Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Some reflections on the game

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Some reflections on the game Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Some reflections on the game - 3/7/2019 11:37:54 AM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline
1. Limitation attack on each unit
There should be a limitation in how many attacks a unit need to absorb in one turn. 1 attack from each different branch unit on a single unit should be enough. This limitation should be valid for all units from different branches type of unit as, example ground units, artillery, air attacks and naval attacks. This because of the limitation in the game system, turn based system.
It´s highly unrealistic to have unlimited attacks on 1 single unit. This will also give other units than a single units more importance in the warfare.
This mean that a single unit can have the following attacks on it to absorb:
Attack from 1 ground unit (Inf, mech, armor, special, cav etc)
Attack from 1 support unit (artillery)
Attack from 1 Surface Naval unit or 1 submarine
Attack from 1 air units attack or 1 carrier unit

2. Encircled units
It should not be possibile to be reinforce Units that are encircled.

cheers
Post #: 1
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/7/2019 11:16:11 PM   
Christolos


Posts: 671
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
In my opinion, in a game of this scale, limiting the numbers of attacks a unit can be subjected to in a turn, would lead to a stagnant trench warfare style game with no lightning breakthroughs.

I like to think of the ability to attack with multiple ground units that are swapping position with front line troops which have already attacked, so that they can now attack, as being equivalent to stacking for the attack. This of course raises the important question as to why can't this happen for the defending units in the sense that units in the rear swap with retreating forward units, as reinforcements, to defend the vacated hex of the retreating unit. Right now, units will not retreat backwards if there isn't a vacant hex behind them to do so. I think it would be a nice feature if they could swap positions with units directly behind them, but this would necessitate having the ability of units in the rear to be set or toggled to do so-like in TOAW.

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 2
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/8/2019 4:36:33 AM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8591
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

1. Limitation attack on each unit

I've been playing this for over two years and see no reason for such a limitation.

quote:

2. Encircled units
It should not be possibile to be reinforce Units that are encircled.

Use the rules to your advantage, encircle the enemy and destroy his ability to reinforce. Otherwise, attack with multiple units and destroy the enemy before he reinforces.

(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 3
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/8/2019 10:33:10 AM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 708
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
sPz... is correct.

_____________________________


(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 4
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/8/2019 12:06:27 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

sPz... is correct.

Sorry guys but there are no right or wrong in this. What I want with this is to highlight one of the biggest problem as I see with the game system. I really like the game in itself but there are some serius issue.
To limit the attack is for me the best way to have some impact to react on the enemy's movment othervise you are only observer in the game.
We have already a sitiation with a big limitations that you can't stack troops more than 1 units per hex and thats ONLY favour the attacker.
My suggestion was one way to solve that problem but there can be of course be other ways.

In real life there are no possiblity to swap around corps and armys so thats highly unrealistic. Within the timespan of the game turn you can't attack a single hex with unlimited units that is both logistic and practical impossible.

So my conclusion are that some change need to be done in this game to make it more realistic and playable. But the question is of course free for all but i hope something is changing in this good game.


Cheers

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 5
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/8/2019 2:36:14 PM   
Christolos


Posts: 671
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
The quasi-stacking like effect of being able to attack with multiple units may seem to favour the attacker, but that doesn't mean it favours one side over the other...just the side with the initiative. Both sides get to attack the same way when it is their turn.

As for encircled units...this has been discussed before; and within the scope and scale of the game, units can be reinforced if in good supply (like in a city), but this can deteriorate over time depending on enemy action and time.

Cheers,

C

_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 6
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/8/2019 4:30:07 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos

The quasi-stacking like effect of being able to attack with multiple units may seem to favour the attacker, but that doesn't mean it favours one side over the other...just the side with the initiative. Both sides get to attack the same way when it is their turn.

As for encircled units...this has been discussed before; and within the scope and scale of the game, units can be reinforced if in good supply (like in a city), but this can deteriorate over time depending on enemy action and time.

Cheers,

C


Yes you are right, both side get the offensive turn in play IF the second side has anything left to use in the offensive:)
The gamesystem need to balancing the offensive and the defensive play. The one who have initiative will allways prevail becouse of the benefits in attacking vs defending. So Im still convinced that some limitation on the offensive side is needed to create a balanced play.

