Verfasst: 2. Januar
I know it says I've played 250+ hours of this game, and I've certainly played quite a few, but probably half of that is letting the game run on its own while I was asleep, or having fallen asleep playing it.
The concept behind the game is really great, and I wish it had been implemented in a way that made it fun to play, but it wasn't.
I did play the original (SR2010) and it is certainly an improvement over that version - less buggy, better controls. But the core problems with the franchise remain.
Basic gameplay is excruciatingly slow; the fastest speed is a tenth of where it should be. Virtually every game mechanic is completely opaque, and zero effort is made to explain any of it. The economic model is absurd and way too easily exploited - even playing as Malawi (the poorest, most technologically backwards country in the world) I can turn it into an economic powerhouse in just a few game years.
Since no effort is made to balance the various countries, conflicts are rather pointless. The AI is terrible no matter how difficult you make the settings. You have to make your own game objectives because the game itself has none.
Then there's the "engineers" problem - if you lack the tech to build a really good infantry unit, engineers are a very strong infantry unit that can be built with no tech. Although very oddly you can't actually research the unit, you need to trade for the design - but anyone will trade it to you for some cash. The engineer has massive advantages - it's cheap, it can cross rivers, it can bridge terrain for other units, it can accelerate production and repair of buildings, and it can beat the tar out of far more advanced units without breaking a sweat. Why a zero-tech engineer can pound the hell out of many types of advanced infantry units is beyond me.
The economy and force distributions aren't the only wildly imbalanced aspects to the game. Research is ridiculous - if you have the cash you can buy and use techs way way way beyond your tech level. Diplomacy is virtually pointless, as is any other form of non-warfare interaction with other countries.
The UN mechanic is also dubious, there are no substantial benefits to being a part of the UN, and a significant economic penalty is attached to being good by them, when it should be the other way around. It's to your advantage to purposely get kicked out, so that you don't have to pay their escalating membership fees - for which you get nothing in return. An example of how trying to stay good by the UN hurts you: it's apparently perfectly acceptable for a neighboring country with whom you are not at war to allow passage of enemy units to attack your territory, but if you attack that neighbor for that act of war the UN will despise you for it.
Your advisors are just as bad as the AI elsewhere; if you trust them to do anything they will mess it up badly. There's a system of implementing priorities for them, but if this has any actually effect on their behavior I haven't been able to detect it.
The only thing this game does well, gameplay-wise, is tactical unit management on the hex map. If you can slog through all the opaque mechanics and the gruelingly long setup time before a typical country can start invading others, that part is reasonably satisfying.
Other mechanics, like the loyalty mechanic, are just stupid and appear to directly contradict the "realism" goal of the game. Either eliminate that mechanic, or do it properly!
Like its predecessor, SR2020 is a great idea that doesn't really work well as implemented.