Sudden Strike 2

[Palaiologos]

Are there any differences between the nations?

If so what are they?

Do for example Japanese have increased Line of Sight or something?

[DrSpike]

I would be interested in getting any opinions from people that have this. I quite liked SS for a bit of MP, but I never seriously got into it because it was so old. But SS2 seems to have been panned by a lot of reviewers.

[Palaiologos]

What is definetely missing from the game is the ability to charge with the bayonet. Leading your Sturmtroopen against the Bolsheviks crying "Charge" is a must-have for a WWII game.

[Grumbold]

Sudden Strike isn't particularly old. Released about a year ago?

I detested it because it was too RTS, i.e. a man with a rifle can kill a tank given enough shots so fifty riflemen can kill a tank instantly, troops will just stand and die if shot at while you are looking somewhere else, each map has more tanks jammed side to side in a single village than a full strength SS division ever had, troops can fire through each other, artillery ranges are pathetic. Combat Command are much more skillful games because they endeavour to be accurate. Knocking out a tank with a careful infantry ambush is a real rush.

I know little about SS2 but I believe the criticisms were mainly that it was not much more than a large expansion pack for SS1.

[Palaiologos]

No, not in SS2. Even T-34 frontal shots fail to make an impression on a Tiger.
But truth be told the lack of historical missions remains.

In the German campaign you lead your men of the "Totenkompf" panzer division to glory on the eastern front.
But "Totenkompf" was the name of an SS infantry division. And i seriously doubt they fought at the first battle of Kharkov.

[Palaiologos]

Plus the inability to take prisoners. Why not?.

The French surrended by the thousands to the Germans. But in SS2 every Russian, English and American fight it to the bitter end.

[Das_Luftwaffle]

Palaiologos, I think the reason that you couldn't take prisioners is because there is no real way you can implement prisioner taking into a game.

For example, in SS2, either you win a mission or you loose. If you're about to loose, why not make a desperate last stand with your remaining troops and hope for a miracle. Apply this mentality to both sides and this is why there is no surrender option.

Also, what would be the point of taking prisioners? I guess the developers figured, taking prisioners adds nothing to the game (apart from some atmosphere), therefore it's a waste of time to implement.

[Pavlov]

Originally posted by Das_Luftwaffle
Palaiologos, I think the reason that you couldn't take prisioners is because there is no real way you can implement prisioner taking into a game.

Not so fast... The Close Combat series have had the concept of taking prisoners since the beginning.

Of course SS2 is just a flashbang game.

[Palaiologos]

Yeah, the prisoners could "transform" into "neutral" soldiers, unarmed. You could load them into trucks and carry them around.

[Palaiologos]

They could also be of excellent use as cannon fodder, for minefields ad such.

[Grumbold]

I think they must have decided to eliminate that abuse. In the CC games I have played the prisoners just walk off the map. You can't exploit them for your own evil purposes

[Pavlov]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I think they must have decided to eliminate that abuse. In the CC games I have played the prisoners just walk off the map. You can't exploit them for your own evil purposes

OTOH they often stumble into minefields themselves.

[Palaiologos]

What does OTOH stand for?.


Has anyone ever tried to place minefields on railroad tracks?

Actually the original thread was about national bonuses, if any. Does anybody have any information on that?.

[Grumbold]

on the other hand