Vheers

(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 7
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/8/2019 8:08:03 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 708
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
The land battle mechanics actually work very well once you get used to them.

I think it can be argued to zero supplied defenders in your example should have less strength, especially once they get experience.

Many of these zero supply issues are being addressed in v1.16 I believe.

_____________________________


(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 8
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/9/2019 10:27:42 PM   
nnason


Posts: 396
Joined: 3/4/2016
From: Washington DC Metro Area
Status: offline
Many good ideas. This type of discussion is good.

We must remember this is a grand strategic game with IGUG turns taking 14 days at a minimum. Lots can happen in 14 days.

Surrounded units were resupplied especially the Germans. But Russians had the advantage of it was their country.

Systems works for both sides. Any changes need to be playtested to ensure doesn't unbalance the game. In the ELO tournament, there are 36 Allied wins and 33 Axis wins.



_____________________________

Live Long and Prosper,
Noah Nason
LTC Field Artillery
US Army Retired

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 9
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/10/2019 7:20:10 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 708
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nnason


Systems works for both sides. Any changes need to be playtested to ensure doesn't unbalance the game. In the ELO tournament, there are 36 Allied wins and 33 Axis wins.






The ELO results are very interesting, thank you. I used to think the Axis had an advantage, I now think its very close to balanced perhaps the Allies have a small advantage.



_____________________________


(in reply to nnason)
Post #: 10
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/10/2019 7:43:08 PM   
elxaime

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
I think a possible middle of the road solution would be to enable a "support" order for a second line armor/mech unit to allow it to "swap" into a designated hex mid-turn where a friendly unit had just been retreated/destroyed.

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 11
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/10/2019 11:30:44 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline
Another simple solution is as following and a little more realistic:
1. The attacker should not be allowed to "swap" unit in the front if they already attacked.
2. If the attacker fail to dislodge the opponent or eliminate them, the attacker lose all the movment points when they have done the last attack. This mean an infantry units lose movements after they attacked and failed and mech or tank unit lose there movments if they fail after the second attack.
This would make a little better balanced between attacker and defender.

We are here talking about mostley army corps or armys and you cant just switch target so easely as its in this game.

Cheers

(in reply to elxaime)
Post #: 12
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/11/2019 12:52:19 AM   
Sugar

 

Posts: 718
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline
The balance between attacker and defender is quite right for WW2 imho. How should you ever be able to take out bottlenecks like El Alamein or Leningrad otherwise?

Alltogether the balancing with V 15.02 is commonly recognized as nearly perfect. Constant complaints of incapable players already lead to further restraints for the Axis, allthough the tourney results are showing absolutely no need to do so. In V 1.16 not only the subs are reduced in efficiency, also all tac. and med. bombers are, and their costs of operating are doubled.

And again a rookie comes along, has no clue how to play the game and doesn't feel the need to seek the issue in his gameplay, but demands unnecessary changes, with only the one perspective of the latest side he played or other experiences in different games. Sorry, not meant personally, but this has already happened to often, and I'm really not keen on trying the changes of the next "patch".

And here some hints to improve your defence: fortify valuable positions, upgrade fortifications and ressources, place arty and anti-air in the second line, optimize your supply and HQs, keep reinforces in the back and keep in mind this is WW2. Neither the Maginot-Line, nor Eben-Emael or Tobruk held for long, that's how realistic a defense has been actually. If you can't hold the line, withdraw and prepare to counterattack.

(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 13
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/11/2019 8:33:17 AM   
BPINisBACK


Posts: 235
Joined: 10/30/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Alltogether the balancing with V 15.02 is commonly recognized as nearly perfect. Constant complaints of incapable players already lead to further restraints for the Axis, allthough the tourney results are showing absolutely no need to do so. In V 1.16 not only the subs are reduced in efficiency, also all tac. and med. bombers are, and their costs of operating are doubled.

And again a rookie comes along, has no clue how to play the game and doesn't feel the need to seek the issue in his gameplay, but demands unnecessary changes, with only the one perspective of the latest side he played or other experiences in different games. Sorry, not meant personally, but this has already happened to often, and I'm really not keen on trying the changes of the next "patch".




(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 14
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/11/2019 9:28:48 AM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

The balance between attacker and defender is quite right for WW2 imho. How should you ever be able to take out bottlenecks like El Alamein or Leningrad otherwise?

