Looks Very Disapointing

[CraigRS]

I have been a lurker on this board for over a year and have been waiting for SC2 as long as anyone else but I have to say I'm not impressed at all. I play SC just about everyday (Don't tell my boss) and can't seem to get enough of it. Maybe that's why I felt the way I did when I saw the screen shots but it looks like a different game with the same basic premis rather than a sequel. The graphics look like something to draw the kids in when the core audience is much more sophisticated (So I think, lol). I like some of the options such as diplomacy but I just can't get over the loss of stuff like a hex based enviroment or a top down prospective. Why do I need to see a Russian soldier holding a flag or a city skyline? Is that supposed to draw me in? If it is maybe I'm just missing something.

I guess I just wanted SC1 with a map of the enitire world and some of the additions to game play but it is going to be hard for me to adjust to the graphics. I think somethimes with a game like this they try to broaden the apeal to a wider range of gamers but they also seem to sometimes forget who got them as far as they are. I just hope it plays better than it looks but I'm going to have to pass until I can play a demo.

This isn't meant as a flame to anyone just voicing my sadness on what should have been a great night.

Craig

[Marky]

it looks great to me :D

[Panzer39]

I think you are right about the graphics meant to draw more people, but I don't think anything is wrong with that if the substance is still there. If anything I think the game sounds deeper than the first. I will miss the old one's looks, but that's prob why I'll leave it installed for a while. Hopefully we will get a world wide SC. Or at least a few good Pacific maps out of this one.

[jon_j_rambo]

CraigRS --- Very interesting comments. Playability is King......but if Hubert has upgraded the graphics AND the playability, then we're in for a fun ride.

We shall see!

[Comrade Trapp]

You know, pretty much all of the features mentioned on that website are things the SC community has suggested at one point or another since we started discussing the possibility of SCII over a year ago.

I think Hubert has done a fantastic job at taking our thoughts into consideration and he has made that clear from day 1.

In fact, I'll go as far as saying I think SCII is being created around what the fanbase wants.

There are very few places (if any) where you see that.

Comrade Trapp

[roman uk]

I find it hard to think what other features can be added...

It Seeems Hubert and co have done everything asked and more...

I for one will be keen to see the map of the world or other theatre (zoom up or down perspective) making the best of 252x252 has to offer. Admittedly, I like grand strategic best.
I await Sc2 with great anticipation.

[Desert Dave]

Disappointing?

No way.

Think of it like this...

The girl you dated all through High School went away to college and you missed her but went on with your life and then,

Years later... she came back! :cool:

A little older.
Bigger here and there.
Wiser in all the very best ways.

In ways that you used to dream about but
Never thought... could happen.

No more pony-tail or misty-pink lipstick.

NOW!

She is like a Tiger on the prowl! :eek:

And,
Asking around,
At all the neighbors' houses, and
Politely, but very determined...

Just for... you! :cool:

[DSEDS]

In the first look it reminded me on the (very) old Panzer General 2. smile.gif

http://www.games.sk/obr/PanzerGeneral2c.jpg

[Comrade Trapp]

Originally posted by DSEDS:
In the first look it reminded me on the (very) old Panzer General 2. smile.gif

http://www.games.sk/obr/PanzerGeneral2c.jpg Your right, it does.

That was a great game.... ;)

[gunnergoz]

Well, might wanna try it before you pan it. Give Hubert some time.

And of course, one can't please everybody, no matter what one does...

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by CraigRS:
Why do I need to see a Russian soldier holding a flag or a city skyline? While it may not make up for the switch from top down to perspective ;) , a toggable option also exists to play with military style unit icons:

Military Unit Icons (http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/pages/northamerica02.htm)

Hubert

[kossuth]

I agree with CraigRS. I do not like the layout
either. I WOULD prefer an option for 1D, but of course that will maybe too much programming.
Reading furhter in the forum that will not happen.

So far Craig and i are in miniority.

The layout worked for PG2, but will it do for SC2 that will have a lot more depth to it ?

I will buy the game without hesitation, but i think i really will have to work with my resistance and CIV/PG feeling.

I would like to have the "NATO"-symbols as a flagg/counter, not as Cubes.

But i think i am too boardgame conservative here.

[ April 14, 2004, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: kossuth ]

[Kelly's Heroes]

Personally, I like everything about the new look for SC2.

This is one wargame that will be fully customizable. I am sure there will be someone who will produce icons for the board game folks.

I think there will be something here for everyone.

Even non-wargamers will want to play this game.

My hat is off to Hubert for taking this bold step. New ideas are needed to be injected into the wargame genre to get more people interested.

This should have wide appeal.

