"Advanced" Strategic Command

[Jeff Heidman]

How about it, Hubert?

Halve the hex size.

Make production happen over time (have to buy in advance, so to speak).

More supply rules.

Inter-dependent technology.

All sorts of stuff...

Jeff Heidman

[Otto]

Jeff, Let him finish one game first!

[Titan]

Good points there Jeff.I think SC seems to be at the level it is designed to be,and that is a nice introduction for newbie strategic gamers and a good enjoyable game for us Gronards.

But if there is a SC2 for me to revist buying it,it would have to be a level up of what we have here presently as farr as complexity and detail go.I have ordered SC which im looking forward to,but i wouldnt buy another unless it had a few of the options and then some that Jeff talked about.some others would be

Supply

Weather effects

Weekly Turns throughout year,one needs to fight during winter.

Production would be something i would like to see more planned High Command did it perfectly, You order a battleship and it takes 1 year to be built etc

More hexs or halfed as Jeff said

Also i think ww2 on a Global Scale is a must with the option to play just the pacific war or european war as Scenarios as oppoesed to a stand alone game.

If there is a SC2 it would have to make some moves towards the above to grab my interest.Im only posting this so Hubert can see what gamers want so as to help with his thoughts if he decides to make another

[DevilDog]

I agree with Titan's post. The only thing I would add to those ideas would be the addition of the feature of having planning phases available (but they wouldn't have to be required). Meaning that if your units do not start adjacent to the enemy units they are to attack, they should require attack planning to be done (maybe with a pull down menu that says "planning" where you choose where you will attack). Then the longer you wait without moving your units who are to participate in the attack, the better bonuses you will receive when it goes off. An additional feature to go along with this would be Strategic level Intel, where the longer you let a planned attack go before executing it, the more likely the enemy will get wind of it (presuming that they have the intel capability to penetrate your intel defenses).

Once again Hubert just some ideas for SC2.

[pzgndr]

Supply, Weather effects, Weekly Turns throughout year, a Global Scale is a must

Since the 1-year demo can be played in about an hour, the full war can be played in a single evening or day, and that's a strong selling point. Going to 1-week turns and a global scale will lead down a path towards unplayability for a lot of people. This is a problem with WiF. I like the game in principle, but don't have the time or space or patience to bother with it. One aspect of WiF that could be adopted for SC2 or some other venture would be monthly turns with variable impulses based on random seasonal effects and player initiative - 3-4 in summer, 2-3 in spring/fall, and 1-2 in winter. This would normalize the economic production in the game and let weather effects have the impact they did historically, and IMHO this alone would have the greatest influence on making the game more accurate for grognards without losing any of the entertainment value. It would keep the game at about 27 impulses per year and keep it playable without making it more complex. Going to 52/year takes away some of the turn abstractions and forces you to consider more detail and complexity to make each turn "realistic." That's a whole different type of game.

A global game sounds fine in principle, but until computer memory issues are resolved, separate ETO and PTO scenarios will be adequate. Game options like War in Siberia on/off can sufficiently handle what-ifs from the other theater, or some other way of linking events through house rules or changing options during a game based on the other theater could be considered. Besides, 70-80% of a global map would be inactive for the most part, so hardly worth pushing for at this point.

A slightly larger map with another hex row or two at both the top and bottom would really be nice, plus more to the east to include Iraq and Persia. And if the Atlantic cannot be extended more, perhaps the middle Atlantic hexes could be coded differently to require double movement factors for E-W movement to more accurately represent the great distances involved.

A question for Hubert is whether SC could in fact be enhanced to include both a basic game (as currently released) and an advanced game (with a different turn sequence and seasonal effects), both with more options provided so players can customize their games. If it HAS to be a single game, either basic OR advanced, then a lot of players are going to remain frustrated one way or another. It *should* be possible to satisfy both grognards and the beer&pretzels crowd simply by providing different options. Hopefully, this will be the case as the game evolves over time.

[Jollyguy]

I for one would opt for a modest amount more detail, and a handful more units, but within tight constraints. I agree that the beauty of SC is its playability. I wouldn't want to see ten mile hexes, but 35 miles might be okay. So I guess I would vote for something on the order of 25% to 30% more complexity, not 100%.

