Sell me on: Sudden Strike

[Lord Rocket]

OK, so, I'm currently upgrading the shit out of my PC. Obviously, to celebrate, I'm going to buy some games I could have played on my old computer, which is to say, that compilation of Sudden Strike games. I feel like something faintly strategic, and the basic idea (real time strategy without any of that stupid unit building crap) appeals to me.

However, I note that Gamespot, IGN, and all the rest don't seem to like them all that much. I do, however, know enough to take those opinions with a grain of salt, and so, here I am, asking the Codex what to think.

Here's the most important things:

I know that there's several different sides to be played in each game. That's good, but the trap is I don't really want to be playing repetitious missions (you know: kill 'em all, but harder each time).

Resource management sucks in real time. Do I have to do heaps/some/not very much/none?

Speed of gameplay. If I have to spaz about the map at the speed of light in order to get things done, I don't wanna play. Is there a slow down or pause option?

Bugs. I note Russians have had a hand in its creation, so I am concerned.

Other weird shit, including shit AI, stupid exploits, general sorts of glitches?

And if the series sucks, what should I play instead?

EDIT: I'm easy about the settings of any other suggestions you care to give. A good Vietnam game would be a draw though.

EDIT 2: What's Korea: Forgotten Conflict like? I could get it for $5 if I act quickly.

 

[oscar]

Anything with the intials of SS is usually p. good

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Ok, so you want to know something about Sudden Strike - no problem.

- about the difficulty of the different campaigns - the difference is the "time" they reach the "masochistic hard" difficulty (German is the "easiest" HA! The irony). The most of the missions are just that "reach this point and destroy that shit" with some variations

- "Resource management" - you mean like collect resources and building stuff? I think you mistaken this game with something else because here you fight with what you have got and nothing more (ok there are "rare" (like non-existing) reinforcements but very little)

- Speed - you can without a problem regulate the speed of the game... and fuck you will need that. You can also Pause the game and give out orders - but it's a very robust system.

- Bugs - didn't see any, no CTD (but that was on my older machins), stable.

- It's your standard "Merciless AI" - plus the AI is pulling units out of it's ass and in large quantity... once in one of the last German missions I got feed up with it and used the cheat - fog off to see the whole map, when my small bearly alive unit was moving foward I noticed that from behind the map 25 tanks rolled in - Jesus Christ! Plus missions take 8 hours to complete... at least in my pace and my is what you would call a "safe pace".

- "And if the series sucks, what should I play instead?" - I will tell you this, I don't think I will ever again play SS 1&2 when I have something else to play.

Get this:

It's awesome.

SS1&2 are games for Hardcore Strategy Masochists, I don't know how the SS3 is because I didn't play it.

 

[Quilty]

I think you might like Blitzkrieg more than SS, judging by the things your mentioned in your post. Blitzkrieg has a pause option so you can calmly assess the situation, it has units gaining XP, and you gain Xp as their commander, thus gaining control over more and more troops as you progress (however, XP is not thrown at you, so this is not unrealistically done, you never command thousands of troops, only dozens at best). There is no building of structures or production of units, you try to win by using the troops you have at the start of the mission. Also, you can capture enemy artillery or other weapons (except for tanks) and use those too.

There are three campaigns (American, German and Russian), each fairly lengthy and neither visibly easier or harder (in my experience) than the other, it just depends on the difficulty you choose and the choices you make. And by choices I mean how much time you spend doing generic missions (which are unlimited and can be done between larger, history-based missions) to gain more XP.

The enemy AI is sometimes stupid (artillery raining down on them and they not moving an inch is silly) and I can't say that the patches fixed this. Tank pathfinding is also a problem sometimes. The interface is confusing at first, but can supply you with a lot of detailed info about yours and the enemies troops if you spend time with it. Sound is poor, but never jarringly so.

However, the atmosphere, the number of units, the fun missions, the joy of leveling up and getting one more tasty AA gun or tank overwhelmed the negative sides for me. I recommend you read some reviews, it might be the thing you're after.

(Also, I like B1 more than B2 just because I'm a 2D fanboi)

 

[Derek Larp]

Well I liked that game, though I never finished it. It´s some kind of hybrid between a RTS like C&C and a wargame. Just don´t expect too much, e.g. there is no real penetration system, just healthbars for tanks. Also arty response is instant (which can be frustrating at times).