[Moon]

CraigRS, visuals aside (indeed, it's an attempt to attract an even wider audience; but the visuals were designed with functionality first in mind), you *can* have a worldwide map in SC2. The map that comes with the European campaigns will only use a portion of the entire possible game map. I am sure that "World War" campaigns will come out days after release smile.gif

Martin

[JerseyJohn]

CraigRS

Your first post and you're sad? Cheer up, the thing still needs play tested and will probably be a lot different by the time it gets released.

If you're sad now it's fortunate you didn't see SC v1.01! :D *

*No offense, Hubert, I mean, it was a masterpiece even back then, but the six or so upgrades helped a little. ;)

[jon_j_rambo]

I'm going to trust Hubert, Moon, & MadMatt on this one. SC is awesome, never thought I'd be playing it today. I'm sure SC2 will be great too.

Battlefront guys, make sure you get plenty of sleep, don't stress out while making SC2. Have fun doing it.

Also, make yourself some money, sell it for at least $35. (Is $40-50 range realistic without hurting sales?) You should get repeat business already, while getting new players.

[jon_j_rambo]

Sir Jersey, you're right, those patches really changed the game. Heck, I didn't get serious about SC until TCP/IP patch was available.

Alot it different strokes for different folks, I didn't realize how many people care about the A.I.? I could careless about it. Human opponents is where the action is.

[RobRas]

As anonther lurker on this board for a long time I'm sorry to say that I have to agree with CraigRS on this one. The graphics are nice to be sure but the primary objective of the graphics in any boardgame is to present RELEVANT information as simple as possible. I don't need to see the Eiffel Tower - I know it's in Paris. I need to know it's a major city. I don't need to see icons for each country's tanks. I just need to know the type. One problem with isometric boards is that it often can be hard to evaluate the precise distance in hexes/movement points to this or that. Or the terrain of the hex for that matter. SC1 was - with its flaws - a model for simplicity and clean graphics with focus on the game itself. A true boardgaming classic. It seems to me that SCII makes the same mistake that a lot of other strategy games have done: Making the graphics work AGAINST the game by presenting a lot of unnecessary information. I know it's still early and the game can - and probably will - see many changes. And that it can only be fairly evaluated when the demo is out. I'm just a little disappointed: I had hoped that Battlefront would stay true to the classic boardgamer values and would have used all their ressources on the game machine itself - not on fancy graphics. Please make a 2D option with NATO symbols and simple map graphics. Please. Everything else about SCII looks magnificent.

[jon_j_rambo]

Looks like this is becoming the "Hot Topic". In another thread the "Square" map method (versus "Hex" map) shows a 3-prong front against a ground unit which is "in a line", does that screw up the combat a little? Will it be harder to hold a line? Or will a line not matter since the attacker can pick units off one at a time like Gary Cooper in Sgt. York?

[benpark]

I would like the option of having the 2d "counters" as well-although I think the visual extras are great.

One oft requested additions-stacking units-seems not to have made it in. This (and maybe the dropping of the hex grid-but I'll hold judgement on that 'till I've tried it) is really my only wish that seems to have not made it.

Looks good from here for the most part, though!

[jon_j_rambo]

It looks like the "old hex" gaming wargamers are coming out! My vote is beginning to go that way.

Somebody needs to make a boatload of the old classics on computer! Squad Leader, Civil War, Conquistador, etc.

[Moon]

RobRas - the resources used for making graphics are either used, or not used, but they cannot be used for something else. Fernando cannot help Hubert code the game smile.gif

Let me repeat - the visuals do not come at a price of gameplay. Hubert has been very careful about this. Functionality is first.

Martin

[JerseyJohn]

General Rambo

Same here, but in a different area, the addition of the Cape Horn arrows early (along with Suez), Hubert's correcting of those super carriers in port! :D

He's really responded to all the remarks we've given him during the past year and a half or so and prior to that when neither of us were in yet.

I have to agree that as a life-long hex man going back forty-five or so years of wargaming I do have a tendancy toward hexes over squares, but I'll trust Hubert's judgement on this. He makes a good point that in non-stacking situations it helps bring attacking force to hit a strong defensive area.

Craig-Rob

Martin is right, you're concentating on a cosmetic feature and saying little about the revised game as a whole. Sure, I've got my preferences for how it should look, but again I'm trusting Hubert's judgement, at least till I have the game running on my own computer ...