[J Wagner]

If you were to allow me to change only one aspect of the current game as it now plays, it would be for the increased map size, especially in the south and southeast as Bill mentioned above.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

While we're on map size, i must say this, i apalogize in advance....... Add more to the north, we need more norway and finland! Archangel would also be perfect!

Anyway, im conttent for now, but some time in the future i'd like to see this addition.

That ringing in your ears,

CVM

[Wolfe]

Yeah, Im definitely in the more detailed camp. Though the simple gameplay really does suck you in to the game.

I'm not sure if Hubert really wants to take suggestions for a newer version of SC right at this time, but ...

A few humble suggestions for a great game.

* Consistent 1-week or even 5-day turns per year. Winter can be simulated by changing the tiles, and wouldn't affect every hex on the map.

* 50km hexes. This would allow more freedom of movement as well as the inclusion of more cities and ports, but not get so small that infantry divisions would be required.

* If hex size shrinks substantially, make max size Inf unit a Corps and armored unit a Tank Corps. If this happens, HQs would have to be able to command more than 5 units, however.

* Supply and readiness values displayed on the unit chit as a colored dot (green=good, red=bad) TOAW-style.

* Full world map with the Earth displayed as a cool 3D hex globe.

* New, more subtle terrain features: hills which don't kill movement like mountains and provide a decent defensive value. Desert: allows a bit more movement. Plains (US, USSR): allows easier movement like the desert.

* More control over unit movement; be able to move units multiple times per turn until movement points are exhausted. Though I'm not sure how to fix spotting if this is changed (you would be able to move slowly, one hex at a time, eliminating surprise encounters). But I would like to be able to have more control over the movement path in some circumstances. One idea may be to allow you to set one (and only one) waypoint in the middle of the movement path so you would have better control.

* Disconnect city population from production. It's population could have an impact on its production, but having two separate numbers for each city/port would allow for more variety (e.g. the production centers could be badly damaged in continuing bombing raids, but the population could be left relatively unhurt, and vice-versa). The City's population could also have a small role in its defensive value (add -say- 10% to the defensive value of a city). So larger cities would be slightly better defended.

* Cities that have more varied MPP values. Every city isn't a '10'. Some are much larger, and some smaller. More variety can remove a lot of gaminess as it complicates the "Perfect Strategy" that so many strive for in a strategic game like this. Even have cities which have a population, but no production value.

* FOW for MPP values for cities/ports. You might have some idea that Stalingrad is a large industrialized city, but wouldn't necessarily know what its MPP value really is.

* Slower recovery of production for cities/ports that are bombed severely.

* Cities/ports which are bombed back to 0 must have an influx of MPPs to get them started again.

* The ability to re-locate industry from one city to another. Would only be allowed for a part of the city's industry (say 50% max) and would be very inefficient (large part of the industrial capacity would be lost in the transfer, especially if moving from a large city to a small one), but could save some industry in larger cities from being totally eliminated.

* Disconnect attack and defend values for units from its size, especially for naval units. So you could have a carrier that, when attacking an enemy can lose all its offensive capabilities (all it's planes lost), but still be in fine shape defensive-wise (you would have a toothless, but still usable unit). The carrier would return to port (or a hex near to one) to be re-planed. This would also be pertinent for battleships as their guns could be destroyed in battle, but the ship still be in good shape. If it's defensive value is hurt, however, it would have to dock in a port to be re-fit. A naval unit that has fallen below a certain level (say half), would have to spend even more time in port (multiple turns) to be refit. Having different attack and defend values also allows technology upgrades (like jet aircraft) to only affect the offensive side of the unit, so a carrier wouldn't gain defensive strength from an upgrade in Long Range Aircraft tech.

* Ability to see (and cycle through) different attack/defend numbers for all units. So if I hit 'Shift-N' (or something), both the attack and defend numbers for all units is displayed on the unit at the bottom left (attack) and right (defend) hand corners of the unit graphic. Cycle through infantry, tank, air, and naval attack/defend values.

* Different size units. Subs don't need to be a '10', and larger battleships (Yamato, etc.) could have more substantial values. Russian vs. German infantry corps had different strengths and weaknesses. German old division format was different than new division. And Soviet Rifles division vs. Guards division too.

* Allow pocket battleships and smaller, less powerful carriers.

* All battleships and carriers have to have historical names (like HQs currently), limiting their maximum number.

