SR2020 Review: Better than Lightbringers!

[Feltan]

OK, like Light, I took a long hiatus from the game since 2010. I finally made the purchase along with GC and ran it through its paces. My views:

The Good:
1. Rock solid bullet-proof code. As with 2010, SR2020 is a professional piece of coding. In a couple hundred hours of testing I haven't had one crash or lock-up. That is impressive. Like the game or not -- it is a quality game, and in today's market that is a rarity.

2. The map. I confess, I didn't think I would care for it much (to be more precise, I wouldn't care if the update happened or not) but the new map is very good. I like the detail, and there is conisderable improvement over the 2010 version. Actual contries vs. notional regions is a great improvement all by itself as well. Several minor errors, but on the whole it is a great feature.

3. Performance. Much improved. The game still slows down as the game lengthens but not as dramatically as 2010. Furthermore, the load and unload times have improved in quantum measure.

4. Garrisons. I wasn't expecting this implementation, and I really like it. It solves a whole bunch of modelling issues. Now, you can model quasi-military police forces and all sorts of garrison activity without screwing up stacking. Very nice.

5. Interface. Improved. You are always going to get mixed reviews on an interface design. However, the current version works -- I like it. With just a little bit of practice you can find your way around and get things done in a relativly efficient manner.

The Not so Good:
1. Air defence. Someone is in touch with an alternate reality on this one. Air defence against both aircraft and missiles is generally way too effective. If real life air defence was as effective as portrayed in the game, no one would bother building an air force or precision munitions -- there is a reason why, in today's world, the side with a vastly superior air force usually wins a conventional conflict. I suspect the same will hold true for some time to come. As it currently stands, the game is a Duck Hunter's paradise.

2. Groups. At first I thought this was a great idea. In fact I fell in love with it. Then, belatedly, I found that the number of groups was limited to 99. I have a feeling I know why. For me, the idea of a group was roughly equivalent to a ground "brigade," air "wing" or naval "task force." Hence, a group for me wouldn't have more than one stack of seven units in it. However, I suspect that the more RTS proned players simply lasso a mass of units pell mell and call it a group. The feature could work for either style of play, but limiting the number of groups to 99 nulified the feature for me. I could have easily used a limit of 999. Not sure the reason for the cap, but if feasible this would be the first thing I would change. (For the same reason, I haven't used the Hot Spot feature -- nor do I plan to use it).

3. Renaming. A unit has to be in reserve to be renamed -- the most felt loss of a feature from 2010.

4. Game focus. As with 2010, a number of comments can be grouped under this heading. Basically, the game architecture presents a confused direction. As an RTS, SR2020 is too complex to appeal to the beer & pretzel player, or the pimply faced teenage geek who wants a high paced click fest. A game like Civilization works better as an RTS and doesn't require as much thinking. On the other hand, as a more traditional wargame the RTS mechanism for combat is less than optimal. A game like Hearts of Iron is going to draw that type of player. All the realistic unit detail becomes somewhat unimportant and superfluous when units are moved and fought in such an unrealistic RTS manner.

Summary
So, in the end game is what the game is -- a very well put together piece of code that performs pretty much as advertised. It is much improved over the earlier SR2010. My major comment is that what is advertised is neither fish nor fowl; not generally appealing to the RTS community due to complexity, nor to the more hard core wargame community due to the RTS nature of the combat resolution design. I suspect this conflict is the reason why the forums aren't busier -- the game has not attracted a large core of dedicated followers, like Civilization for RTS fans or Hearts of Iron for wargame grognards. That being said, I like the game and have found it enjoyable to play.

Regards,
Feltan

[tkobo]

Heee'ssssssss.... baaaaackk

Hmm i dont know.id say they are both pretty much equal, and light didnt have a hand in the sgt york adventure

[Hundane]

3. Renaming. A unit has to be in reserve to be renamed -- the most felt loss of a feature from 2010.

You can name deployed units as well. Click on all reserves under you defense tab. Click on a unit type, then the unit and the rename button pops on the bottom right of that.

[Balthagor]

A very in depth review, thanks for taking the time.

A few things;

* Air Defense - are you talking about the values of the units or the facility? (BTW, both can be modded easily by the community)

* Groups - It has already been suggested that we could expand this in the future, not decision yet.

