Wolfpack
-
Posts
385 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Wolfpack
-
-
And now to the point I was trying to make in this thread...think about this and give me one or two good reasons the coup in Iraq does not fit into SC. Or did you ever think about why it might not work instead of how cool it would be? (Mind you, I like the idea, not that the Germans need it any easier than they have it now)quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq as an Axis minor? Would make a bit of sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As they had a pro-axis coup, followed by Commonwealth intervention? Yes indeed. Already got Hubert's comment on this.
-
Pardon me when I say "you" I'm not referring to you in particular, I'm referring to people like in the last tank thread. That put forth an arguement after little time with the game and offer incomplete suggestions. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Originally posted by Immer Etwas:But first, I will ask you to refrain from making inferences that are without merit.
If you feel that I have stated that the game is "crappy or stupid because my thing wasn't in," I will now ask you to retrieve from ANY of my posts since April -- and properly quote me.
As for Norse, he's apparently on a mission to irritate me after I thought we had settled our differences. Whatever, have your transport across Scandanavia. If you can prove it was possible. Iraq as an Axis minor? Would make a bit of sense. Denmark low strength and a port? Port yes, strength...sure, they weren't exactly the creme de la creme of the European armies. As for the editor...I'd love to see more functionality...but tell me, if you want the maginot gone, why don't you just load up the 41,42,43, or 44 scenarios and use it as a base for your new campaign...voila, the maginot is no more. TCP/IP is also something I'm hoping to get soon. I despise hotseat because it makes me lug my rear out of my comfy chair every couple of minutes.
Now be quiet and play nice Norse...or someday the big bald kid will come along and swat you. 
Oh, and Norse, at least I'm not the one who makes up quotes that never existed to respond to.
[ August 23, 2002, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]
-
Hey, I'm all for suggestions, but just think it out first and don't say how the game is stupid and crappy because your personal thing isn't in. Okay, take for example the tank movement. Some want it to be able to move and attack, attack and move, move attack move...etc etc. So...should it be able to attack twice? Should it take a readiness hit for this? If so how much? If it can't attack twice, what happens if it runs into a hidden unit? Should there be an action point penalty for an attack or should it just be one AP? See? You have to think about these things and address them or else if it somehow does get put in, you'll probably be unsatisfied with the result. Personally I'd love to have an event editor like TOAW, but again, that would compound the difficulty in the editor at least. I see a lot of suggestions like this, "This game should have (Paratroopers, super tanks, swedish bikini team, whatever) they were used in WWII, they would add a lot to the game. If you think the game needs something back it up better than that. Prove to us that the game needs them...no, prove to Hubert that the game needs them. And don't make things so overly complicated that I'm going to be spending 2 1/2 hours trying to figure out how to manage my research points.Originally posted by Immer Etwas:I don't know about you Wolfpack, but my reading of the posts since April have indicated to me that MOST are both pretty reasonable, and fairly well informed.
Most are NOT half-cocked, whining or stupidly unrealistic. You have employed a common rhetorical device very often used in debates, namely -- an appeal to emotion (... ah, yes, I have used it myself, though try not to, etc...).
We are dealing with a group, myself included, who have waited 8 or so years for someone -- anyone! to create a game like this, and so, at times the suggestions will include a long, long fantasy-list that goes back a long, long time.
Quite naturally, I think, an awful lot of opinions will exist, and the time for expressing them is... if not -- here and now, then -- when?
Sure I know that my suggestions will probably be discarded, but I enjoy trying to include myself in the creation process because I can finally, after 8 long years, have a chance to give my thoughts & opinions on GS war-gaming.
Here I am, with an electric-eclectic group of people from all over the world who truly enjoy Grand Strategy games, and discussing ALL the possible aspects with others of a similar (... some would say -- strange, but what do they know?) nature.
Now. Am I happy with SC? No. I am positively thrilled!
If it never changes? I will STILL enjoy it every bit as much as the next guy.I appreciate ALL the comments on this thread, pro & con and thoughful, or -- even those that are a kind of... "spontaneous wishful thinking." :cool:
You cannot remotely improve anything -- if that is even one of your goals -- whether a game, or your own tending-degenerate thought processes, without challenging ALL preconceived opinions. Unlike the case with ol' Socrates, Hemlock is not on most Opponent's wine list.