* Reduce spotting abilities for fighters, bombers, and carriers. They can see too far into enemy territory, IMO. But give carriers the ability to do two reconnaissance sorties every turn to scout for enemy units.

* Concerning subs, I'd really like to see it used less as a combat unit. So surface ships without tech upgrades would only have -say- a 5% chance of detecting the sub when it moved next to one (and if the game engine allows enemy units to stack, only a ~10% chance of detection if it strays into a sub's hex). And not all movement should result in a 'surprise' because this gives away the position of the unit that isn't moving. For the most part, for a sub to become engaged in combat it should have to be directed to attack by the player. I'd also like to see the amount of damage a sub can do reduced significantly, but allow it occasionally to completely annihilate an enemy naval combat unit in one shot, simulating a good shot against the capital ship.

* The ability to retreat when attacked, but with the chance of evaporating when it happens. Not trying to turn this into TOAW, but units die a bit quickly, IMO.

* Chance the attacker may move forward into the attacked hex.

* Units completely surrounded that actually surrender (under certain circumstances) rather than having to be beaten down to nothing.

* Enemy ground units that are destroyed when attacked could add a small amount of MPPs to the attacking side to emulate captured stuff.

* Stacking of naval units (up to 6 or so) to allow more freedom of movement in ports and the creation of task forces. Could have Carrier, Battleship, and Escort task forces where the "lead" vessel(s) of the task force is better protected from attack by the other units. Once the units are stacked and formed into a task force, they would still be able to move individually or as a task force (so two types of movement).

* Automatic coastal defense which will lightly attack landing craft/naval units moving along the coast. Would not be an actual unit, but just attempt to hit the defensive value of an enemy vessel next to a land hex. Could be higher for some countries (Sweden) than others.

* Likewise, an automatic attack on ships moving within range of an enemy air unit. Doesn't generally do much damage, but will tend to keep enemy navys at a distance. This attack would not hurt the air unit, but it would "encourage" an attacking player to deal with enemy air power before attempting a landing. Or generally avoid getting too close to some coastlines.

* Except for tank/mechanized units, attacking after movement imparts a penalty on the attacker for disorganization. (Not sure if this doesn't happen already)

* When moving a ground unit that has previously attacked/been-attacked-by an adjacent enemy unit, there could be a chance the moving unit takes a small disengagement hit or loses movement points.

* Why do only moving units get surprised? Shouldn't sometimes the defending unit be on the short end of the surprised stick?

* Ships that have the ability to flee (move one hex away from) an attack from a ground unit.

* Ability of naval and air units to attack multiple times per turn depending on amount of movement left.

* Ability to slowly decommission ships. Would take a number of turns; more for larger units (battleships/carriers).

* Ability to play German, Japanese, or British (Allied) active participants as well as Soviet, American, Italian, or Chinese passive participants. Passive participants can slowly direct their small amount of MPPs into whatever area they choose and move units around, but they cannot attack. And they must wait to be attacked before achieving full production and being able to participate in the fighting. Could make for interesting multi-multi-player games.

* Partisans should stick to their own country. And if a city is captured by Partisans, other undefended cities within the same country may revolt, forming more Partisan units, not just ones in the mountains.

* When first created, Partisans could get an entrenchment bonus.

* Individual hexes that change to frozen (Russian winter) or muddy (SE Asian rainy season) during different times of year that severely impedes movement (only 1 hex at a time). Or even helps movement (a frozen river hex). Light winter could slightly impede movement; heavy winter could almost eliminate it.

* Ports and shallow water inlet hexes near land that can freeze during severe winter months, preventing naval movement. This would obviously have a bad effect on supply for those units. Don't get your landing craft caught in an ice flow.

* Air units sitting on a winter hex would not be able to fly.

* Units that don't have very high supply levels and are sitting on a "winter" hex cannot move or attack.

* Have a randomization that allows winter/rainy season to be early or late so you can't exactly predict the day when your attack will stall due to weather (or begin when it breaks). Not sure if this isn't already in the game; it may be.

* Heavy troop carriers (e.g. Liberty ships) that have to be built to move units across the ocean, can only dock in ports, and cannot navigate on shallow water hexes. You load infantry and tank units on the troop carrier at a port and then move the troop carrier with its new cargo to its destination. Troops can either disembark the troop carrier at a friendly port or turn into Landing Craft for a beach landing. Landing craft would still act as in SC now, but could only travel in 'Sea' or 'Shallow Water' hexes, not on 'Ocean' tiles. Makes crossing an ocean and attacking more realistic. Once the Ocean troop carriers cross the ocean and reach 'Sea' hexes, onboard units can be converted to landing craft for landing on enemy soil.

