BloodyBucket
-
Posts
986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BloodyBucket
-
-
Three or four player option would be great. I don't expect it. Perhaps SC2, or a SuperPatch waaayyy down the road...
-
SuperTed said:
"Here is a list of the costs (in MPPs) of German units:..."
Does this mean that costs will be different for different powers? Aside from the obvious HQ difference, that is. Will the Russians get cheaper Infantry than the USA, for example?
-
Allies develop Heavy Peeps after massive MPP investment...SuperTed's Purple Peep Panzers punished in push on Paris...AAR with film at eleven.The only Peep War I've ever seen was when my college roommate and I found a box that had been in the cabinet for approx. 2-3 years...You know, those things get really hard after a few years of shelf time.
-
Yes. When is the next Strategic Command AAR due?Originally posted by SuperTed:Okay, so I thought I would finally jump into one of these, but it's only because I have something useful to add. Here is a quote from a recent interview with Eric Young regarding Close Combat 3-D:
"I don't call G.I. Combat a war game."
Any questions?
-
M is for the Madmatt that will lock this
O is for Off topic posting here
T is for the Time it takes to find this
H is for the Hi moms that you give us
E is for the Endless "do a seaches"
R is for the end is Really near
Put them all together, they spell MOTHERRRR........
-
-
We've talked about music, graphics and end-of-game reward screens, but how about that most useless of game features, the Easter egg?
If we execute the proper sequence of attacks in the Balkans in the Winter of 1942, will we see a hidden screen showing the big three doing a line dance at Yalta?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Well, the title of the game is "Strategic Command", so I doubt that operational planning is going to be the subject of in-game espionage, unless you count hacking your opponent's PBEM password.
It is an interesting concept, having to prepare for an operation. In SC the closest we are going to get is probably looking at the deployment on the map (subject to Fog of War limits) and keeping an eye on production to gauge the enemy intent.
I know that Hubert has said that the war commitment levels of the neutral powers will be kept somewhat hidden, but I can't recall if the purchases of your opponent will remain hidden or not.
About the only way I can think of making operational intentions available for a sneak preview would be requiring players to purchase "offensive" options in advance, in order to attack at full strength. These could be assigned to a region or a specific HQ, and the other player would have the chance to buy espionage attempts to see the offensives purchased. Not something that I think should be in SC, but that would be one way to go about simulating planning and intel efforts. The information given could be partial, as in the German player finding out in Spring '44 that the Brits bought an offensive for use in the Summer, but not knowing wether it was purchased for use in North Africa or for D-Day.
An intel attempt could go wrong and give you false information. Fall '44, "No German offensives purchased for use in the West", Monty and Ike plan to go golfing on Christmas....
-
Good books always help pass the time. "The Hitler Options" is a pretty good one-volume read.
Of course, a constructive way to pass the time waiting for SC to arrive is to tell your gaming buddies about it, and let them know that if there are features that they would like they should get active on this forum.
-
The increased cost of building new units versus sustaining existing ones is an excellent idea.
Combined with the HQ experience bonus, this looks like it will make the player think twice about suicidal attacks, and moving his HQs about the map like they were amorphous cogs in a machine.
I can see myself getting attached to veteran formations that do well, and trying to keep a winning HQ/Unit team together.
-
While an editor is a good thing, having one that turns the game into a World War Two Construction Set might not be such a good idea.
There is something to be said for having to work within certain parameters. Imagine CMBO if you could have whatever goofy SMG only squad you wanted, or make the armor values on a M3 greater than those of a Panther. Things get silly in a big hurry.
The counter arguement is that no one would force you to tinker with anything. True. But somehow, knowing that I can make any changes I want kind of spoils the challenge, almost like having cheat codes.
-
Let us parse this response:Originally posted by Hubert Cater:Not right now unfortunatly
</font>
- Not right now - could be later? </font>
- unfortunatly -it would be better if it were changed, and the exciting prospect of change has caused a spelling error by the author? </font>
- - Sly reference to future change? </font>
Hope springs eternal.
-
Agreed. My initial reactions to some of the features in SC were along the lines of "Well, wouldn't it be better if you added this and that and this..."