And so -- bring it on! ALL unrehearsed, uncensored, unbiased, AND -- considerate, fair-minded and friendly opinions!
BTW, I am still for Para, Destroyers, and some kind of Variant Event table, enacted randomly to help insure infinite replayability -- you?
The main reason I like this game is that I can finish a turn in about 2 minutes and a game in a night. I've got plenty of games that I can sit in front of for an hour trying to figure out what to do. So, make suggestions, make tons of them...just don't expect people to fall at your feet in awe when you don't offer any reason they should be in other than that it's cool.
-
Wow, prepare to be banned
-
See, You guys take a post and just spin it way out of context here. I'mm all for things that make the game better. But not if it's going to detract from the game's greatest strength, it's ease of playability. Some of the suggestions on here are good solid suggestions. But there are a some people who obviously came into the game expecting and wanting the perfectly accurate war simulation. Folks, this is a nice easy to pick up, hard to put down little game. It's not a hyper-realistic military sim. To make it that way, the designer is forced to make tradeoffs. These tradeoffs involve taking out things that would complicate the game without adding a whole lot to it. I see some suggestions on here where the people didn't bother to even think out exactly what they want, but instead just say that the game is horribly flawed because it doesn't (insert suggestion here). And there are those who want to add in so much detail to aspects like for instance naval warfare and commerce raiding that would turn a great military-lite game into some hybrid war/economic freakshow. I refer people to Third Reich (the computer version) for an example of that kind of thinking gone wrong. Come on...keep making suggestions by all means, but at least think them through for cripes sakes, don't just go off half cocked and cry and whine about how this is so stupid and unrealistic. I mean really think about it. Want tanks to be able to move twice? Who here can name any unforseen consequences of that suggestion?Originally posted by Immer Etwas:So, what are we saying here?
Play the game as is, and like it! OR -- just shut up about it? NO SUGGESTIONS ALLOWED! :confused:
If that's the case, then you would have to go back and erase half of the posts on this forum, yes?
I have had great fun with this game, more so than with any other I have played in the last several years, and that covers a lot of territory. :cool:
I also have made suggestions as to HISTORICAL enhancements.
In fact, several of the suggestions that some have made, have been incorporated into the game by Hubert, such as the Russian Cruiser in the Black Sea.
So, what? Now, we need be determined to protect the VERY FIRST version of the game?
Or, is it the latest, v1.03 that we feel needs a big brother's attention, which also includes some historical additions?
Freaks shall inherit the Earth, O Yea brothers.
Historical freaks included, who are usually interested in having fun AND incorporating any of those aspects a game-designer might eventually elect to add, which will increase the "realistic" feel of the contest.
These are NOT mutually exclusive concepts, are they?
-
Should be able to...I played it on Win2K. The .arj is an archive file, you'll need to get an unzipping program that handles them, I don't think Winzip does. I'd try UltimateZip, it worked well for me. The game really isn't that complicated once you figure out the old DOS commands and such.Originally posted by lyceum:I downloaded this rather complex looking game (going by the manual anyway) from the Underdogs and found that the folder only contains one file - 'warrussia.arj'of 640 kb.
I realise this is probably a DOS game, but is there any way I can play this on either a Windows 98 or ME system? It looks a game I'd like and would really like to try it.
Cheers, Tom.
On second thought, if I were you, I'd get this version of the game instead. It's the free version by Matrix games, and they fixed some of the foibles of the older one. It's still under a 2 mb download.
-
Okay Norse, to address your points. You think that someone could actually break through and perform a strategic level advance in the north which I'm quite positive they couldn't. Like I've posted, the conditions would make it impossible to support any kind of SC level force there. I can't convince you of that so oh well. Like I said before, I can't comment on the rail and transportation systems in northern Finland, Sweden, and Norway...Since I don't know anything about those, I leave the idea of allowing movement through there to others.
