2 customers by a simple questionnaire what main changes/inprovement they want. Strategic wargamers are a conservative bunch for a reason - they mainly want playability and the possiblity to explore what-ifs? As stated before, gamers are not game designers. If we listened to people like you Combat Mission would have been a clunky computerized version of SL/ASL. We would have been condemned to obscurity and jobs flipping burgers. And if that happened there would be no SC1, or at least not the way it turned out. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the people who argued as you did wound up buying Combat Mission and, for the most part, admitting PUBLICLY that they were wrong. So in the end they got a better game than their narrow, reactionary, backwards looking perspective could have ever imagined. Even better, thousands of NEW gamers were brought into this genre, breathing new life into a dying bread of games. It then made it possible to publish games like SC1 and SC2. Bottom line is that this is reality and we have a solid record to show for it.

Could it be that Hubert have had to listen to a "mini-retail monster" and not primarily the customers?Nope, Hubert has listened to his inner creative genius and the vast majority of his customers. What he has not done is listened to those who are emotionally vested in a narrow vision of what gaming is.

And i think you said it yourself: Tiles is not the key to if a game is sucessful or not. So my question is - why did you change it then? Why not? If the tile based system offers improvements (putting your fingers in your ears and singing out NANANANANAANA doesn't change this), then why not? And yes, as a biproduct the game DOES look better from a marketing standpoint. What is wrong with that? I personally will take a great looking wargame with great gameplay over a clunky, dated looking one with the same gameplay. Why should it be any other way?

The Anti's only possible argument against better graphics is if they come at the expense of a better game. Both sides can argue about this until they are blue in the face, but only the release of the finished game can provide an answer. However, in the mean time the evidence supports having faith that Hubert will prevail and the game will be better than its predecessor. The Anti crowd can complain, kick, and scream as much as it likes, but they have no track record to show. Hubert does and you should show him the respect he deserves.

Now your faithful customers are going to have to wait extra time for something they majority dont care about or even worse - do not want.We are confident that the majority of customers will like SC2 better than SC1. And part of that will be because of the move to tiles. If we didn't believe this, then why would we be pursuing the change?


Exel,

Why does everyone who objects to a certain change get always flamed "anti-change", as Steve put it?Not true. It is only a type of personality and a type of argumentation that gets someone branded as Anti. Reactionary, presumptuous, arrogant, demanding, demeaning, emotional, etc. argumentation does not make my heart swim with support and sympathy. I've seen this sort of discussion time and time again and it has ALWAYS gone one way. And that way is never productive.

The people who prefer hexes over tiles have good arguments, they don't support hexes just because they are conservative.Incorrect. SOME of the arguments in favor of hexes are good ones. However, most are tripe. And in almost all cases the good arguments in favor of tiles (yes there are VERY good reasons for tiles) are dismissed. But only one system can be used for the basis of the game and therefore Hubert had to weigh the pros and cons of each system very carefully. Just because he decided tiles edges out hexes doesn't mean he has ignored the pro hex arguments nor the people pushing for it. It simply means he feels on balance tiles are better. Respect that or not, it is reality.

Unless you haven't noticed, quite a few of the hex-supporters (including me) have made numerous improvement and new-feature suggestions in the other threads.Gamers can be selectively Anti and selectively open minded. I see it all the time.

The thing is, like I said in my previous post, that "new" does not always equal "good", and changing something just for the sake of changing it is not any more reasonable than objecting change just for the sake of objecting it. Let's not ruin this great debate by flaming each other by such mundane claims.But that's it in a nutshell... the change was NOT made simply to change. The arguments in favor of tiles vs. hexes has been made very clearly and rationally. But because it is not in favor of hexes, it is dismissed as if it was never made.

Secondly, please stop using Civ3 and others as examples for pro-tile and pro-isometric arguments. It is a totally different kind of game, and is thus non-comparable to SC. Just because 1st-person 3D view works in Battlefield 1942 doesn't mean it would work in SC2. Agreed. SC2 will be what SC2 is. It won't be Civ3 and it won't be anything else. The most comparable game to SC2 is SC1, a point which seems to have been missed in the rush to tar and feather the decision to move to tiles.

Holyman,

In my view we "the customers" that care how this game will end up, are encouraged to react on the new game. Otherwise they may shut down these threads and look another way.
I believe that what RobRas says is partly the truth when it comes to influencing the creation of this game. The sad truth as i experience it is that those who are controlling the creation of this game has started to walk down a path that they no longer can turn back from. We are going to get tiles and isometric view. Again, you presume you speak for everybody and speak accurately. Two very dangerous assumptions to make. And yes, the game has gone down a road that it can not be turned back from. That, however, is not a bad thing. Games designed by committee never work.

Can you remember that ANYONE has EVER mentioned that they want tiles and isometric view in SC2? No? So my conclusion is that they do not focus on their current customers, but on making a more populistic version to try to satisfy others than those who resides within this forum.Hint... if your rational arguments are trumped by other equally rational ones, trying to sling mud at the developer never improves your position. In fact, it marginalizes your opinions and therefore is counter productive to your cause.

You have no game design track record, Hubert does. You love his past work, you have no work for anybody to love. Who do you think is better suited to making the call of hexes or tiles?

Steve

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by KDG:

3) Size of map - Hubert was limited by the programming language that he used for SC1 and hexes. You can search past threads and find this. Tiles eliminates this by giving us 250 x 250Thanks for bringing this up KDG, forgot about this problem from SC1, but I just wanted to clarify this point here as it seems to have come up often lately...

This is sort of true as I was limited by map size with SC1 but it was not really because of hexes. In SC1 I pretty much only used DirectX to safely change the resolution when playing SC (remember that small problem ;) ), and used the generic windows graphical interface (GDI) for outputting graphics on the screen. This method was slow and because of this and because of the way I was doing things... long story short it limited the map size due to the amount of memory I could use at once.

With SC2, everything is pretty much DirectX, (keep in mind SC1 was my first game) it's a heck of a lot faster and thus the optimization allows me to do things a little differently, so the map size can be a lot larger which I think everyone will agree is a good thing.

Btw, another change is the new supported resolutions for SC2:

1024x768 (Default as in SC1)
1280x1024
1600x1200

Hope this clarifies things a bit,
Hubert

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by KDG:
Ahhhhhhh, your killing my brain....thinking abstractly hurts.....

OK, now that I got that out, point A and point B still wouldn't be perfect.

The distance between A and B in a horizontal or vertacle line would be greater(4 spaces away) than the distance diagonally if it takes 2 AP's to go diagonally(the equivalent of 3 spaces away). 1.5 AP's corrects this problem. I agree with KDG, I know what he meant.

[zappsweden]

I think the game looks more like Civ2 now with the 3D view and Squares. Maybe that is the purpose, Civilization series sold alot I think.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

3. The "Hex vs. Square" debate is an old one which is voiced with more emotional attachment than fair minded thinking. The truth is either one works fine if it's surrounded by a good game design. A bad game design can not be saved by hexes no more than it can be made by tiles. Obviously that means hex or square is largely irrelevant provided the game system itself is good. SC1 is an awesome game that has succeeded not because it was hex based but because it is really good. Therefore, arguments that so much as hint at "the game will stink if hexes aren't used" has discredited themselves without any counter arguments being needed. I think you hit the nail on the head there. Tiles just call for a different balance in the forces on the map. You can't judge hexes vs tiles until you've seen what the designer has done with the rest of the game system.

Demo...demo...demo...

{c'mon people, pick up the chant...}

[Battlefront.com]

Alexanderthe_OK ,

Thanks for those screen shots and explanation Hubert. I was so disappointed to see the change from hexes to tiles and those screen shots suggest the game isnt going to be any good at all. I really was hoping for a game with the bugs fixed and not this one which I probably wont bother buying. Hopefully there will be enough other people thinking the same as me and we'll get a SC3 with hexes Thanks for reminding me that I missed making a very important point. It is ironic that the people arguing against tiles keep talking about how Hubert did this for no other reason than looks. Ironic because looks are exactly how some of you are judging the game. Looking at screenshots and concluding that the game won't be fun is a pretty poor way to judge a game. Especially when it is coming from a game designer who has proven to you that he can deliver something you really like.

I know that most of you don't understand how utterly disrespectful and insulting your outbursts are, but they are indeed. Hubert has done nothing to deserve such behavior and I ask that you reconsider your positions into a more "wait and see" approach instead of convincing yourselves it sucks before you've played it. And if you can't, perhaps your time might be better spent having different discussions about different games instead? The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that.

Steve

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Gamers can be selectively Anti and selectively open minded. I see it all the time.So what you are saying is that people actually form their opinions on a case-by-case basis instead of just being pro- or anti-everything? Well, let me tell you something; that only shows that people think, and that's how it is supposed to be.

FYI, open minded does not mean accepting everything new as it is. And just because you assess something and decide to object it doesn't make you an anti-change person. Even if it's just your personal preference without any arguments as its base. I have yet to bump into a single anti-change conservative on these forums.

