Strategic Command 2 - new screenshots
eddys...@hotmail.com
Like it says in the subject - go and have a look here :
http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/index.html
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Michael A. Oberly
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/index.html
Wow, the screenshots make it look a lot like Civ2. I'm kinda hoping
that 2d icons are an option.
Giftzwerg
says...
> >http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/index.html
>
> Wow, the screenshots make it look a lot like Civ2. I'm kinda hoping
> that 2d icons are an option.
It's fucking hideous. Why use little 3D panzers when they're all facing
willy-nilly, most of them pointing away from the enemy and towards the
ass-end of another friendly unit - like they're itching to bugger each
other?
The front lines looks like the parking lot at a local bar where the
shithammered patrons abandoned their vehicles and stumbled off into the
woods. What a miserable design decision. What a grotesque
disappointment.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq - now, over
1,800 deaths - is generally devoid of context. Here's some context:
between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died
accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286
per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly
two to one."
- John Hinderaker
jean-wilfrid.noel
JwN
<eddys...@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1127894274.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Epi Watkins
wilfri...@wanadoo.fr says...
In what way? I think what it's showing is control and not borders. I
could have looked at it wrong though.
Epi
----
Sub sims have always seemed like they should be fun.
With Silent Hunter III they finally made one that is.
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
Eddy Sterckx
news:MPG.1da4abba8...@news-east.giganews.com:
> In article <tgmlj1pi2ub8ilndu...@4ax.com>, kitch@SPAMOFF
> says...
>
>> >http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/index.html
>>
>> Wow, the screenshots make it look a lot like Civ2. I'm kinda hoping
>> that 2d icons are an option.
>
> It's fucking hideous. Why use little 3D panzers when they're all
facing
> willy-nilly, most of them pointing away from the enemy and towards the
> ass-end of another friendly unit - like they're itching to bugger each
> other?
>
> The front lines looks like the parking lot at a local bar where the
> shithammered patrons abandoned their vehicles and stumbled off into
the
> woods. What a miserable design decision. What a grotesque
> disappointment.
I've seen screenshots of 3D-block units with the standard NATO symbols
on them - that would be good enough for me. A demo is promised, so we
can all have a look at the actual gameplay.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
--
"Ceterum censeo Belgicam delendam esse."
(Cato, 'Pro Gerolphe')
Eddy Sterckx
news:433af3f1$0$7867$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr:
> Great ! But why are the borders of Germany so unrealistic ?
On what screenshot ?
Generally spoken if you're going to use isometric squares, every border
/ river / lake / wood is a compromise. In fact the same holds true for
hex-based games as well. The tricks is not to be as close to the real
map as possible, but to make it so that historically correct gameplay
follows from your map. An example of this is the Leningrad area on
http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/pages/2sc2.html
Incidently : this screenshot shows the "blocks" with Nato symbols as
well.
or how Paris is protected by the Seine on
http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/pages/add%
20unit.html
or Crete being a lot bigger than IRL on
http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/pages/sc1.html
While technically not correct, the combination of gameplay/rules and an
"incorrect" map can make the game-experience very realistic and
historically accurate.
HR
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message > It's
> willy-nilly, most of them pointing away from the enemy and towards the
> ass-end of another friendly unit - like they're itching to bugger each
> other?
>
> The front lines looks like the parking lot at a local bar where the
> shithammered patrons abandoned their vehicles and stumbled off into the
> woods. What a miserable design decision. What a grotesque
> disappointment.
LOL!
john graesser
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127894274.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> Like it says in the subject - go and have a look here :
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/index.html
I don't know about anyone else, but the switch to rectangles makes it look
too much like the civ world builder style games. I just wouldn't be able to
warm up to the look of the game.
Epi Watkins
says...
Yeah...The rest of the game may give it some more value, but I would
have preferred hexes too. I have a feeling the original Strategic
Command is the keeper.
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > The front lines looks like the parking lot at a local bar where the
> > shithammered patrons abandoned their vehicles and stumbled off into
> the
> > woods. What a miserable design decision. What a grotesque
> > disappointment.
>
> I've seen screenshots of 3D-block units with the standard NATO symbols
> on them - that would be good enough for me. A demo is promised, so we
> can all have a look at the actual gameplay.
A 2D map would be good enough for me. Is there one?
And ... is unit facing part of the game? If it is, then who's the idjit
in the screenshot who's facing his panzers backwards? If it isn't, then
why doesn't the game code automatically face every unit towards the
nearest enemy (clearly, there are different-facing tiles...)? That
would at least avoid the "Crazy Hubie's Used Panzer Lot" effect the game
now seems to reflect.