You know that this whole thing started over the idea of giving the Finns a HQ unit. I still maintain that that wouldn't be wise because that would give them abilities they just didn't have. As Gunslingr pointed out above, if you give the Finns a HQ, they could perform a march to the Urals with a small amount of German support...mainly just keeping the Soviets occupied. That's unrealistic. Yet, you countered that arguement by telling us we had to prove they couldn't. I'd like to think that was just a misunderstanding. From what you've said since I assume you're just saying that they could have joined the German advance and been in the Urals along with the Wehrmacht. If so, yes, they could have, with a lot of luck. You have to draw the line on historical events and "what-ifs" somewhere in this game. I believe that the lack of a Finnish HQ was one way Hubert used to simulate the Finnish reluctance to advance out of their area. Adding a HQ would alter that and allow totally unrealistic results.
As for the last part...you call that a victory....sorry, guess my definition of victory is a bit more narrow. If you win, you get stuff, if you tie, nobody gets anything, if you lose, you have to give stuff up. If you want to qualify victory like that then we can argue that Germany "won" WWII because they weren't dismembered back into their small feudal states like some countries would have preferred. Oh, and Japan "won" too because they didn't have to give up their Emperor. I try not to put too many qualifications on my definitions. The Finns fought 2 wars in the span of 5 years with the Soviets. Considering the territory they gave up, and the reperations they paid, I say they lost both of them. Besides, I seriously doubt the Soviets really wanted to conquer all of Finland...why? When they got nearly everything they wanted either in reparations or land ceeded? Regardless, we've wandered a bit off the original topic here which was about the Finnish HQ.
-
If you want more ships, I can send you my newly revised "Plan Z" scenario. It's based on the assumption that the Germans went ahead and finished off their naval building program. Definitely best played as the Axis though. From what my playtester said, it wasn't too easy.Originally posted by Leith:Thanks for the replies, guys! I'm still having fun and experimenting with this gem. I know the British navy was superior in the European Theatre but what about the German Subs ? I thought that perhaps Germany would build a few Subs to give the USA and Britain some problems but the AI never did. The AI, as Allies or Axis, doesn't build ships!! Why ???? And how do you work around this? Is it ok to use the editor to add a few German and Briish ships to make naval war a bit more interesting? Would it unbalance the game ? Regardless, this game is a lot of fun.
Regards,
Leith
-
If you want more ships, I can send you my newly revised "Plan Z" scenario. It's based on the assumption that the Germans went ahead and finished off their naval building program. Definitely best played as the Axis though. From what my playtester said, it wasn't too easy.Originally posted by Leith:Thanks for the replies, guys! I'm still having fun and experimenting with this gem. I know the British navy was superior in the European Theatre but what about the German Subs ? I thought that perhaps Germany would build a few Subs to give the USA and Britain some problems but the AI never did. The AI, as Allies or Axis, doesn't build ships!! Why ???? And how do you work around this? Is it ok to use the editor to add a few German and Briish ships to make naval war a bit more interesting? Would it unbalance the game ? Regardless, this game is a lot of fun.
Regards,
Leith
-
Amen.
-
My my how original.Originally posted by WoIfpack:I like to play with barbie and wear diapers...
-
Wow Norse, you manage to describe yourself pretty well. What happened to all the parts of my post refuting you that you cut out of your reply? What's the matter? Couldn't think of a sufficiently witty retort? Your quoted casualty figures are great...I didn't laugh those off, I laughed at your assertion that you think that the Soviets became so horrified by those casualties that they "gave up" which they didn't. They WON the winter war...just as they WON the Continuation War. What part of that do you not understand? They didn't annex Finland no. Winter War, they were faced with British and French intervention if they tried, in the Continuation War, they were otherwise occupied by finishing off Germany. Instead they annexed some of the best Finnish land and hit them with very heavy reparations.
As for the Finns heading for the Urals...exactly what did you prove? They couldn't get there, giving them a HQ in the game would allow them to do it, so it's a bad idea. If you think they could do it in real life I'd love to see a real justification since a better equipped nation that was 20 times their size couldn't get there.
As for proving you wrong...yes, I want to because you're making rediculous statements and then attacking me for pointing out that you were wrong. You want to know what you're wrong on? Okay...
1: You think Lappland would open up large strategic possibilities, which it wouldn't.
2: You seem to think that if they had leaders who wished to, they would have strolled over to the Urals smiting the Soviets all along the way.
3: You contend that the Finns beat the Soviets in the Winter War and Continuation War, neither of which would be true.
4: You seem to think that 200,000 casualties would completely cow a country that lost 16-20 million people in the 4 years on the Eastern Front.