People who object tiles or the isometric view here do so because they sincerely believe that they are inferior to hexes and a top-down view. They have every right to their opinion without being bashed as conservatives objecting all change. I find your comments about arrogancy and reactionism offensive towards everyone who is contributing to this debate but doesn't happen to agree with you. Is it so hard to argue without attacking opinions on a personal level?

[ April 21, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Exel ]

[Exel]

[RobRas]

Steve - wow, that was heavy. Allrigt, I (and others) have been labeled "anti-change", "reactionary", "highly vocal", "minority" and now "disrespectful" and "abusing". Basically for speaking our minds on a subject we care about. But I suppose I just misunderstood it when I thought that was the point of a forum.

Fine, tiles it is. I believe it is a wrong decision but of course it's the designers' call. I hoped this decision perhaps could be changed but I was wrong. I wish you all the best luck with your SC2.

[Bill101]

My own view is that we cannot properly assess Hubert's decision to use tiles until we play the demo.

Those who say that they won't touch SC2 without having even played the demo do give the impression of being narrow minded.

That said, I respect others' rights to comment on the hex/tiles issue. I'm all for free debate.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I think its getting a little bit too emotional in here.

Anyone who has designed anything, will eventually realize that you can't please everyone. And there will always be vocal critics who are just sure you've screwed it up.

I don't believe that Mr H feels insulted by some of the comments. I believe that he has noted those statements, but still hasn't heard anything different enough to make him reconsider his decision.

One of the things we forget when we have "discussions" on the internet, is that you don't know the maturity level of those you are discussing things with. So statements that come out rude or abusive, are really nothing more than an immature person who doesn't know how to express themselves better.

So lets try to be a bit more objective and not get so personally offended by statements that others make.

Realize that for some, you will always be wrong, and move on to a new subject.

[KDG]

Exel

I've enjoyed our debates, and since we finally agreed on the female form as the perfect shape, lets hope Hubert can incorporate this into the game. :cool:

We know tiles is the direction they are going, and I'm pretty sure Hubert will make the appropriate adjustments on unit strengths to make front line battles fair and realistic.

Hopefully you will get the over the top view you and many others wish for, and that we all will get a great game that we play for 5 years.

[Battlefront.com]

Exel,

So what you are saying is that people actually form their opinions on a case-by-case basis instead of just being pro- or anti-everything? Well, let me tell you something; that only shows that people think, and that's how it is supposed to be.Ah, no. When someone has made up their mind and ignores counter arguments, that is not the way it should be. That is the Anti behavior I described. The same person might not care one fig about what packaging is used (open minded) but they go on a Holy War if someone dares suggest their pet feature could be anything but what they envision it to be (closed minded). Again, I have see this behavior time and time again and think I am pretty well "qualified" to call it for what it is.

FYI, open minded does not mean accepting everything new as it is. Correct. Open minded means accepting that there is more than one possible point of view and that their own is not necessarily the correct one to use. It also means listening to the counter arguments and discussing them based on their merits, and not going towards emotional argumentation. The latter is the hallmark of the Anti crowd.

And just because you assess something and decide to object it doesn't make you an anti-change person. Even if it's just your personal preference without any arguments as its base. It's the methodology that is being objected to by me. I've seen this pattern time and time again. It is a pattern, it does exist, and it is being shown off here in almost textbook fashion. If you don't see it or understand it, it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I have yet to bump into a single anti-change conservative on these forums.Wha? I don't even know how to respond to that after reading this thread. I won't even try and conjure up the hundreds of names I've seen over the years that have participated in similar such discussions.

People who object tiles or the isometric view here do so because they sincerely believe that they are inferior to hexes and a top-down view. They have every right to their opinion without being bashed as conservatives objecting all change. I find your comments about arrogancy and reactionism offensive towards everyone who is contributing to this debate but doesn't happen to agree with you. Is it so hard to argue without attacking opinions on a personal level?Because after voicing their opinions, and being challenged to an intellectual discussion, and finding out that the decision is already made they resort to (basically) throwing a temper tantrum. There is ZERO objectivity in the Anti crowd when they find they won't get their way. It must be their way or it is absolute crap and everybody responsible for the decision is a waste of space. I'll illustrate that further below.

RobRas,

Steve - wow, that was heavy. Allrigt, I (and others) have been labeled "anti-change", "reactionary", "highly vocal", "minority" and now "disrespectful" and "abusing". Basically for speaking our minds on a subject we care about. But I suppose I just misunderstood it when I thought that was the point of a forum. Check out the lines of argument against tiles and for hexes that has been floated in the last couple of pages. Or do you disagree that the following sentiments have been made loud and clear by the Anti crowd:

1. Hubert is making a grave mistake. It can't possibly be the right decision. This should be self evident because hexes are the only way to go. Even though other games have not used them and worked out just fine.

2. Hubert is abandoning the core gamer that has supported him in the past. Worse, he is purposefully ignoring them.

3. Hubert is more concerned about sales than making a great game. There is no rational reason to go with tiles vs. hexes, so the decision to go with tiles must be because he's "sold out". To whom is unclear since obviously nobody in the world wants a tile based game.

4. Hubert has decided to change to tiles for the heck of it. No rational reason, just simply wants to change things for the sake of changing them.

5 Although the game isn't even done yet, it sucks. Can't possibly be any good because it doesn't have hexes. No chance. That's because...

6. Hubert doesn't know how to make a great game. Well, except for SC1, but that was because it was hex based. Now that he has decided to go with tiles, it is clear Hubert doesn't know what he is doing. Evidence? He won't do what we tell him to do.

7. This might not be because Hubert doesn't know how to make a good game, but because he doesn't understand his audience. His audience is monolithic and obviously pro hex. All other opinions are of no value because they aren't really his customers (even though they bought the game, love it, and are commenting in this and other threads).

It shouldn't take a psychology expert to see this is EXACTLY what is being said above in the Anti posts. The Anti crowd can't make a convincing argument against tiles so they are trying to brow beat Hubert into doing what THEY want. That is not to say their basic argument, in favor of hexes, is valueless. Of course hexes are a viable system, though just not the one that Hubert favors for his next game. Just because Hubert has shifted the game to tiles does not validate the things I noted above.

Fine, tiles it is. I believe it is a wrong decision but of course it's the designers' call. I hoped this decision perhaps could be changed but I was wrong. I wish you all the best luck with your SC2. You are entitled to your opinion and, as stated above, I find no fault in it. You did not throw in the emotional baggage that others have. Therefore, I respect your position and say I am content to agree to disagree with you. Hubert can't please all the people all the time, so obviously SOMEONE will be disappointed with SOMETHING. The finished product will stand or fall on the sum total of its merits. I'm content with that and so should everybody here.

Steve

[Lars]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Ah, no. When someone has made up their mind and ignores counter arguments, that is not the way it should be. That is the Anti behavior I described. The same person might not care one fig about what packaging is used (open minded) but they go on a Holy War if someone dares suggest their pet feature could be anything but what they envision it to be (closed minded). Again, I have see this behavior time and time again and think I am pretty well "qualified" to call it for what it is.We're not getting horses in CM2, are we?

[Jim Boggs]

Maybe the tiles will make it easier to design the Strategic Command: Pacific War.

(Hint, hint) :D

Hubert's pretty sneaky that way. ;)

[Battlefront.com]

Lars,

Careful with comments like that. You're showing your age on this Forum :D hehe... good one!!

Steve

[Holyman]

Steve,
OMG! i cant believe im reading this! I hope you dont carry the official voice of battlefront.com as the signature implies. Is this the official stand and attitude that battlefront has towards the people that says things that they dont like? A game developer that seems to talk in negative, direspectful phrases towards the part of their customers that want to speak about what they want from the game? People that have spent maybe hundreds of hours playing their game and wants to say something about how they think it should be in the next version?

Beeing "an arrogant customer" i have to say that this tops everything i have read in any forum for years. I am dead serious. You are certainly not "da man" when it comes to understanding people and customer relations.

Major wake-up call (like a air compressor horn or something) -
This anti-crowd of yours only exists in your own head. It is probably something you have developed over the years to cope with the people that you need to classify as morons in your version of how the world should be runned. You need to seriously think about why it is that you have this urge to jump those who dont share your opinion. We are all individuals in this forum and there is no conspiracy against you or any other company that wants to renew their smelly game or whatever. There are just personal opinions.

And if you are ever responding to this, please keep it short so that i can find the strenght to read through it.

[kurt88]

I'm really getting tired of reading this thread so I won't anymore.

I also like hexes better than tiles but really WAKE UP! Hubert decided on tiles so stop complaining till you played the demo. He's not gonna change it. Better to hope that he can pull it off!

[KDG]

OMG! i cant believe im reading this! I hope you dont carry the official voice of battlefront.com as the signature implies. Is this the official stand and attitude that battlefront has towards the people that says things that they dont like? A game developer that seems to talk in negative, direspectful phrases towards the part of their customers that want to speak about what they want from the game? People that have spent maybe hundreds of hours playing their game and wants to say something about how they think it should be in the next version? In a forum such as this, programmers, publishers, etc. should be able to speak their mind just as we do. We criticize, why not them. Opinion, fact, likes and dislikes, its all here.