* Ability to see supply levels of all friendly hexes (Shift-S or something toggles).

* When click on unit, should not only be able to see max movement, but also target range (displayed as a thin black or red crosshair on the hexes within range).

* Ability to create minor fortifications (e.g. Atlantic wall) that drain MPPs and is slowly constructed over time. It shouldn't be able to reach the same defensive level as normal fortifications in the game, however. And it can't be manned (doesn't give an extra defensive value) until it reaches a certain point of construction. Certain tiles (marsh, etc.) can't be built on.

* Allow active and passive majors to annex some oft-disputed territories. Annexation would be different from actually declaring war. Annexation may cause fighting between two separate parties, unrelated to the overall Allied/Axis conflict. So Soviets could try to annex the Balkans or Sakhalin island causing a regional conflict between only those two nations involved. Annexation (such as German annexation of Balkans or Japanese annexation of Alaska or Sakhalin Is.) could also have a chance of bringing the parties involved into the full war, however. Also, allow Japanese annexation of Manchuria and German annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia. If a major who is involved in an annexation fight is not yet at war, it can only fight with -say- 10% of its MPPs. So if Russia is not yet in the overall conflict, the Russian player (if multiplayer) or Allied player (if 2-player or solo game) can choose to annex all of Sakhalin island, and may have to fight for it against that one adversary (if the computer decides the two sides have to fight over it) with only part of its MPPs. But it may be worth the risk for the Soviets if the Annexation works without any conflict erupting. This would make the game more complex (maybe too complex), but I think it could add some nice spice (e.g. Soviet-Finnish Winter War). The default for this option, however, should be off; not everyone will want to play with this all the time.

* Also, units from passive and active majors should not be able to see each other until they are actually fighting a war. So if the Soviets are trying to annex Finland, the Japanese player would not be able to see enemy units until the two countries are involved in their own conflict or both have formally joined the wider war. And if there is only one Axis player, he/she would be able to control the Finnish troops to fight the Soviets, but his Japanese and German troops would not be able to spot enemy movement because they're not yet involved vs the Soviets themselves.

* Rivers that take more movement points to cross. They don't seem as much of an obstacle right now, IMO.

* Tech upgrades to military units shouldn't be announced to both sides. I'd prefer it fall under FOW.

* And if FOW applies to tech research, then you could have Intelligence Reports that can sometimes report on what tech upgrades an enemy has achieved (perhaps even report incorrectly). This would add a 'spy' component to the game.

* Equally, spies could also report massing of enemy troops. If, say, 5 or more enemy units are on or next to a certain city hex, spies would have a chance of reporting this fact (e.g. "Enemy troops are reported to be massing near Timbuktu."). This could have the effect (if you get a good "dice roll" on the spy report) of warning you about an impending enemy invasion. Also, spies could report on an enemy naval task force ("An enemy carrier task force was seen sailing out of Pearl Harbor") as well as report on the whereabouts of HQ units when they go into or next to a city hex ("Rommel's Headquarters was sighted near Tobruk"). It would also be cool if the spies would be wrong some of the time (e.g. report an enemy HQ near the wrong city). If there are these spy reports, a running list of what was reported would need to be kept so the player could refer back to them. I don't know that the AI would be able to use the spy reports though; it probably would be very difficult to get it to respond appropriately to them (in many cases the AI would likely over-respond), so the spy reports should probably not influence the AI's behaviour even though this would give the human player an advantage.

* A running count of MPP damage inflicted by scorched earth, regular fighting (cities/mines losing MPPs when invaded), and strategic bombing.

* Ability to create regional conflicts between just a few countries in the editor. So you could have a Russo-Japanese war only. All others countries would be completely neutral. Would make for some nice what-ifs and allow players to create an almost endless number of different scenarios.

* Time-limited campaigns that don't necessarily end on the common Summer '46 date, so certain objectives have to be met by the new time limit.

* Ability to create introductory text to give a setting for the campaign. Would need a general one, one for each side, and an end text screen so a scenario author can write in the end result of the battle (or whatever he wishes) to allow the player to compare how they did with their historic counterpart.