Now...can you defend any of those assertions you've made here?
Edit - Okay Harala...you win...I suppose keeping your independence could be construed as favorable. I would tend to think otherwise, but that's just me.
[ August 21, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]
-
Might not make noon, but that's okay...I can't help it Norse can't admit he's wrong.Originally posted by harala:a3: don't kill off the converstaion with comments like that. it's just starting to heat up. our objective is to get this thread locked by noon tomorrow
-antti
Now now Norse, don't get so touchy, I wasn't saying that you said the Finns were marching to the Urals, I said I was throwing that part out because it's an idea that's silly beyond belief.
And? Fatal casualties aren't half the story. Total finnish casualties were up around 140-150,000 don't have the books here with me, but considering the population, that's a good hunk out of the population."Finnish fatal casualties exceeded 24.000, Sovjet 200.000"
You did no such thing, you just voiced your opinion and dared me to refute it which I did. I'm not laughing at the "historically accurate figures" I'm laughing at the fact that you think the Soviet Union was so horrified by the 200,000 casualties on the Finnish front that they gave up so I pointed out that 200,000 casualties was merely an inconvenience to the Soviets. Funny you talking about sarcasm when that seems to be the only form of communication you know. Throw out a tidbit of fact, then pound your audience over the head with bad sarcasm...hey, if it works for you, have at it.Wolfpacke, I asked you to raise the level of seriousness on this discussion. You, sadly enough, are unable to do this. Laughing at historical accurate figures, whining about sarcasm, etc.
As am I...what's your point?I am American...
Wow, nice use of selective editing there. You said it was 40 miles, I said it was more like 20 miles which is how far they got, which equals about 40 kilometres. And no, I didn't know the conversion, I had to look on the web. Blame my bad american public school education.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------more like 20...40 kilometres.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahhh, no wonder I can't read. Because you can't write! Is it 1 kilometer or 40? Bleh, no point.
-
Okay, throwing aside the part abotu the Finns marching to the Urals which is just plain nonsense, I'll move on to some of your other points Norse.
lol...200,000 men? That would have been a slow day for Beria. Face it, the Finns fought well, extremely well, but against a concerted and well led soviet offensive they stood no chance to hold. Mannerheim knew that, why ally yourself with Hitler otherwise? Because it gave him the chance to take back what he couldn't take alone. As a result Finland lost about the same areas as they had in the Winter War (which they had just continued the war to get back) to the Soviet Union and was forced to pay huge payments to the Soviet Union (listed below) as well as to drive German forces out of Finnish soil which they did not want to do. In short, the Soviets had bigger fish to fry.The Finns fought the Sovjets and after the Sovjets had lost over 200.000 men,machines and equipment, including installation of completely equipped factories, $100.9 million;
new vessels, $60.2 million; paper industry products $59.0 million; wood industry products, $41.0 million;
cable products, $25.0 million; and ships surrendered from the existing merchant marine, $13.9 million.
Never during the 41-44 period were the Finns faced with the power that fell on the allied troops around Stalingrad.STALINGRAD...NEVER did the Finns give the Germans a catastrophy of this magnitude
Learn to read and then comment on the quote. That wasn't 40 miles, more like 20...40 kilometres. in 3+ years, they advanced about 20 miles. The terrain isn't impassable, it's nearly impossible to attack over, but it's not impassable. As for large formations operating in the area...where? The Soviets had forces, but they were stretched along a railway line. The germans had about 6 divisions, which they couldn't even keep together because they couldn't keep them supplied. Like it said, even the Finns said the terrain was unsuitable for any kind of large scale offensive, and they live there...now throw me a little more of your sarcasm.About the land in Scandinavia being like desert, where the sun never sets etc. *yawn* You have most likely never been in Scandinavia, all you got is one quote, and a political one at that. And Wolfpack, when you say that the fighting here were so hard that they only advanced 40 miles for a certain time, then you are not saying the terrain is impassable to move on. Already they moved 40 miles. What you are saying is that the axis forces this north on the Finnish front did not have substantial firepower to overrun the Sovjets with. Dietl faced two full Sovjet armies (14th and 19th) to this very north, and he did not have the forces to easily overrun them and advance 50 miles per day. The front that Dietl commanded stalemated more than any other place on the Finnish front, due to the lack of superior firepower to crush the enemy with.It was not impossible to move large armies in the area, it never was, already large armies slugged it out against each other in the area, and you argue that this historical fact is impossible. Difficult yes, impossible no.