* Focus - Which side, Beer and Pretzel or Wargamer, do you think the engine could most easily be changed to appeal to? We've had similar discussions about the focus considering the direction of future projects.

Now I hesitate to ask, but I'm a glutton for punishment. Out of 10?...

[Ruges]

* Air Defense - are you talking about the values of the units or the facility? (BTW, both can be modded easily by the community)

I dont think simple moding of the values is going to fix what he is talking about. Maybe you could find a proper balance in it all, But I have to agree with Feltan. Be it ground, air, or base airdefense. Its way to easy to destroy an advanced air target. The only way I could see this being fixed is there was a miss percent added in based on tech lvl vrs tech lvl. So where a tech lvl 100 plane shooting at a tech lvl 70 would have say a 80 percent hit rate. A tech lvl 70 plane shooting at a 100 tech plane would only have a 20 percent hit rate. Even more extreme for missles. Also the ability to shoot missles should be an ability of a unit, The same way that Bridging units have the ability to bridge. Or some cargo ships have the ability to land troops on land without a dock. That or missles need to have thier own catagory instead of low mid or high air.

* Groups - It has already been suggested that we could expand this in the future, not decision yet.

Lemme sugest that again. I just ran out of groups myself and had to start joining groups togeather.

[Lightbringer]

Feltan is not far from wrong about the AA situation. Of course, we haven't seen modern air vs. modern AA in any appreciable sized conflict. If there were a full blown war in Europe (for example), military aircraft might be falling from the sky left and right, and become all but extinct or impossible to use. So the Goats might have it closer to "right" than we are assuming. It still feels wrong to have air forces relegated to last ditch "suicide" missions, or situational rare sorties when they aren't as likely to be swatted down like sluggish flies.

Ruges' built in "miss %" might help. Another real world idea that I thought of was anti-anti air missions and jamming aircraft. By anti AA, I mean a more general order than "attack unit" where you send aircraft after specific units in enemy stacks. Something more like air patrol with extreme prejudice against anything that fires at them from further away than "directly below" (as most ground units do). The U.S. Air Force did this sort of hunting against Saddam. Jamming aircraft might work within the hit/miss % idea, as a way to decrease AA's ability to hit.

-Light

[Hundane]

This reminds me of that other thread.

I havent had a problem with using aircraft once I learned how to properly adjust the ROE's and adjust the attack to best protect the aircraft. The ones that have an attack range of less than 16km is the hardest to use but usually use those to mop up a retreating unit. It requires alot more micromanagement when IM using air units, and can see where it would be a problem if one likes to order up his aircraft to "bomb unit" or "bomb facility" and let them go. Air to Air warfare is all about range, if you can shoot them and they cant shoot you, whose going to win ?

On another note , the AI doesnt seem to remember that the enemy has AA deployed in a certain hex and will keep flying thru it or in range of it. Real easy to put up a AA defense and never have to worry about them finding a hole thru it or attacking it to make a hole. Will be a fatal flaw for me if I ever get a chance to MP.

Keep in mind that one missile going thru a hex or 2 with multiple AA units that have several individual guns each, doesnt have a good chance of making it to its target. Multiple missiles from multiple avenues of approach works the best and if you get rid of the AA first, then its even easier. If your short on platforms, you can split units and give yourself another platform to fire from.

[tkobo]

Missing-would be great
It would solve a few issues all at once if applied to every unit type.

Better range definition/breakdown- would be great.
Currently two units that both have a range of 1 hex or less, are pretty much treated the same.Theres almost no way the one unit can attack from out of range of the other unit,even if it has a large range advantage,becuase they both are considered in the same hex.
A system that broke that one hex down further,with a mini map,would be huge on this issue.
It would solve so much.
Of course i cant imagine that being done without a huge performance hit,but perhaps some of that could be made up from by reducing the visual combat action on the main map.

Changing the structure of AA units, so that they no longer represent a single full unit, but are instead a possible addition to a unit- would be great
Instead of 18+ pieces of anti-air all in one unit,2 or 3,reducing attack and damage correspondingly .


Changing air unit attack so that they stayed at mid level for many units-would be great.

