Jump to content

Strategic Command: Global Conflict II


Recommended Posts

Dear developers,

I am an avid fan of all the Strategic Command games (and own them all). In my opinion, Global Conflict is the best game in this series due to the scale of the conflict (all war theaters in stead of just the European or Pacific theaters). However, the new content and playability features of Strategic Command The Great War and its 1939 campaign are very nice additions to that game.

Will there be in the near future an upgrade of Strategic Command: Global Conflict or possibly a whole new game (Global Conflict II) which will include the enhancements of the latest game(s) in this series?

Thanks for your response.

Regards,

Dirk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are working on a few things on our end and if all goes well I don't think anyone will be disappointed here... especially those in this thread :)

Sounds interesting, waiting with anticipation.

One request - keep the scale of the map the same as it is now. I have all of the SC series from SC2 Blitzkrieg to SC WW1 and whilst I like them all and like the improvements to the game engine that have been made with each subsequent release I find the games I play most are Global Conflict and Clash of Steel from PDE. I find that with these the scale and unit density provide for me just the right balance between detail and fun, the resultant shorter turn lengths also makes it more easy to dip in and out of playing the game as time permits.

Following on from the above and dependant on the extent of the planned development of GC an ETO only (ie same map parameters as SC2 series) campaign with the GC map and unit scale would be a great addition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the map should be a bit larger, right now England and France are too small, the battles there are somtimes very strange because of the lack of space. And I hope someone on the team is a fan of strategic warfare especialy strategic bombing, I would like to see an improvment in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sympathize wolfe, but I've got to go with Shark. Big Al has the right size map, although I could warm up to Nupremal's if we had the multiplayer option, 3 on the Axis side, 3 on the Allied.

Minimum requirements for Global 2. Multiplayer, LoC/S substructure, combat-movement per PzCorps, and of course the prewar armament race of the 1920s & 30s so that the beginning game conditions can always be different.

Prewar would be based upon a dynamic model of Alliances/Diplomacy, Belligerency/NM and the resulting procurements of arms and research based on the accumulation of MPPs from the first two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A scenario that starts in 1920's might be interesting but the main game will allways be the one that starts in 1939, or possibly 1938, the problem with starting too much earlier is that if the Allies have a truly free hand they can squash Germany before they get to be a real threat, like they should have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all Shark, if the starting parameters are configured properly in an historical context, you'll have the totalitarian regimes arming first with a slowly escalating belligerency level accumulating as the Democracies join in the arms race later.

The key will be when is the moment of balance, the tipping point, when the Democracies finally bite the bullet and institute a war setting at which point it will be wise for the Axis player to start hostilities or otherwise be overtaken.

Only Japan, Germany, Italy, or the USSR will be able to initiate a DoW at which point things will rapidly degenerate in to a full blown World War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but France and Britan will have to be restricted from intervening in the early German expansion. If anything goes wrong for Germany prior to the invasion of Poland they will be in big trouble, imagine what would have happened if Czechoslovakia had fought, if France had gone to war over the remilitarization of the Rhineland, or the Soviet Union had refused to sign the non-aggression pact. Variations prior to 1939 can only be bad for Germany, because historicaly they got some very good diplomacy die rolls, the first bad one came when France and England declaired war over Poland.

That's why I really don't see a scenario that starts that early being very interesting, you could even have a scenario that starts in 1914 and runs up to 1950, diffrent outcomes in WW1 will create very diffrent starting situations for WW2 but it is all too far fetched, the only really long term interesting scenarios are those based on the historical situations that existed at the outbreak of war. That doesn't mean I wouldn't try one out, just for fun.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, Shark, you are way too locked into history. Here's some history for you, why do you think France allowed Germany to waltz back into the Rhineland?

Simply, they really didn't have the political will to stop them and GB was not at all in step with France at this point. You need to examine the Eco-political structure that reigned during this era. GB and France were no where armed enough to do anything to stop the move into Sudentenland and they knew it, the Luftwaffe struck fear into everyones hearts as visions of ariel bombs loomed in their heads!

Poland...ohh please...they just as well could have been an Axis ally, complicit to the move east into USSR. So many things could have been different. Just dwell into the idiosyncracies of the political underpinnings of the time. Anytime between 1938 and 1943, conditions were ripe for warfare, most everyone thought it would not be until 1942...........see how "thoughts" conjure up misconclusions, open up your imagination!:cool:

SC is a game to explore the what-ifs, we've been shackled to history almost ten years now, you can play all the pre-releases if you want more history. My mind beckons for the unknown, I'm an explorer, a pioneer of initiative, innovation and improvisation, I need more than "Germany attacks Poland, Sept. 1, 1939", how boring, been there done that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be interesting for 1 or 2 games, but I think the only longterm interesting scenarios are those that start in 1939 and 1914. I could of course be mistaken.

A possible exception being if it were possible to play multiplayer games with more than 2 people, if you have 5 or 6 people running individual nations with separate objectives, that could make a "diplomacy" type of game interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entirely respectful of your opinion Shark and indeed perhaps it is I who has a skewed concept of where SC should go. I agree with your consensus on multi-player and of course this could be an optional feature to pursue the pre-hostility campaign.

You know, this entire prewar maneuvering could be handled by a set of DEs serving to orient the initial positions for combat beginnings. Things like the Japs passing on Manchuria/China and double teaming USSR with Germany or the Japanese again forsaking the PH attack to just expand throughout the DEI and British far east possessions without a USA reaction. Lot's of different starting positions and times for initiating hostilities.

But...not to forget, SC is primarely a wargame and that means conflict, and like the name says, I want to be the Strategic Commander, no H, no M, no S, no Church, no FDR, it's all about me.. me ..me.., just give ME the historical context for the decision making, and I promise this is the only part of my life I'll be selfish about.;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be interesting for 1 or 2 games, but I think the only longterm interesting scenarios are those that start in 1939 and 1914. I could of course be mistaken.

A possible exception being if it were possible to play multiplayer games with more than 2 people, if you have 5 or 6 people running individual nations with separate objectives, that could make a "diplomacy" type of game interesting.

At least 3 sides would be nice, just like the USSR, which had its own agenda.

First siding with Nazi-Germany, than siding with the Allies, and than starting the cold war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...