Suddenly Impressed actually (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> Suddenly Impressed actually (8/20/2002 7:03:05 PM)

For those worried that someone has possessed me and forced me to say this against my will, fear not.:)

A buddy of mine just passed on to me a copy of Sudden Strike II.
He said he had also briefly played it, and knew it belonged on my computer.

So I decided what the heck he was going to leave it here whether I liked it or not at any rate.

I must say I played one quick test of it, and was impressed it wasn't another chase em with the mouse constantly to have anything get done sort of RTS game.

I would have to say my biggest over all liked aspect was the lack of the "build stuff" portion of the game. I don't like that about RTS games (one of the biggest reasons why I won't play them).

The game sets you a mission, and assigns forces. Not unlike a Steel Panthers scenario. The game's visual scale is appealing (I don't like the scale used in Combat Mission, who cares if I can see if the guy shaved). The graphic icons are a bit smaller than those for Steel Panthers, but they are well drawn and the terrain is very nice looking.
The action differs from Steel Panthers, mainly in you that can't just sit there and take all day deciding.
That aspect of Steel Panthers routinely appeals to me more I suppose, but then I just don't have the desire to rush myself.

All in all, and after only briefly looking at admittedly just 15 minutes of one game (I picked germans vs a modest Russian front mission), I must say it is nice looking.

I am though, going to have to now re categorise RTS into RTS kiddie game, and RTS real time scenario:) .

Is there a distinction, well yes to me there is I suppose. Warcraft Starcraft, or whatever you want to call em, they are all just toys not depicting anything historical.
Sure there might be some pre game strategy, but during game its not strategy any more than running a factory at the managerial level is.

Sudden Strike II though is like comparing an Oral Test with a Written Test. Same questions, same answers needed. But you can't sit there muling the question over is all.
I think I will call it a recommended game:) .

I suppose this means I will have to look into checking out a few more games heheh.



CCB -> (8/20/2002 7:12:10 PM)

Two words: Close Combat.



fontenoy -> (8/21/2002 3:07:00 AM)

Hi Les,
May I suggest Firaxis Games:"Antietam" and "Gettysburg".These are RTS and very challenging.(AT least for myself).You can play scenarios based on significant points in the battle,or the whole battle from start to finish.I know they are available now on a single disc.It was very reasonably priced.20$ when I purchased mine about a year ago.
Regards,
Fontenoy.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (8/21/2002 4:02:49 AM)

Not routinely a civil war gamer but I will consider them, if you think they have merit and similar dynamics.



fontenoy -> (8/21/2002 4:50:44 AM)

I know there is definitely no building involved.Bit of a learning curve learning to move your units ie;moving in line,moving in column etc.I profess to being a civil war buff so perhaps you might not enjoy it the same way I would.Still,an appreciation of 19th century tactics comes with playing the game for a while.
If I come across anything else of interest,I'll post it here.
Regards,
Fontenoy.



fontenoy -> (8/21/2002 4:54:51 AM)

Addendum to the above,
Although I prefer turn based war games,I certainly didn't feel that my 20 bucks was wasted.For whatever that's worth.
Regards,
Fontenoy.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (8/21/2002 5:42:02 AM)

Fontenoy considering we are both Canadians, was just wondering if you have seen this post of mine before, and the implications it might have for your future purchases from the US

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23921

Put the link in here so you can zip to it if you are interested.



Big Bill -> (8/21/2002 7:56:57 AM)

I also have Gettysburg and like it a lot, my only complaint is that the better I seem to play the better the AI keeps up with me. Almost like it keeps me one step behiend, very hard game to win, for me, but enjoyable just the same


Bigbill



Ivan -> (8/22/2002 4:50:51 AM)

*ahem*
several words
Close Combat-A Bridge Too Far.


Best ww2 game ever IMO.
spwaw is a good runnerup tho :D



Brigz -> (8/22/2002 7:23:49 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fontenoy
[B]Hi Les,
May I suggest Firaxis Games:"Antietam" and "Gettysburg".These are RTS and very challenging.(AT least for myself).You can play scenarios based on significant points in the battle,or the whole battle from start to finish.I know they are available now on a single disc.It was very reasonably priced.20$ when I purchased mine about a year ago.
Regards,
Fontenoy. [/B][/QUOTE]

The one thing I didn't like about Sid Meier's Gettysburg is that there are no weapons distinctions. All the infantry regiments have a generic weapon and there are only generic smooth bore and rifled cannon. A game on that scale, regimental level, loses a lot because of this. It would be like playing SPWAW with all the squads and tanks (on both sides) having the same weapons.

Don't get me wrong, they are beautiful games and fun to play, but without the weapons, they just arn't historically accurate enough for me.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (8/22/2002 8:02:20 AM)

Hmmm, well considering that my only experience with Sid Meier's games is Cvilization.
And while Civilization is in the top of its class, maybe Sid isn't quite ready for the detail of our more traditional wargames.

Am I wrong?

After all, the only reason I play wargames is for the accurate rendering of the details really.



davewolf -> (8/22/2002 8:09:24 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Hmmm, well considering that my only experience with Sid Meier's games is Cvilization.
And while Civilization is in the top of its class, maybe Sid isn't quite ready for the detail of our more traditional wargames.

Am I wrong?[/B][/QUOTE]
No.


Sid is one of the greatest, but no wargamer. Just consider that he don't care at all about an even partly serious battle system for the Civ family.



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (8/22/2002 10:30:21 PM)

Yes I guess Sid has concentrated on the geo/political/economical aspect and not put much effort out on combat.

His games sure would be impressive if they played out more like a wargame when it came time to fight.

Everyone having the same weapon though, tends to ruin the wargamer aspect a bit.



Kanon Fodder -> (8/22/2002 10:50:04 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Yes I guess Sid has concentrated on the geo/political/economical aspect and not put much effort out on combat.

His games sure would be impressive if they played out more like a wargame when it came time to fight.

Everyone having the same weapon though, tends to ruin the wargamer aspect a bit. [/B][/QUOTE]

Not any less than the generalized attack/defend values applied to units in strategic games



davewolf -> (8/23/2002 12:08:04 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1
[B]Yes I guess Sid has concentrated on the geo/political/economical aspect and not put much effort out on combat.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, probably wargamers just aren't his main target group.



maybewar -> (8/24/2002 12:19:31 AM)

I recently tried SS2 and in my opinion it was lacking something. At first I found it fun and challenging, but it soon wore thin. I felt as if I was doing less than my troops were, and that my decisions were not crucial to the number of troops I lost or if I won or lost the battle. The demo made it same as if the number of tactics that one could imploy was severely limited, and did not vary by situation.

Just my opinions!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125