And that's just the short version. Just kidding!

- Chris

[Gregory Barnard]

I'm enjoying the game just as it is.

[Silvercloud]

Argh, don't go overboard! You still need regular people to buy & play it. One of the reasons many recent wargames failed is that the use too big a scale. SSI's games were succesful as they emulated the game on a world scale without actually playing on the whole world. You're trying to emulate too much! It would take so long to play a game like that. Look at HOI if you need a game that in-depth.

I think SC rox, just because it's not too high on detail.

I like the large hexes, as it is supposed to emulate grand strategic decisions.

SC2 could add some of the features you named (like normal passing of time between winter & summer, but with weather effects), so I wouldn't immediately dismiss them all.

Just watch the design premise...Or ask for one from Hubert... But it would definitely aim towards grand strategy and not minute details of the war...

[pzgndr]

Argh, don't go overboard! You still need regular people to buy & play it. One of the reasons many recent wargames failed is that they use too big a scale.

Absolutely. Changing the scale would mean a major game design revision that would introduce more complexity than most paying customers may want. I could see the SC game engine being made into some kind of game development kit someday, where players can define their own scale like in TOAW. But whether SC itself will change, only Hubert knows.

All games have abstractions for turn length, hex scale, unit size, etc. What "happens" in a given hex during a given turn between two units is less important than the long-term effects. In SC we're looking at grand strategy and major campaigns over the course of weeks and months. This works well in the game. If you start debating what "really" happens in a 50-mile hex in a single turn, it's too easy to focus on the poorly drawn trees and lose sight of the pretty forest. (See the Paratroopers discussion for an interesting debate on this issue. :eek: )

WWII lasted 6 years, and the beauty of any grand strategy game is the simulation of the entire war and its many campaigns. You need to play it in full, over and over again, to really appreciate it. You can do that with a relatively simple game like SC and play an entire game in a day, rather than a monster game that takes forever to finish. IMHO, the scale is fine and we should be thinking of ways to tweak the game within that scale, rather than pushing for much more detail and complexity which may adversely affect the game. :cool:

[Desert Dave]

In regard to Wolfe's "short" shopping list,

I do like these 3 of his suggestions:

1) Rain and snow hexes that change on the map (variable and random according to season) and have consequent effects on movement and combat.

2) Cities & ports bombed to Zero need to have MPPs to rebuild. AFAIK this is a new suggestion and seems quite reasonable, and provides an Xtra incentive for the bomber to go that last mile in order to achieve this. (or, the defender to prevent it)

3) Tech FOW with intelligence (true and falsely reported, depending on investment) capabilities. This one could really alter some in-game strategies, and would capture that battlefield flux & chaos quite well.

Nothing wrong with asking for those things that we favor... overall, Wolfe has a different game in mind, but some very good potential ideas for a later version.

[angel]

[ July 30, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Scharnhorst41]

I have played the demo a number of times through and have to agree that some of the ideas posted in this thread would make the game better. I do not think it unreasonable to have week long turns throughout the year. It makes a little since to have month long ones on the Eastern front in the winter but it makes no since to carry over this penalty into North Africa and naval operations. How about a half movement and half supply effect for certain areas of the map during winter? This way the war in the Atlantic and other areas could continue on a normal pace since they were not greatly effected by the seasons. On the naval aspect of the game it would also be nice to see allied shipping disrupted when Axis capital ships are in the North Atlantic. Their primary mission after all was commerce raiding! I also agree that the map should be enlarged in some directions, especially towards the south. For those who think additions like this will turn off the General public from buying this game, think again. Most sales will most likely come from buyers who are already war gamers. Besides, having week long turns throughout the year should not turn off anyone because the game is over. Those who want a short game can start a scenario in 1943. I really hope that some of these changes listed here and in this thread will be added to the game in a patch or in an expansion (I would be happy to pay for a more advance version!) It would be a shame for this great game not to reach its full potential

[norvandave]

I would not like to see the hex scale reduced. I enjoy the strategic element. Certainly I agree with the comments about Winter turns. I think 3R modeled the winters well, especially the first Russian winter for the Germans since they were so woefully prepared. Simply reducing the time frame for the winter turns doesn't model winter properly. Yes in Russia you can't manage normal operations, but in the Med you can. I would like to see a larger map, possibly including the whole world. I agree with the comments about taking time to build fleets, etc and MPP costs for rebuilding cities.

