Scrogdog

I agree Timskorn. I think a lot of the problem revolves around consumer education. There are many stories out there like Starforce ruining drives and other DRMs depositing rootkits upon the user's PC. Worse, the companies who used these types of things tried to hide them. No one was going to tell you about a root kit. No one was going to acknowledge that thier software broke things. This has certainly led to a mistrust of ALL DRMs within the PC gaming community, and really, can you blame folks? The way some companies treat thier customers should not reflect upon the good companies, but unfortunately it does. That said, I have DLd the game a few days ago. Looking forward to kicking the tires this weekend!

Arrrg! How dare you prey on us poor weak gamers with a release like this, Hubert! For shame - for shame! I cannot afford this game! Plus, I have no time to play it right now! *Sigh*... downloading now. Big fan of the series; I still play SC1 with my nephew.

Being a pacific war guy, I had to comment on Timskorn's great idea regarding carrier warfare. In CAP mode, perhaps a reduced attack against enemy ships that enter LOS should still be allowed. After all, only half of a typical carrier's compliment were fighters. The other groups could be sent unescorted, at highly reduced rate of success of course. Midway, for example, was largely determined by uncoordinated and unescorted attacks. Problem: Unnecessary additional complexity *unless* fighting a carrier war/pacific war style campaign.

Sounds like that old game Hitler's War. It was an interesting concept indeed. There would need to be something like point limits. And the scope of HW meant that armor expoitation was handled in a different way than would be possible on SC's scale. Yes, they are both grand strategy, but a HW hex was much larger than either SC1's hexes or SC2's squares (Italy and Poland were two hexes each). Which begs the question; what would be the mechanic to allow armor expliotations? This will certainly not happen in SC2.

*decloaks* Having people that are not interested in the subject matter vote anyway does not make them become interested... it makes them check off random boxes. Heck, that doesn't prevent wars or corporate graft, in fact it could actually lead to them. Voting without thought is just that. No, we can't do that in a Federalist system because that would mean that the candidates would only campaign in the 5 or 6 most populous states in the union... and always the same ones. And the Supreme Court did not elect Bush. It simply upheld the US Constitution as it is tasked to do. Carry on.

Ahem. Anyone remember Gulf Strike (Victory Games if I remember right)? I loved that title. Phased operational combat. Oh... yeah... WWII. Well crap, I've played about everything mentioned here. I even tried that Grigsby title... World at War was it? Not bad... but it fell short of my expectations.

I have read the Book, Brother Rambo. I just have not studied it as much as you have.

