Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!duga From: duga@merlin.cvs.rochester.edu (Brady Duga) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games Subject: Re: Upgrading Strategic Conquest 2.0 to 3.0 Message-ID: <11938@ur-cc.UUCP> Date: 29 Jan 91 16:37:09 GMT References: <1991Jan29.000820.9303@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <91028.224311CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> Sender: news@uhura.cc.rochester.edu Organization: Center for Visual Science, U. of Rochester Lines: 47 In article <91028.224311CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu> CXT105@psuvm.psu.edu (Christopher Tate) writes: > >Ack! The last I heard, the most recent version was 2.055! Does anyone >know what the changes are for 3.0? As far as I could tell, the only >difference between 1.0 and 2.0 was the lack of copy protection. What's >version 3.0 like? I don't seem to remeber this posted, so here goes: [From page 23 of the Strat Con 3 manual] Changes from Strategic Conquest 2.0: The map is a growable, moveable window. Strategic Conquest now supports gigantic monitors, multiple monitors, desk accesories, Multifinder and the new Sound manager. The two player game is more fair. [I'm not certain i understand what this really means] It uses only one file - no external sound files. The "Hide' and "talking" features have been removed. Carriers are weaker; destroyers and submarines and battleships are stronger, to encourage a sophisticated naval strategy. Armies and airplanes never get strength 2. The world is slightly smaller, there are less cities, and the islands have better shape. [I think they kept the same land to city ratio, but just have less land] There are some mild performance enhancements and several bug fixes: Nothing can attack more than twice per turn, there are no problems with scrolling by dragging an airplanes path, and ships can't regain their entire strength in one turn. [And now the big one:] The computer player now produces his pieces at exactly the same rate as you at every skill level. [YAY!] After all is said and done, I'd say it looks ad feels almost exactly like 2.0. --Brady (duga@cvs.rochester.edu)