... and then I'll ask him why the hell he left Guatamala out of the damn thing! ;)

[RobRas]

Moon - I know. But still development hours/money are used making the game more expensive - or your profits lower :) Furthermore it will - probably - require more computer ressources to run perhaps making the game slower or creating graphic card problems. I know this is speculation and I don't want to be negative. But I really love SC partly because of it's clean and informative no-fuss graphics. But I know graphics is king and beautiful screenshots are great marketing tools. I'm just an old and oldfashioned wargamer believing that fancy graphics are fine for arcade and shooter games. But in true strategy games they have the tendency to obscure information. If I want to know what an ME262 looks like I'll check the web or a book. My jetfighter counter just needs to inform me of the type and/or stats. But I'll just close my eyes and cross my fingers in the hope that you will include a 2D map and simple counters as an option.

[kossuth]

Originally posted by RobRas:
But I'll just close my eyes and cross my fingers in the hope that you will include a 2D map and simple counters as an option. HALLELULJA

[RobRas]

JJ - "Everything else about SCII looks magnificent" was the last sentence in my first post. I do believe that a lot of the extra featuers look great and a lot of the SC comunity's wishes seem to have been integrated. I have nothing but praise for this. Great piece of work by Hubert.

But when I look at the screenshots of the map and try to determine how many hexes are between Helsinki and Leningrad...well, the best I can come up with is a guesstimate. I know there will probably be a grid to make this easier but the only point - as I can see - of these refined graphics must be to make the game more marketable? Does anyone in this forum feel that seeing three small 3D men instead of a simple infantry icon will increase his or her enjoyment of the game? After the first couple of times? Well, perhaps. And perhaps I'm just getting old...

[JerseyJohn]

RobRas

You had several excellent posts -- too good to single out the things I agreed with, so I hit the part I felt was the main point of contention.

Sorry for the confusion, when there's a lot of material in a thread that tends to be my style.

I'll say right now, though, that I also prefer easy to read displays, with units I can identify at a glance. I agree with what you're saying, a lot of it looks downright faggy and sissy stuff I'd be ashamed to show my beer drinking friends, Hubert always starts out that way and from there he gets more rugged. :D

I'm sure he'll put a 2-D in there for guys with our preference.

-- Okay, pretty sure. ;)

[ April 14, 2004, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by RobRas:
Does anyone in this forum feel that seeing three small 3D men instead of a simple infantry icon will increase his or her enjoyment of the game? After the first couple of times? Well, perhaps. And perhaps I'm just getting old... Not for you and me but maybe it will attract new gamers to sc and make the communty stronger. Thus strenghten the game for future patches etc

[jon_j_rambo]

Kuni --- Regardless of position, your comment doesn't make logical sense. Make something to attract, which will help the future & not the here & now?

"Experience is what you get, when you didn't get, what you wanted"

[Exel]

The new graphics look just fine to me. I mean, come on, in a game like this the gfx are highly secondary anyway. And they are certainly an improvement over SC1.

The only thing that amazes me in a negative way about SC2 is that they gave up hexes. :(

[JerseyJohn]

Yeah, but I think the idea was that it would be good to have a tobble so you could use a 2-D display instead with standard map symbols. I'd also like that -- often it's hard for me to focus on 3-D displays where a lot of pieces are crowded together. I don't like that in chess programs.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
Kuni --- Regardless of position, your comment doesn't make logical sense. Make something to attract, which will help the future & not the here & now?
What I say was that 3D-units wont bring me and others to buy the game, we don't care about that. But perhaps it will attract new people into sc, which normally does'nt play BF-games or wargames at all.
Therefore 3D-units is a smart move.

[RobRas]

Quote by JJ: "...:a lot of it looks downright faggy and sissy stuff I'd be ashamed to show my beer drinking friends, Hubert always starts out that way and from there he gets more rugged".

LOL smile.gif Yeah, let's hope that. I really want SCII to be the truly great strategic WWII wargame it could be. Based on the excellent foundation of SC1 and with respect for serious and dedicated gamers.

[Exel]

Yeah, let's all remember it's still a WIP. Sure some of the unit gfx look rather crude and unfinished, but that's probably because they still are. tongue.gif SC2 wont be coming out before September this year, so there's plenty of time for improvements and stuff.

[pzgndr]

Please make a 2D option with NATO symbols and simple map graphics. NATO symbols are an option. And like SC1, the bitmap graphics are fully editable.

I'll admit that I also expressed some concern about the "eye-candy" upgrades. But after a couple months now of messing around with the editor, the new graphics are growing on me.

If you really don't like them, it's always possible to go back and edit in the old SC1 graphics or something more plain. I doubt if many folks will do that though, once they get into it. And there is a younger crowd of potential customers out there so as a marketing decision this isn't such a terrible idea.

Don't forget the game mechanics under the hood that make SC1 such an addictive game will remain and be improved upon in SC2. It's the gameplay that really matters. Once we all get into the heat of battle moving and shooting and trying to win the game, a lot of these very minor concerns about "looks" will evaporate.

