I am disappointed already

[vveedd]

After I have read many posts on this forum and first interview must say that I am disappointed. You guys are making Strategic Command 2 clone. The vital mechanics of the game will be the same:
-oil will be represented only as extra production
-you will have two kind of air units: bombers and fighters. Bombers will be for strategic bombardment, fighters will be fighters and tactical bombers. All depending by tech.
-players can upgrade all units accordingly to tech advancing
-you will have corps and army size units, maybe division which is IMO unnecessary on this map scale
-tech levels will be equal for all sides, it doesn't mean that nations will start at the same tech level.
-You will not have stacking, if I understood correctly
-You will have only 3 sides (Western Allies, Axis and USSR) which is even worse the SC2

Strategic Command 2 IMO is solid game, especially now with first patch so why are you making clone?

[xtiaan72]

I am hoping that this game offers a new and different experience than SC. This coming from someone that bought SC ( a fine game) but not SC 2 ( beacuse if just seems like more of the same.) I know Commander will probably look much prettier than SC but vvedd asks some valid questions. What really is different under the hood? Correct me if I'm wrong but the similarities seem to be more numerous than the differences.

If you guys are going to make this game then you really have to kick us all in our ass! Make a game that is a new and innovative experience and blows SC and HOI out of the water.

[IainMcNeil]

It's good when people keep an open mind We thought it would be good to involve you guys in the design and development so you can see how things change over time and you can have your input. Unfortunately, because you can't see how the game works yet, you're just assuming it will be like what you've already got. Based on the info you have you could even say the game is a clone of Clash of Steel Isn't SC just a clone of Clash of Steel

I can't even tell you if it's going to be the same as SC2 because I haven't played it yet! I've also not played HOI 1 or 2, or 3rd Reich. I can see all the accusations coming in now that we don't know what we're talking about Personally my inspiration comes from classics like Clash of Steel, Panzer General, old board games and strategy games from other genres. I haven't played these games for 10 years plus, so I don't even remember how they work, but I remember the feel of them and that is what we are trying to get across.

In answer to your points:
* We're have split air units in to 3 categories, but wanted to test to see if worked before we talked about it. Close air support, Fighters & Bombers.
* If you have technologies, units must be able to be upgraded, or it has to happen automatically. Show me a game that has technologies that does not do this!
* There is only one size of unit - corps. No divisions & armies so I don't know where that came from.
* Why should tech levels not be the same for all sides? If germany did not invest in rocketry technologies they would not have had rockets. If we make the technologies follow historical paths it takes away the players control. Maybe realistic but this is a game not a simulation! There will also be a general troop quality based on teh nation & its manpower levels.
* The scale of the map is different from the look of the screenshots of SC2, so stacking is less of an issue. In our opinion stacking units just does not work - it is fiddly to control and it is impossible to show clearly what is in a hex. This is not a board game!
* We could add more sides but what would be the point? Who really want's to play Italy, or the US before they are involved in the war? Or are you suggestion that we shoudl add in Hungary & Romania - I know HOI does it, but that would be utterly pointles in my opinion

In my opinion the things that make the games similar are the setting, turn based, hex based & scale. Without understanding the detail of the mechanics going on in the game engine I don't see how it's possible to make such sweeping comments

For instance the combat model has to be completely different because we don't even know how theirs works! When you attack a unit, there are 2 stages, shock & damage. Shock reduces the targets effectivness and cohesion, while damage actually reduces it's strength. If the shock attack is effective enough & cohesion is reduced significantly the unit may retreat. Air strikes & naval combardments primarily do shock attack, no real damage. We have manpower & resources. We have real convoys travelling around the map.

For more details on teh game read teh diary at http://www.slitherine.com/commander/diary.htm

To be honest I find this type of comment a bit disappointing. It may be best if we keep everything secret until it is complete.

[xtiaan72]

"Isn't SC just a clone of Clash of Steel"


Now your talking old school! I used to play that on my Amiga I think its great that you guys are taking peoples comments into consideration. That is really rare in your business. But valuable with the kind of audience that is attracted to this genre.

SC had a very loyal and rabid following and you will get alot of strong opinions from that crowd.

