Whats the concensus of SuperPower 2?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Now that it's been out for a while, whats the overall concensus, if it can
be picked up for $19.95 is it worth it, and are there any strategy guides,
(web or printed)for it?

Thanks,
 

gus

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2003
139
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"GamePlayer No. 1058" <nospamreader@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:A_f9e.62365$9i7.38011@trnddc04...
> Now that it's been out for a while, whats the overall concensus, if it can
> be picked up for $19.95 is it worth it, and are there any strategy guides,
> (web or printed)for it?
>
> Thanks,
>
>

I'd like to know as well. A friend gave it to me when it first came out and
I've never tried it.

Thanks
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:59:23 -0400, "Gus" <gus@123456.net> wrote:


>I'd like to know as well. A friend gave it to me when it first came out and
>I've never tried it.
>
>Thanks

Well, um, install it and get back to us. I hear it is not so good. I
have Superpower1 and am not willing to waste more money on
Superpower2.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Aldwyn Edain" <ae@invalid.email> wrote in message
news:b9ac61hdrsri9mqc5v4p3fj92kp7a7g9nb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:59:23 -0400, "Gus" <gus@123456.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd like to know as well. A friend gave it to me when it first came out
>>and
>>I've never tried it.
>>
>>Thanks
>
> Well, um, install it and get back to us. I hear it is not so good. I
> have Superpower1 and am not willing to waste more money on
> Superpower2.

Stay away. It's one of the worst games released in the last 5 years. Trust
me. It got dreadful reviews.

Jonah Falcon
 

Werewolf

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2004
58
0
18,630
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Jonah Falcon wrote:

> "Aldwyn Edain" <ae@invalid.email> wrote in message
> news:b9ac61hdrsri9mqc5v4p3fj92kp7a7g9nb@4ax.com...
>
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:59:23 -0400, "Gus" <gus@123456.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'd like to know as well. A friend gave it to me when it first came out
>>>and
>>>I've never tried it.
>>>
>>>Thanks
>>
>>Well, um, install it and get back to us. I hear it is not so good. I
>>have Superpower1 and am not willing to waste more money on
>>Superpower2.
>
>
> Stay away. It's one of the worst games released in the last 5 years. Trust
> me. It got dreadful reviews.
>
> Jonah Falcon
>
>

Yeah well then I'm still batting a 1000 because so far in over 25 years
of PC gaming I've always liked what the reviewers panned. The same goes
for movies - I rarely like what the mainstream critics (bought and paid
for by the publishing houses and movie studios) like.

Superpower 2 is a great simulation (which I like). It is not a very good
game.

I got it for it's sim qualities. Except for some economic model problems
(not bugs) that exist because the programmers are probably closet
socialists who know nothing about how real world economies actually work
it does a fairly good job of simulating how a country works and
interacts with other countries.

IT IS NOT A COMBAT SIMULATOR! IT IS NOT RISK! STAY OUT OF THE COMBAT
SCREENS AND LET THE AI FIGHT THE WARS YOU START OR FIND YOURSELF IN AND
YOU'LL BE FINE.

Go into the combat screens and you'll be disappointed. Combat is
conducted at the macro level. In other words you have about as much
control as a country leader should have - "General - conquer
transylvania, don't use nukes and try to avoid wiping out the local
population" etc.

Some have described SuperPower2 as a spreadsheet simulation. Works for
me and is a fairly accurate description.

SP2 isn't for everyone especially those who want a game. It is for those
who like geopolitical simulations like Balance of Power (SP2 is way, way
better than BOP ever was).

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>
> SP2 isn't for everyone especially those who want a game. It is for those
> who like geopolitical simulations like Balance of Power (SP2 is way, way
> better than BOP ever was).
>


And Shadow president is way better than SP2. Unfortunately.

Still waiting for someone to make a "better" Shadow president. It is a
freaking great game, just really ancient on the interface/graphics/sound
department.


-Tomi
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:32:11 -0500, Werewolf <nunya@no-way.net> wrote:


>Yeah well then I'm still batting a 1000 because so far in over 25 years
>of PC gaming I've always liked what the reviewers panned. The same goes
>for movies - I rarely like what the mainstream critics (bought and paid
>for by the publishing houses and movie studios) like.
>
>Superpower 2 is a great simulation (which I like). It is not a very good
>game.
>
>I got it for it's sim qualities. Except for some economic model problems
>(not bugs) that exist because the programmers are probably closet
>socialists who know nothing about how real world economies actually work
>it does a fairly good job of simulating how a country works and
>interacts with other countries.
>
>IT IS NOT A COMBAT SIMULATOR! IT IS NOT RISK! STAY OUT OF THE COMBAT
>SCREENS AND LET THE AI FIGHT THE WARS YOU START OR FIND YOURSELF IN AND
>YOU'LL BE FINE.
>
>Go into the combat screens and you'll be disappointed. Combat is
>conducted at the macro level. In other words you have about as much
>control as a country leader should have - "General - conquer
>transylvania, don't use nukes and try to avoid wiping out the local
>population" etc.
>
>Some have described SuperPower2 as a spreadsheet simulation. Works for
>me and is a fairly accurate description.
>
>SP2 isn't for everyone especially those who want a game. It is for those
>who like geopolitical simulations like Balance of Power (SP2 is way, way
>better than BOP ever was).

Have you played SuperPower1? If you have, what are the improvements?
Is it still stuck at 640x480res?
 