Beeing "an arrogant customer" i have to say that this tops everything i have read in any forum for years. I am dead serious. You are certainly not "da man" when it comes to understanding people and customer relations.
This is pretty tame compared to some forums that are out there. A forum like this is different than customer service, its for the flowing of all ideas, responses, etc., from all parties involved.

Major wake-up call (like a air compressor horn or something) -
This anti-crowd of yours only exists in your own head. It is probably something you have developed over the years to cope with the people that you need to classify as morons in your version of how the world should be runned. You need to seriously think about why it is that you have this urge to jump those who dont share your opinion. We are all individuals in this forum and there is no conspiracy against you or any other company that wants to renew their smelly game or whatever. There are just personal opinions.
Please, have you looked at society. Its impossible to make everyone happy, there is always someone complaining about something.

Most peoples minds can't be changed on most subjects. Its a fact of life.

Some people chose to use emotion and opinion when debating, others like Exel chose to give examples and back things up with reasons why they have an opinion. Big difference.

[Moon]

Nothing can be debated more hotly than viewpoints which are nearly equal, but pointing in opposite directions. smile.gif This alone shows me that there is no real advantage between hexes and tiles. Wait, there might be one - people are more used to hexes? :rolleyes:

Holyman, I won't answer for Steve, he can speak for himself, or decide for himself that he won't reply. But I tell you - if I were him, I'd do the latter.

Somebody who says stuff like

"According to me..." (heh? A classic way to legitimate and "enlarge" your own opinion, taken to the extreme, so that it becomes bizarre), or

"I don't like change that is uncalled for and I don't want" (Big surprise, I don't like stuff I don't want usually as well. But - why is it uncalled for? Because you don't want it?), or

"It is clearly so that more wargamers can live with hexes than those that can live with tiles." (according to... you?)

...is pretty much useless to debate. This doesn't mean that you're not entitled to your opinion. You are. And you did state what that was, in the forums that we have made for exactly this purpose. We noted your opinion, too, and we stated our views. And we just happen to disagree.

Are you not used to people, yes, even game designers disagreeing with you? Sorry to hear that. Thank God we have the balls to sometimes disagree even with the *majority* of PC players, because if not, you'd be playing SC-the Real Time Strategy game right now.

Martin

[KDG]

"SC-the Real Time Strategy game right now."

Any chance we will see this next year?
;)

[Jim Boggs]

Holyman

Your name isn't Lewis is it?

Let's check the Numbers!

Okay on this side we got:

1) Hubert Cater-One game published (SC), one game total success. 100%

2) BFC-Three Games published (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK), three games total successes. 100%

Okay, on the other side:

Holyman-No games published, no games success. 0%


Hmmmm.....

[J P Wagner]

This poor horse has been beaten into a can of SPAM...As has been suggested by more than one person here, let's wait until the demo is out before passing judgement....there will be other options for gamers on the Strategic WWII front in the near future and so it will be interesting to make comparisons when the time arises....for now though, the idea of an editor for the game is one of the most exciting features that I am drooling for...if the editor has the potential to do what some here are presuming it could, and having a tile based map makes using the editor easier, than I will gladly accept the change....the demo will be free, so we'll all be able to make more sound decisions about the gameplay then with only the investment of time...

[ April 21, 2004, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: J P Wagner ]

[Capt Andrew]

Long time lurker, but this thread actually forced me to register and post.

I discovered Battlefront by word of mouth, because a friend really enjoyed CMBB. I didn't care for it, but when I noticed the hex based SC1, I immediately downloaded the demo. It took me two days to order it...only because I couldn't stop playing the demo!

SC1 has been one of the most enjoyable games I have ever purchased. It brought back memories of WaW, 3R, SL, etc. I loved the hex based "board game" and simplicity. At least six friends also bought the game, and we continue to spam PBEM files back and forth.

I was EXTREMELY excited to see Moon's announcement about SC2. And all I could say when I saw the preview was WOW. Amazing graphics (yeah, I also could care less...but it sure didn't hurt!!), a bigger map (yes!)...and what's this???!!! Nearly every single suggestion the SC community suggested had been implemented! OMG! I thought, man, Hubert has been lurking here as much as I have! I was STUNNED to see so much gaming community input actually implemented!

That being said, I am a bit embarrassed of some of my fellow gamers comments, both at Steve and HC. HC made an AMAZING game with SC1. Period. And Steve put it out there for us in a way I appreciated (pass savings on to customers by nixing the fancy packaging, etc). Neither of these guys should be second guessed, period. That doesn't mean you can't have opinions, or express them in this forum. But you are on their turf, so try to be respectful, and mindful that they read these posts. They've proved that by giving us just a GLIMPSE SC2, that they have listened to their customers.

So the biggest gripes are hex based and top down issues. Okay. Yeah, I want that too. Its just ONE of the reasons I loved SC1. HC has already said in another post that a top down view may be an option for SC2(kinda like an XP to traditional 95/98 feature). Great. Tiles?????? Too bad. But you know, I'm giving Battlefront the benefit of the doubt. Sure I'm disappointed that hexes aren't being used, but who can honestly say they haven't already imagined how that is really going to change the whole Barbarossa campaign!

I think we all need to remember how we felt when we read the SC2 announcement. If you were jazzed about all the new features that have been implemented, then you need to move on past the hex issue. If the first thing you REALLY thought was, "TILES? WTF!", then maybe SC2 is not for you. Feel free to let Battlefront know, as they have demonstrated that they actually do care what you want. If you've already voiced your disappointment, there's no need to do it again. It's been heard ad nauseum. Just be thankful for a fantastic SC1.

As for me, I'll only be playing the demo as I wait for my full version to arrive in the mail - despite hexes/tiles. Carry on HC and Steve, as you were.

[ April 21, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Capt Andrew ]

[Kuniworth]

Man I can't believe it, a topic without me beeing pounced at :)


To all;

Beeing a politician I just wanna say I'm actually happy with the intense discussion. The strategic command community stands strong and it's obvious that there is many people thyat want this game to succeed. So I'm glad you all debate and discuss ideas.

Keep up the debate guys and remember to give constructive ideas to mr H.

[Dan Fenton]

I have had a great deal of fun while playing Alpha Centari and Civilizaton III. Both are tile based games. Frankly, I really did not even notice that much of a difference between playing a tile based game and a hex based game. It is the quality of the game that matters, not hexes or tiles.

My opinion is that Hubert is a gifted game designer. If he believes that tiles are better than hexes, then they probably are better for this situation. I will buy this game!

By the way, thanks Hubert for supporting a 1280 by 1024 display. It will make my 17-inch LCD monitor very happy.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Dan Fenton:

If he believes that tiles are better than hexes, then they probably are better for this situation. I will buy this game!
Hey Dan, I'm pretty sure all debating will buy the game hence the big arguement about tiles vs hexes. People like to get a maximum out of the money to spend. ;)

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the follow ups, especially to first time poster Capt Andrew for breaking his Lurker status. It is sad when an otherwise dedicated gamer loses perspective and goes off the deep end. No paranoia on my part... I've seen dozens of people destroy their own credibility in the same way. Sorry it most often happens in public where everybody has to bare witness to it.

Whether you like tiles or believe that hexes are sanctioned by God and to use otherwise risks burning in Hell, I don't really care. But start forgetting basic manners and simple respect for the very persons responsible for making the games and environment that has brought us together... well, that is something that needs addressing. We've found from past experience that sometimes a good "spanking" is necessary to end the childish behavior and get things back on a productive track. With that in mind...

Now that it is clear to all that SC2 will be tile based, hopefully those who disagree can be polite and respectful enough to withhold judgement until they have at least played the demo. Afterall, is there any other way to know if a GAME is good than to actually play it? I know of no other way.

In the mean time I would suggest that the pro-hex crowd refocus their energy into discussing ways to overcome some of the mistakes other game developers have made with tile based systems. After all, any system, be it hex or tile, has its limitations and potential pitfalls. Constructive discussion might be helpful to Hubert. Telling him he has broken the Hardcore's 1st Commandment "Tho Shall Not Use Tiles" really isn't :D

Steve

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
In the mean time I would suggest that the pro-hex crowd refocus their energy into discussing ways to overcome some of the mistakes other game developers have made with tile based systems. After all, any system, be it hex or tile, has its limitations and potential pitfalls.I've been doing this all along, in this thread and others. It was while studying the effects of tiles when I concluded that hexes would be my choice for the game, but let's not return to that... Anyway, I'm going to keep digging and tossing in suggestions for how to overcome some of the problems that tiles may bring with them. After all, since tiles are the way Hubert has decided to take, it would be in all of our best interest to see the tile-system perfected as far as possible. smile.gif

Now, one major problem that should be addressed is, as already mentioned, the effect that comes up if a bulge or wedge of any size is formed to an otherwise straight front line; the lead unit will potentially get hammered by up to 6 enemy units. I'm not going to repeat my view of the realism of the situation, but this is a potential game-killer if it's not carefully investigated. Or does Hubert already have a solution for the issue?

[Holyman]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
Holyman

Your name isn't Lewis is it?

Let's check the Numbers!