Alltogether the balancing with V 15.02 is commonly recognized as nearly perfect. Constant complaints of incapable players already lead to further restraints for the Axis, allthough the tourney results are showing absolutely no need to do so. In V 1.16 not only the subs are reduced in efficiency, also all tac. and med. bombers are, and their costs of operating are doubled.

And again a rookie comes along, has no clue how to play the game and doesn't feel the need to seek the issue in his gameplay, but demands unnecessary changes, with only the one perspective of the latest side he played or other experiences in different games. Sorry, not meant personally, but this has already happened to often, and I'm really not keen on trying the changes of the next "patch".

And here some hints to improve your defence: fortify valuable positions, upgrade fortifications and ressources, place arty and anti-air in the second line, optimize your supply and HQs, keep reinforces in the back and keep in mind this is WW2. Neither the Maginot-Line, nor Eben-Emael or Tobruk held for long, that's how realistic a defense has been actually. If you can't hold the line, withdraw and prepare to counterattack.



Near perfect!!! Says who, there are never any perfect games. There are many thing that can be improved.
And as I said it's still not realistic to swap corps and army's in a pace like this game. If you had some military experiance you probably have understood.
When it comes to naval battles I doubt that a heavaly outnumbered side would take the fight at all and what normaly happens is that that side use something called "retreat"

The biggest problem to improve games and discuss in forums like this, there are allways people who think they allways have the right answer on everything, and thats not so constructive. Sometimes it can be good to listen to other ideas. Critisism is allways good for development so just hold your horses.
And if you feel like a rookie you shouldn't be asame, we all been there:)

Cheers

(in reply to Sugar)
Post #: 15
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/11/2019 11:53:08 AM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 708
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
Mr Emporer you are correct everyone was new to the game once and welcome. New players are greatly appreciated.

SC3 is great because its easy to begin play and very hard to master.

Sugar is correct in that once your game skills improve you will find your concerns raised in this post are without merit.

IMO the land battle component works very well.

I'd suggest posting the exact battle situations (w/maps) that you are concerned with and you'll find the experienced players very willing to suggest some effective tactics.

Concentrate on the HQs and the attached units, they are the most useful.

Enjoy the game and stick with it.


It just gets better.



_____________________________


(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 16
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/11/2019 7:54:16 PM   
MVokt

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 7/1/2018
Status: offline
I agree that the multiple attacks possibility is a good thing in a game that has no stacking of units option. This is what allows to better simulate breakthroughs.

Game as is now is balanced and any change in combat mechanics would require extensive play testing.

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 17
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/12/2019 12:49:48 AM   
gamer78

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline
I think there is overall maybe 'wording' problem and not polite answers from veterans against rookie as I've seen in World at War forum also. It won't be good for the company and for the people who are just interested in the game. Devs I see are polite people maybe Matrix should look into this. Myself is AGEod games veteran from 2008 but careful mostly with answers...

(in reply to MVokt)
Post #: 18
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/12/2019 9:24:21 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 708
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gamer78

I think there is overall maybe 'wording' problem and not polite answers from veterans against rookie as I've seen in World at War forum also. It won't be good for the company and for the people who are just interested in the game. Devs I see are polite people maybe Matrix should look into this. Myself is AGEod games veteran from 2008 but careful mostly with answers...




This forum and the comments above are very tame in criticism compared to most. Every game forum has crusty veterans who give new players grief.

Could some of the above contributors (including myself) work on their people skills? sure


If you are seriously interested in improving your game ask the guys (not me) above, they know this game better than anyone.


Don't blame the game because you are new to the game, learn how to be better. Ask serious questions and you'll get serious answers.





< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 3/12/2019 9:49:26 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to gamer78)
Post #: 19
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/12/2019 10:17:16 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8591
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

not polite answers from veterans against rookie

I am a long time gamer but was a rookie at SC3, so I took care to ask for help instead of demanding changes to a game system that has been around for 15+ years and is very popular. The developers are very polite and helpful, so be respectful and ask for help first before assuming a fix is needed.

(in reply to gamer78)
Post #: 20
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 12:38:53 PM   
gamer78

 

Posts: 200
Joined: 8/17/2011
Status: offline
I think you should be respectful and re-read my post first. I didn't mention changing game system&fixes or anything... I'm playing SC games when it was in Battlefront. SC Breakthrough still my favourite. I'm not new player either.