- "Resource management" - you mean like collect resources and building stuff? I think you mistaken this game with something else because here you fight with what you have got and nothing more (ok there are "rare" (like non-existing) reinforcements but very little)

You could argue that your troop pool in the missions is a "resource" you have to "manage". Though I doubt that´s what he meant.

 

[Trash]

Blitzkrieg (no matter what version or incarnation of the engine) really has no AI to speak off. The entire game consists of a series of levels/engagements that are build like scripted puzzles.

 

[Quilty]

Blitzkrieg (no matter what version or incarnation of the engine) really has no AI to speak off. The entire game consists of a series of levels/engagements that are build like scripted puzzles.

Well, yes, the AI is pretty weak and exploitable, but I guess I enjoyed exploring the puzzle-like maps and solving them by figuring out the right approach.

But yeah, I wish the enemy had a brain...

 

[Lord Rocket]

Get this:

It's awesome.

This sounds pretty fucking awesome from reviews on other sites. Anyone else have any thoughts? In particular, this review implies there may be bugs; how's the stability these days?

I'm looking into Blitzkrieg too, it looks pretty sweet. I may get both; are the gameplay experiences between Soldiers and B. different enough to bother, though?

 

[entertainer]

This sounds pretty fucking awesome from reviews on other sites. Anyone else have any thoughts?

You never played Soldiers?

*facepalm*

That was my thought.

 

[Quilty]

I'm looking into Blitzkrieg too, it looks pretty sweet. I may get both; are the gameplay experiences between Soldiers and B. different enough to bother, though?

Well, essentially, it's the same thing: make do with the limited number of units by carefully exploring the map and devising a successful strategy. However, Blitzkrieg is much slower, in my opinion, since the name really doesn't suit the gameplay: usually you must spend a large amount of time locating dangerous gun/tank emplacements/groups of units and then wiping them off the map with your artillery before you can send in your tanks and infantry. This lengthy initial part of most of the maps probably put off many players, since it's not, er, blitzkriegy at all :D

In any case, the similarities and differences between SS and Blitzkrieg will become clear to you after just two or three missions of each game, so it really shouldn't take you too long to decide what you like more.

I hope you have fun.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

This sounds pretty fucking awesome from reviews on other sites. Anyone else have any thoughts? In particular, this review implies there may be bugs; how's the stability these days?

Not even one CTD - with or without Alt+Tab, in my eyes it's very stable.

I'm looking into Blitzkrieg too, it looks pretty sweet. I may get both; are the gameplay experiences between Soldiers and B. different enough to bother, though?

Well, essentially, it's the same thing: make do with the limited number of units by carefully exploring the map and devising a successful strategy. However, Blitzkrieg is much slower, in my opinion, since the name really doesn't suit the gameplay: usually you must spend a large amount of time locating dangerous gun/tank emplacements/groups of units and then wiping them off the map with your artillery before you can send in your tanks and infantry. This lengthy initial part of most of the maps probably put off many players, since it's not, er, blitzkriegy at all :D

In any case, the similarities and differences between SS and Blitzkrieg will become clear to you after just two or three missions of each game, so it really shouldn't take you too long to decide what you like more.

I hope you have fun.

Are you talking about Blitz-SS or Blitz-Soldiers? Because from your description Blitz=SS, Soldiers are in a totaly different basket.

 

[Quilty]

This sounds pretty fucking awesome from reviews on other sites. Anyone else have any thoughts? In particular, this review implies there may be bugs; how's the stability these days?

Not even one CTD - with or without Alt+Tab, in my eyes it's very stable.

I'm looking into Blitzkrieg too, it looks pretty sweet. I may get both; are the gameplay experiences between Soldiers and B. different enough to bother, though?