Kuniworth, I'd like to address a few of your questions if I may. I don't post here very often, I prefer to read and learn. And while I consider myself more well read about WWII's Pacific Theatre, I'll try and give this one a shot. Not in defense of America, but in search of clarity of the situation. Before I begin, I'd like to address the question posed; what right does Britain have to grant lands in Palestine? Why, the same rights that the Soviets and Allies had to divide up Germany. I'd also like to make clear that I am neither religious or Jewish. I am an American of Polish and English lineage, my family is Protestant... I am agnostic. Whether or not you accept the bible as a religious work, it is still generally accepted that King David conquered Jerusalem around 1000 BC. David’s armies did not fight Muslims, but rather various tribes of Semitics, Hittites and Philistines. Many of the tribes were thought to originate in Mycenea, which were Greek settlements. After that came conquests by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians and Alexander the Great. After the death of Alexander, his generals divided the empire. One of them, Seleucus, controlled Palestine by about 200 BC. The practice of Judaism was allowed until Antiochus IV, tried to prohibit it. The Jews revolted and then founded a kingdom in Palestine with its capitol in Jerusalem which was recognized by Rome. Judah Maaccabee was made “friend of the Roman Senate and people” in 164 BC. About 61 BC Roman troops under Pompei and in support of King Herod sacked Jerusalem. The land was then divided in to districts; Judea, Gallilee and Peraea. After that, Rome put down a couple of Jewish rebellions and finally, in 135 AD, Rome drove the Jews from Jerusalem renaming the area Palaestina. Rome held these lands until about 300 AD then along came the Byzantine Empire. FINALLY, in 600 AD Muslim Arab armies moved North from Arabia under Caliph Umar and conquered most of what we know as the Middle East today. Certainly, these were Jewish homelands WELL before the Arabs came. In fact, even Napoleon as early as 1799 supported the return (yes, I said the RETURN ) of the Jews to Palestine. By about 1800, war with Napoleon and mismanagement by Ottoman leaders caused a fairly sharp decrease in population in the region. Both Arabs and Jews fled to better lands. In fact, Palestinian Arabs began to rebel against Egyptian and Ottoman rule. Many historians believe this was one catalyst for Palestinian national feelings. Ultimately, the Ottomans corrected some of their issues and opened the borders of Turkey to immigration. They also began to allow limited immigration in to Palestine by the Jews. In truth, even when exiled, the Jews never stopped coming to the holy lands. It was a mostly abstract relationship until what most people consider to be the rise of Zionism in the 1800s. The first Zionist writings of note were written in 1840 by Rabbi Yehuda Alcalay in what is now Yugoslavia. While nearly forgotten works, these ideas began to take root among the European Jewish population. The French Revolution began the emancipation of European Jews, which in turn stimulated emigration of Jews to Palestine. The Zionist movement formalized themselves as an organization in 1897 with the First Zionist Congress. They wished to establish a Jewish homeland under Turkish or German rule. Interestingly, they largely ignored concern over the Arab population… some of them even assuming that they would have no problems with relocating to other Arab lands. They thought the European Jews would swarm to Palestine and establish a clear majority. By 1914, Palestinian population had grown to about 700,000, but only about 100,000 were Jews. The Ottoman Empire, rulers of Palestine at the time, allied themselves against the Allies in WWI. Cholera and Typhus hit both the Arab and Jewish populations hard. A Turkish military governor ordered the deportation of foreign nationals and a large number of Russian Jews fled Palestine. By 1916 or so, Britain had become quite interested in Arabia. France and Britain had plans to split Ottoman holdings after the war as described in the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Both the Germans and the British were courting Palestinian Arab AND Zionist support, both promising postwar independence from the Ottoman Empire. In a letter to Sherif Husayn of Mecca, the British proposed Arab control over the whole of areas to be liberated from Turkey, except an area to the West of Syria defined as follows: "The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded." … and some other minor concessions. The area was never very well defined. No authoritative maps were ever drawn up. Because of the vague wording in the letter, both Jewish and Arab contentions of what was actually said could be supported. Indeed, both sides have produced maps that seem to show that the letter makes their case for them. However, a few things about the Arab position should be noted. The letter DOES clearly state that the excluded areas “cannot be said to be purely Arab”. Further, the British undertaking to protect holy places would hardly have been necessary if Palestine were not one of the excluded lands. This seems a pretty clear indication as well that the British had no intent to give Palestine to the Arabs wholly. Unfortunately, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the letter and the Balfour Declaration definitely have conflicting wording.

Dear Dave, It came from my near legendary abilty to crush opponents in chess. Well, uh.... actually no. It actually came from a comment made to me by someone who had a bit of a mistaken idea regarding my prowess with women. My friends and I broke in to belly laughter, and the rest... as they say... is history. As for the rest, that was meant as a slight tease... a little joke... I am well aware that there are many translations. In fact, some are comepletely different from what either of us say. As a matter of fact, while the post was not meant as a serious "attack" in any way... I smiled during its writing in full knowledge of the flowery prose that I would indeed recieve in return. However, though I never meant to give offense, I appear to have done so. So for that, I do apologize. It was only meant as a friendly jibe, if you will. A 6? I'll take a 6. Way above what I'd rate in real life. Carry on.