Changing air unit attack for many units,so that they can atatck from more than one hex away and do so- would be great.
Standoff attack that even the AI had no problem using would solve alot of the aircraft shootdown imbalances.IE so the attack order moved the attacking unit to its max range, and attacked from there.

Combination of the above-huge beyond calm words.

[Feltan]

A very in depth review, thanks for taking the time.

A few things;

* Air Defense - are you talking about the values of the units or the facility? (BTW, both can be modded easily by the community)

* Groups - It has already been suggested that we could expand this in the future, not decision yet.

* Focus - Which side, Beer and Pretzel or Wargamer, do you think the engine could most easily be changed to appeal to? We've had similar discussions about the focus considering the direction of future projects.

Now I hesitate to ask, but I'm a glutton for punishment. Out of 10?...

Chris,

I'll discuss air defense in a seperate post, but my comments apply to both.

Focus. I guess the key terms here are "engine" and "future projects." However, the real discussion is what BG wants to be, and to whom they wish to appeal. If, for instance, future direction leads to the beer & pretzel RTS variety of games I am sure the engine could handle it -- but BG then becomes one of many. A lot of new, unheard of, and fly-by-night companies put out RTS games of various quality, as well as big boys who put out polished mega-hyped RTS games. Personally, I think BG would get lost in the shuffle in such a market. It may be profitable to a certain extent, but for a small studio your focus would have to shift to quick development cycles and getting products out the door in a rapid fashion. I may be in error, but that doesn't seem like the company BG wants to be.

The more detailed wargame, in my opinion, is a better option for the company -- and the engine I do not believe would be a limiting factor (but there are many variables here, and frankly it is just a guess for me). The advantage here for a small stuido is that you can get a rabid following and follow-on modules can supplement cash flow while new games are in the pipeline. These games are more difficult to make, and the customer base is more picky -- but the customers are also wealthier, dedicated, spread the word to fellow gamers, tend to have a robust modding community, and are far more loyal if you get a product within the envelope of acceptability. This is a niche market, but it is where I would take a company like BG. Given capital, staffing and production capability, BG would be too challenged to compete long-term head-to-head in the fickle and shifting RTS market.

My two cents: If BG is going to be the home of intelligent wargames, then make intelligent wargames and stop fiddle farting around with the awkward marriage of an RTS combat model with otherwise intelligent wargame features like diplomacy, economics, production, etc.

As for an out-of-ten score... Hmmmm, I hadn't given that much thought. The game meets its objectives as far as the marketing around the game -- which is to say I wouldn't ding the score because the quality was poor or the product had misleading advertising. The ding for me is the previously mentioned awkward marriage -- the game isn't coherent and consistant in its approach to detail, accuracy, theme, etc. I would rate a game like Civilization higher, even though I generally don't like nor often play an RTS that is so abstract -- but that product is consistant in its approach, and can be fun and addicting. For the same reason, I would rate Hearts of Iron higher although that product's approach is the more traditional wargame -- again it is true to its theme.

So, I'll give SR2020 a score of 7.0 -- a good solid product who's shortfalls are conceptual rather than in design, presentation or execution.

Regards,
Feltan

[Cutlass]

I'll also add one of my little pet peeves:

It's obvious once you get to know the game that was a labor of love on the part of the people who designed it. It would be a great help if a little bit more of that love could be applied to the documentation and manuals for it

Note: I didn't say anything at all about the shape of the world ...

P.S.: So I added a sig about it later

[RotTenno]

Hmm...there are many changes suggested here that i would also like to see, especially changing air combat and standoff attacks would be great! I also greatly support Ruges' hit/miss chance.

@tkobo: I'm not so sure about "attaching" AA-units to regular units, if i understood right - how would you be able to destroy the enemy's air defence? As it is now, you would have to eliminate the complete unit that has AA attached to it, may it be tanks or infantry, that would have much higher combat values and be more difficult to destroy than the AA-units that we have now.
Although that might work if you implement that anti-AA idea..but i think that in this context, it would be very complicated to code.
Of course standoff attacks would make much sense for any unit. While air units could patrol at maximal firing distance off their targets, artillery could also move just as far as needed and then commence firing, not going on a head-trough-the-wall tour.

