|
Charles22 -> (1/14/2001 9:29:00 PM)
|
Paul Vebber: I'm sorry, it's just since earer I had mentioned We-Go and RTS being modes of play for CL, and then you mentioned it has turn-based play, as if I didn't know that, then my natural inclination was to think that you didn't regard We-Go as turn-based, but I did realise that it was a turn-base, it's just it's not what people seem to generally mean when the phrase is used. I guess the problem is that noone has ever thought of a term that easily describes the sort of turn-based we see in TOAW, WIR, or SPWAW (which as far as I'm concerned are all the same turn-base structurally) [How about 'dry' turn-based?]. I suppose the industry has largely left that undefined, and instead has given names to other various turn-based systems (such as We-Go).
quote:
We are going to great lengths to improve the "tracking" limitations of units so difference between a shot at a unit slowly moving in the open towards you, and a unit moving quickly from coover to cover will be MUCH different compaaared to the "freeze frame" of SP:WaW
Yeah, that was a problem with SP, as it was rather silly that something as important as speed couldn't hold over from turn to turn. The fact that y'all would be trying to make a difference from hitting someone moving quickly and becoming larger (towards you), and someone skirting horizontally is encouraging. See? I knew y'all had it together.
I see there is no longer any focus on my referring to another AOW forum as kiddy, since I hope I've explained myself sufficiently, but it's there where I felt that I might've been teeing people off, so I'll drop it. I think I made an accurate reflection, it's just that it's too easy for someone not to know what I'm talking about and take it badly.
GeneralGordenBennet: I was only generalizing, from what "I thought" I remembered about it (CC), for I surely didn't want to load it and play it just to say that it doesn't interest me any longer (Someone pressed for details, so I gave the best slop I could serve). My only passing interest with it, was one reason why I didn't want to comment on it in the first place, but then there probably haven't been an awful lot of people trying to draw comparisons between it and SPWAW. I have put a slight bit more effort into my commentary, this time, only enough to note that I don't in fact have two CCs, but only CC2. Perhaps seperate armor ratings came along in the later versions. In any case, it's a distant memory, and the new ones didn't seem to offer enough to overcome what I didn't like in CC2, though they did make some steps and tempted me a bit.
I've had trust in the Matrix attempt on CL, for a number of reasons. I'm not sure if I would prefer 'dry' turn-based to the team of WEGO and RTS, but while the method of turns is important, I figure the blending of SPWAW, thereby the realism factor (with improvements in that, doubtlessly, with a newer game) put into RTS, makes all the difference. Realism, for me, isn't so much about cute sounds and graphics, it's about the battle basically going as one would expect. For what RTS is known for, a King Tiger will never hold off one or two platoons of tanks, since with each round needing to actually penetrate the target, such as in SPWAW, no million wimpy units can finish it off (excepting the war of suppression, which is what I play when behest against superior armor) and with the constant twisting/turning I remember in CC2, even if the armor was given good treatment, it was foolishly exposing itself to side and rear shots, when the only enemies might've been within a 30 degree arc a considerable distance away.
The CL forum is very CC heavy right now, as Paul has noticed, but I think that there will be a great deal of SPWAW to knock more sense into the game. Myself, I feel rather silly commenting on a game that's not out yet. I can't tell if it's a game that's more CC with SPWAW thrown in, or more SPWAW with CC thrown in. I really don't think they can screw it up, unless it's little more than a CC clone, and from what I've heard that certainly isn't the case, though I'm sure I'm in for some surprises (all good I hope).
CC was a gallant attempt at RTS, and works in a lot of ways, though it still doesn't offer as much to my imagination as SPWAW does. For the sake of comparison here, without counting, let's say I have 15 functional wargames. CC2 would be perhaps the 15th, or 10th at best. It's not awful, or I wouldn't have bought it, but it's only basically a one-time play for me.
Strangely enough, since I'm awaiting SPWAW V4.6 with the option of removing the asterisk, and how big an impact that'll have, I've stopped playing it, and, today, (he says as he cowers in shame), I'm playing AOE the Conquerors. Why? It's a good fill-in till V4.6. It has some randomness to it to where no two missions need be alike, though it's replete with unrealism. So that's the sad state of affairs, I'd rather screw around with AOE than CC2. Maybe, if CC2 just had random missions, maybe. I think that must be my primary interest in gaming. I can't stand replaying a scenario, for example, and waiting until I've forgotten where everything is. Unfortunately, CC2 was so hip graphically, that I can't possibly forget where everything was, and the missions are basically the same with the same trees, same houses etc. Perhaps they changed that in CC3 and later? Lack of random scenarios/campaigns and limited amount of nationalities, as far as I can figure, are the reasons why things like AOETC are being played before CC2, as a fill-in. Needless to say SPWAW is very strong in those two areas as well.
|
|
|
|