Well, essentially, it's the same thing: make do with the limited number of units by carefully exploring the map and devising a successful strategy. However, Blitzkrieg is much slower, in my opinion, since the name really doesn't suit the gameplay: usually you must spend a large amount of time locating dangerous gun/tank emplacements/groups of units and then wiping them off the map with your artillery before you can send in your tanks and infantry. This lengthy initial part of most of the maps probably put off many players, since it's not, er, blitzkriegy at all :D

In any case, the similarities and differences between SS and Blitzkrieg will become clear to you after just two or three missions of each game, so it really shouldn't take you too long to decide what you like more.

I hope you have fun.

Are you talking about Blitz-SS or Blitz-Soldiers? Because from your description Blitz=SS, Soldiers are in a totaly different basket.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear, I was comparing SS and Blitz.

 

[The_scorpion]

i actually had some great moments with sudden strike (the first one)

It never crashed or such, and gameplay had the very useful option to pause the game and give orders, especially for lager missions and artillery, this made things convenient.

units could be given quite advanced commands (for a game at the time) and they'd actally carry them out as ordered.
Units also gained XP which makes a huge difference.

I don't remember exactly, it's a long time ago, but i think i at least finished the soviet and maybe also the western allies campaign. Some multiplyer games too but multiplayer is merciless without the pause feature and strange reinforcement rules...

One of the main point of frustration might exactly be the randomness of your reinforcements, both in single and in multiplayer. If you don't know early iin a mission that you'll get some Katjuscha's later into your attack, you'll look at the odds and think you won't make it.
And just as you thought you'd lost ground, you get fat Tanks and artillery and moar ammo to blast them away. Generates suspense though ;-)

 

[catfood]

Sudden Strike is a.... nice enough game I guess. It's fun watching your tanks blowing up other tanks and bombing enemy entrenchments. But it isn't near on the same level as Close Combat since it is a simplistic game essentially. It also suffers from some of the worst pathfinding in any game ever. Getting an army to cross a bridge is an exercise in pain.

The game can be abused to no end. For example there are these artillery units such as howitzers which can fire 3 screens long, so all you have to do is send a fast scout such as a jeep to see where the enemy entrenchments are (reload the game if your scout dies and you want to keep it like I do ) and then happily bomb the fuck out of them with these long range artillery. The same strategy can be used with snipers, although they don't' have such a long range obviously.

Another idiotic thing is the way your units gain experience: it raises very slowly when you hit enemies, but when they hit YOU it goes up faster than a V2 rocket. So one way to have 700+ xp tanks is to shoot them, and then repair them. The only thing that keeps you to use this all the time is the slow recharge rate of your repair vehicles.

And last but not least the game is sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwww... I mean real slow. Even at max game speed it takes for ever to move units from place to place.

Oh, and can anyone tell me just HOW THE FUCK does techno music fit with the WW2 setting?

BUUUUUT.. even with all its faults I can say that I enjoyed it for what it was: a lighthearted WW2 strategy game with nice graphic (even today they look nice) and some nice interesting missions. I finished all the campaigns and some of the single maps as well.

 

[Destroid]

It's also hilarious to make custom maps where you have a million troops to assault some rediculous defensive position you constructed. Kind of amusing in the same way as stronghold 2.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Was the single player of SS2 really supposed to consist of

move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
find an enemy, who your team kills instantly
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward

Because if I do that I win, but if I do something less tedious i get insta killed because the bad guys see me first.

 

[WhiskeyWolf]

Was the single player of SS2 really supposed to consist of

move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
find an enemy, who your team kills instantly
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward

Because if I do that I win, but if I do something less tedious i get insta killed because the bad guys see me first.

So true.

 

[YourConscience]

Was the single player of SS2 really supposed to consist of

move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
find an enemy, who your team kills instantly
move officer slightly forward
scan with binoculars
move officer slightly forward

Because if I do that I win, but if I do something less tedious i get insta killed because the bad guys see me first.

So true.

Seconded. I so hated that kind of gameplay. Why can't I just switch the officer to periodically check his binoculars by himself why slowly moving forward? Because then the design mistakes of this game would become too obvious?

 

[catfood]

Oh, and another silly thing I remembered, some missions tell you to liberate a town (city, village, whatever) but the problem is that there are enemy soldiers in almost every house and in the end you just blow up every house just to be sure there are no snipers or anti tank infantry in them. It would be easier just to carpet bomb the place. Who would rebuild a town from the ground up again is beyond me.