Okay on this side we got:

1) Hubert Cater-One game published (SC), one game total success. 100%

2) BFC-Three Games published (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK), three games total successes. 100%

Okay, on the other side:

Holyman-No games published, no games success. 0%


Hmmmm..... OK, i get the message... then only experienced game designers should be allowed to speak in here. Are you one of those ? ;)

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Holyman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
Holyman

Your name isn't Lewis is it?

Let's check the Numbers!

Okay on this side we got:

1) Hubert Cater-One game published (SC), one game total success. 100%

2) BFC-Three Games published (CMBO, CMBB, CMAK), three games total successes. 100%

Okay, on the other side:

Holyman-No games published, no games success. 0%


Hmmmm..... OK, i get the message... then only experienced game designers should be allowed to speak in here. Are you one of those ? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. Not the point. It's called track record. As odd as this seems I would ask that you have some faith in these guys judgements.

You would not believe some of the stuff that very serious grognards have flamed BFC over, in their Combat Mission series.

Somebody has to make the final call on key issues, and this is the call they made on this one. This is their livlihood, they are putting a lot more on the line than either you or me.

Now, how bout a truce, because this new version has a ton of new features that we haven't even skimmed the surface on. :D

[Holyman]

Originally posted by KDG:
In a forum such as this, programmers, publishers, etc. should be able to speak their mind just as we do. We criticize, why not them. Opinion, fact, likes and dislikes, its all here.I was just kinda shocked to get that from BATTLEFRONT.COM, as Steve in this case uses the official stamp of this company to tell me that i am something "they" disrespect and couldn't care less about. I am one of those monsters that eats good game designs for breakfast and ****s them out in hexes.

[KDG]

Now, one major problem that should be addressed is, as already mentioned, the effect that comes up if a bulge or wedge of any size is formed to an otherwise straight front line; the lead unit will potentially get hammered by up to 6 enemy units. I'm not going to repeat my view of the realism of the situation, but this is a potential game-killer if it's not carefully investigated. Or does Hubert already have a solution for the issue? OK, lets look at this comparing old way and new way.

SC2 - 6 units hit 1 unit, destroying it with no need for air support.

SC1 - 3 units hit 1 unit, then 2 jets finish it off

So there was no need for air in SC2 in this situation, but then again, it used up 3 extra ground units that could have been used on another attack. In SC1, the unit gets killed, using less ground units, but needing air support.

I think I prefer SC2 because you can't strike as quickly in multiple areas like you could with the aid of jets(due to their long attack range). Its easier to have 3 sets of 3 units attack in 3 different areas in SC1(with the aid of 6 jets) than is it to bring 3 sets of 6 units to 3 different areas, in my opinion.

Oh, and by the way, wouldn't it be 5 attacks. One from the front, two from the sides, and two from the diagonals?

[Holyman]

Originally posted by Moon:
Nothing can be debated more hotly than viewpoints which are nearly equal, but pointing in opposite directions. smile.gif This alone shows me that there is no real advantage between hexes and tiles. Wait, there might be one - people are more used to hexes? :rolleyes:

Holyman, I won't answer for Steve, he can speak for himself, or decide for himself that he won't reply. But I tell you - if I were him, I'd do the latter.

Somebody who says stuff like

"According to me..." (heh? A classic way to legitimate and "enlarge" your own opinion, taken to the extreme, so that it becomes bizarre), or

"I don't like change that is uncalled for and I don't want" (Big surprise, I don't like stuff I don't want usually as well. But - why is it uncalled for? Because you don't want it?), or

"It is clearly so that more wargamers can live with hexes than those that can live with tiles." (according to... you?)

...is pretty much useless to debate. This doesn't mean that you're not entitled to your opinion. You are. And you did state what that was, in the forums that we have made for exactly this purpose. We noted your opinion, too, and we stated our views. And we just happen to disagree.

Are you not used to people, yes, even game designers disagreeing with you? Sorry to hear that. Thank God we have the balls to sometimes disagree even with the *majority* of PC players, because if not, you'd be playing SC-the Real Time Strategy game right now.

Martin Well, Martin,
First of all thanks for choosing to use another name than BATTLEFRONT.COM. It feels kinda nice to talk to someone on the same level. So ill have alot easier to respect what you have to say to me. I guess you have taken a minimum crascourse in psycology smile.gif

Secondly:
The answer to your questions is in your quotes of me as well as Steves quotes. I speak TO everyone. I tried to raise MY issues with this game. (ok i used some generalisations to get there but i dont call people members of secret anti-crowd organisations at least cause that was the MOTHER of generalisations). What i expect from a company "official" is arguments and explanations. What i dont expect is my messages broken down by massive quoting and each line stamped on by someone that seems to have built up a pressure for some time.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Holyman:
What i dont expect is my messages broken down by massive quoting and each line stamped on by someone that seems to have built up a pressure for some time. *Pats Holyman on head*

Here have a cookie!

[Holyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Thanks for the follow ups, especially to first time poster Capt Andrew for breaking his Lurker status. It is sad when an otherwise dedicated gamer loses perspective and goes off the deep end. No paranoia on my part... I've seen dozens of people destroy their own credibility in the same way. Sorry it most often happens in public where everybody has to bare witness to it.

Whether you like tiles or believe that hexes are sanctioned by God and to use otherwise risks burning in Hell, I don't really care. But start forgetting basic manners and simple respect for the very persons responsible for making the games and environment that has brought us together... well, that is something that needs addressing. We've found from past experience that sometimes a good "spanking" is necessary to end the childish behavior and get things back on a productive track. With that in mind...

Now that it is clear to all that SC2 will be tile based, hopefully those who disagree can be polite and respectful enough to withhold judgement until they have at least played the demo. Afterall, is there any other way to know if a GAME is good than to actually play it? I know of no other way.

In the mean time I would suggest that the pro-hex crowd refocus their energy into discussing ways to overcome some of the mistakes other game developers have made with tile based systems. After all, any system, be it hex or tile, has its limitations and potential pitfalls. Constructive discussion might be helpful to Hubert. Telling him he has broken the Hardcore's 1st Commandment "Tho Shall Not Use Tiles" really isn't :D

Steve Mr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde must have been on Sci-Fi channel last night...

Lets just say that this thread turned out like North Corea since you spoke out loud.

I can always change my nick or just buzz outa here, but you will still be "Steve@Battlefront.com" so i for sure understand that you try to restore your own credibility around here with that little speach...

"Dont speak directly to him - lets make a speach and talk to the others about him so that i can show off my official battlefront status once more".

bye

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Holyman:

bye *Shrugs*

I don't get it. I thought everybody liked Oreos. Oh well...

[gunnergoz]

Funny, I always labored under the assumption that BFC, Steve included, owned these forums and so could deal with them as they liked...and so far, I have no complaints. How odd to be taken to task for how you run your own house by someone who is essentially a guest in it.

[Holyman]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:

bye *Shrugs*

I don't get it. I thought everybody liked Oreos. Oh well... </font>[/QUOTE]opting for a job at battlefront are we boggsie?

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Holyman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:

bye *Shrugs*

I don't get it. I thought everybody liked Oreos. Oh well... </font>[/QUOTE]opting for a job at battlefront are we boggsie? </font>[/QUOTE]Nah. Too much pressure.

So when you say "bye", is that slang for "I'll be back in a minute"?

[Lars]

Originally posted by Holyman:
I am one of those monsters that eats good game designs for breakfast and ****s them out in hexes. Ouch, that's two more sharp points than squares...

[Holyman]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:

bye *Shrugs*

I don't get it. I thought everybody liked Oreos. Oh well... </font>[/QUOTE]opting for a job at battlefront are we boggsie? </font>[/QUOTE]Nah. Too much pressure.

So when you say "bye", is that slang for "I'll be back in a minute"? </font>[/QUOTE]No it means bye to the one i was adressing in the message.

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Holyman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jim Boggs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:

bye *Shrugs*

I don't get it. I thought everybody liked Oreos. Oh well... </font>[/QUOTE]opting for a job at battlefront are we boggsie? </font>[/QUOTE]Nah. Too much pressure.

So when you say "bye", is that slang for "I'll be back in a minute"? </font>[/QUOTE]No it means bye to the one i was adressing in the message. </font>[/QUOTE]I knew I could still feel the love! ;)

[Exel]

Originally posted by Lars:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Holyman:
I am one of those monsters that eats good game designs for breakfast and ****s them out in hexes. Ouch, that's two more sharp points than squares... </font>[/QUOTE]But each of them is less sharp than the sharp points of squares. :D

[Desert Dave]

One incidental thing occurred to me recently... and I mean to mostly just remind everyone that there ARE some advantages to using tiles... in those other games that allowed stacking, well, if you were using hexes, then you could STACK 2, or 3, units per hex.

For example, in Advanced 3rd Reich, one of my personal favorites... you would have "3-3s" stacked with maybe a mixture of "4-6s."

But here, with SC2-Blitzkrieg! and its clean design and "chess-like" approach,

Since there is no undue clutter on the game board (... VERY easy to gaze all around on your fast growing Empire! and know EXACTLY what your dispositions are)... well, you can still apply sufficient pressure due to the innovative tile schematic.

IOW, whereas before in the old design, you occasionally had 3 fronting hexes with 2 units each = 6 attacking units.

