With Clusters

So it was more or less ad-hoc, at least for Commonwealth divisions (w/ some regional conglomerations occasionally?)? So where did unit 'esprit-de-corps' (for lack of a better word) lie? Not within the division, I assume (compared to US divisions, as far as I know [again, not a grog or a vet, just what I know from school and the History Channel ], such as "I was in the 82nd Airborne", or "the Big Red One", etc.?)? Would regiments/brigades be swapped frequently between divisions or larger formations, w/o much concern? Very interesting to know for a quasi-historian (wrong period though, studied 'ancient' in Uni and MA). Thanks! And sorry if this detracts from finding out the nickname of the Panzer II!

OK, I know squat. How were these myriads of units organized into larger elements (divisions, especially)? On a sort of ad-hoc basis? This seems a sort of bottom up organization, as opposed to top down (as done by other countries? - yeah, not a grog at all, but very much interested in the history).

My head hurts :confused: Good to know at least one English MP was as confused by all this as me...

Thanks DD! As an annecdote (sp?) from my second CM(BB) game ever, I got totally mowed over by the Germans (lost my sole bunker the first turn, and had my green Russian infantry scattered by arty, while invincible German tanks drove on toward the victory locations), I hung in there a long long while after my opponent/friend suggested I pack it in (give the 'surrender' order), and managed to eek out a 'draw' (with me having the higher percentage of victory points no less). Totally different game, I know, but having something to play for other than 'total victory/defeat' kept me in it long enough to make a thouroughly enjoyable game for both of us. Something worth considering IMO...

In my last game, when the first OWT showed up and knocked out three of my King Tigers in one turn, I was pretty pissed. Luckily my KCC (Khorat Class Cruiser) showed up for some CAS and took the bastard out. Unfortunately, he took out two of my own Ralley Cars too. Damn friendly fire!

I'm all for "replays, timers, pre-game viewing, & spectator mode", not that I care so much about cheating (only played against one person I met on-line who wasn't a friend I'd known in real life, and he seemed a perfectly stand up guy), but I think it would be enjoyable just for the heck of it. I think the idea of hosted servers is a good idea too for cutting down on the cheating (although not being a computer science major, I have no idea how they work - would a hosted server cut down on this 'save' cheat thingy you're all talking about?). I just assume that will cost money, meaning some sort of monthy fee or what not. For those interested in serious competative play, it might be worth it (although I suppose some uber-nerd could still figure a way to hack even that?). At least with 'replay', you could spot trends and figure when someone was really working you over. Of course they could be crafty, like Allied intelligence in WWII, who let a few U-boats and resupply missions to N.A. get through, even though they new about 'em, just so the enemy wouldn't catch on...

Sounds like the Dragoons new their business then. Why would the Panzers have been so road bound then?

I'm still interested in as to why the Australian DoD would request this version, with all the necessary modifications (and paying for them, I presume), as I asked in the 'Slang' thread (yeah, I was touchy, sorry ). Who will actually be playing/studying this? To what purpose? Will it be required for some people (officer candidates?) to play a given amount of hours? I do think historical study is very usefull for people in the military (at least the officers?), so in a way, it makes sense (it will probably grab people's attention more than some dull lecture in some ROTC-esque classroom). I'm just wondering how it will be utilized. Any notions?