[RobRas]

Posted by pzgndr: "And there is a younger crowd of potential customers out there so as a marketing decision this isn't such a terrible idea".

I know and I agree. It's probably a great marketing idea. It will likely end up looking like all the other strategic game titles out there - Panzer General, CIV, Empires etc. I just hoped that at least one company dared to be different tongue.gif

[J P Wagner]

TalonSoft's series of games such as East Front and West Front, allowed you to toggle between 2D and 3D display so it is not something that is impossible to program.....

[CraigRS]

Well this has turned out to be quite a busy post for my first one. You guys must be up all night because when I left my PC at 10:00 last night there were 3 replies, when I got to work at 7:00 there were 34! Well I'm glad I could at least give people something to talk about!

I think some of the replies really do match my feelings but even I have to admit after I have thought about the new game for a while I have softened up some but I think people here have brought up some real concerns about the new view. In rethinking I tend to think it is the isometric view even more than the unit graphics that get me. I’m sure there will be unit editors that will help change that. Someone posted a screen shot of PG2 and I agree that was the first thing I thought of. While that is a great game in it’s own right, that’s not what I was hoping for.

I’m sure in the end Hubert will end up making a great game but at first glance it just doesn’t look right. I’m not sure about the idea of play the game for a while and you’ll get used to the new look. I guess I’ve just been playing hex games for so long it’s hard to think of anything different.

I feel I have so many comments but after reading all of the posts at once I’m sure I have forgotten most of them. I’ll try to do a better job checking in and posting. Thanks again to everyone for the warm welcome to the board!!

Craig

[RobRas]

JPWagner - that's true. I had forgotten those. That was an excellent feature.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I don't "hate" the younger crowd, but no one can fault us grumpy old guard wargamers sometimes.

Look at all the wargames being made out there, all pretty and 3d and real time, just to seem more "real".

And when you play them, the AI is about as smart as a 6 year old girl (one of these days I am going to get beaten up by a gang of 6 year old girls for always saying that, likely go to jail for enjoying it to much with my luck smile.gif ).

I am not thinking Huberts game is going to be any sort of "sell out" to the cutesy crowd though.
I like playing the Panzer General series, and I am a big fan of Steel Panthers just because I like the visual appeal.

Visual is not the end of the world if it is kept under control.

I have to admit, the tiles took me soo completely off guard though.
I would rather have hexes. Maybe that is just me remembering games that don't have them, seeming to play "weirdly".

I know I have not had an easy time adjusting to SCs no stacking design element.
I am not sure where tiles will be with that design element. But then, until SC2 gets closer to done, I guess that will be less than concrete.

I am hoping to see a demo as well, but I think my sale is more or less in the bag.
I wouldn't even be here if I wasn't already sold.

[RobRas]

Posted by CraigRS: "In rethinking I tend to think it is the isometric view even more than the unit graphics that get me".

I fully agree. The counters can probably easily be modified but we are - probably - stuck with the isometric board.

OT: In Denmark it's afternoon now. And I'm at work. Hence the posting :)

[Exel]

I'm with you on the isometric view thing. I don't know, maybe it just reminds too much about all those RTS clicking fests, but I would prefer a straight 90-degree top-down view rather than any form of isometric one.

[CraigRS]

I think they had to switch to the isometric view in order to accomidate the new look units. The tanks wouldn't look as pretty from a top down view. From a stratagy point though I think the top down view works better.

[RobRas]

CraigRS - I agree. And if that's the case then purely cosmetical considerations (pretty tanks)have dictated - or partially dictated - game design. Not a good sign in my view.

[fischkopf]

I think it looks great and I can't wait to pre-order. Good stuff!

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Moon:
RobRas - the resources used for making graphics are either used, or not used, but they cannot be used for something else. Fernando cannot help Hubert code the game smile.gif

Let me repeat - the visuals do not come at a price of gameplay. Hubert has been very careful about this. Functionality is first.

Martin Let me just reiterate what Moon has said here, consider the current SC2-Announcement a *pre announcement* announcement. Besides the new look, there have been many, many improvements to gameplay that have yet to be listed. Functionality, improved game play, extended options have always been at the top of my list, so consider (for now) the current announcement as just the tip of the iceberg. Once we get closer to finalizing a few items, expect to see a full FAQ that will go into much more juicy detail ;)

Hubert

[Yohan]

Originally posted by Moon:
RobRas - the resources used for making graphics are either used, or not used, but they cannot be used for something else. Fernando cannot help Hubert code the game smile.gif

Let me repeat - the visuals do not come at a price of gameplay. Hubert has been very careful about this. Functionality is first.

