Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

kenfedoroff

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    452

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by kenfedoroff

    just got sc, now about human players

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Hanish:

    ...I know about the opponent finder forum, but do most people play tcp/ip or pbem?...

    Thanks

    Hanish

    Sometimes we switch back and forth between either play mode. We may start a game with tcp/ip and then be forced to switch over to pbem because of time constraints. Because I will often find myself playing opponents in vastly different time zones, I am ready and agreeable to either play mode.

    Hope this helps,

    Ken

    0

    play balance

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by nonsuch:

    ...Suppose the scenarios had a random element that allowed the same basic mp per side but with randomised unit mix and locations.....

    I believe this idea is in one of the "SC Wish List" threads somewhere in this Forum.

    Many others would like to see more variables in SC.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    Defeating the Dutch Gambit!

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    OK, Now for my two cents.

    In Defense of the Dutch Gambit

    I have faced the Dutch Gambit as an Axis player several times in SC, and the more I look at it, the more I like it.

    The key to defending Russia/Egypt is to stall the fall of France until Nov./Dec.'40 or later.

    As far as the Dutch/Italian gambit not being historical, So What?

    There are so many unhistorial abilities/events the Axis can (and will) take advantage of, this seems like a non-argument.

    (I will, however, concede the fact that Brit. corps walking into ungarrisoned Italian cities upon a DoW is Lamo), but all's fair in love and war.

    Most of the threads/arguements about USSR/Allied weakness are related to the defense (or lack thereof) of France.

    As a BDN (Brain Dead Newbie) in good standing, I can vouch for the fact that weak, passive play in SC, (or any contest for that matter), will not work against strong players.

    The top SC players have proven, with the Dutch Gambit, that there may not be such an Axis favored imbalance in the game after all.

    We might even see the Axis bids come down in price when more Allied players start using the Dutch Gambit.

    Just wait 'til BDN's like me start using it(whoa, tremble in fear people)

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    tcp/ip Firewall/Hosting Question

    in Strategic Command Tech Support Forum

    Posted

    Originally posted by Iron Ranger:

    Ken,

    Does your game still lockup when you hit the Quit Key? I noticed that since I purchased a new monitor that I've had the same problem, or the system is just slow. What I do is hit the Esc key, min SC, then bring it back as my primary window and everything is fine. Hope this helps

    IR

    Thanks for sharing this trick. For some reason this allows me to quit, (as long as full screen comes back with "quit button" visible).

    If full screen won't come back, then I have to dump whole thing.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    Scenario/Campaign Editor Question

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:

    That box only allows you to give out bonus Mpp, what you type there is added on to the '115' or '120' at the start of the game.

    CvM

    Thanks

    OK. So the "at start" MPP values are "hard-coded" and not visible? Just curious. Wondered if I was looking in the wrong place.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    Scenario/Campaign Editor Question

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Sorry for the stupid question, but here goes...

    When I play the standard 1939 campaign I see that England and France each start with 115 MPP's, and Germany starts with 120 MPP's.(if I remember correctly)

    But when I open the 1939 campaign in the Editor, I don't see these countries respective MMP values in the edit box, the values are all set at zero.

    Why don't I see the countries "at start" MMP values entered in their respective edit box?

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    SC suggestion re: amphib assaults

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by CalifVol:

    "Game has a requirement for the Axis to invade the US to win. Don't think so."

    Then explain why the game would not end when I had over run all of Europe and Canada?

    I think the latest patch SC v1.06 has "Stalemate victory conditions" that allow an Axis win without taking USA(or England). I believe in play against the AI, it will not surrender until all major powers are taken. Of course, in play against a human, he would normally concede.

    But I am no Expert. Many here know the ways and rules much better than I.

    Sincerely,

    Ken

    0

    SC suggestion re: amphib assaults

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Steve C:

    ...Overall, I can certainly live with the design decision to have generic units and weapons development shared by all. No doubt, it detracts from the realism....

