Changes from SC2 to SC3 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

TR -> Changes from SC2 to SC3 (8/15/2013 1:52:25 AM)

Just curious, but is this a total remake of SC2 or just a face lift? And will this SC3 be released sooner or later?



Robert24 -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (8/15/2013 4:44:03 AM)

Hi TR,
Check out the summary here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3370983
Robert



Hubert Cater -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (8/15/2013 12:47:48 PM)

Hi TR,

Robert24 is correct that this link describes the general summary for now but there will of course be many more details we will expand upon for SC3 with more info on that as development becomes more established on our end.

Generally speaking though, SC3 will definitely be much more than a face lift as we have many new features planned, on top of the necessary game engine changes, as well as a planned release date for 2014.

I hope this helps,
Hubert



TR -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (8/17/2013 10:19:34 PM)

It does. Thanks Huber. And thanks to Robert24 for summary. I eagerly await SC3's release.



Darken -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/11/2013 8:33:16 AM)

SC3 with Hexes [:)]

Hubert, I still have some wishes for SC 3 (most relevant on top of the catalogue).

- Improved Research with less luck-factor (I'd like to see a game-option with no purchasable research but instead a fixed 'historic" research -> f.e. in mid 1945 the USA automatically develop the atomic bomb) [&o]

- No AT, AA, Artillery or Rocket Units (in the strategic Europe-Campaign; in more tactical scenarios like North Africa those units are ok) but instead the option to upgrade ground-units (HQ, corps, armies, tanks, ...) with either AT or AA or Artillery or Rockets (as in Hearts of Iron 2) [:D]

- Well done AI (f.e. I'd like to play Germany having to keep struggling with Italy played by AI)

- More Unit types (f.e. cavalry, elite units like Waffen SS, ...)

Thank You for reading and much fun (and success) with the development of SC 3.



trebcourie -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/11/2013 10:47:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darken

SC3 with Hexes [:)]

Hubert, I still have some wishes for SC 3 (most relevant on top of the catalogue).

- Improved Research with less luck-factor (I'd like to see a game-option with no purchasable research but instead a fixed 'historic" research -> f.e. in mid 1945 the USA automatically develop the atomic bomb) [&o]

- No AT, AA, Artillery or Rocket Units (in the strategic Europe-Campaign; in more tactical scenarios like North Africa those units are ok) but instead the option to upgrade ground-units (HQ, corps, armies, tanks, ...) with either AT or AA or Artillery or Rockets (as in Hearts of Iron 2) [:D]



I disagree on the historic research. That makes the game too linear and predictable. It also takes one of the decisions out of the player's hands -- should I cripple my production at the expense of (possible) future scientific advances?

But I completely agree on the last point -- except maybe on AA. I fell in love with SC1 because it was an operational-level campaign with corps and armies. There are no AT or artillery units of those sizes. I felt that the addition of so many specialty units in SC2 was a concession to folks who wanted the "cool" WWII units at the expense of the realism of the original SC1.



wodin -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/12/2013 12:15:19 AM)

I also completely agree on the last point. Never understood why certain units are counted a separate entities in some Grand Strat games..when really they should be added to a unit as support element which will boost said units capability.



SeaMonkey -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/12/2013 2:26:22 AM)

Of course the attachments of assets is a more real representation and could be a function of the HQ as far as their deployments to various units under the command umbrella. I would suggest that heavy or medium tank forces as well as motor pool assets should be a part of the AG HQ sphere of influence to be handed out to the formations under its control.



Robert24 -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/12/2013 4:42:02 AM)

Darken,
You wrote, "I'd like to play Germany having to keep struggling with Italy played by AI"
That sounds like a fun time - I hope this is a possibility in SC3 [:'(]
Robert



trebcourie -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/12/2013 4:36:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Of course the attachments of assets is a more real representation and could be a function of the HQ as far as their deployments to various units under the command umbrella. I would suggest that heavy or medium tank forces as well as motor pool assets should be a part of the AG HQ sphere of influence to be handed out to the formations under its control.


Sure, but now you're trying to turn this into a Gary Grigsby game. [:)]



DSWargamer -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/12/2013 6:06:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Of course the attachments of assets is a more real representation and could be a function of the HQ as far as their deployments to various units under the command umbrella. I would suggest that heavy or medium tank forces as well as motor pool assets should be a part of the AG HQ sphere of influence to be handed out to the formations under its control.


Sure, but now you're trying to turn this into a Gary Grigsby game. [:)]


Yep I was showing a friend yesterday both SC1 and Gary's WitE.

I want both games to remain what they are, and not pretend either needs to be the other.