Dear Dave, Not to hijack the topic or anything, but the actual quote is; "Whoever battles monsters should take care not to become a monster too, for if you stare long enough into the Abyss, the Abyss stares also into you." —Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, chapter 4, no. 146 Carry on.

I find it hard to disagree with this.

Ok... that reply made me chuckle.

As was the case with SC, SC2 will continue to evolve. That is what is good about it, not what is bad about it. It is what it is. A fun little game that is an interesting diversion for an afternoon. It is not Advanced Third Reich... nor does it pretend to be. Game designers have to make choices. No game can simulate everything no matter the level of complexity. Are there things I'd like to see? Sure. I'd like to see even rudimentary stacking... no reason I should not be able to have an air unit in the same city as a ground unit. That said, you'll note that the addition of ports has allieviated this problem on the naval side of things. An interesting thing about the tiles... it was huge controversy... that is until the game was released. Now... no one is talking about it. That might tell you something. I'll tell you what... with a hex system... offensives are easier or more difficult depending on the orientation of the grid. For example... take your favorite wargame and rotate the hex grid 90 degrees. You've got a whole different game on your hands. With tiles... North/South offensives go about the same as East/West ones. Make your own rule when you play the AI. No big deal. For example... I am one of those who thinks that Norway needs to be more important than it is in the game right now. So.... when I play Axis against AI, I make myself take Norway.

I agree those changes might muck the simplicity factor, though they are interesting. Right now the biggest weakness that I see with the naval game is the lack of interest in securing Bergen by the Axis. This key port allowed the Axis surface fleet to be used as surface raiders as you know. Perhaps something simple would address this such as Axis successes along that particular convoy route being reduced.... perhaps even severely so... if Bergen is not held.

Interesting post. To me, the study of warfare is not about evil or violence. It is a study of the human condition. The best and the worst man has to offer all on stage. I do not and never have felt guilty when I have won as the Axis. I have simply thanked the gods that things did not go that way historically. A test of wills is a test of wills... whether that happens to occur on a baseball diamond or a battlefield is irrelevant in terms of the event being interesting. Of course, as has been already pointed out, the possibilities and permutations of alternate history are rather fascinating to think about. I started playing wargames when I was 17 and did not know fig about history or warfare. That interest has sparked a love of the study of history that I would not consider a bad thing for any young person. Besides... you are there to guide them and answer questions.

99% of the time I would agree with this. However, at the risk of sounding like a fanboy, I trust Battlefront to come through. I purchased the game with my eyes wide open. I put a lot of faith in the atmosphere that Battlefront has created here. Hubert has a solid track record of responding to issues raised by the community. In my opinion, it is not fair to compare Battlefront to most others. I have been playing games for a very long time. I know a labor of love when I see it. Case closed as far as I am concerned.

Ah yes, you mean awards like all those very fine music and movie awards which agree with reality about 5% of the time? In informal polls taken from very experienced grognards (by me) over the course of many years, I declare the winner of the "The Greatest WWII Grand Strategy Game of All Time" award to be... The envelope please... Advanced Third Reich!!!! *applause*

Personally, I thought EU2 was the pinnicle for Paradox. Yeah, it had more micromanagement than SC, but I liked having to worry about social factors... and those social factors affecting various methods (as in - we need to take these guys out QUICK ). It is difficult to be a psycho warlord. Doable, but more difficult. One of the best things about SC2 is the new political rules which serve to suggest that the allies ought to at least ACT like the good guys. The HOI system had its moments, but in the final analyis... all they did was glom up the EU engine and the transition did not go well IMO. Between Hubert and the modders... you give this game a year... and I'll put the resulting single player game up against anything similar out there. In fact... did I just detect some good reviews on a recently released allied AI mod? Why... yes I did! I'm off to try it now, in fact. Cheers!

Very evil of you! I have not been here in a while.... stop in to check on SC2... and you spring this on me too? Gah! I'll lose friends. At least the non-wargaming ones. lol Good news, seriously. Looking forward to these.

