|
Obsolete -> RE: Stalingrad II (AAR) (5/14/2010 12:48:24 AM)
|
About the graphics you are right, there are no fancy-smancy & slow rate scrolling 3D graphics here. The game moves fast and simple. Even at it inception the only mark against the title was the graphics, which is the reason why it was rated so highly amongst the grog nards, but unknown amoungst the masses. It was the #1 under-rated wargame in the 90’s, and it probably will still be so in its re-release.
I thought I’d give you a quick shot of a clip from the older versions, and super-imposed it onto the current re-release. As you can see there are some changes to tiles like supply depots and cities, etc. Also the counters themselves have changed. Again, it’s nothing that demands a state of the art graphics card, it just does it job.
In fact, the counters have been expanded so now a tank destroyer actually looks like a tank destroyer, instead of using the same old generic classification as a tank. I really HATE that when people refer to Hellcats as tanks for example.
More scenarios have been added in and there’s been some other touchups like expanding the text panel length, etc. Some more hotkeys are due to come which will make things even faster than they already are. Even still, some of these scenarios can take many hours, even days to play out. But that’s not due to the GUI, more due to all the thinking if you want to do things right.
Of course, on-line playability will be there, because it always had it. Which in my books was another reason I preferred this over TOAW. In fact, that was probably the biggest strike against TOAW that I remember and why the clubs couldn’t get much bigger.
And don’t forget, there was not a more realistic wargame around for paradrop units. Even a decade later I don’t think there is anything out there that improved CC2’s game mechanics.
[image]http://img40.imagefra.me/img/img40/6/5/13/obsolete/f_txf1302bm_477da68.png[/image]
|
|
|
|