If the plan is to design grand strategy then leave it as such. SC3 if it is to be grand strategy, shouldn't be screwing around pretending to be operational. It's an army counter or it isn't. AT units? what's the point? There is nothing grand strategy about assets, they ARE just assets, you don't make them separate counters. If a side has developed good AT doctrine then reflect it in the army counter.



Fintilgin -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/12/2013 9:36:03 PM)

I kinda like having a handful of artillery counters, sort of abstractly representing the massing of artillery in certain locations for specific offensives, but otherwise I tend to agree that on the scale the SC game operate on, having so many 'chrome' sub units feels a bit out of place/scale.



DSWargamer -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/13/2013 12:52:57 AM)

The danger is if the game has no stacking, then the counters become a waste of a valuable resource, that being a value piece of real estate.

If I have a choice of an Infantry Army or a Tank Army or a Rocket unit, which do you think I really want in that hex eh?



SeaMonkey -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/13/2013 3:13:02 AM)

Never have given a look at GG's WitE. Only GG game I ever played was his WW2 territorial game from way back. I'm not talking about having counters representing attaching assets, I was thinking more along the lines of Red Storm Rising where there is an abstract attachment of various combat formations.

Sort of on the same idea of a DoD, nothing to stack, just an additonal icon on the unit counter displaying the commitment by the controlling HQ. For example, let's say that the "Model HQ" has a certain number of assets connected to it that the player can view in the unit screen by a mouse over(or right click, etc). The player then selects the asset in the unit screen and moves it to a deployed unit within the realm of the HQ's command structure, the icon appears with the accompanying combat/mobility enhancements on the selected unit for a visual reference of the asset attachment.



pzgndr -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/13/2013 11:49:26 AM)

I think the variety of unit types is good, even if not used. The thing is the SC series games can be customized, and those extra unit types further customized. The default campaigns that Hubert provides are intended to find a pretty good balance between the hard-core historical accuracy and realism crowd and the fast&fun crowd. Some modifications one way or another are usually needed to fully satisfy either crowd.

Personally I agree that the AT, artillery and rocket units are not needed at the grand strategy level. I dabbled with them in earlier versions of my Advanced Third Reich mod but ultimately removed them and stuck with the original OOBs. It all depends on what you're looking for, and looking to achieve in your game. At the end of the day, SC can provide something for everyone. [8D]



DSWargamer -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/13/2013 12:31:23 PM)

"At the end of the day, SC can provide something for everyone."

Actually, while a nice sounding sentiment, the truth is it violates a very important rule. You can not please all of the people all of the time. And trying to do so, tends to make the attempt more likely a failure.

The only way SC3 (or any wargame for that matter) will succeed, is if Hubert remains true to an objective of designing a credible and realistic simulation and doesn't try to be all things to all people. Because if the game lacks seriously tangible credibility, he risks it being no more interesting than all the schlock infesting the Android game market.



pzgndr -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/17/2013 6:28:08 PM)

quote:

You can not please all of the people all of the time.


I did not say this. I did say that some modifications one way or another are usually needed to fully satisfy either crowd. Hubert seeks to achieve a decent balance to appeal to a larger customer base, and in this regard he has been successful and will continue to do so with SC3. And again, with the editor players can easily mod the default campaign(s) as desired to be either more accurate and realistic or more fast&fun. Even you. [;)]




Josh -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/17/2013 9:04:58 PM)

In my experience the SC series has a very large appeal to a large crowd, from someone who likes Panzer Corps to WitE fans alike. Very fluid gameplay easy to get into but also with a hidden depth, nice graphics and a huge map.
So in my humble opinion Hubert et al is doing a great job.



Darken -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/18/2013 9:38:37 AM)

Greetings BROJD,


quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD
I disagree on the historic research. That makes the game too linear and predictable. It also takes one of the decisions out of the player's hands -- should I cripple my production at the expense of (possible) future scientific advances?



I wrote that I'd like to see a game-option with fixed historic reseach. Of course I also want to have the option to have a player decided research (or no research at all).


quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD
But I completely agree on the last point -- except maybe on AA. I fell in love with SC1 because it was an operational-level campaign with corps and armies. There are no AT or artillery units of those sizes. I felt that the addition of so many specialty units in SC2 was a concession to folks who wanted the "cool" WWII units at the expense of the realism of the original SC1.


Thank You [:)]



Darken -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/18/2013 9:55:20 AM)

Robert,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Robert24
Darken,
You wrote, "I'd like to play Germany having to keep struggling with Italy played by AI"
That sounds like a fun time - I hope this is a possibility in SC3 [:'(]
Robert


When Mussolini attacked Greece and Egypt without consulting Hitler first, those attacks forced Germany to send troops to Greece and North Africa as the Italian troops failed.