Btw, Feltan's review has many good points, although i don't think that the actual mix of RTS (i guess you mean commanding the many batallion-size units?) and classical wargame is so much of a problem. In this more scaled down perspective, you have much more strategic and tactical options, what makes the game more interesting in one way. Also you can always pause the game and rearrange your situation.
But i guess it's just of matter of taste

[Feltan]

.. Btw, Feltan's review has many good points, although i don't think that the actual mix of RTS (i guess you mean commanding the many batallion-size units?) and classical wargame is so much of a problem. In this more scaled down perspective, you have much more strategic and tactical options, what makes the game more interesting in one way. Also you can always pause the game and rearrange your situation.
But i guess it's just of matter of taste

I guess I should be more specific in my terminology. I am using "RTS" as a catchall phrase to describe a game where units are produced en masse and shuffled off to combat without regard to realistic deployment. In a game like Civilization, for example, one does not really care about the organization and deployment of units -- just the results. A mass of the latest cavalry or tank units is just fine in a game like that, because the level of abstraction is so large, one is not really concerned with realism.

On the other hand, in a game like Hearts of Iron, the abstraction level is reduced to a point where they are attempting to model history. In that game, division sized units roughly approximate what countries actually used. Not entirely accurate, but accurate enough to give the game a certain feel of realism and authenticity.

The use of a battalion scale in SR2020 is not the problem I am refering to -- in fact, a battalion or preferably a brigade scale would work just fine. Rather, my point is that as the game is currently designed, the military model does not accurately reflect how military units are raised, trained, employed, sustained, organized, etc. The military modelling isn't even close to reality. The "RTS" mode of combat in SR2020 is a large abstraction, which stands in stark contrast to the detailed unit composition data, and even to the (somewhat less abstract) economic and diplomatic game models. The aforementioned economic and diplomatic models are not perfect, and there is room for improvement, but they do -- in my opinion -- have that feel of authenticity while the military model does not.

For example, no country on earth would build hoards of engineer units (which in real life are expensive and specialized) and rush them against an enemy in wave after wave of attack. No country on earth would send units into combat battalion-by-battalion as they rolled off the assembly line without an attempt to form some sort of combined arms force. That is what you see in an RTS game like Civilization -- which is fine if you want an RTS game. However, in the realm of "intelligent strategy games" the SR2020 military model is simply absurd.

My earlier point was that this apparent condradiction in design philosophy produces a game that that is less than it could be. If you want an RTS click-fest then the game is too detailed and complex, and if you want an intelligent wargame then SR2020 is too abstract from a military modelling perspective.

As I have written before, no one writes to Milton Bradley and complains that the price of Boardwalk is unrealitic. Anyone playing that game knows it is a gross abstraction, and they play the game for what it is. Similarly, players would abandon a game like Hearts of Iron if, for example, Headquarters units could suddenly "cast spells" on the enemy -- such a feature would be contradictory to the overall design philosophy of the game.

I agree -- it is a matter of taste. However, it is also a matter of money and market share. To whom are you trying to appeal? Who are your customers, and what do they want? A game can't be all things to all people. Do you cater to the posters on these forums that complain that things are too slow, and who want an amped up game of adrenaline and action -- or do you cater to those who complain, for example, that the air defense is far too effective compared to real life? One needs to decide, or the product becomes a contradiction that in the end makes no one happy.

Regards,
Feltan

[Ruges]

I would put HOI closer to SR then SR to CIV. As that is one of the reasons HOI is more mass market. TOAoW, would be more realistic to the RTS then any of the three, However Becouse of its realism(read learning curve) it is not main stream.

***This spot reserved for a larger debate on why I think SR can appease both crowds, but I am too hungry for this debate at this secound.****

[ollobrains]

i think anything they add or tweak in SR should be well done. HTe directions could be infinite depends on user feedback i guess

[el_slapper]

There is a cool feature announced about Hoi3 : the ability to build you own divisions, using brigades. Wanna have 1 cavalry, 1 garrison, 1 tank & 1 arty brigade in the same division? Sounds possible. Stupid, of course, but possible. Ideally, SR would field units designed like that. No idea about the size, but it would allow the air force to specifically target the AA, the AT, or whatever element. It would suit the way units work in the real world. 3 brigades of alpine hunters & 1 of heavy mortars are an alpine batallion, for example.