"This forum and the comments above are very tame in criticism compared to most. Every game forum has crusty veterans who give new players grief. "

This was my point. PvtBenjamin wrote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin


Don't blame the game because you are new to the game, learn how to be better. Ask serious questions and you'll get serious answers.



But didn't understand this part. Not new player, Didn't blame game. Well I know how to ask questions as a serious matrix trooper..


< Message edited by gamer78 -- 3/13/2019 3:50:55 PM >

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 21
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 12:41:06 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline
Hi

Another solution to limit the abuse of an attacker is to limit the swap thing. The swap thing should only be allowed if the frontline unit haven’t attacked yet. If the frontline unit already attacked the swap should not be allowed. To withdraw units of the sizes as in the game, take a lot of time. The swap thing should only be allowed if the frontline unit haven’t attacked yet. If the frontline unit already attacked the swap should not be allowed.
Two things can happen when you commence an attack with ground units.
1. The defender withstands your attack and remain in the hex and the attacker are bogged down. This can be changed if another unit dislodge or eliminate the same defending unit. Than the former attacker can continue their move, otherwise it’s a halt with no more movement points. Remember all things happens within the game turn.
2. The defender is dislodged or eliminated, then the attacker can continue their move.
This limitation will also make the support units as air support, artillery etc to be of higher importance for the warefare than today.

The navy battles are in my opinion a little weird and I think they can improve it to.
After the fight has started the two combatants are locked into each other and no one else other than support units as carrier should be allowed to attack the defending unit in that turn. This will give the defender a chance to retreat from the battle and have some chance to survive instead of being overwhelmed. It also gives the game a better pace on naval warfare in my point of view.
The retreat should then be able to execute through enemy lines with half of the unit’s movement points before it should be stopped by other vessels.
Other naval issue is that the retreat path looks weird, many times the unit retreat it’s moving deeper into enemy areas.

This is my suggestions to improve this game, feel free to comment this subject.

Cheers

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 22
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 4:37:05 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 708
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
As I mentioned I think the ground battle component of the game works very well.

You need to focus on entrenchment, morale, readiness, experience, HQs & supply. Many of these 6 are intertwined, once you master them the ground game will work much better.

The Axis air component is the strongest part of the game and doesnt need to be any stronger.


We agree on the naval component.

The naval game isn't the best, it could use some work. The submarines are silly strong even with 0 supply in v1.15, as mentioned above much of this is improving in v 1.16. IMO the naval game is at the lower end of the games importance in the European game (blocking convoys - supporting amphibs- reducing ground supply - protecting AF from carriers). If the convoy is being blocked just shut it down to 0. The rest of the game is fantastic so I overlook the shortcomings of the naval game and just try to make sure it isn't a large detriment.

Blind running into other units and taking massive damage (especially when they are 0 supply subs) is very annoying. You have to use the subs to locate. I'm impatient and cant move all my naval units one hex at a time.

The Carriers and Maritime bombers are awesome if used correctly.


Just a few thoughts.

enjoy



_____________________________


(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 23
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 6:31:00 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

As I mentioned I think the ground battle component of the game works very well.

You need to focus on entrenchment, morale, readiness, experience, HQs & supply. Many of these 6 are intertwined, once you master them the ground game will work much better.

The Axis air component is the strongest part of the game and doesnt need to be any stronger.


We agree on the naval component.

The naval game isn't the best, it could use some work. The submarines are silly strong even with 0 supply in v1.15, as mentioned above much of this is improving in v 1.16. IMO the naval game is at the lower end of the games importance in the European game (blocking convoys - supporting amphibs- reducing ground supply - protecting AF from carriers). If the convoy is being blocked just shut it down to 0. The rest of the game is fantastic so I overlook the shortcomings of the naval game and just try to make sure it isn't a large detriment.

Blind running into other units and taking massive damage (especially when they are 0 supply subs) is very annoying. You have to use the subs to locate. I'm impatient and cant move all my naval units one hex at a time.

The Carriers and Maritime bombers are awesome if used correctly.


Just a few thoughts.

enjoy




Sorry but you still don't have a clue what Im talking about.
About the game mechanics I know very well how it works and thats why I give some ideas to improvements.
I agree naval battles unfortunally really sucks, but beside that it has a potential to be a great game.