It's a small thing, of course, but good games *get the small things
right*. Bad games don't give a shit. I'm nervous we're verging into
the latter territory here.
Hubert
> in the screenshot who's facing his panzers backwards?
Well since I'm the only one coding the game I guess that would be me :)
Not to worry guys, as stated the game is still under development and
believe me when I say there is a whole lot more to the game then a few
unit mirroring anomalies. But of course once we post the demo you can
decide the latter point for yourselves.
Now that being said, that particular scenario in question, Citadel, is
one of the newer ones and it DID reveal a few shortcomings in the unit
mirroring algorithms which have since been resolved (since those
screenshots were put together) by the programming department ;)
Hubert
JP
"Epi Watkins" <epica...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1da50b267...@news.east.earthlink.net...
Hey Epi, SH 3 is a hoot, eh ? Got it recently myself, great stuff.
Epi Watkins
says...
I'm having a lot of fun with it. I guess my sig pretty much sums up my
feelings.
Giftzwerg
hca...@hotmail.com says...
That's OK, but ...
Is there a 2D map? Is unit facing significant?
Hubert
military/nato style icons as an alternative to the 3D unit sprites. In
terms of unit facings, it is just eye candy for now
Hubert
Giftzwerg
hca...@hotmail.com says...
> No 2D map planned at the moment but there are of course the
> military/nato style icons as an alternative to the 3D unit sprites. In
> terms of unit facings, it is just eye candy for now
A flippant response would be that it's more like "eye syrup of ipecac"
at this point.
Speaking as someone who's going to look at this "3D" nonsense *once*,
and then play the game entirely using the NATO symbols, it's appropriate
to ask, "Who wanted this 3D stuff? Who was clamoring for it? Who
played SC1 and said, 'Oh, if only there were little isomorphic 3D tanks
[1] instead of an army symbol, I'd buy the sequel'?"
[1] When I'm emperor, there's going to be a new rule for wargame
designers: You can *only* use a 3D Tiger tank as a unit symbol when the
unit being modeled is a *single Tiger tank*.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Governor George Pataki has cancelled plans to build the controversial
International Freedom Center at the World Trade Center site - and
representatives of the center say the location change has forced the
entire project to be scrapped."
- NY1
"Good. Fucking. Riddance."
- Giftzwerg
Joseph...@yahoo.com
>
>A flippant response would be that it's more like "eye syrup of ipecac"
>at this point.
>
>Speaking as someone who's going to look at this "3D" nonsense *once*,
>and then play the game entirely using the NATO symbols, it's appropriate
>to ask, "Who wanted this 3D stuff? Who was clamoring for it? Who
>played SC1 and said, 'Oh, if only there were little isomorphic 3D tanks
>[1] instead of an army symbol, I'd buy the sequel'?"
>
>
>[1] When I'm emperor, there's going to be a new rule for wargame
>designers: You can *only* use a 3D Tiger tank as a unit symbol when the
>unit being modeled is a *single Tiger tank*.
I'm with you, Gifty. I said the same thing when the initial proposal
came out for this game: The guy had a moderate success with Strategic
Command 1 and said to himself, "How do I make more money on a sequel?"
The answer came back from marketing: Broaden the customer base, Hubert
baby. All this game to me right now is a fancy Civ2 WW2 scenario. Note
that Hubert never answered your the questions you listed above. I
think that we wargamers who piss and moan at the latest Talonsoft
"effort" out to vote this piece o' crap down with our wallets. PLease
explain to me why squares and 3D icons alone are an improvement in
this game. As far as I'm concerned, SC1 is the keeper.
Giftzwerg
Joseph...@yahoo.com says...
> >Speaking as someone who's going to look at this "3D" nonsense *once*,
> >and then play the game entirely using the NATO symbols, it's appropriate
> >to ask, "Who wanted this 3D stuff? Who was clamoring for it? Who
> >played SC1 and said, 'Oh, if only there were little isomorphic 3D tanks
> >[1] instead of an army symbol, I'd buy the sequel'?"
> I'm with you, Gifty. I said the same thing when the initial proposal
> came out for this game: The guy had a moderate success with Strategic
> Command 1 and said to himself, "How do I make more money on a sequel?"