    I think one of the earlier reasons/ideas for dumping USA/Brit rockets and substituting with Amphib/Para was the fact, (at least in the initial versions of SC, if I remember correctly) was that rockets could not transport. If the USA/Brits bought rockets, the unit was stuck in the country where it was purchased.( this may have been fixed in later patch.)

    Sorry, I don't remember original author/thread for rocket discussion.

    Ken

    0

    SC suggestion re: amphib assaults

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    My two cents:

    I would prefer to keep the ability of transports to unload onto an empty hex.

    I like the idea (the name of the author/thread escapes me) where rocket units for the USA & Brits are dumped and replaced with an amphib/para unit.

    USA/Brits Rockets would also be dumped from Research and replaced with an amphib/para research slot.

    The special ability of the USA/Brit amphib/para unit would be to attack a shore based unit (from a sea hex) -AND- (should a hex become empty) move after combat into the vacant hex. (This move after combat ability could ONLY happen from sea to shore).

    Of course, the cost of these units would be expensive relative to other units, (as they were in real life).

    I would also vote for an increased cost for transport on the Axis side.

    It is my understanding the Axis had trouble gathering together barge/craft for Sea Lion.(There must be some research/historians on the Forum who could give us the numbers for the desired initial lift capacity for Sea Lion, and what was actually put together.)

    OK. I will go look for my SC Learner's Permit and move to the challenge board.

    Ken

    0

    All patch requests/ideas here (thanks)

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    First of all: Great ideas people.

    My comments are colored by my beginning experiences in SC Ladder games where the players bid for the Axis position, (with the one time handicap given in MPP's to the Brits, USA, Russia).

    From this bid/handicap perspective, the at start Axis advantage(imbalance) can be reduced to a comfortable level that is agreeable to both sides.

    Therefore, I very much enjoy seeing everyones ideas for incorporating rules that bring actual WW2 strategic/political decisions into SC.

    While SC, in it's current format allows for Strategic Bombing, Sub Warfare, Rockets, etc., most of these choices are not pursued for lack of incentive.

    Arby gives an example on Strategic Bombing:

    Originally posted by arby:

    ...See, my philosophy is that a strategic war game should demand that the player make strategic choices. Strategic bombing was a choice: the US and UK invested substantial resources in that, resources which they could have invested in other areas. Right now, an investment in strategic bombing -- investing in the tech, building bombers -- really isn't a wise choice for the Allied player, for a number of reasons: the damage which can be inflicted is negligible in light of the investment demanded, and the alternatives (early invasion of continental Europe) are more rewarding.

    I haven't addressed the latter point yet, but as far as the first one is concerned, I'd implement the rule that only (Strat.)bombers could attack resources, including ports and cities. This is historically realistic; you didn't have P-47's bombing Hamburg. I'd enable bombers attack the resource, rather than the unit sitting on top of it....

    The lack of incentive for sub warfare/surface raiders has been addressed in many threads.

    One idea put forward,(the name of the author escapes me) which deals with Lend Lease, proposed that actual Allied convoy ship counters, (of varying MPP value), would be created on a regular basis for shipment to Great Briatain and/or Russia from N. America.

    I feel this Lend Lease idea needs to be looked into as it deals with two issues in one.

    1. It could force the Axis to pursue sub/surface raider warfare(because).....

    2. Now the Allies can help keep Russia in the game, even when half of her cities are captured by the Axis blitzkrieg.

    Again, thanks to everyone for helping make SC more fun.

    Ken

    0

    The Double Gambit

    in Strategic Command 1

    Posted

    BtW, Kuni, JJ, et.al.

    Great thread guys. Now that I'm in the SC Ladder and likely to face(or force) this situation, I find it most interesting.

    Of course, if the Italian "at start" locations were changed/(patched) it would pretty much negate the DoW surprise attack.

    Sincerely,

    Nervous Newbie

    0
×
×
  • Create New...