I tried the demo last night and agree with the graphics comment when
using the 3D units. I like the map at high resolution (1600) with the
symbol icons, but then the menus are way too small! With the the 'toy
pictures' enabled, although pretty, it's almost impossible to tell
what's what unless on the lowest (1024) resolution, then you don't get
to see much of the map. SC1 was much better at situational awareness
and had far more potential than SC2 with the the minature images. And
this looks nothing like PanzerGeneral as I read someone suggest. You
could easily tell what was what in PzG.
Squares, we don't need no stinking hexes, I really don't care as long
as it plays well. Tactics2 had squares. I'll have to mess with the
settings more to find what's playable, since my eyes don't work as
good as they used to.
Didn't get into the play much, wanted to go back to my SC1 game and
finish off the USSR and attack the USA. I did compared the manuals and
noticed that much is the same (good) and some things were added which
look good. I bought SC1 a couple of weeks ago because I didn't want to
wait for SC2, but I'm thinking I may already have the better game, but
will have to see once SC2 arrives. It's really not fair to make such a
judgment call with 1 hour of testing.
It may just take a little getting used to. I think what most SC1
players were hoping for was a moderate graphics update with more
emphasis on AI and a few new units/rules with larger maps. This was
what I gathered from reading all the old SC1 posts. Don't remember any
of them wanting xcubestation visuals. But time will tell.
Oh, and I really don't care for the 'install third party installation
software' part of the EULA. Brad from Stardock (galciv2) really has it
the way it should be, and as it was in the beginning. After all, they
aren't selling Zelda to pre-teens.
>> Stay informed about: Strategic Command 2..First Impressions