Martin I think the issue for me is not resources used for what; it is preferred view. I am another old wargamer who likes simple 2D maps and Nato counters. Same goes for map information, don't need pretty pictrues, understand some might, just want the data.

Having the option is the key for me. I have complete faith in Hubert et al.

[KDG]

I love the new look. Think of how many complaints there would have been if none of the graphics had been changed.

The good news for people who don't like the new look is that this can be modded, and surely will.

[blackbellamy]

I want to put in my whine for the loss of hex-based movement. The tile system not only looks ugly, especially when you have a convoluted front line, but it distorts diagonal movement more so than the hex one and prevents the player from getting an intuitive bird's-eye view of the action (are they far away or not? can i reach that or not?)

I believe that area-based or location-based movement systems to be the best for computer wargames (like Highway to the Reich) because this allows the computer to be used to it's full capability. However, if you aren't going to go that way, then the hex system beats tiles anyday in many different ways.

I love the new graphics and map and icons and etc. I just wish it was hexes.

[JerseyJohn]

RobRas & CraigRS

Enjoyed the whole thing, you're right Craig, one of the more involved runs for a guy with so few posts but the two of you are obviously knowledgeable about all this. Always a pleasure to deal with people who know what they want to say, regardless of the post count -- which I hope will spiral upwards quickly, people with ideas should express them.

Like my buddy Jim Boggs, who came peeking out saying he was only a lurker and four months / 3,000 posts later he was still describing himself that way! :D I'm glad he isn't. ;)

[Yohan]

Originally posted by J P Wagner:
TalonSoft's series of games such as East Front and West Front, allowed you to toggle between 2D and 3D display so it is not something that is impossible to program..... Agreed! I playtested many of those and almost never played in 3D mode. I find it much more difficult to focus on what is important in 3D.

[CraigRS]

Thanks for the kind words Jersy. I thought when I first saw the info on the new game I should take the time to speak up because this is one of those games (SC1) that I love so much I'll play it for years to come. Because of that I want SC2 to be all it can be and if I wanna complain about what I don't like better to do it now rather than later. Who knows, if a lot of people feel the same as me maybe we, I, can help mold the game.

Craig

[jon_j_rambo]

Hubert --- Reduce the size of the Menu Bar if not already done.

Thanks,

Legend

[Hubert Cater]

There is two schools of thought when it comes to the menu bar, and both have to do with the mini-map.

For example, the mini-map can either cover a portion of the play area or the entire side can be covered by the width of the mini-map, thus the size of the buttons. Most schools of thought (when I did my research for the original SC) actually recommend to cover the entire side portion of the play area as players will quickly find it annoying that they cannot see the entire game map. Again there is always some give and take but a good interface is pretty tricky to implement... well at least one that the majority like ;)

[ April 14, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[Friendly Fire]

Wow, to be honest I'm not sure what to think. My biggest worry is about the effect of the square tile on (in particular) the Eastern front. 3 units can go on one, interesting!

Looking forward to giving it a try!
FF

[kossuth]

Sitting and looking closer to the screenshots.

After a while a can stand the look, still dont
like it, but only IF that d-n round plate under the unit could be removed it would be much better.

Hope someone who can, will edit it in the future. ;)

[ April 15, 2004, 02:34 AM: Message edited by: kossuth ]

[RobRas]

JJ - and thanks for the kind words from me as well :)
It's great to be a part of a forum where courtesy and respect are in the forefront.

And I can join CraigRS praise for SC1 and his hope that SC2 can be that truly great WWII strategic simulation.

[marklavar]

In a way I agree with Craig in the sense that we really didn't need the pretty graphics etc. But Hubert has to sell this game on the open market, and therefore he needs a 'hook' to draw buyers in. This isn't some private club of wargamers, Hubert is running a business. I'm actually a lot more concerned with playability, features, etc than the graphics, hexes and so on.
In fairness, SC1 was nothing but a crude, updated copy of 'Clash of Steel', the classic SSI game of the early 90s. SC2 looks to me like what SC1 should have been in the first place, so I welcome it. smile.gif

[marklavar]

By the way, yes I also prefer 2D icons as a matter of fact!

[DSEDS]

SC2 is still 2D with isometric view.

The whole discussion reminds me on the discussions late 80´s where people wondering what the heck need a roleplay and adventure games nice graphics or animations.. ;)

I will buy SC2 no doubt, i think SC1 people will accustom on the new look faster as the think.

But everytime i would trade in nice SC2 Graphics for a Japanese AI Player.