Cheers



(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 24
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 7:16:08 PM   
PvtBenjamin

 

Posts: 708
Joined: 5/6/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emporer


Sorry but you still don't have a clue what Im talking about.
About the game mechanics I know very well how it works and thats why I give some ideas to improvements.


Cheers







Well so much for Mr Niceguy

Actually I completely understand what you are talking about and its idiotic and doubt you understand the mechanics.



< Message edited by PvtBenjamin -- 3/13/2019 7:17:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 25
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 7:44:15 PM   
sPzAbt653


Posts: 8591
Joined: 5/3/2007
From: east coast, usa
Status: offline
quote:

I think you should be respectful

I was referring to the part I quoted, that veteran players have made some impolite answers. Just a misunderstanding, all is good.

(in reply to gamer78)
Post #: 26
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 9:10:11 PM   
elxaime

 

Posts: 268
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
I think probably some of the frustration surfacing is due to the fact that differing skill levels can really make a huge difference, especially in the global war version. A smart person who is a student of WW2, but is new to Strategic Command, can stand aghast as they watch what seemed to be a solid strategy taken apart by an expert player who understands down to the mathematical level how game systems work. You could bring Viscount Montgomery of Alamein back from the dead and pit him against a 10 year old who knew how the game works and Monty would get demolished.

I think this is a strength of the game and a weakness. A strength, in that it encourages and rewards creativity and analysis and increases replay value. A weakness in that, I have found, when playing someone at expert level you feel less and less like you are simulating WW2 and more like you are playing "the game." You HAVE to do certain things a certain way or get left in the dust. For example, the way expert players will cannibalize research at the start of the game to pour it into infantry, tanks and aircraft. Or roll the dice on wild diplomatic offensives that, if they succeed, more or less can end the game in 1941.

Some of these issues can and are being debated, like this one. But the tension is natural. No one is "right" or "wrong" here. The system made some choices and not everyone can be satisfied. You make the game more complex or "realistic" (another loaded term) and you lose some of its playability and accessibility.

(in reply to sPzAbt653)
Post #: 27
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/13/2019 11:40:11 PM   
Emporer

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 2/12/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Emporer


Sorry but you still don't have a clue what Im talking about.
About the game mechanics I know very well how it works and thats why I give some ideas to improvements.


Cheers







Well so much for Mr Niceguy

Actually I completely understand what you are talking about and its idiotic and doubt you understand the mechanics.





PvtBenjamin, I don't really care what you think and it is completely irrelevant.

I was hoping for a constructive discussion on this thread but it looks like I'm wrong. The sad thing is that many comments here have nothing to do with the subject of this thread about some features in the game.
We can agree or disagree about ideas, but the important thing is that the forum is open to everyone and where we can express our ideas. I am convinced that the forum like this is a good source for the design team to improve the game.
Unfortunately, it looks like some people are trying to control this forum for themselves and that is not good. Every forum must be open to everyone and where we can share our ideas.

As elxamin said, "No one is" right "or" wrong "here. The only "idiotic" here are people who cannot accept others when expressing their ideas.

The good thing about the game is it's very easy to modify but not everything, so sometimes it ends with compromises that can be annoying.

Having said that, I have to ask you guys to stick the subject on this thread or leave it.

Cheers

(in reply to PvtBenjamin)
Post #: 28
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/14/2019 5:06:13 AM   
Edorf

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 5/14/2013
Status: offline
I`m a bit unsure what the op is trying to achieve with this attemt to discuss the game. If a single person is presenting issues with the game, that`s not reported from anyone else, I really doubt these reworks is really needed. Using words like "my biggest problem", "highly unrealistic" and telling that the game really needs to be improved is to me more like expression of dissatisfaction. Coming in like this is a sure way to ignite some unwanted responses I guess.

(in reply to Emporer)
Post #: 29
RE: Some reflections on the game - 3/15/2019 7:22:24 PM   
MVokt

 

Posts: 57
Joined: 7/1/2018
Status: offline
Wargames are only games and I agree that terms like "realistic" or "unrealistic" are hardly appropriate to define anything in a wargame which is only that, a game. So playability and balance must count much more than "realism".





(in reply to Edorf)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Some reflections on the game Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.169