Operating units around the scandanavian countries would be fine with me although I kind of doubt the railway system could have held up under the strain of moving multiple armies around there, I'll defer that to someone who knows more about it than I do. If that's all you want, fine, but when you say that,
well, that's just silly. nobody was going to be making any strategic offensives in Lappland if the other side didn't want them to. (Some)Germans were the only ones who thought it was possible, and you see how far it got them...Increasing the map up north, would open up strategic possibilities that did excist. -
"Dietl was familiar with the Petsamo region and described it to Hitler as looking like the world on the first day of creation with no trees, no vegetation - nothing except bare rock, huge boulders, and rushing water. The long winter season, he explained, turned the land into an icy desert with temperatures falling to below 50 degrees of frost. The winter was one long dark night which lasted for eight months. In the short summer the sun did not set and day-time temperatures rose to above 30 degrees. In place of the winter snows, rain fell almost continuously throughout the summer, feeding the extensive and groundless swamps. It was a miserable desert both in winter and in summer. 'There has never been a war fought in the high north,' Dietl declared. 'The region is unsuited to military operations. There are no roads and these would have to be constructed before any advance could take place.' He pointed out that if his men were taken to build roads, there would be no soldiers to do the fighting. The Gebirgsjaeger general drew the Fuehrer's attention to the lack of prime movers to tow the artillery pieces, to the absence of SP guns, and to the shortage of men."Originally posted by Norse:Good questions.
Finland were invaded from the locations that we see on the SC map, the Sovjet main thrust went in here. But the Sovjets attacked with armies further north as well.
Increasing the map up north, would open up strategic possibilities that did excist.
In Norway and Sweeden, people were very scared of the 'red threat'. They feared that if Finland collapsed under the weight of Sovjet, then Sovjet would march on and attack Norway and Sweeden.
Unrealistic? I think not. I base my conclution on the later events of the war.
After the Germans were beaten in Finland, and the Finns wanted the Germans out in order to secure their own excistance (just ask if you want to know why
), then the Germans withdrew into Norway. The Russians followed them closely, and attacked northern-Norway. The Germans used scorched earth policy here, evacuating all the civilians and burned down everything that could be of use to the Sovjets. The Sovjets did take some cities in Norway, but by now the war was over, so the Sovjets pulled out and Norway was once again free. So you see, this threat and danger of the Sovjets deciding to take the Scandinavian peninsula was very real indeed! Both the allies, the axis, and the Sovjet had interests in Scandinavia. The game could open the map up here and include the possibilities of Sovjet taking Finland, and deciding to attack Sweeden and Norway. Allowing this 'what-if' in the game would not be historical incorrect, as the threat of this event happening was very real in ww2.
This would also allow the possibility to operate units from Norway, Sweeden and to Finland (discussed in another thread).
~Norse~
"His appreciation of the situation was correct. The future theatre of operations was so forbidding a region that Finnish military authorities declared it to be an impossible place in which to fight a war. Before the onset of the winter season they withdrew all their military forces garrisoning Lappland to areas below the 65th parallel. The area abandoned by the Finns each winter was more than 800 kilometres wide and stretched from the town of Sumoussalhi on the 65th parallel to Petsamo in the far north."
Nevertheless, Hitler sent 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th SS, and 7th Gebirgs Divisions to this area.
"The 2nd and 3rd Gebirgs divisions of Dietl's Corps held the most northerly flank of the German Army on the Eastern Front. Their task was to advance and cover what Hitler described as the 'laughable 100 kilometres' between the Finno-Russian frontier and the town of Murmansk. The battles to reach that target brought the Corps to the River Liza, some 60 kilometres from the objective."
So wow, a 40 km advance by some of the better troops the Germans had...less than a hex...and you think expanding the map to this region and allowing massive offensives would be historically correct? Oh, BTW, there's a HUGE difference between advancing against an enemy determined to hold his ground, and an advance against troops pulling out to evacuate an area.