Now, you potentially have 6 fronting tiles of 1 unit each = 6 attacking units.

Hmmmmm. Similar WW2-GS game, same difference?

Well, almost.

Here you don't have to paw through cumbersome stacks and then go to the next one and try to keep in mind what was in those other stacks.

A "4-6" luking underneath there somewhere? ;)

________________

OK. There will be other, unique challenges.

One challenge: as Moon & Steve have fairly and openly requested... how about some innovative solutions to what might be problematical areas?

Might not be many problems, either, but this way Hubert can take any and all suggestions into serious account and give them due consideration. :cool:

[KDG]

Now, you potentially have 6 fronting tiles of 1 unit each = 6 attacking units.
Wouldn't it be five? Six attacks requires at least one rear attack as well(rear back or rear diagonals)

A) Defender facing down. Attack from front, two front diagonals, two sides. 5 attacks.


A D A
A A A

B) Defender facing bottom left corner. Attack from front diagonal, two side diagonals, and two front sides. 5 attacks.

A
A D
A A A

[Exel]

Okay, I stand corrected, 5 attacks it is. Still, it feels like a bit too much at least if we assume to combat system wont fundamentally change from SC1. Remember that in European Theatre you'd have to encircle a unit to get such odds.

[KDG]

Still, it feels like a bit too much at least if we assume to combat system wont fundamentally change from SC1. Remember that in European Theatre you'd have to encircle a unit to get such odds. The big change is that air has been reduced, thus the need for more attacks on ground units.

Hexes with stacking may have been considered, but they must have decided it looked cleaner with no stacking, thus the move to tiles and more ground attacks that way.

[Donnerwetter]

Originally posted by KDG:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Still, it feels like a bit too much at least if we assume to combat system wont fundamentally change from SC1. Remember that in European Theatre you'd have to encircle a unit to get such odds. The big change is that air has been reduced, thus the need for more attacks on ground units.

Hexes with stacking may have been considered, but they must have decided it looked cleaner with no stacking, thus the move to tiles and more ground attacks that way. </font>[/QUOTE]Stacking with a realistic limitation would still be the best solution.

Max stacking: 2 armies + 1 corp +1 airfleet
also armies should be able to be split with a reduction in readiness

It is basically not logic to not be able to protect the airfleet with a corp on the same hex. I know this was solved very nicely in HICOM: if an airunit was attacked without protection it would flee with a hughe hit in readiness and also in strenght. I know that the airunits in SC1 has its own "defence" but it is not the best solution if we want realism in the game. Also in HICOM the airunits only made an impact on the readiness ot the units attacked thus making it take larger hits from groundunits or even to flee if hit hard enough. All in all... very realistic.

[Exel]

The only case where I would endorse stacking would be a mix of different unit types, ie. you could stack a ground unit with an air unit but not two ground units or two air units. That would solve issues like Malta and potential problems with Pacific theatre maps while still keeping the system simple.

I still refuse to accept the arguments that moving to tiles was a necessity because on a straight front you could only attack with 2:1 odds. First of all, that is actually more realistic, and secondly, there are plenty of other ways of solving the hard-breakthrough-issue than moving to tiles. Increasing the effectiveness of tanks for one, as I've already mentioned several times in this thread.

[Ron]

Excel, how is only attacking with 2:1 odds somehow more realistic? Western doctrine in WWII called for 3:1 odds in order for the attack to have a minimum chance of success. The Soviets called for a minimum of 6:1, with 10:1(!) being the ideal. And there are a lot of documented operations where this is exactly what they did.

Just curious.


Ron

[aka_tom_w]

Hi Steve

I have been reading virtually all of the posts in this forum just because I am curious.

Thanks Steve for the clarity on that issue:
" The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that."

(for the Rest of you, I am a hard Core Mac user and I LOVE wargames and there aren't so many good ones for OS X :( )

So the final decision on this hex vs. tile thing is NOT A BIG deal for me BUT it seams to be a REALLY BIG DEAL for some folks here.

I would like to comment and say I found CMBO (the FIRST Combat Mission game) a TRULY refreshing wargame (that ran on a Mac) that DID NOT HAVE HEXES!!!
For me this was a breakthrough and my friends (PC guys and hard core board game wargamers (since Tactics II) thought I was CRAZY! They all said Bah!!! look!! its NOT a wargame because it has NO hexes! How can it be any good!!??

BUT CMBO was GREAT and it was new and refreshing because you DID NOT SEE THE TILES OR THE Hexes! you would just see
the land forms and the units and the buildings and trees and lakes and rivers. So unless you wanted to "play" with the map editor you never needed to see the hexes or the tiles or the grid.
Now for my friends this was TOTAL CRAP because you could NOT COUNT hexes and figure out how far that tank you go up the road in your first move (I said it DID NOT matter becaue the other player would move simulateaneoulsy WHAT!!?? sacrilege!
they cried "I can't figure out how far my tank will go because there are no hexes and I can't Move FIRST??? What kind of a crappy war game is this.??
(sadly I gave up on them and had to find NEW friends on this board who were converts to the new CMBO way!)

They are of course still my real life friends but I don't bother
trying to play CMxx with them anymore.

SO what is this rant all about?

new idea is not always WRONG and what if this game (SC2) could be played like CMxx without ANY tiles or hexes showing?

is that doable? is it desirable?
Why do you need to see tiles or hexes?
is it possible to plot movement without tiles or hexes
with the game telling you (somehow) when the unit cannot move any further?

I don't know the answers to any of this but IMHO hexes are some craxy concept or idea that is hold over from board games THAT WERE SUPERIMPOSED ON THE REALITY of the map board to measure distances MOSTLY. SO why not let the computer measure ALL the distance and just say YES or NO you can go that far or you can't go that far, so all you need to see is the map, the land forms and the units?

For Me CMxx was a break through in this regard, THERE ARE NO HEXES and it is the BEST small unit tactical WWII wargame I have ever played!! Bar NONE! the game is GREAT and it works fine without hexes.

OK OK

SC2 is NOT small unit tactics it is a strategy game but why not let the game code and the programers and the computer figure out all the relationships in distance and have it so there are no visible or tiles or hexes "littering" up the map?? (maybe that is NOT doable or desirable but I am open to the possibilty of looking at it)

NOW granted, this is a radical concept because players seem to NEED tiles so badly (for what reason I DON'T know and will never understand) that there are ALL kinds of terrain mods for CMxx that put the tiles back ON the land forms so that players can superimpose their "tiled version of the distance measuring safety net" (somewhat akin to training wheels on a bicyle IMHO) BACK on to what was stunningly lovely scenary and a really nice looking map before they modified it all and messed it up with a crude vestidigial measure tool (tiles) left over from a board game when there was NO other way to measure distances. Maybe this won't work for something like SC2 on that grand scale for a strategy game but why not let the designers fool around with the idea (if it is workable and I have NO idea if it is??) that you don't need to see the tiles but they are there and all the units know where they but you the player can't see them? (sound craxy? Well it WORKED GREAT IN CMxx!!)

I admit I too would love to play a GOOD (NO make that a GREAT) grand global domination strategy game (on a MAC OS X of course) that DOES NOT have hexes or tiles showing so that all I see is the 3D isomorphic units (which I like) and the land forms and rivers lakes and oceans. I think that is doable and look forward to something cool llike that that we can maybe some day play on an OS X Mac!

(Rant Off)

if that made any sense.

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Alexanderthe_OK ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Thanks for those screen shots and explanation Hubert. I was so disappointed to see the change from hexes to tiles and those screen shots suggest the game isnt going to be any good at all. I really was hoping for a game with the bugs fixed and not this one which I probably wont bother buying. Hopefully there will be enough other people thinking the same as me and we'll get a SC3 with hexes Thanks for reminding me that I missed making a very important point. It is ironic that the people arguing against tiles keep talking about how Hubert did this for no other reason than looks. Ironic because looks are exactly how some of you are judging the game. Looking at screenshots and concluding that the game won't be fun is a pretty poor way to judge a game. Especially when it is coming from a game designer who has proven to you that he can deliver something you really like.

I know that most of you don't understand how utterly disrespectful and insulting your outbursts are, but they are indeed. Hubert has done nothing to deserve such behavior and I ask that you reconsider your positions into a more "wait and see" approach instead of convincing yourselves it sucks before you've played it. And if you can't, perhaps your time might be better spent having different discussions about different games instead? The decision to go with tiles is final, and no amount of abusing Hubert will change that.

Steve </font>[/QUOTE]

[ April 26, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Ron]

Originally posted by Exel:
I still refuse to accept the arguments that moving to tiles was a necessity because on a straight front you could only attack with 2:1 odds. First of all, that is actually more realistic, and secondly, there are plenty of other ways of solving the hard-breakthrough-issue than moving to tiles. Increasing the effectiveness of tanks for one, as I've already mentioned several times in this thread. No explanation of your comment Exel?


Ron

[ColumbusOHGamer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Now that it is clear to all that SC2 will be tile based, hopefully those who disagree can be polite and respectful enough to withhold judgement until they have at least played the demo.If I'm rude and disrespectful, will the demo get here faster to shut me up? :D

[Exel]

People please, stop comparing Civ3, Alpha Centauri or Combat Mission to SC. Just because they feature some other movement system than hexes doesn't make them comparable. They are totally different kind of games. You could just as well say that top-down view is better than everything else because Grand Prix Manager 2 had a top-down view. For the love of god...