'Total Victory' is certainly enjoyable. But how many opponents in any game where that is the sole victory condition will actually stick around for you to enjoy it? IMO, it is the rare gamer who will continue for the full monty when they are losing (not a dig at all these folks - in a game that takes a long time to complete, some people might have something better to do, maybe). But if there was something to achieve other than the innevitable 'Total Defeat', they might just hang in there. Going down fighting and all that, but with a way to recognize the effort. Allowing an Axis player to achieve some sort of victory, even though the 'Axis' is eventually defeated (say, if the 'defeat' happens after the historical date) might be one option. The premise of 3R was that the Axis would probably have been defeated at some point, thus the idea of 'minor' and such victory conditions if they could last past a certain date. Whether that was some sort of real historical innevitability or not is another matter (check out the CM forums for plenty of debate on these 'what ifs' if you've got time to kill). Game balance is another issue. 3R did favor the Allies (players being equal I suppose) in the long run, but the complaint was that SC1 was the other way around, and that the Axis was (w/o bids and such) in the best position to achieve total victory (at least in the 39 game). If SC1 had had victory conditions, perhaps it would have been the Allies who would have needed the option for 'minor victories' and such. The problem I found was that Axis players tended to give up once the Allies had turned the tide, because they felt they had nothing left to play for, which is unfortunate, as that part of the game in 3R was one of the most interesting. How best to defend, when you have no real hope of ultimate victory (in 'real' terms, not game terms)? Throw in time related victory conditions (or something like that), and now you have the reason. And I would admit that time-cap games are probably more a-strategical (they would lend themselves to gamey situations to achieve short term goals that would be extremely risky had the game continued), but fun none the less. But they'd certainly be faster to play, and might allow a player to try some interesting strategies that they might not otherwise go for in a 'full' game. [ May 22, 2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: With Clusters ]

Very interesting story! Those Panther crews seemed like they were awfully green...

Perhaps it has something to do with the multi-player option? Especially when it comes to IP or PBEM games? Then again, not sure why you couldn't have unlimited minor nations...

Look, maybe I'm just being a little touchey, and I know this statement is fairly innoquous (compared to plenty of others I've seen), but is it always neccessary to use an example from the US for something 'bad' (segregation in this case, although read literally, it seems to be stating that it took the Canadian Army until the late 40s to achieve the US level of segregation ). Was the US Army the only military organization in the word still segregated until the late 40s? Why not say 'segregated as South Africa was until the 1990s'? Just consider the state of the world today, and ask yourself if dinging the US (especially as it regards history, and not current events) or any other particular country is really helpfull, informative or accurate(even if just a small comment), when posting to a games forum. All that will happen is some touchey fool (that'll be me this time around) will post a big, huffy, off-topic reply. Sorry, but that's my piece. Michael, if that was not your intention, I appologize for being oversensative. Anyhow, back to the topic, I found it very interesting to learn that nicknames for US armored vehicles was originally supplied by the English. Is that really so? Sort of like the nicknames given to Soviet aircraft during the Cold War, that the Russian designers seemed so pleased with! And I think the names of English/Canadian units are quite interesting and colorfull, if a bit confusing and cryptic. It certainly forges a link to the past. Not having been in any military myself, are average soldiers instructed in the history of their particular unit? Do they have to take a test? I wonder, will all Australian soldiers be required to play the new CMAK edition now, to aquire a greater understanding of what thier veterans went through? Again, sorry for being touchey. A little humility goes a long way when you're gonna criticize someone, perhaps unfairly, IMO

Uh, that is, unless you meant me too...

Amen.

How will victory conditions be implemented in SC2? SC1's point scoring system was fairly unsatisfying. Based purely on number of 'kills', a player got one point for every enemy unit destroyed, whether it was an expensive carrier or cheap corps. This would lead to the illogical situation where a victorious player could actually get a higher score by taking longer to conquer his enemy, while taking the time to destroy larger numbers of enemy units, rather than getting some kind of hefty bonus for a swift and efficient victory. So pretty much the only victory condition that mattered was 'total'. Play until you stomped the other guy out of existance, or he resigned. Perhaps a victory condition system similar to 3R or CM is in order? I think SC2 will have some sort of system like that (PZGNDR mentioned 'victory conditions' briefly on 4/22 in a post regarding 'I Want North America off the Map', and it seemed mainly relevant to the new multi-player aspect of the game). How will it work? Will it be based on 'kills'? 'Victory locations' controlled? Resource tiles controlled? Will they be adjustable with the editor? I would think varying levels of victory/defeat might keep players in the game even if it was obvious their 'side' would not win the war. IIRC, in old 3R, the Axis could gain a 'Minor Vicory' if they still held Berlin at the end of 45. Meaning, sure, the Axis still lost the war, but the Axis 'player' won. As it is in SC1, the game goes on until 47, and if the Axis loses in 46, too bad, you still 'lose'! If there was some kind of tournament or ladder that scored varying points for different levels of victory (or just for pride's sake), players would keep at a game to the bitter end (trying for a mere 'Major Defeat' as opposed to a 'Total Defeat', say), rather than packing it in once things started to go a little downhill. So, any word as to what's on tap here? Ideas on how victory conditions should be scored? Especially in multi player mode? P.S. - sort of off my own topic, but how about scenarios that have a time cap? Say, not just a 39 'campaign' game, but a 39-41 game, or a 40-42 game (see who can achieve the most victory 'stuff' before time expires)? Or should we just wait for someone to 'mod' that later? [ May 22, 2004, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: With Clusters ]