>
> The answer came back from marketing: Broaden the customer base, Hubert
> baby. All this game to me right now is a fancy Civ2 WW2 scenario. Note
> that Hubert never answered your the questions you listed above. I
> think that we wargamers who piss and moan at the latest Talonsoft
> "effort" out to vote this piece o' crap down with our wallets. PLease
> explain to me why squares and 3D icons alone are an improvement in
> this game. As far as I'm concerned, SC1 is the keeper.
Well, I hasten to point out that I don't think squares and 3D tiles are
*necessarily* a step in the wrong direction. So I don't think it's a
foregone conclusion that the game will be a "piece of crap." Speaking
for myself, I'll probably spring for it and probably think it's pretty
decent.
But...
Speaking for myself, I found two problems with the original SC. First,
the AI was pretty stupid, and while my favorite wargaming activity is
playing against a human opponent, AI performance is still a big issue
with me. Secondly, I felt that the game abstracted a little too much to
be considered a "hard-enough core" wargame.
So when I look at the little 3D panzers, I say, "Look at all the man-
hours of effort that *didn't* go into the AI." Now, it may be that
they've expended enough man-hours already on making the AI fiendishly
clever, a la Deep Blue. If that's true, then I'm just plain wrong. But
my *suspicion* - and it's supported only by thin air - is that time
spent on cutesy little tiles is time wasted.
And...
*It looks *****WORSE***** than SC did!!!!!!* Aaaaaaaarrrrgh!
Eddy Sterckx
4ax.com:
It's not the squares and the 3D icons that constitute the new game ..
it's what lies beneath it.
When SC1 came out there were a lot of people dismissing it for it's
simple rules and gameplay, not realising the rich strategic game
underneath.
Now that SC2 is almost here, it would be a shame if this time around it
would be dismissed by some because it has *optional* 3D icons.
... and there's nothing wrong with trying to widen your customer base by
adopting a familiar (civ) look. I hope he sells a million, gets rich and
can start designing wargames fulltime. I'd love to see a PTO game on
this scale.
Anyway, I'll judge the game by the demo, but given the fact that
practically everything is going to be moddable it's a virtually assured
"must buy" for me - I'm a sucker for fully moddable games.
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> It's not the squares and the 3D icons that constitute the new game ..
> it's what lies beneath it.
>
> When SC1 came out there were a lot of people dismissing it for it's
> simple rules and gameplay, not realising the rich strategic game
> underneath.
>
> Now that SC2 is almost here, it would be a shame if this time around it
> would be dismissed by some because it has *optional* 3D icons.
Hmmm. I don't see anything "optional" about the 3D design of the game -
unless there's a 2D map and unit symbol set out there that no one is
telling me about. So far as I've been advised, the map is exclusively a
3D isomorphic projection - and the only choice in units is between 3D
icons shaped like little tanks and 3D icons shaped like little
tombstones.
I would argue that if we're going to call 3D an "option," there needs to
be a 2D "default" somewhere in the picture.
> Anyway, I'll judge the game by the demo,
I'll probably just pony up my $50 anyhow. But given the amount of
effort obviously expended on cutesy graphics (which *still* look
awful...), there better be a *vastly* improved AI and hugely realistic
expansions on formerly abstract aspects of strategic warfare before I'm
going to pronounce it a decent game.
> but given the fact that
> practically everything is going to be moddable it's a virtually assured
> "must buy" for me - I'm a sucker for fully moddable games.
I go two ways on "moddable." Sometimes "moddable" means just what you
propose; enthusiasts can modify it to *enhance* already-sufficient
realism, gameplay, or accuracy. But sometimes "moddable" means, "It's
garbage out-of-the-box, so you'll be paying $50 for the bare opportunity
to try and correct a disastrously-flawed design."
ROME: TOTAL WAR was such a game. Pretty much ridiculous as an ancient
warfare simulation - but proponents tried to deflect the obvious
criticism by asserting that it could be repaired by "modding" some game
files.
eddys...@hotmail.com
Giftzwerg wrote:
> I would argue that if we're going to call 3D an "option," there needs to
> be a 2D "default" somewhere in the picture.
Ok - I was talking about the little 3D tanks vs. Nato symbols. The
isometric view *is* in fact a 2D view or more precisely : it's a 2D map
as seen from an angle to give it some depth perspective. Semantics - I
know.
Anyway I'm not bothered by the "tombstones", they look like Columbia
style blocks to me and I'll soon get used to them.
I even doubt I will ever see the 3D tanks - start SC2, go straight to
config and uncheck box that says "3D units" - back to main menu - start
new game
> I go two ways on "moddable." Sometimes "moddable" means just what you
> propose; enthusiasts can modify it to *enhance* already-sufficient
> realism, gameplay, or accuracy. But sometimes "moddable" means, "It's
> garbage out-of-the-box, so you'll be paying $50 for the bare opportunity
> to try and correct a disastrously-flawed design."