I think it's encouraging that you haven't played it. Don't. That alone will guarantee that Commander is a unique experience.

As some have said on the board, gameplay is going to be 90% of what people are looking for in a game like this ( certainly more important than graphics). That elusive quality that makes you want to hit the turn button in Civ.

Also. Noone has succeeded in making a game like this with a decent AI. That is fine for people who mostly want to play head to head. But there are alot of us out there that are really hungry for an engaging single player experience in this genre. I'll definately buy the game anyway because I'm a sucker for this Genre but if it's a good single player experience, I'll be one happy camper.

[vveedd]

Well, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings with my post but IMO it was logical to ask you this. Of course that we must see final version of the game to tell final word. As I said before and I am saying again this was my impression after I have read all available posts and information??™s about upcoming game. Your answers in ???Why Not???? stile is ok but I can ask you in the same manner :
-Why you have to have researching for technology ??“ 3R game did not have it?
-Why should tech levels be the same for all sides ??“ we already saw this in lots of games. Why you don??™t have something more original?
-Why you don??™t have playable Italian and France side ??“ as I know France was allied with British but acted separately. It is different nation after all. Also, Italy was Axis oriented but it was neutral until it was obvious that France will fall. To my experience it is much more fun to play when you have this nation separately. And I am talking about MAJOR Powers not Romania or Bulgaria. I can go on and on but it is pointless.

And I strongly disagree with your opinion that it is the best if you keep everything secret until it is complete. We are here to help and some constructive critic should be welcome. Now, after your update in latest post, game does not look like SC2 any more.

[IainMcNeil]

We welcome all constructive criticism!

All I'm asking is that if you think there are some issues with the game design you lets us know what they are specifically & we can attempt to address them, or if we disagree we tell you why we decided to do what we did. Saying "so why are you making clone?" didn't really come across as contrcutive to me, but maybe I am just being touchy

As far as technology is concerned - how would you suggest it is handled? We could make it easier for some sides to reserch certain types of technologies, encouraging them to concentrate on certain areas. I really don't see any point in having an upgrade system that is different for each side. All this does is make it impossible for a player to evaluate situations. E.g. If they are not the same I have to learn if a level 2 German tank, is it better than a level 2 British tank. To me this is bad game design.

As for playable sides - France, Britain & US are handled as a separate ecnomies with separate units, but are not playable on their own. It's going to take some pretty comprehensive convincing to get us to allow someone to play as France!

[vveedd]

It was constructive criticism at the time with current information??™s.

I am glad that you asked me about researching. Actually, I am ???NO RESEARCH AT ALL??? supporter. To me is the best solution like 3R or Panzer General 2 games has. In certain historical dates major power automatically gets new equipment to buy and that??™s it. But if we must have it, first what you must have in mind is reloading problem (in PBEM games) so luck factor should be at minimum or you should not have it at all. To my opinion the best existing solution is solution from Civilization games. You have tech tree and every tech has default number of turns to research. You can decrease or increase this number of turns depending on how many money you will invest in research. This system has no luck factor and players cannot cheat. System from SC2 with research chits is very bad and very suitable for cheating and I hope that you are not considering something similar in this game.

In generally speaking, IMO if you have possibility to clone best parts from existing games in to your game this will be positive work and this will be the best game ever. If you are interested I will write you best parts from games I know, to my opinion of course.

[IainMcNeil]

I'm not sure how SC's research works, but it must be quite different to ours as luck is not much of a factor & we can completely eliminate luck if we choose by seeding random numbers in certain situations or minor alteration to the design.

In Commander you allocate your research in to different areas. Each turn there is a chance you will progress that research and add tech points to that pool. Once you have enough tech points you will discover the new tech. We could take the randomness out completely and just have it add a fixed number of tech points based on the amount you are allocating to research - like in Civilization, but I find this too predictable.

Masters of Orion II had an interesting approach - it required a certain number of tech points to be accumulated before you had a chance of a discovery & the chance rose each turn as you accumulated more. This is open to some reload exploitation.

The problem with taking research out of the equation is that it removes one of the player decisions. Should I build up troops or invest in better techs later. Maybe we could have an option where techs progress historically & we reduce your income and take out research for those who don't want it?