[Exel]

The only thing I'm still sceptical about is the decision to switch to square tiles. I don't know if it works, would have to test the game to know that, but there just are so many situations where hexes would imaginably work better. Guess we'll just have to trust Hubert's judgement... ;)

[Wako]

I'm sure SC2 will be nice and all, but I for one won't buy it if it doesn't have hexes and it doesn't have a 2D view option.

A big plus would be allowing unit stacking too, but that won't make it or break it for me like this 3-D thing.

Dear God, why does no one realize that what we want is something with a map like Third Reich (but prettier) with with the kind of simulation ability that only a computer can provide.

Hate to be too negative, but please, please, PLEASE at least include an option (like TOAW did) to change this abhorrent semi-3D map into a hexed 2-D map.

Thanks.

[CraigRS]

Marklavar---you said "needs a 'hook' to draw buyers in"-- That sounds like a saying I use about Mac's-- If you can't sell them on substance, sell them on style!

I sure hope that is not the intent here, nor do I think it is. I do however think some things will be sacrificed for the "new look". The new look takes time, which is money, which Hubert only has so much of to develope the game. For me the isometric view doesn't work and the squares over hex's doesn't work. I don't think there is any way we can do anything but trust Hubert does as good as we all know he can and maybe by SC3 he'll come to his senses tongue.gif

[RobRas]

CraigRS - Amen to that.

And SC1 managed to attract enough buyers to warrant an SC2 - even though it had crude graphics. Maybe beacause it carved - or perhaps cultured - a niche of wargamers whose primary concern and interest is relevant information. Not tiny soldiers with snow on their helmets or city hexes with tourist attractions :)

[Desert Dave]

Not tiny soldiers with snow on their helmets or city hexes with tourist attractions :) Long, long before anyone ever even thought about playing "computer games," folks in other times and places were earnestly playing with miniatures. And they still do.

"Tiny soldiers" are merely... and only, "in your mind."

Whether you are staring at a computer screen, or moving them around quite diligently in a sand box.

I like these new icons, and I REALLY like that... when it is the Winter Season,
You can be immersed in the proper atmosphere, primarily by the snow dusting appearing on the men and equipment.

Now that is really truly kool. :cool:

When a Desert Rat in the vast and unforgiving desert, you will be outfit in appropriate Camo gear... and that is atmosphere also.

If I didn't like the tiny soldiers, I could switch to "military symbols" or I could import one of the 100s of mods that will SOON! be available after release.

As could you. So, keep an open mind and give it good and faithful... try out, first? ;)

[Wodin]

Were still not talking about some crappy 3d RTS title here.

Surely its gameplay that matters. SO with all its improvements in gameplay terms Hubert is on to a winner.

Not to buy this game because it has new isometric graphics seems a little odd. Fair enough if the whole system were to change that it became a different kind of beast all together but I dont think it has.

Hubert has put a lot of time and effort into what turmed out to be one great wargame. He has then gone on to improve it prob ten fold. I feel a little sorry for him. No ones played this game and when he gets out a little taster posts like this come up. Come on lets give the game a chance. At least lets play a demo before we start to criticise.

I like silly little graphics as to me it adds a lot of atmosphere and I hope the sound effects are top notch to. Something most wargames are lacking.

[ April 15, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Wodin ]

[marklavar]

Another thing I hate with the 3D pictures is that stupid disc they seem to be all placed on. Is that disc supposed to be a platform of some kind, to imitate game board counters? If so, it's idiotic in the extreme! Get rid of the discs Hubert, please.

Anyway, aside from our (justified) criticism, it's still very early days. Hubert needs to be thanked for all the effort he has put into this project; the big gaming companies steer well clear of strategic wargames, preferring to develop eye candy for 15 year olds and those with a mental age of 15.

With 'World in Flames' and Grigsby's 'World at War' also coming up in the next six months to one year, it should be a very interesting time for wargamers!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Marklavar:

Another thing I hate with the 3D pictures is that stupid disc Then, plain and simply, turn it... off.

You can opt for a halo-base like you see beneath the surface ships, or, you can opt for no base at all!

As with very much else concerning this astonishing! new Grand Strategy WW2 game... something... for EVERYBODY! :cool:

[marklavar]

Desert Dave,

This is very GOOD news! I'll be opting out of the board counters.

[RobRas]

Desert Dave - I have tried these kind of games with small soldiers and winter effects. A lot of the other strategy games look excactly like that. And I have played miniature wargames and it can be fun. But I love board wargames and I had hoped that SC2 would be a true board wargame. I don't need to be immersed in the proper atmosphere - I'm sitting on my butt playing a strategy game. It's certainly not soldiering. It's a game - I don't particularly want to be in the middle of a war.

In my view a strategy game is about analyzing available data, forming strategy, allocating resources and implementing strategy. The game's user interface needs to hand me as much information as possible in the easiest manner making it possible for me to quickly evaluate the situation on the board. The board needs to be clear with well-defined and well-selected colors and the counters likewise. The old Advanced Third Reich/A World at War boardgame is to me close to the perfect design. Nothing to distract your eyes.

Anyway: I know I'm in a minority and I know that me and my small group not buying the game will easily be outweighed by hundreds or thousands looking at the back of the box, seeing the screenshots and saying "Wow, look at that tank. I'm gonna buy this".

[JerseyJohn]

Rob & Craig,

Glad you guys feel that way, during the past year the SC forum has become a lot friendlier than it previously was; I think now everyone pretty much gets along and we treat each other pretty respectfully.

Rob

I don't believe you're a minority, I think most real war gamers feel exactly the way you do.

In competive chess, for example, you can't use the sort of ornate set and board amateurs are so in love with. It has to be a basic Staunton design (traditional pieces) against a board that will be easy to play on and will not cause confusion -- in other words you don't want any large black squares that might be the same color as the black pieces! etc & etc all rules set over the course of time for a good reason, people want to play the game and not have to wonder whether they're looking at a pawn or a bishop!

Same with games, I know the standard map symbols, as do most of us, and would rather deal with that instead of guessing whether the 3-D icon is a bomber or DuCamps Nude Descending a Staircase.

I think the best answer is a 2D / 3D Toggle switch so both camps will be satisfied.

-- Marklavar

"... preferring to develop eye candy for 15 year olds and those with a mental age of 15."

Welcome news for those of us just entering our second or third childhood! :D

[ April 16, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As orginially posted by RobRas:

But I love board wargames and I had hoped that SC2 would be a true board wargame. I don't need to be immersed in the proper atmosphere Yep, that's me too. ;)

I first began this great and satisfying hobby back in the early 1960s with some of those basic AH games such as D-Day, Waterloo, Stalingrad, and War at Sea.

There are many of us here, such as pzgndr, who have also been ingrained in the old ways, such as 6-sided hexes for map topography, and stacking 4-6 Panzer counters on that breakthrough hex you have established on the Eastern Front!

I see what you are saying, and I can't disagree with you, or with JJ.

I too would rather see that breath-taking nude descending a glass staircase... in a Museum, or in that bachelor's pad I always keep innocently in mind. ;)

Some are in between, like rambo, who have done it both ways... board games and computer games.

And there are those who have never had that tremendous pleasure of opening the box on a brand new game, and taking out and admiring the sturdy board for the first time, and lovingly handling all those interesting cardboard pieces.

But, computers make it so you can avoid all the time-consuming set up that is necessarily involved, and even better... have those combat and supply and movement calculations done in a split electron second!

Who really has time, given that there ARE other pressing concerns, such as keeping the boss or the wife or girl-friend happy and satisfied?

Well, I have "adjusted" to this brave new world, and CAN now also appreciate all the different and challenging ways there are to play a war game.

I will tell you this much... Hubert is one who remains faithful to the original spirit of war-gaming, and does everything he can think of to maintain proper military perspectives, and true relations to historical imperatives... while also providing an exciting game that is fun to play.

Just ask some of those long-time players of SC on this forum, such as terif, and Zappsweden, and Dragonheart, or kurt88, to name only a very few of very many.

Whether you are carefully painting your miniatures, or pushing little stacks of cardboard counters, or clicking with the mouse, you STILL are immersed in that fascinating "atmosphere" of WW2 grand strategy.

Sometimes, as with me, the newer ways of doing things... takes some time... to get used to.

I have done it the old way for over 40 years.

But, I don't mind doing it the computerized way, because... you can always go back and set up a board game if you care to.

It's actually good that we can have so many choices, and computer games CAN provide a lot of new and unusual approaches, and still include all of those original tactical decisions that every Strategic Commander has to make.

As JJ and I have both suggested... you can toggle the "modern" icons off if you really don't like them, and there are times when I will play SC with the old military symbols.

Main thing... enjoy EACH kind of game that is available, each in its own unique and compelling atmosphere. :cool:

[ April 16, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Sombra]

The game looks great at the moment. One mayor concern for me is that it will get to mcuh of a micromanagementfeast: Upgrading each unit one by one , point by point... building fortifications...

Right now in the "simple" system of SC1 sometimes people need up to 20 minutes for a move...