Wow. I think people need to tone down the nationalistic/partisan rhetoric, and use a little fairness and common sense when talking about history. So sure, 'spirit' alone doesn't win wars (just ask the Japanese), and it also wasn't something soley possesed by US soldiers. I'm sure that soldiers from other Allied nations had just as much spirit/loyalty/patriotism/etc. as American ones. Go ahead, be proud of your country's history (I'm American, and I'm certainly proud), but it doesn't need to be done in it a way that belittles the accomplishments of others. But on the other other hand, characterizing the entire US strategy as merely "build more than them" is patently unfair. And while the US was able to outproduce Japan by a large margin, this production benefit hadn't really kicked in until after decisive battles (such as Midway, brought about by good intelligence, courage [so spirit sometimes can help], and of course luck - but not because the US had 'more') had already turned the tide. So such simplified blanket statements are rediculous, and only meant to insult. So people just need to drop the personal bias, and quit poisoning these forums, so the more rational of us can enjoy talking about the game and the history behind it in a reasonable and rational way.

I guess that would all be situational, depending on the terrain, available forces, etc., but its sound advice all the same. Thanks Tripps!

Are there many ( any? ) wargamers from Russia out there? Or from the Commonwealth of Independant States (did I say that right? does it even exist anymore?)? I'd assume they'd be fairly qualified (or maybe not) to comment on things regarding the Soviet military in WWII. Plus, it would be interesting to know if there were, and if not, why not. You'd think they'd love to replay the Great Patriotic War! Or is there an SC site in Russian out there somewhere? :cool:

Don't pin that on me! :eek: I've seen it mentioned several times before. I think...

My history classes were so incomplete...

One idea might be if there was some way to set some sort of 'maximum' MPP value to various cities/ports/resources. Not all cities were equal (hmm, they're all worth the same, except capitols are double), nor was every resource location (hex/tile) equally valuable. Could there be a different figure for MPPs vs supply value for a given city/port (or resource location regarding MPPs)? Or does this get into the 'overcomplicated' realm?

Great idea, if it can be incorporated into SC2 (considering hoped for release date, playtesting, and what not). If so (or for SC3), the modeling for neutral countries could be improved also, with certain events triggering a 'production increase'. Say, if some country does such and such, a neutral potential adversary increases its production (for example, for each minor 'non-historical' neutral country the Axis invades, US production increases by 5-10%), making it a more dangerous adversary when war is finally declared. Again, good idea, but maybe a bit difficult to implement at this stage in the game's developement? Maybe not?

That's some nut! :eek:

A history prof of mine once said there's nothing like visiting the ground where past events actually took place to get a 'real' understanding of what took place. He was talking about ancient history (relating a trip to Greece and Turkey he took), but I think the concept is universal. The Brecourt Manor story is especially interesting, since I finally watched BoB for the first time just a few weeks ago (I've been out of the country for a long while). Thanks for the 'personal' information Runyan!

How did the squirrels pull an "89mm" about by their tales? An 89mm what? Sounds heavy...