[honvedseg]

The biggest problem is that the player knows what the end result of his research will be, the historical leaders had very little idea of what the developments would eventually lead to. I'd suggest having the player have some ability to "tweak" research by overall areas, but not directly influence specific "items". You could have a basic research "cost" of each item, and have some fraction of the research points assigned within that category in a "semi-random" fashion. It might make the development of any specific advance occur sooner or later than it did historically, but usually only by a small amount.

[firepowerjohan]

The biggest problem is that the player knows what the end result of his research will be, the historical leaders had very little idea of what the developments would eventually lead to. I'd suggest having the player have some ability to "tweak" research by overall areas, but not directly influence specific "items". You could have a basic research "cost" of each item, and have some fraction of the research points assigned within that category in a "semi-random" fashion. It might make the development of any specific advance occur sooner or later than it did historically, but usually only by a small amount.

Thats is basically what we are aiming for with the current research system. Semi-Random research which add progress each turn but in a random variated way. Also, like you said, the system includes research areas. For instance you can buy a "Air Research Lab" which means research will get spread between the 4 technologies for air and this combined with a focus function where you can pick one of the techs in each area to focus on. Similarily we have "Infantry", "Tank" and some more research areas which we will reveal later
Yes, it is very similar to what you propose

[stalins_organ]

How about something else from Hitler's War again - you can stop your research at any point and try to take the benefits of it.

But if you haven't done a lot of research in the subject then you stand a good chance of failing or getting only partial success, and if you fail then you can lose some of the research you've already done - ie you can get set back!

Again it gives players a choice with consequences - something I'm all in favour of!

But please, please, please do not give us "Labs" - "projects" (eg Manhattan) or some other term from the period is much better!

as an aside on grand WW2 games I think the subject matter is so well known that there are only a few ways to approach it that make sense.

In terms of players there are only 4 1/2 possible serious positions - Germany, England, Soviet Union, USA and (1/2) Italy. these are easily refined into a 3-some (Anglo-American, Soviet, Axis) or a 2-some (Allied vs Axis) - adding in France as a seperate player makes no sense, and the balkan minors even less, with all due respect to the countries involved.

[vveedd]

I'm not sure how SC's research works, but it must be quite different to ours as luck is not much of a factor & we can completely eliminate luck if we choose by seeding random numbers in certain situations or minor alteration to the design.

In SC and SC2 works like this: You can invest up to 5 research points in one tech. Every point increase possibility to get tech by some percentage (can??™t remember exact number). At the end of turn research results is solved and if you are lucky OR if you reload turn as many time as you needed you will get positive results. So it is very similar like you will have. In to my opinion this is not good system but with seeding random numbers maybe will be ok.

In Commander you allocate your research in to different areas. Each turn there is a chance you will progress that research and add tech points to that pool. Once you have enough tech points you will discover the new tech. We could take the randomness out completely and just have it add a fixed number of tech points based on the amount you are allocating to research - like in Civilization, but I find this too predictable.

The biggest problem is that the player knows what the end result of his research will be, the historical leaders had very little idea of what the developments would eventually lead to. I'd suggest having the player have some ability to "tweak" research by overall areas, but not directly influence specific "items". You could have a basic research "cost" of each item, and have some fraction of the research points assigned within that category in a "semi-random" fashion. It might make the development of any specific advance occur sooner or later than it did historically, but usually only by a small amount.

I disagree here with you guys. To my opinion if player know when he will get tech is a very good thing for gameplay. In that case you can make strategy and tactical plans and that is the main point for all strategy games isn??™t it?
I am going back to 3R. This game people don??™t like because is like chess. Luck factor is present but at minimum level as is possible. BUT because of this true strategy players love it. If you cannot make plans 2 or 3 turns ahead then you will loose and IMO players who can do this can call yourself strategy game player.
On the other hand, I agree with honvedseg - it is not historically and like in real life.

[kafka]

Actually, I am ???NO RESEARCH AT ALL??? supporter. To me is the best solution like 3R or Panzer General 2 games has. In certain historical dates major power automatically gets new equipment to buy and that??™s it.