Ron, I get your point, but situations where such odds occured where exceptions rather than a common rule. And such odds hardly ever appeared on grand strategic corps, let alone army level, but instead in limited tactical concentrations. Plus, in the combat system of SC 10:1 odds would mean a certain defeat for the defender, which was not nearly always the case irl. As long as SC doesn't feature morale as a potentially beneficial combat modifier, I don't believe the system can ever model realistic combat outcomes where an otherwise inferior side holds against or beats an overwhelming opponent.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Exel:

Ron, I get your point, but situations where such odds occured where exceptions rather than a common rule. And such odds hardly ever appeared on grand strategic corps, let alone army level, but instead in limited tactical concentrations. Plus, in the combat system of SC 10:1 odds would mean a certain defeat for the defender, which was not nearly always the case irl. As long as SC doesn't feature morale as a potentially beneficial combat modifier, I don't believe the system can ever model realistic combat outcomes where an otherwise inferior side holds against or beats an overwhelming opponent. I won't belabour the point, but you are mistaken when you say such odds were the exception and only occured at the tactical level. I would suggest looking at the Eastern Front from late '43 onwards and studying some of the operations the Red Army conducted. It was certain defeat for the defender and the limiting factor in most cases in the continuing offensives was supply and not heroic defense of an inferior opponent.


Ron

[Tigleth Pilisar]

Wow! This thread is a marathon read. Looks like the juice is flowing.

I find the most compelling tile arguement the addition of 2 more directions to move. More movement = more options = more strategies = more different games.

I think this has to be coupled with Excel & KDG's proofs about movement - diagonal movement takes 3 points and adjacent movement takes 2. Otherwise, distances are distorted.

The most compelling hex arguement is really the circle arguement or the "beeshive" arguement ;) . It sounds funny, but hexes best reflect the reality of distances and logistics.

The distance between the center of every hex to the center of every other hex is the same. And the perimeter touching each of the six hexsides is the same. Theoretically, a "unit" can be envisioned with roughly the same formation at whichever hexside it is attacking or defending from. Because distances between hexes and overlapping perimeters of hexes are equal, hexes best reflect the reality of movement distance.

By contrast a square actually only touches 4 other squares, not 8. You could argue that the squares do not have independent borders and therefore the squares that are at a diagonal do share one point with each other.

But the logical problem (at least conceptually in one's mind) is that the distance for 4 of the choices from the center of the square to the center of the adjacent square is one distance and the distance for the other 4 choices is 1.47x that distance. This is not really a problem of course, because movement points can be altered to reflect this, but mentally, many of us would like distance choices or increments to be equal (but then we are likely willing to adjust movement for terrain type anyway).

The other logical problem is that 4 of the choices share a large common square-side, and 4 of the choices (diagonals) share only one point. Its tough to imagine the reality of this game-imposed rule. Are soldiers moving on a diagonal marching single file? And are those moving on a square-side proceeding under a wide formation? And what about supply and zone of control?

For me, hexes create more realistic atmosphere. Movement is equal and hexsides are equal. But then perhaps tiles distort geography, distance and troop formation, but perhaps make for a better game because of more variations? And questions of supply and zone of control and breakthrough can be established by the programmer, and as long as they make some sense and are fun, why quibble?

I think it is our role as customers to put forward our opinion, but Hubert's role to discern which of those views matter. I'll bet he only gets 1 good idea from every 100 ideas put forth by us, but even at those odds, isn't putting forth ideas worth it? And ultimately, I think this forum is more for us (customer) than the programmer anyway - that is we learn more than the developer does.

All the best in game development, and keep up the discussions!

[pzgndr]

I think this has to be coupled with Excel & KDG's proofs about movement - diagonal movement takes 3 points and adjacent movement takes 2. Otherwise, distances are distorted.
I made one post to this thread several weeks ago agreeing with this idea. It would resolve all complaints about tiles. Click on a unit and see a circular (well, oval for our isometric map) movement radius highlighted. Simple. And the map grid can be toggled on/off if you don't want to look at it.

For the record, I'm also an old hexagon boardgamer and have grown to love and respect and cherish the hexagon. But, as Steve tried to point out, it's not the be-all end-all and games like Combat Mission and TacOps and HTTR with no hexes in sight are active on my harddrive. TOAW by contrast, with hexes, is not. Why? Gameplay. That's the bottom line.

Here's another perspective. My first "look" at SC2 was not a screenshot at all. It was a draft design document. I got fired up about all of the gameplay improvements before ever seeing a tile. I admit I was caught off guard a bit when I did see the tiles, but I accept the design decision and I'm moving forward. Others should do the same. It's just not worth fussing about.

I expect after you play several games and get into the heat of battle moving units around, fighting desperate fights on the Russian Front and elsewhere, the issue of tiles will become insignificant. There are simply too many other great features about SC2 that will captivate you and keep you coming back for "one more game." :cool:

[Retributar]

I like ' Marklavar's ' comment..this is what TOAW used...and it worked out just fine.

'marklavar' originally posted April 15, 2004 07:11 PM
-"I don't like the new tiles. Why not just stick with the hexes and introduce stacking? This would seem to me to be more historically realistic".

Of course in TOAW...the more units you stacked in one hex the less-effective they became per unit, what i mean by that is they lose more and more of their percentage of their hit-power as more units stack.

Stacked Units also became Fatigued more rapidly as well...so i personally prefer hexes and stacking...but am willing to give tiles the chance to prove themselves.

Also...when a stack is attacked...they will take more than their normal-regular percentage of losses per unit...so a price would be extracted on offense and defense for stacking units.

[ May 18, 2004, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Sgt. Emren]

I don't like the new tiles. Why not just stick with the hexes and introduce stacking? This would seem to me to be more historically realistic Really. I can't see how hexes and stacking should be "more historically realistic" than tiles and no stacking. In fact, I fail to see how any of the two even resemble history, let alone realism.

Give Battlefront credit, they have done some very innovative things in the past with CM, so I'm willing to wait and see before I pass any judgement...

[Retributar]

Whats the matter with you!. This game has one division per 50 mile front!...im sure if one really wanted too they could put 10 divisions in that 50 X 50 mile box. Why should it not be realistic?. your argument is just one of preference...and nothing else.

[Sgt. Emren]

My point is that neither hexes nor tiles are realistic or historical (or stacking, for that matter). If you want to discuss mileage per division, then fine, but that is ultimately irrelevant in the hexes/tiles debate.

You cannot argue that hexes should be preferred over tiles because it's more "historical and realistic". That is also an argument of preference...and nothing else.

[Retributar]

This is a good discussion 'Sgt. Emren'...so im going to ask you...how many men were crammed into the Falaise Pocket?. How many men were at the battle of Waterloo? What happens at Stalingrad when the German lines are reduced to a pocket...how many men were in that small area?
-------------------------------------------------

-I'll start here: FALAISE POCKET-
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/70-7_17.htm

"It suddenly became apparent to the Allied commanders that the Germans in Normandy, by attacking westward toward Avranches, had pushed their heads into a noose. The bulk of their forces-two field armies amounting to more than l00,000 men-were west of a north-south line through Caen, Falaise, Argentan, Alencon, and le Mans. If the Canadians attacking from the north took Falaise and if the XV Corps attacking from the south took Alencon, thirty-five miles would separate the two Allied flanks and the Germans would be virtually surrounded."

---So in this case 100,000 German troops were virtually concentratred into a 35 X 35 mile Box/Tile!. If they couldn't STACK then what would you have them do in the game?...that they simply VAPORISE?. Yet...the majority of them managed to escape!.
-------------------------------------------------

-STALINGRAD POCKET:-
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/vaughan.html

On 22 November, the Russian pincers closed the ring near Kalach, thereby encircling Sixth Army in the land bridge between the Volga and the Don (Jukes, 1985:107). Some 250,000 German soldiers were trapped.


At STALINGRAD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad
The Axis powers lost about a quarter of their total manpower on the Eastern Front(Mine: Here at Stalingrad), and never recovered from the defeat. -Casualties:500,000 Axis (250,000 German & 250,000 German Allies).

Im going to keep looking for the actual size of this area, but i don't think this POCKET was larger than 50 X 50 miles!. If a rescue party were successful, some of these men might have been rescued. This to me...tantamounts to a sort of STACKING!.

So...according to YOU if we couldnt STACK then 90% of these forces would have immediately been written off!..."HISTORICAL-EVIDENCE" proves STACKING as VIABLE!.


http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/stalingrad/uranus.aspx

But as the Germans had 'CONCENTRATED'(STACKING!!!) their forces to hammer upon the city on a rather narrow front, the shape of their perimeter presented obvious possibilities.
Stalingrad was at the tip of a long salient, 25 miles deep and 40 miles wide at the base. The text-book solution would be to attack it's flanks and trap the Germans in a pocket.