If SC 3 includes an Italian AI for the Axis side You as Axis player can't use the Italian units in an optimised way but have to live with an "AI-Ally" making more trouble as benefit. That could be an interesting challenge for Axis players.



pzgndr -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/18/2013 12:34:31 PM)

quote:

If SC 3 includes an Italian AI for the Axis side You as Axis player can't use the Italian units in an optimised way but have to live with an "AI-Ally" making more trouble as benefit. That could be an interesting challenge for Axis players.


Even if individual countries do not get AI control as an option in SC3, things like this can always be variably scripted into a game. Surprise- Italy has declared war on Greece!



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/18/2013 10:22:04 PM)

I think SC is the most flexible system I have worked with. A.I. is also easy to implement. You can get real creative with it.



mcaryf -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/19/2013 11:21:24 AM)

I agree that SC is very flexible and I would not want the variety of unit types reduced. Modders can always adapt extra unit types to be relevant for their scenarios. For example I am using the extra cavalry unit in AOD to play the part of weak but large Chinese Warlord forces that fought for the Japanese. There were over 1m of these so they should be represented but their capability should be much less than an equivalent Japanese Army unit.

I do think naval unit types are under represented in current versions of SC and I have to create additional countries to represent some of the real British and US naval units. Examples are older battleships that should not realistically have the possibility to be teched up to be equivalent to newly built ones and the range of specialised CVE's different variants of which were used either for anti-submarine or for ground support roles.

The flexibility of SC does let me do this but sometimes the fundamental AI handling code of SC will prevent my modded units from behaving as intended because the AI routines tend to be driven by unit type rather than its actual combat values. I would really like SC3 to be able to establish a mechanism to apply different stategic responses in different theatres. Thus I might like to adopt a strategic defensive posture in some naval theatres whilst being offensive in others. An example might be the British in the Mediterranean - if their force level there fell below a certain strength then I would like the AI to stop rushing out and attacking anything it sees moving on the water. Ideally the strength calculation would relate to the actual CTVs rather than the number of units of each type.

Regards

Mike



aesopo -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (9/23/2013 5:14:23 AM)

Posted originally on slitherine: I followed Hubert over here from battlefront. Please, please have units adjacent to a unit contribute to the defense of an assaulted unit as it is historically so. The SC series were great and Hubert did great improvements (well except for losing the hex in my opinion) but the sole defender thingie really bothered me, especially after one assaulting unit comes after the next. Assault on a unit should be orchestrated with other units and turns should be simultaneous - turns are made and then resolved. Igougo is not really reality in warfare. Other adjacent naval groups should also contribute to the defense of a naval unit and if it is within the sphere of air cover of a carrier, the carrier's air wing also lends a hand or other land based air assets that are within range. It is unrealistic that a sole defending battle group is sunk with nearby defending assets available to contribute. Multi-core support as you are taking your time to make your turn, the AI is already making moves in the background. I know this request comes belated, sorry. There needs to be a continued cost in supporting units not just abstraction that you bought it no need to worry about food, maintenance, cash, war material, soldiers. Each country should have a population pool where units are drawn from and scripts for decisions in increasing (teens but less reliability, increased training but longer production but tougher units, general conscription but hitting morale/increasing pool). There should be a representation on the map of important resources (metals, oil, industry) that each side will try to safeguard and for the other side to capture and techs to increase them or supplant them.



dhucul2011 -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (10/8/2013 1:50:00 AM)

As a beta tester of SC3 I have lobbied to keep the basic SC3 engine simple with only some tweaks and new features.

Let's not HOI what is an excellent engine with great moddability.

The new version should be all about new units, new graphics and chrome, increased flexibility of decisions and some cool new features such as oil, manpower, revamped diplomacy and moddability of everything.



dhucul2011 -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (10/8/2013 1:53:46 AM)

No stacking, hexes, increased map size, more unit upgrade slots (for artillery, engineers, anti tank etc), nuclear weapons and more complex alliances including AI control of selected nations.

That would be a hell of a nice SC3 that already has the best AI on the market.



SeaMonkey -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (10/8/2013 4:48:16 AM)

Actually dhucul with enough upgradeable / asset attachment slots you could give a hex deployment plenty of diverse capabilities(no need for stacking). Say you could attach an air group and/or an artillery section to an infantry organization with numerous strike capability. Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing as a stack of air units, ground forces and a bombardment capacity? Seems pretty simple for a human, but for an AI.....hmmm..what do you think Al?



dhucul2011 -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (10/12/2013 12:15:00 AM)

Yes, I agree. I said NO to stacking and YES to all of the options in my post.



Irish Guards -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (10/25/2013 3:30:59 AM)

Lets git ta the Kiltin eh'
IDG
[&o]



Irish Guards -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (10/25/2013 3:32:38 AM)

Kiltin time eh Hubert ... !!!
Faugh a Ballagh'
Irish Guards

[X(]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.53125