Ok... you joined the forums just to say goodbye? I... on the other hand... have returned to lurk upon you again. SC2 is looking good!

Well, this topic was quite a read. Hey, I played Tactics II. It was awesome. But I just wanted to chime in here because I think one important point about hexes has been overlooked. My apologies if I missed it. A very important consideration in any hex-based system is the coarse of the grain so-to speak. On one axis, East/West in SC1's case, you can bring two units to bear along a line. Ah, but in an attack towards the South, you can bring three. I remember James Dunningan disussing this issue in some book he wrote on game design. Tiles would seem to solve this little anomoly.

I apologize if I have come on too strong. Probably not the best way to introduce myself to you fine folks. For the record, I agree that Bush should not act on his own. All I'm saying is that I just don't understand why more people aren't on board with him on this matter. But then, what fun would the forums be if we all agreed on everything.

Yeah, especially when Saddam herds them like cattle in front of military targets so that he can sway world opinion when they die. Even so, it is good we have smart weapons, so as not to appear indescriminate regarding targeting. Wait, sorry, that does not seem to be the opinion of many. As I said, my opinion does not invalidate yours. But, remember the same things were said of civilians when we went at Afghanistan. Remember when the Taliban capitol was taken? They were liberated. I'll never forget the front page of the Boston Globe the next day. Joyous people running through the streets was the large front page photo. And then the stories. One guy was happy that he could play his favorite music again. You see, his neighbor had had his testiciles removed forcibly after having been caught doing same. Saddam shoots the generals that don't agree with him. Saddam gasses his own people when they don't agree with him. So, it's ok for him to do it *intentionally* to his own folks apparently, it's not ok when we do it unintentionally I guess - where is the outrage for the common Iraqi now? That Iraqis live in total fear of this oppresive and evil man was just showcased in the last "election", where he got over 99% of the vote. That was up from just 96% percent last time. Any guesses as to what happened to that 3%, or what will (if it hasn't already) happen to the dissenting 1% this time around?

Greetings Kuniworth. You could be right, maybe it would be a bloodbath. Or, it could be like it was in '91. All we heard is how high casualties would be, how we were facing the 4th largest army on Earth, and how "elite" the Republican Guards were after all those years of fighting Iran back and forth over the same 20 mile stretch of land. Maybe Saddam's got an army, but he has yet to show that he knows how to use it.

Greetings. I’m sort of new here, and this is the topic I pick to make an entrance as it were. First off, to Jersey John, we could not have eliminated Saddam in ’91. It was explicitly stated that the mission was to evacuate Kuwait, and that’s it. It was upon that guaranteed condition that we had support from some of the Arab nations. Can you imagine how difficult the next coalition (this one for example) would be to assemble once we demonstrate what bad allies we are? Taking out Saddam was never an option then. To those who advocate the peace approach, as in all things, my opinion does not invalidate your own. But, there are a few things I don’t get. The first is, after 9/11 what did we see the administration ostracized for? Failing to act on possibly “telling” intelligence. As I remember, we had almost a witch hunt situation here. Be more proactive seemed to be the message. Now Bush is trying to do exactly that, be he can’t. Nothing he presents is good enough. I guess we have to wait for the Israelis to “take one for the team” before some of us get it. <shrug> One of the things that struck me when I first began to study WWII is the fact that Stalin never seemed to be villainized to the extent Hitler was. In Stalin you have a man who fried more OF HIS OWN PEOPLE than Hitler ever did Jews. In Saddam, you have a man who has already used chemical weapons against his own people. Folks yell about human rights and the need to see a smoking gun. Heh. You need more? I don’t get it. I think what has a lot of folks nervous is the timing of this. Who among has can say that they feel that the war on terror has *not* lost momentum? The fear is that Bush is just using this to keep us in the “proper stance” if you will. Now, folks like me think that this operation is PART of the already declared war on terror. Others obviously do not. Funny how things change. Once upon a time it only took one Pearl Harbor to make us mad, and keep us there.