-------------------------------------------------

So i only spent 15 minutes on the NET to bring this information up...i can bring up much much more...no-problem!. This shows that STACKING was REAL...and should be CONSIDERED!.
-------------------------------------------------

previously i posted &gt; May 17, 2004 06:30 PM

"...well...so i personally prefer hexes and stacking...but am willing to give tiles the chance to prove themselves."

[ May 20, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[J P Wagner]

While I must say that there have been some interesting posts in this thread, the poor horse has been beaten into an unrecognizable pile of goo........ :D

[Ron]

Retributar,

Correct me if I'm wrong but last I saw SC has Armies, Corps and Tank Groups, nary a Division to be found.


Ron

[Retributar]

You are correct 'Ron'...
http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/BARBAROS.html

1941: 'June 22. Operation BARBAROSSA begins. Over 3 million German soldiers and 3300 tanks cross the Russian border. The Wehrmarcht (German Army) is organized into three Army Groups .

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/oob.htm

-June 22, 1941

AXIS:

ARMY GROUP NORTH "Leeb"
29 Divisions including 3 Panzer Divisions and 2 Motorized

18th ARMY " Kuchler "

PANZER GRUPPE IV " Hoeppner "

16th ARMY " Busch "

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte I (Keller)

-------------------------------------------------

ARMY GROUP CENTRE (Bock)

49 Divisions including 9 Panzer, 6 Motorized and 1 Cav.

PANZER GRUPPE III (Hoth)

9th ARMY (Staruss)

4th ARMY (Kluge)

PANZER GRUPPE II (Guderian)

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte II (Kesserling)

-------------------------------------------------

ARMY GROUP SOUTH (Rundstedt)

42 Divisions including 5 Panzer and 3 Motorized

6th ARMY (Reichenau)

PANZER GRUPPE I (Kleist)

17th ARMY (Stulpnagel)

Rumanian 3rd ARMY

11th ARMY (Schobert)

Rumanian 4th ARMY

LUFTWAFFE

Luftflotte IV
-------------------------------------------------

One of the MAIN-REASONS why i brought up STACKING is to deal with a situation where you are forced to retreat,...and behind you is more of your own armies blocking your retreat-path.

What happens to you in this game...do you just DISENTIGRATE?...thats what happened in SC1. But, really that should-not happen...one should be able to retreat through your own lines...especially if the STACKING-LIMIT has not been exceeded. Here is one reason why i like using a STACKING-LIMIT.

So what exactly are we dealing with as Unit-Sizes?...3-4 Divisions per game unit?...if so...there is plenty of room to retreat another 6 - 7 Divisions through that one Unit!.

Infact...a 50 X 50 mile Tile should be able to hold 20 Divisions...though it would not ordinarily be a good idea!. Hoever for retreat puposes...there is no reason i can see that says it can't be done!.

[ May 21, 2004, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

If you want to have a discussion about stacking, create another topic.

The generic Corp in SC has four (4) divisions.

You have to understand what stacking is trying to represent, which means you need to realize what the different frontages for WWII units where.

A "typical" WWII division defended an areas of about five (5) to eight (8) miles. It attacked in roughly half of that space.

With a understanding of the above, you can see why the design of SC did not include stacking.

However, as I mentioned earlier, this needs to be in a new topic if you want to discuss it.

[Ron]

I understand what you are saying Retributar, but I can't help thinking you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. SC, obviously, is a 'beer&pretzel' type of wargame, pardon the over-used cliche, not a true wargame. SC takes certain liberties, which while making it very entertaining to play, don't exactly it make it representative of history.

If Hubert was to seriously try to make SC 'more' of a wargame, he would have to revamp the whole system to make it coherent and then it really wouldn't be SC anymore. Take your example of whole 'Armies' just being 'wiped - out', well in SC we can just rebuild them and then more if necessary, no problem, depending on MPPs and other concerns/priorities of course. It works overall for the game of SC. Also in history, relatively few Armies were totally destroyed granted yet the same 'MPP' concerns were still there. The Germany Army on the eve of invading Russia stood at 3,000,000+ troops, it wiped out more Russian troops than it lost, yet Germany still fell. Once at war, Germany's troop strength steadily eroded and they never did reach their initial starting level again, even after 4 years and total mobilization! On the other hand the Russian Army made good its losses and continued to grow steadily.

Now if you look at this in perspective, you see the overriding theme is attrition. Not whether whole Armies were wiped out or not as being realistic, but if you have the resources to make good your losses and then some. That is what WWII was about and what SC captures to some extent.

Every game designer starts out with a 'design concept' which envisions the 'type' of game he wants to create. Details are good to add flavour and challenge and yes to capture some historical 'feel', yet not at the expense of the overall design. SC is fun, simple yet challenging, has a historical flavour and plays quickly IMO. Yes, there aren't retreats in SC, but does that one aspect, taken at face value very unrealistic, detract from the overall game that SC is? I don't think so because SC does very well at what it is, a simple and fun yet challenging game.

If I want more nitty-gritty detail that tries to capture a more realistic feel then I play a different game. For example for the Eastern Front, there is 'Russo-German War', a huge wargame covering the whole war. It has details upon details and tries to be very realistic, which it captures, especially the time to play - with one turn taking up to 2-3 hours to make!! An extreme yes and no doubt there are shades(and games) inbetween, but get the point.

That said if Hubert implements retreat rules in SC2, while still maintaining the virtues of SC1, then I am all for it. Same with tiles or hexes, it really isn't important apart from it complementing the gameplay itself. Time will tell...


Ron

[pzgndr]

the poor horse has been beaten into an unrecognizable pile of goo........ No horse is too dead to beat. tongue.gif

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Ron:

If Hubert was to seriously try to make SC 'more' of a wargame, he would have to revamp the whole system to make it coherent and then it really wouldn't be SC anymore. Or,
You might have a new! game that retains the very best of the old and adds in some truly innovative schematics that would allow the game to be more, ummmmmm, exacting in strategic and tactical decision making.

The essential point also being that you can "edit" the new game to suit your own inclinations, making it as basic, or as Xtra complex as you care to.

As you say Ron, time will tell, but... I am quite confident that SC2 will still be loads of fun, and ALSO a true and a lasting challenge for all those who also like deeper, and more involved Economic, Diplomatic and purely hard-corps Military considerations. :cool:

[Ron]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:
Or, You might have a new! game that retains the very best of the old and adds in some truly innovative schematics that would allow the game to be more, ummmmmm, exacting in strategic and tactical decision making.

The essential point also being that you can "edit" the new game to suit your own inclinations, making it as basic, or as Xtra complex as you care to.

As you say Ron, time will tell, but... I am quite confident that SC2 will still be loads of fun, and ALSO a true and a lasting challenge for all those who also like deeper, and more involved Economic, Diplomatic and purely hard-corps Military considerations. :cool: Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not against complexity! as long as it serves its purpose, however the biggest charm of SC was its inherent simplicity combined with its challenging gameplay. I guess what I was going on about was there is room for all sorts of games but there have been precious few with the qualities of SC. I am not really afraid that SC2 will contain a myriad of details bogging down gameplay like HOI for example. Everything you and others have reported has all sounded very positive and will only add to the gameplay I'm sure.


Ron

[Retributar]

I found 'HOI' hard and difficult to learn at first...but, once i had learned how to play the game...it was easy after that!. It's complexity didn't bog-down the game for me after the initial learning curve was passed!.

I prefer deep, complex, realistic, historically accurate games myself!...but, i too, also need 'Beer and Pretzel' games (Like 'Empire-Deluxe' in the days of Old)...for the times when im not up to the effort of an involved game...or for when i need a change of pace!. There's always room for games like that!.

In the end...i don't really care whether 'HUBERT' uses Hexes or Tiles as long as it doesn't adversely affect the game. In fact im looking foward to seeing just what this 'Tile-System' can do!.

[ May 22, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Sgt. Emren]

Retributar,

As long as we can both agree to wait for the tiles, I really don't think we need to spend any more time debating this... smile.gif

I saw you mentioned TOAW... different game, different style, but far superior to SC in terms of realism. I love it. I also always liked the original Panzer General, and that game had no stacking... ;)

[fantomas]

How to send an image with a message on this forum, please? (Hum! I know: I am a little ignorant... :eek: )

I would like to put an image bmp. to show the icons that j'ai manufactured (projects of mods for SC2 when it leaves: "Soldies of Fire, "14-18, barbarossa, Napoleon, etc...)

thank you for the information :rolleyes: ( I saw it had images there on the discussion "Tiles gold hex")

[Bruce70]

Been a while since I posted on this (Battlefront) forum, but since I feel a need to procrastinate (from writing my thesis) I will now.

SC2 will probably be a great game, and I will assess it when a demo is available. (Loved SC1 BTW)

However, if it is successful, it will not be because of the change to tiles. None of the reasons for changing to tiles really adds up to much. All of the improvements, supposedly made possible by tiles, could have been applied to hexes. For example:

Larger map size: Hubert himself has said that this is nonsense (though he didn't put it quite that strongly). Anybody approaching this subject with an open mind can see that. The fact that some people blindly agreed (or thought they agreed) with Hubert clearly demonstrate the sycophantic attitude common on these forums.