Werewolf

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2004
58
0
18,630
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Aldwyn Edain wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 17:32:11 -0500, Werewolf <nunya@no-way.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Yeah well then I'm still batting a 1000 because so far in over 25 years
>>of PC gaming I've always liked what the reviewers panned. The same goes
>>for movies - I rarely like what the mainstream critics (bought and paid
>>for by the publishing houses and movie studios) like.
>>
>>Superpower 2 is a great simulation (which I like). It is not a very good
>>game.
>>
>>I got it for it's sim qualities. Except for some economic model problems
>>(not bugs) that exist because the programmers are probably closet
>>socialists who know nothing about how real world economies actually work
>>it does a fairly good job of simulating how a country works and
>>interacts with other countries.
>>
>>IT IS NOT A COMBAT SIMULATOR! IT IS NOT RISK! STAY OUT OF THE COMBAT
>>SCREENS AND LET THE AI FIGHT THE WARS YOU START OR FIND YOURSELF IN AND
>>YOU'LL BE FINE.
>>
>>Go into the combat screens and you'll be disappointed. Combat is
>>conducted at the macro level. In other words you have about as much
>>control as a country leader should have - "General - conquer
>>transylvania, don't use nukes and try to avoid wiping out the local
>>population" etc.
>>
>>Some have described SuperPower2 as a spreadsheet simulation. Works for
>>me and is a fairly accurate description.
>>
>>SP2 isn't for everyone especially those who want a game. It is for those
>>who like geopolitical simulations like Balance of Power (SP2 is way, way
>>better than BOP ever was).
>
>
> Have you played SuperPower1? If you have, what are the improvements?
> Is it still stuck at 640x480res?

Yes...
SP1 is a better game - SP2 is a better sim.

SP2 improves IMO the interactions between countries, treaties, basing etc.

Research is automatic in SP2 - you influence it by deciding how much
money to allocate to each area.

The war system is better too IMO - IF - you treat wars as if you are the
supreme leader of the land making grand strategic decisions and not some
colonel on the battlefield leading a regiment or even General Eisenhauer.

The economic/political model is better with the exception of how the
game handles tax rates (allows 100% tax rates for example - which in the
game IS NOT a bad thing!). The eco system makes the player set
individual and corporate tax rates as well as tax rates on a wide
variety of goods and services. The game allows you to set social policy
in a country and that along with a bunch of other factors determines
whether you get reelected in a multiparty democracy or don't get
overthrown in other government types.

SP2 is a SIMULATION - not a game. I cannot stress that enough. It is an
exercise in optimization and what is optimal depends on your goals. It
is possible to have a country like Luxembourg for example conquer the
world. It might take 300 or 400 years and some superb planning and game
play but it can be done. On the other hand you can win without
conquering the world by setting your goal to establishing world peace or
doubling your per capita income or any number of other goals. It's all
up to the player.

SP2 is all about planning and execution. The planning has to be done
with the long view in mind and execution must happen when the time is
right. In addition the method of execution is critical lest one piss off
the world and find oneself isolated and alone.

To be honest I'd estimate that less than 1 gamer in 1000 will actually
enjoy playing SP2. I enjoy it - but I'm not mainstream - at least not
compared to today's gamers anyway.

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:42:34 -0500, Werewolf <nunya@no-way.net> wrote:


>Yes...
>SP1 is a better game - SP2 is a better sim.
>
>SP2 improves IMO the interactions between countries, treaties, basing etc.
>
>Research is automatic in SP2 - you influence it by deciding how much
>money to allocate to each area.
>
>The war system is better too IMO - IF - you treat wars as if you are the
>supreme leader of the land making grand strategic decisions and not some
>colonel on the battlefield leading a regiment or even General Eisenhauer.
>
>The economic/political model is better with the exception of how the
>game handles tax rates (allows 100% tax rates for example - which in the
>game IS NOT a bad thing!). The eco system makes the player set
>individual and corporate tax rates as well as tax rates on a wide
>variety of goods and services. The game allows you to set social policy
>in a country and that along with a bunch of other factors determines
>whether you get reelected in a multiparty democracy or don't get
>overthrown in other government types.
>
>SP2 is a SIMULATION - not a game. I cannot stress that enough. It is an
>exercise in optimization and what is optimal depends on your goals. It
>is possible to have a country like Luxembourg for example conquer the
>world. It might take 300 or 400 years and some superb planning and game
>play but it can be done. On the other hand you can win without
>conquering the world by setting your goal to establishing world peace or
>doubling your per capita income or any number of other goals. It's all
>up to the player.
>
>SP2 is all about planning and execution. The planning has to be done
>with the long view in mind and execution must happen when the time is
>right. In addition the method of execution is critical lest one piss off
>the world and find oneself isolated and alone.
>
>To be honest I'd estimate that less than 1 gamer in 1000 will actually
>enjoy playing SP2. I enjoy it - but I'm not mainstream - at least not
>compared to today's gamers anyway.

Sounds like I might like it and I see it is the bargain bin already so
not much financial loss if I don't like it. But is it still fixed at
one low resolution? I don't like it when developers force you play at
a fixed res of 640x480 when my monitor can do much higher than that.
 

Werewolf

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2004
58
0
18,630
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Aldwyn Edain wrote:


> Sounds like I might like it and I see it is the bargain bin already so
> not much financial loss if I don't like it. But is it still fixed at
> one low resolution? I don't like it when developers force you play at
> a fixed res of 640x480 when my monitor can do much higher than that.

It runs at 1024X768 just fine on my PC...
--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:56:42 -0500, Werewolf <nunya@no-way.net> wrote:


>It runs at 1024X768 just fine on my PC...

OK, good. SuperPower1 was stuck at 640x480 I believe (or maybe
800x600) and looked a bit fuzzy on my LCD. Think I'll pick it up. Thx.