I fully support this request. Most new grand WW2 grand startegy games I know (HOI2 and SC2) do have a similar research system which all countries share, so in the result all equimpments are the same. There is absolutely no difference in that whether you play Germany, USSR or any other country. I always found that total ahistorical and annoying to the point that I abandonned playing those games. Sorry, but I'm absolutely not interested in another of this sort of games. Even at the grand strategy level I want to have the feeling to be limited by the restrictions which applied historically.

Really, I expected something more like WITP (War in the Pacific) or, if you want to include technical research at all, an approach like that used by Supreme Ruler 2010. Surely, I know, WitP is more an operational game that a thin strategy layer (production and ressource management) has been added to. I do not expect such a historical accuracy in a grand strategy game. But please try not to abstract the historical variations which made this global world conflict so interesting into something where all trees are grey. To me it does make a difference even at that grand strategy level which real equipments I'm able to use. As was stated before the technological advance for any country has been never of such linear nature as the technological advance concept of this games supposes. For Germay i.e. there never was a linear upgrade from Pz I to Pz VI. In reality the early war pz units were composed of a mixture of Pz 2, Pz 3 and Pz IV which of those playing a different tactical role. The pz IV was employed in several upgrades in different roles up to the end of the war. The Pz V design came later than that of the heavy Pz VI and was a far mor advanced design (slope armor) that the Pz VI.

It is simply ahistorical to assume that the German armor technology was more advanced than that of the allies. Some french armor designs of the early war (somua s-35, char b1) were more advanced than anything the Germans had. The same is true of the soveit tanks. The Germans had nothing they could oppose to the t-34 or KV-1 designs early in the war.

So, I would support the approach of not using a necessarily linear and undifferentiated technological system. Simply define a system in which historical unique equipment upgrades become available automatically in the course of history. The player may still influence the date when upgrades become available, so some which may be more important are anticipated and others less important are delayed. i.e. by spending production points.The equipments should be defined to possibly match historical facts, i.e. the early versions of the t-34(the most advanced design for its time) should be available in 41 already and have unique stats. The German Pz V should normally not be available until 43, but then be more than a match for the t34, but please not the same. You could just introduce some key unit attributes which would reflect this differentiation (hard attack, soft attack, cost points, speed, reliability, fuel consumption, defense, armor rating, design rate ...) (By the way, I woul be happy to help the developers in providing the material to define such unit related stats)
Of course the historical organizational , doctrinal and experience superiority of the Germans which allowed for their initial success though their technical inferiority in some areas should also be reflected.

SR 2010 also has a IMHO valid approach in that it combines a technological advance system with historical accuracy.
You spend financial ressources in technological upgrades which are defined in advance and reflect country specific historical units with unique attributes.

[firepowerjohan]

In the current system it is in fact possible to simulate differences in tanks on a national level, but on a tech scale. There are several technologies in the Tank area and buying a Tank laboratory give u progress in each one of them. Attack, Defence and Anti Tank are the 3 technologies for the Tank Area. That means, if you want some nation to start with heavily armoured tanks then you adjust their Defence Technology in the Tank Technology Area.

[IainMcNeil]

If it were possible to have an option to include research or not would people be interested? I mean if research was not included then nations would tech up at pre-defined dates, possibly with some randomness thrown in for variation.

I'm not sure how much work it would be but if it's something with a lot of support we can look in to it. For me technologies are part of teh fun, but I can understand that's not for everyone.

[xtiaan72]

I for one prefer a system that has a little luck in it like you seem to be working on. But I'm the type of player that likes to rewrite world war two and experiment with ahistorical strategies not rehash world war two again and again with the same result. I mean, read a book if thats what you want to do. It just has more playablity if every game is a little different


However for the Gronards out there. If you gave them an option to script their own tech timelines and mod the stats of the emerging equipment themselves through some kind of an editor. Many people would enjoy being able to do that. Many would also love to be able to name their units and substitute their own flags. Stuff like that.