[Wolfe]

I really do love the current game. Honest. But aside from the reasons I listed above, one of the main reasons I think that resizing the hexes is important for a future SC engine is the Eastern Front seems, well, small at this scale. I really don't get a feel for its vastness. Going from Leningrad down to Odessa is 14 hexes. At 50km/hex it would be ~30 hexes. A map I played around with a couple weeks ago:

England USSR Map 50km (500KB)

Sorry for the large size. It's ~1500km from Leningrad to Odessa. At 50km per hex the true size of Russia really starts to come into focus. As it is now, you march into western Russia with one large force instead of distinct Army Groups with different objectives. Invading Russia with a couple dozen units doesn't fully reflect the enormous undertaking that Barbarossa was, IMO.

Also, naval movement in SC is very close-quarter. The ocean is a vast empty space. But it's much too easy to encounter enemy vessels on the high seas in the game. More hexes would significantly reduce the numbers of these encounters.

I do realize the danger of making the game too "big" with too many units to have to deal with (or too groggy with details). But for an invasion of the SU, I usually go at it with about 25~30 units total. If this were to -say- double, I don't think this will become unmanageable. Even if you were fighting on multiple continents simultaneously. Besides, the fighting on the Eastern front is the worst case in terms of number of units. Other theaters would be much smaller.

Though I do concede that Bill and others are right: the play-a-war-in-one-evening would probably be lost with a smaller hex scale. But I do believe the added detail would provide a great deal of richness and replayability to the game. Including allowing smaller regional wars to be constructed (e.g. a Russo-Japanese only conflict). Which could be done in an evening.

BTW, unfortunately I don't believe that a PTO theater is really possible with the current engine; the distances are simply too large to fit onto the current map.

My $0.02

- Chris

[USGrant]

Another approach for Hubert might be to do a stand-alone "Russian Campaign" using the SC engine.

I think the complexity level of SC is just right, but would not object to a few more hex rows or a little chrome.

[norvandave]

Actually, I agree with almost all your points Wolfe, and I could see a reduction in the scale of hexes, but not half-scale as some have suggested. (Correction to my last post).

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by USGrant:

Another approach for Hubert might be to do a stand-alone "Russian Campaign" using the SC engine.

That's a possibility: releasing a series of campaigns, but I'm not sure how much replay value each would have. One of the strongest draws of SC is the multitude of strategies you can choose to try to reduce your opponent's MPPs while building your own up. Do I attack Yugo and Sweden or go straight into Russia? What about the Med first? Or maybe England instead? I don't know if a stand-alone scenario (if that's what you were suggesting) or series of them would sell.

norvandave wrote:

Actually, I agree with almost all your points Wolfe, and I could see a reduction in the scale of hexes, but not half-scale as some have suggested. (Correction to my last post).

Yeah, I think that 50km might be about the smallest hex you would want. I originally tried making a map at 25km. Yikes! :eek: Talk about huge.

Another suggestion for a new game: When a major enters the war, it's production shouldn't necessarily be at max. Start the cities and ports at -say- half their max value, and build up from there.

- Chris

[Wolfe]

Some good suggestions for victory conditions by Bill Macon:

Victory Conditions for Germany

- Chris

[ August 02, 2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[Andrew H.]

This is an interesting discussion, but I think that it should be revisited after people have more experience with the full game. For one thing, the full game makes you quickly realize just how *small* the battle in France 1940 was. Load up the D-Day scenario and look how crowded the eastern front is - my first thought was to see whether I could move any troops from France to the USSR.

Which is exactly the kind of perspective that a strategic game should have.

I've never been a fan of those "drive every tank in the German army" game, and I am not at all sure that the increased complexity that a smaller hex size would bring about would make the game much more fun - or more fun at all.

More stuff going on under the hood might be okay - although if you read the manual, there is quite a bit going on already, wrt supply and readiness and other features.

If SC were *only* a France 1940 simulation, there would not be enough hexes. As a grand WWII simulation, though, it might be about the right size.

[gunnergoz]

I've got my hands full with this game as it is, I like the scale and level of management. Any more detailed and it would be a spreadsheet and not a game. As grand allied commander, you are all over the place once the war is fully invested. I think it's a wonderful game and keeps you thinking about issues of real grand strategy.