Now I am hoping that the game maintains the elegance of simplicity. Looking at my dusty old collection of board war games, the ones I really played (and sometimes still do) are the ones that are fairly easy to digest in a sitting and/or could be played solitaire. If SC has a solid AI, is playable in one extended sitting and has enough choices to make it replayable, I will be one happy camper.
BTW, board war games that are close to the scale of SC that I am slightly familiar with include 3rd Reich, Hitler's War, and World in Flames. Others I haven't gotten to know would include Axis & Allies: Europe, Krieg!, and War in Europe. Are there any others that I'm missing?
-
Originaly posted by Hubert:
So, the answer seems to be that the map is the way it is so you can see it all without having to scroll around. I think that is a fair trade for a game that is trying to be a good, fun game, rather than being the last word in detailed WWII simulations. I would like to have it both ways, but I am with Hubert on this one.OK, so everyone understands why this is so, the actuall reason why there is only a limited amount of space in Northern Europe and in North Africa was due to limitations in Windows of how much information could be held in 'memory device context' at any one time. By me adding in the east coast of North America I reached that limitation and had to work the map out as best as I could to include all the items I wanted. Trust me I would have loved to have been able to allow players to recreate convoy PQ-17 or the encirclements in North Africa, but I just couldn't do it. Sorry about that guys.There are ways around this, but it would have meant either really slow scrolling, a much smaller viewable play area, or a messy manipulation of bitmapped memory that would have been a real headache. All in all I think that the benefits of the current map outweigh the few shortcomings.
-
It has been said before, but it should be said again:
Thanks, Hubert, for putting up with all the questions, quibbles and quirks of the forum.
It must be vexing to hear all this input about a game that none of us has even seen. Putting up with all the "help" you are getting is duly appreciated.
-
Any chance to talk you in to individual cities? The generic city would tolerable if there is a seperate capitol graphic for each major power.
-
Aside from the obvious icon-to-symbol change, what sort of mods do you think will be in the works? It would be great if each city had a unique graphic, but I fear putting the Eiffel tower in paris will lead to it popping up all over the place.
-
Well, since Italy is just part of the Axis, not a side unto herself, the question really is how to utilize Italian assets in the Axis effort. That's too bad, the Italy/Germany dynamic early in the war was interesting. In SC, the Germans won't have to worry about unauthorized Italian invasions of Greece.
The holy grail for the Italians in other wargames I've played has always been Gibraltar, as this more or less invasion proofs Italy. I don't know if Gibraltar will be so important in SC. Staying away from the French fleet has always been an Italian strategy, as the French are doomed and any naval losses incurred are pointless.
It will be interestig to see if the Italians can get in a position to pose a threat to Russia.
I guess the big question is can Italy contribute enough to make up for the fact that she is such an inviting target for Allied invasion?
-
What is the HQ situation in the Med? I'm starting to think this might be more important than mere numbers of corps and armies.
-
Is there going to be a AP difference between units of different nations?
Other threads have brought up the subject of increased mobility for the motor heavy US Army. Will this be reflected in SC? Perhaps as a research category? Seperate Mech Infantry unit? Not needed because German horses are assumed to be in top condition?
-
Any game where you can put your little plastic planes on the aircraft carriers does not suck.
-
Are the Russians able to produce at full value right from the start, or is there a limit until they gear up production due to events? A lot of games don't let the Russians crank up right away.
-
That is the best description of what I'm hoping for in SC.Originally posted by windstarz:... I like some depth but I don't want it to seem like work...
Since WiF and Axis and Allies are global (although there is a newer A&A Europe and you can play WiF Europe only), the comparison is hard to make. I would say that the combat system in SC will be a 7, supply rules a 6, production rules a 4, naval rules a 4, and playability a 3. Overall, 4.5 with a 2 from the judge from Grognardia thrown out.
-
Jeff-
Actually, I tend to agree with you on historical employment of airborne, and I see why you could easily leave them out. I also think airborne could be in SC without destroying the game.
I just think it would add more variety, "What if", and give a historical feel to SC. Same with all the other types.
The French Disconnection...A Strategic Command AAR (Pics Included)
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Why engage the French fleet? Doesn't it go neutral when France surrenders?