Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

ORIGINAL: cdcool

An explanation would be helpful for those of us that don't know.

1. The engine of the game supports no unit stacking.
2. This is unproblematic because the game needs no unit stacking. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

The way the game currently handles stacking is not realistic.

Designing a wargame involves deciding where it should sit on a sliding scale with simulation at one end and game at the other.

SC has a lot of nice chrome and features, but the core design sits deep in the game side of that spectrum.

A suprising number of serious wargamers have recently commented at a wargame site owned by neither Matrix nor Battlefront that they would never consider buying the game, and the lack of stacking is usually the first thing that gets mentioned (lack of hexes used to be the first). Though I am a regular there, I have not participated in any of those discussions because of the NDA.

Even when this series lived primarily at Battlefront, it was surprising how little crossover there was between the players of Combat Mission and Strategic Command.

Hardcore wargamers tend to be a little short-sighted when it comes to beer and pretzels. Fortunately there aren't very many of them, so if you must lose a market segment, it's not going to be too painful.

Having said that, I think what the game does is interesting enough that you could attract buyers from that particular market segment, as long as you don't offend their delicate sensibilities. If you say beer and pretzels loud enough some of them will relax their insistence on realism. And I take it there are quite a few frustrated HOI owners out there who would welcome a more realistic treatment. Just be careful when you describe SC's naval combat.

This is Hubert and Bill's game, and they have to make and live with the design and development decisions. Anything anyone else says is just chatter. I'm reminded of a Spanish poem translated by Robert Graves that went something to the effect of "Bullfight critics ranked in rows crowd the enormous plaza full, but only one is there who knows, and he's the one who fights the bull".

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

Essentially, but with a lot of nice chrome.

That's not neccssarily a bad thing, but at the end of the day this is a game that mimicks WW II rather than models it.

Head and shoulders above something like Order of Battle. SC is good, but it could be great without the kinks.

The solution to the naval problem, by the way, might be to make the naval combat mechanic similar to that of air units for ships that weren't in commerce raiding mode. If naval units were treated more like task forces than discreet ships it would help. You would need to be able to attach and detach ship units from the task forces. Or something like that.

But there's no point in losing sleep over this when we're this close to release date.

ORIGINAL: cdcool

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

To have initiate the first thread and have the chance to be selected as a beta tester, I could tell you that no stacking is not really an issue with the current gameplay.

The only problem is that Malta is a little easy to conquer because lacking of Air support when there are no other allied Air units nearby.

I still would like to see stacking implemented for two reasons:
1. if someone wants to increase the number of units using the editor, it may become a problem.
2. if SC3 is going in the pacific or global.

Cheers

Why isnt it an issue now?

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
There are plenty of good things in CEAW GS that I am missing in this game.

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: cdcool

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

To have initiate the first thread and have the chance to be selected as a beta tester, I could tell you that no stacking is not really an issue with the current gameplay.

The only problem is that Malta is a little easy to conquer because lacking of Air support when there are no other allied Air units nearby.

I still would like to see stacking implemented for two reasons:
1. if someone wants to increase the number of units using the editor, it may become a problem.
2. if SC3 is going in the pacific or global.

Cheers

Why isnt it an issue now?

Well, having played the game after initiating the stacking thread, I have seen that given the low number of units on the map, given the way air units are working, given the way the atlantic battle is simulated, stacking is not really a gameplay issue.

I still would like it to be implemented later for above reasons.

But, there are many more things that needs be done in priority compare to this:
. Number one for me is to add fuel consumption for units
. Number two is to add fuel as a ressource like MPP - (OPP i.e. Oil PP)
. Number three is to add manpower for unit creation
. Number four is to rework the Tank unit scale to distinguish unit per country imho. I miss my Guard Tank Armies of CEAW GS. There are plenty of good things in CEAW GS that I am missing in this game.

I know this is now too late for the game. Maybe for a DLC or a sequel?

Cheers

CEAW GS

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

Back in the 'seventies, boardgame designers used to ask themselves whether they were building a model that behaved like what actually happened, or whether they were building a model that mimicked a pre-existing boardgame.

The concensus was that you couldn't shoe-horn a game that relied too heavily on another game's mechanics into a game that reflected reality by adding on more and more layers of chrome.

That being said, we are here to conduct beta tests, not to discuss game design theory. So let's get back to testing the game: we both have turns to run.

ORIGINAL: cdcool

Additional DLC if possible be be great! Fuel is critical
Good suggestions! I feel the Reports light.

Excuse my brain fart, what is CEAW GS? I prob have the game.

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: cdcool

Additional DLC if possible be be great! Fuel is critical
Good suggestions! I feel the Reports light.

Excuse my brain fart, what is CEAW GS? I prob have the game.

Sorry, CEAW is Commander Europe at War game and GS is its Grand Strategy expansion:
http://www.slitherine.com/ceaw_grand_strategy

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Great for multiplayer only because unfortunately the AI has not been reworked with GS mod. And the screen resolution is limited.

ORIGINAL: cdcool

...I applaud the updated version as most older game's never see such a makeover.

ORIGINAL: TheBattlefield

I am also sure that the developers keep an increasingly longer list with potential innovations. These will find slowly (after an adequate phase of testing and balancing) their way into the future versions of this game.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
[because I'd rather it [naval] all be abstracted anyway as it [naval] just doesn't work in IGO/UGO as far as I've ever seen]