[RobRas]

DesertDave - I think we basically agree. Well, perhaps not on the atmosphere thing, but never mind that :)

I really like the fact that computers have revived the ailing board wargame hobby making it possible to play online, by email or againt the computer itself. And I think we've only seen the start of this revolution. It's great. Provided - in my view - that the core value of strategy gaming remains. And this value is getting eroded because each new version of a game has to have an even more 'realistic' visual surface. Often making it hardet and harder to easily identify units and terrain types, to gauge distances etc.

This wouldn't be a problem it it was possible to play SC2 with a flat board with hexes and normal military icons - just like SC1 was. And then an option for more details on counters and terrain. Or the other way around. But as the screen shots look now it doesn't seem like the 'flat' board with hexes is an option. If you go with tiles you're going with them. So true: I can just choose to play with the military icons but that doesn't really solve the problem - just reduces it a little.

[SeaMonkey]

Sombra you are right. But you must agree that this group craves more. Even if the mechanics stay the same, the decision making process alone will double the time of a move as I currently see it. This is what this crowd wants, a more in depth SC experience, there is a consequence to that. There will always be SC1, it is time to move on and trust the "creator".

[KDG]

Sombra

Remember that you can go without engineers, skip HQ assignments, let jets use the old auto intercept rules, these are options built into the game.

Also remember that upgrading units due to tech increases isn't something you do every turn, it might only be done 1 out of 10 turns.

[Lars]

Hmm, 2D vs Iso (it's not really 3D).

I've had a lot of the same thoughts that have already been posted. When it comes to strategy games I prefer 2D. It just makes it easier to grasp the spatial relationships. Iso does inherently distort distances to the eye. Did anybody even use the Iso option in TOAW?

But then there was Civ 2, which was Iso, and that was a classic. Guess I'll have to wait for the demo to make my mind up (but a toggle would be ideal, people like options).

Hex vs Square.

Probably a bigger change. For instance, with a hex system you only need six units to surround one, with a square it'll take nine. And moving on the diagonal always seems a little strange to me in a square based system. Those envelopements are going to be a little tougher to pull off, that's for sure.

But that's Hubert's job to balance that one out. ;)

[KDG]

How about we think of them as diamonds instead of tiles. That way diagonal moves will be easier. :cool:

Heck, I'd play the game if we had circles, or triangles, or connect the dots. We are talking about Hubert here, its still WWII, and its still very similar to SC. And look at that editor.

[Desert Dave]

An Awed KDG:

And look at that editor. Yep, she's a beauty, ain't she? :cool:

Reminds me of the time back in the day when I first laid shades on that '65 GTO sittin' in that there sales lot with pennants flapping all over the flip-flop place.

Had that Goat-nose low down munching gears & bolts off the tarmac, raked up real steel cool nasty! she was.

And when you would run yer hand on along that wood grain inset in the dash, yep, you may just as well have been sliding along slow through 10,000 year old Redwoods out in Gods' Country, Californ-I-A!

Yep, that 19 & 65 model show-boat Goat was a rip roaring Beauty, no stray Cat could say nay or floy-floy jake, or otherwise...

Just that like that new SC2 Editor we got whining on down the Pike, nose jutted out and down, oh, justa skootch... and eating up! those blurred white-lines on 'at Glory Road... :cool:

[Lars]

Originally posted by KDG:
How about we think of them as diamonds instead of tiles. That way diagonal moves will be easier. :cool:

Heck, I'd play the game if we had circles, or triangles, or connect the dots. We are talking about Hubert here, its still WWII, and its still very similar to SC. And look at that editor. Doesn't help me, I'm a draftsman. I know in my bones it's an iso square.

And if Hubert gives us circles I suppose you'd just want me to deal with ellipses. ;)

[KDG]

Doesn't help me, I'm a draftsman. I know in my bones it's an iso square.

Just think 45° rotation, if that helps. smile.gif

[Wodin]

To be honest I dont think many people are going to look at this games graphics and think wow look at that I will buy this.

The only people who will buy this game are wargamers. The type your talking about are looking at the latest RTS and thinking wow not ISO graphics which are very dated by todays standard.

I can see peoples point if it affects gameplay but not just because it doesnt look like a wargame. Also from what I can gather SC wasnt some grognard complicated strategy game. It was easy to get into and was designed at getting people into wargames which cant be a bad thing.

And if this game does entice more people into our hobby then it can only be a good thing. The more people to buy the more likely further games will be made.

[Liam]

It looks pretty 'fair' to me. I think your expectations are a bit lofty. I like what I see and I hope Hubert designs exactly what I'm imagining. It'll be the most popular Hex Strategic Wargame in History of PC

[Edwin P.]

Where is the Empire State Building? and the Brooklyn Bridge?

It should be added to the New York City Hex design.

[ April 16, 2004, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]