[vveedd]

Beside ???no research at all??? supporter I am big ???what if??? supporter but not thru tech. I prefer diplomacy for that. To make Spain or Turkey active minor allies or no Vichy France after France surrender looks much better to me then Panzer IV in 1939 year. Maybe I am a little boring with the same game but Advanced Third Reich is great example of this.

And this remained me for my next question ??“ shall we have diplomacy in this game and if yes how it will work?

[kafka]

mean, read a book if thats what you want to do. It just has more playablity if every game is a little different

Well, sorry, but please stop being polemic. I've never wrote I want to replay history. After all, this pretends to be a world war 2 game and so I don't know what it hurts if there is somethin in the game which resembles history.

As I said I already have games like HOI1, HOI 2, SC, SC2, all of them pretend to be based on WW2. Well, they may be fun, but they simply have little to do with WW2. To have more realistic historical units would in no way determine the gameplay to just repeat history. This will be a game, and a game as a piece of software cannot repeat history, by the way neither would do an historical simulation which just allows for creating variations of the real historical process.

I recently bought galactic civilizations 2, a great fantasy game, I would recommend it to you if you want a pure ahistorical gaming experience.

[stalins_organ]

If it were possible to have an option to include research or not would people be interested? I mean if research was not included then nations would tech up at pre-defined dates, possibly with some randomness thrown in for variation.

I think that would be a good option to have.

the SC2 system is that you get 5% chance for the 1st "chit" invested in research, 4% for the 2nd, 3% for the 3rd, etc - so you have a better chance of moving up at hte lower levels because you can have more chits invested.

This is further modified by your "intelligence" level - for each point of "Intel" you have higher than the enemy you get +1%, for each point lower you get -1%.

I'd like to see tech being tradeable too - eg the US develops Sherman tanks, and can equip the British with them even if hte Brits are still producing Crusaders.

[kafka]

In the current system it is in fact possible to simulate differences in tanks on a national level, but on a tech scale. There are several technologies in the Tank area and buying a Tank laboratory give u progress in each one of them. Attack, Defence and Anti Tank are the 3 technologies for the Tank Area. That means, if you want some nation to start with heavily armoured tanks then you adjust their Defence Technology in the Tank Technology Area.

It is difficult to discuss on this topic based on the few infos we have on the system. I don't radically oppose the idea of having a technology adavnce system. What I suggest is that if you have such a sytem, please provide one which allows for nation specific units differentations. Well, this is not so much a matter of historical accuracy but of gameplay. I'd like to avoid having a system in which any technological advance is the same for all nations, so any nation having gained a tech level x tank would basically have the same tank, only with a different name (maybe historically based like in SC2 and HOI2). So, the German Pz V and the Sowjet T34/85 would effectively be the same tank as they share the same tec level. This is not only ahistorical but heavily hurts gameplay IMHO. HOI1 was much better in this as it provided a system in which a player could choose from a great variety of components (by the way it is greatly moddable so modders could change and add to the OOTB tech system).

Would it be possible to provide nation specific tech advances which could be traded but principally be available only for specific nations?
Based on the existing concept: Would it be possible to add some new areas allowing for a more historical accuracy and/or national diversification. I.e. for tanks: You already have attack, defense, AT. Why not add some crucial attributes like reliability, armor rate (AT defense), fuel consumption, nation specific design rate, mobility, communication equipment. So as it stands the most useless German tank designs at the end of the war like the maus would be a formidable tank design based on the 3 criteria attack, defense, AT only. But in real life they were totally useless designs due to the lack in other crucial factors (reliability, fuel consumption, mobility).
(I know that this additions may not be possibble to be implemented any more as they probably request changes in other areas of the game like combat resolution which at the present stage will probably be based on those 3 factors.)

I like the idea to add some randomness in the system (I loved MOO3 for this though its other design flaws) but please provide it to allow for national tech differentiation.

I'd like to see tech being tradeable too - eg the US develops Sherman tanks, and can equip the British with them even if hte Brits are still producing Crusaders.

Yes, but IMHO it would only make sense if there were nation specific tech levels. I would not like to have all allied countries having the same tank, which by the way would be the same an the German opponent at the same tech level, just with a different pseudo-historical designation.

I'm sure a lot of people would be happy if the game provides a wide modding support.