3 units attacking front: Actually, with an attack range of 1 tile, only one unit can attack the front with a square grid. The only reason 3 units can attack in the system proposed by Hubert is that he has increased the attack range to sqrt(2)=~1.41 tiles. You can achieve exactly the same thing with hexes by increasing the attack range to sqrt(3)=~1.73 (In the context of this thread, you might call that a squirt attack for hexes).

Isometric view: No reason this cant be done with hexes.

Programming difficulties: While there may have been some efficieny issues in the early days of computer games, in todays world hexes have a negligible effect on performance. From a programming viewpoint, hexes are a very minor annoyance. Only a very lazy programmer (which I know Hubert is not) would make a decision on this basis. The one possible programming reason is that Hubert has found an isometric engine that he likes and it uses a tile system. If that is the case then I understand 100%, it is a pretty big task for a one man team to write his own engine, and if you are still using Eiffel then I guess your options are limited Hubert.

If there is any argument for tiles that I have missed then please let me know.

As for arguments against tiles, they are mostly that it increases complexity slightly, and this is something that we are told SC tries to avoid. While this added complexity is not a "game-breaker", I still find it difficult to understand the decision. For example:

Extra complications with movement to allow diagonal moves: 2 APs, 1.5 APs, 2:3 APs or 5:7 APs?

Extra complications with spotting ranges: Same as above.

Extra complications with fronts: This one is a little more subtle. If a diagonal front is allowed then you have to introduce extra ZOC rules, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it is a slight added complication. Furthermore, with this rule you can now build a zig-zag front with the same number of units it takes to build a straight front. Or put another way, a diagonal front covers 1.4 times the distance of a vertical or horizontal front. Hopefully the diagonal will run N-S, but even so this will lead to strange artificial tactics, and IMO this is the worst feature of a tile system.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about stacking (Probably should put it in another thread). Firstly, this is not necesarily a good solution to the static front problem. Secondly, I have not heard a good argument not to include stacking. It does not have to increase the game complexity at all. The stack does not have to be literally a stack, simply put two units side-by-side in the hex. Force concentration is one of the fundamental principles of warfare, to not allow this is quite strange to say the least. Although, I must say that it didn't really bother me in SC1, so again it's not a game-breaker for me I just don't understand the arguments against it. The same could be said for a retreat rule, but I don't believe Hubert has said one way or another whether that is in or out.

[ July 14, 2004, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

[Retributar]

I again agree with the aformentioned argument as i have agreed with a similiar argument a couple of months ago!.

[SeaMonkey]

Bruce70, I like that idea...."Put two units side by side in one hex/tile". That creates all sorts of combined arms bonus possibilities.....and isn't that what "Blitzkrieg" was all about?

[With Clusters]

The only point of having stacking would be if multiple units were able to execute attack commands simultaniously (which I wouldn't mind seeing, but which I don't think is going to happen), or you wanted to allow a defender to get a serious defensive bonus (very serious in a game where attacking units can only go one at a time against effectively "doubled" units). If those options aren't on the table, no point in it. Might as well just make more and smaller "tiles"...

[ev]

Bruce 70,

You seem to know more than a bit about game programming. Instead of Eiffel, what game engine would you use for a game like this?

[Hubert Cater]

Yes Bruce brings up some interesting points for discussion for sure smile.gif

Just some background on Eiffel (and to clarify), it is just a programming language much like Visual C++, JAVA etc., while freely available game engines would be something separate, although most likely written in C or C++.

For me using Eiffel is not a problem, and while it may not be for every game programmer it was in fact desired. For one, it was the language I'm most familiar with, and secondly there are all the inherent advantages (my opinion of course ;) ) over some of the other languages, like Design By Contract, Garbage Collection, true Multiple Inheritance, smartly designed development environment etc.

Admittedly there are drawbacks, one of which (and this was a problem for consideration way back when SC1 coding started) is that there are not many (in fact probably none) code samples available in Eiffel for game programming. I probably still have the only ones set up on line for an open source project I started a few years ago. I believe this is what Bruce is partially referring to when he discusses game engines.

Now it's not a huge problem, since in the end, as with any language, you can interpret generic algorithms, pseudo code and so on to fit your language of choice.

In fact, this is exactly what I ended up doing, whereby, the entire game engines for SC1 and SC2 were both written from scratch, in Eiffel, but using many of the code samples found on the net for path finding, movement, map generation and so on. The benefit though (of sticking with Eiffel) is that while SC2 has moved to tiles much of the existing framework for hexes in SC1 could be reused (due to the inherent similarities) without too much of a headache ;)

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by ev:
Bruce 70,

You seem to know more than a bit about game programming. Instead of Eiffel, what game engine would you use for a game like this? I don't claim to know too much about game programming, but I have dabbled enough to have a lot of respect for Hubert. I believe Hubert pretty much answered your question about Eiffel. Eiffel is a very nice truly object oriented pragramming language, not a game engine. I haven't done any programming in Eiffel but I had thought that Hubert might be using someone elses engine written in Eiffel. Apparently that is not the case, which means I still don't understand the tile decision, so I'll just have to wait for the demo. smile.gif

[afrika31]

wow longest thread i have ever seen. So ok why are people against tiles? if you can attack with more force why whould that be a bad thing? if you can move more freely why would that be a bad thing?

[Exel]

Originally posted by afrika31:
wow longest thread i have ever seen. So ok why are people against tiles? if you can attack with more force why whould that be a bad thing? if you can move more freely why would that be a bad thing? The main reason, I think, is the looks. Combined to other gameplay issues of course. It makes the battlefield look more blocky, since each tile has just 4 corners instead of 6. Tiles also add some complexity in the form of ZOC rules, movement costs, etc.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Exel:
The main reason, I think, is the looksWell to me at least, that is the least important reason.

The only thing that concerns me is the extra complexity of movement, spotting and ZOC that you mention. These issues will need careful attention if tiles are used.

[KDG]

Three or four plays through the demo and I believe we will forget about this tile/hex debate.

[Lioneyes]

Maybe he's using tiles instead of hexes because the tiles are needed to interface with the new Strategic Command: Pacific Theatre, which will be out next year. :D

[afrika31]

we can all hope lioneyes!!

[Liam]

Give me Tiles any day. So long as the game is kewl and rocks. Hexes and Tiles aren't sooooo different, as with territorial/province setups. I remeber some of the old SSI Wargames were Tilelike and I prefered it. In the end you've only got so many directions you can attack in. It's a setup. Provinces would really rock, but that would be such a complexity to create that it would take years to design the gameboard.

I hope Hubert doesn't allow Air to kill Ground units, as far as retreat rules are concerned. I will not every play SC2 in a scenario where that is possible.

[Kuniworth]

I have to say guys that Hubert is da man and sc2 will rock. Now let's move on to new discussions and suggestions while there are time left.

[Bruce70]

How very strange that you should say that 6 days after we "moved on". :confused:

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by Bruce70:
How very strange that you should say that 6 days after we "moved on". :confused: Well obviously you are still here...

[John C]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:
I have to say guys that Hubert is da man and sc2 will rock. Now let's move on to new discussions and suggestions while there are time left. I would say that Hubert has proven he can make a good game. He understands the strengths and weaknesses of his creation and he has rationale reasons for wanting to make a change in the next iteration. I have historically preferred hexes but I intend to buy this game. I trust his judgement and I support attempts to learn new lessons. They won't all work out but I've bought many wargames in my life and I expect to buy many more, so if we learn one or two things in each iteration over the long term it is a good thing for games and for all of us gamers. I believe in supporting the people who bring us good games so that they can continue to make a living doing it and continue to bring us additional new and better games. But also, I suspect this game will be fun. And whether I enjoy it for a couple of weeks and decide it didn't hit the mark or whether I enjoy it for years to come, either way it will provide many hours of entertainment and be a bargain in terms of cost per hour of enjoyment. In that way computer games, and especially complex games that require a while to master, remain one of the best entertainment bargains available.

[blackbellamy]

So sad. Just came across a couple of Hubert's discarded hexes while jogging....

http://www.starship-enterprises.net/Domes/DomeHouse/HemiHexes.jpg

[Wake]

Since 1980, i've played many boardgames and wargames.

one (weird) of them was even based on a otcogon/square combination.

The grid in a wargame is only a placement/movement regulator, it is NOT a purpose in itself (we ain't playing chess).
The most transparent/instinctive system i've seen is hexes.

Squares are confusing, 3d graphics add nothing.
Wrong way.

[waltero]

Not sure what to think about this. Looks good on the board. Why try to re-invent the wheel?
I think Tactics II was tile. Really does not sound like a good idea :confused: Hope it works :rolleyes:

[Scrogdog]

Well, this topic was quite a read. smile.gif

Hey, I played Tactics II. It was awesome. smile.gif

But I just wanted to chime in here because I think one important point about hexes has been overlooked. My apologies if I missed it.

A very important consideration in any hex-based system is the coarse of the grain so-to speak. On one axis, East/West in SC1's case, you can bring two units to bear along a line. Ah, but in an attack towards the South, you can bring three. I remember James Dunningan disussing this issue in some book he wrote on game design.

Tiles would seem to solve this little anomoly.