Expanding the map into the northernmost regions of these countries should add little to gameplay because the land simply could not support large formations on SC scale, and the conditions were so bad, that even the smaller formations had impossible problems to overcome. That said, I would like the map to be expanded (even though we all know it can't be in SC) because it would allow more leeway with the naval war, but as far as the land goes, it should be made impassible or close to it.
All quotes taken from "Hitler's Mountain Troops" by James Lucas.
-
Want to know how to figure sub spotting ranges? Look at the purchase screen, find the spotting range, subtract one.
[ August 20, 2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Wolfpack ]
-
-
I don't know if this message is ment for me, but I know it has nothing to do with my question.Originally posted by SS Viking:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Old Patch:
Hey, CvM! Why don't you two get married? You have a lot in common.
Pls don't post nonsence here. Moderator pls clean up here.
I've a serious question that demands serious answers. I would really appreciate if Hubert game me an answer.
Dispointed, Eric:-(</font>
-
Yah yah....get back to work you gamey bleepard. You know you're just trying to defend your general gameyness. Won't work...we all know how you are.Originally posted by Gunslingr3:Isn't the point of this game "woulda, coulda, shoulda?"
The only thing I'm aware of that I would consider a "gamey" tactic is the surrounding of Moscow and subsequent inability of the Soviets to build while you eliminate them. Hopefully this can be addressed by patching Soviet supply rules to effectively recognize three capitals at all times and simply use the closest one to which there is a supply path.
Before someone would get me to agree to not use my forces the way I want it's going to take some explaining. Why can't the French forces posted in Algeria be used to attack Italy? Just because the French chose to sit back doesn't mean you have to. Also, why couldn't the British make the BEF a larger contingent? What if they thought that was the key to victory? They certainly could have, they just chose not to. As for the Romanians, perhaps in the history you've created they have been promised a large enough share of the spoils to make lending Hitler their troops for Sea Lion worth their while.
If you start limiting what people can do, you're going to end up playing out the same basic strategy each time. Where's the fun in that?
I like to mix it up when playing with my friend. Just because I invaded Spain last time as the Allies doesn't mean I will this time. And just 'cause he got level 5 Industrial tech last time doesn't mean he will this time. I still see hordes of corps in my sleep...
Gunslinger
-
Not a bad idea, but then you'd have to add in the capability to repair back up to a BB. Plus, you have to figure on the fact that each BB icon doesn't just represent 1 BB plus escort, it's more on the order of 2-4. In addition to that, which of the ships are going to be the hardesr to take out? The larger ones of course, both because of their greater defensive power and the fact that they'll usually be smack dab in the middle of a large formation of ships. As for the carriers, think of the loss of strength also accounting for air wing losses. a strength 1 carrier group could be one that had nearly it's entire complement of aircraft destroyed.Originally posted by Skorpion:I've always thought that the icons for ships represented an entire fleet, with the highest value ship being the one shown on the icon. I.e a battleship icon represents one battleship *and* a collection of cruisers, destroyers etc.
So here's an idea...
There should be a reasonable chance that an attack on a battleship group would result in the destruction of said battleship *thus resulting in the change of the icon from a battleship to a cruiser*.
I for one am sick of seeing carriers going around at strength one when the actual carrier (which would of course be the main target) would have been destroyed in preference to all the other little ships that accompany it.
-
Well, that's your loss considering that the AI in 1.03 is a big improvement.
-
Yes I have, but you people don't need to add a refrence into half the posts on the board about it. It's really not that big a deal...the pain and horror...I have to shift myself to push the button and put in a CD....oh no! Carrying a CD along for a laptop is a bit more of a pain, but it's not like CDs are 20 pounds or 10 feet wide.Originally posted by robdam:Jesus, "Heil Hitler!" Wasn't that you I saw @ Munich? Ever hear of Freedom of Speech?
-
Good lord people give it a rest. God forbid Hubert inconvenience your lives...I mean if it's that much of a problem, you don't have to play then you'll never EVER have to put the CD in the drive again. Do you really think that posting the same bitching and moaning in 15 threads is going to change his mind? You've let your displeasure be known, now drop it.
-
Been working fine in about 8 hours of play since I got it yesterday.
Now be quiet and play nice Norse...or someday the big bald kid will come along and swat you. 
Reinforcements vs. Replacements--Contradiction
in Strategic Command 1
Posted