An unmoddable stinker remains a stinker - RTW got modded into a halfway
decent wargame, so I'll take moddable games over unmoddable any day of
the week. Besides, I'm a tinkerer - I spend half my game-time "under
the hood" of moddable wargames.
> ROME: TOTAL WAR was such a game. Pretty much ridiculous as an ancient
> warfare simulation - but proponents tried to deflect the obvious
> criticism by asserting that it could be repaired by "modding" some game
> files.
Don't remind me of that game - for me the biggest disappointment in
recent times, because I expected so much from it based on Medieval
Total War.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
fizzy
syrup of ipecac"
at this point. "
Now that's clever. Original?
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > I would argue that if we're going to call 3D an "option," there needs to
> > be a 2D "default" somewhere in the picture.
>
> Ok - I was talking about the little 3D tanks vs. Nato symbols. The
> isometric view *is* in fact a 2D view or more precisely : it's a 2D map
> as seen from an angle to give it some depth perspective. Semantics - I
> know.
But whether we call it 3D or 2D or isometric ... the point I can't get
beyond is, "What was so friggin' objectionable - or unsuitable to the
game - about the 2D hex map in SC1 that the new design *required*
throwing it out and going with the '3D look'?"
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
- Olde Yankee Aphorism
eddys...@hotmail.com
> But whether we call it 3D or 2D or isometric ... the point I can't get
> beyond is, "What was so friggin' objectionable - or unsuitable to the
> game - about the 2D hex map in SC1 that the new design *required*
> throwing it out and going with the '3D look'?"
Broadening the potential customer base ? - I could well see it having
success outside the wargame community - whether we like it or not
hexagon games are perceived as old-style, the familiar Civ-look will
perhaps attract the general Joe Gamer. If Paradox can reach beyond the
typical wargamer crowd, so can others.
> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"If it ain't broke, let me have a go at it" - my little sister's motto
:)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Amateur Knight
> > Hey Epi, SH 3 is a hoot, eh ? Got it recently myself, great stuff.
>
> I'm having a lot of fun with it. I guess my sig pretty much sums up my
> feelings.
>
> Epi
>
> ----
> Sub sims have always seemed like they should be fun.
> With Silent Hunter III they finally made one that is.
> ----
> http://www.curlesneck.com
What's SH2 like ??
The reason I ask is my PC is a bit on the arthritic side.
Epi Watkins
says...
I think I had it, but I don't recall. Definitely not as good.
JAB
IIRC it got relatively bad reviews also SHIII doesn't require that high
a spec. machine to run - 1.4GHz not that I've played on that spec. of
course.
Dan
Giftzwerg wrote:
> It's fucking hideous.
Stop complaining. Didn't you see that you get a large dollop of
whipped cream with each of the AB units? ;)
Tinjaw
>whipped cream with each of the AB units? ;)
I thought they were turds from the giant Stay Puff Marshmellow Man.
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> SHIII doesn't require that high a spec. machine to run - 1.4GHz not
> that I've played on that spec. of course.
I'm running it on an Athlon XP 1800+ with 512MB of RAM and a 128MB
Radeon 9800 Pro. It runs very well, with only slight slowdown in the
more complex ports.
--
Graham Thurlwell.
Jades' First Encounters Site.
http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
Graham Thurlwell
> > >
> > > Hey Epi, SH 3 is a hoot, eh ? Got it recently myself, great stuff.
> >
> > I'm having a lot of fun with it. I guess my sig pretty much sums up my
> > feelings.
> >
> > Epi
> >
> > ----
> > Sub sims have always seemed like they should be fun.
> > With Silent Hunter III they finally made one that is.
> > ----
> > http://www.curlesneck.com
>
> What's SH2 like ??
The main complaint people made about SH2 was that it has no dynamic
campaign whatsoever, only scripted missions. The only things you are
likely to encounter are the ships that are actually in the mission, and
they always show up in the same place.
Kevin
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If Paradox can reach beyond the
>typical wargamer crowd, so can others.
Paradox's target market was/is strategy gamers and not wargamers. If
anything, HOI may have reached a few wargamers, not the other way
around.
eddys...@hotmail.com
You're right - but the funny thing is that they invariably take a
wargame boardgame and make a computer strategy game out of it. The
whole Europa Universalis engine and offspring, now there's Diplomacy
with Squad Leader coming up.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx