Straha

Great news! The final timing presents a certain dilemma for me, though: starting in late August, I will be going to Europe for a long long time (maybe for good, I don't know yet). Now I wonder whether I should preorder, or use the "Ireland" option later ... Straha

Thanks! The idea to make the Italians "suspicious" if certain things happen in the med is superb! :cool: Straha

Ok, then my excuse for declaring war on the USA as Axis will be that we have to punish them in advance for torturing us with Britney Spears 55 years after WW2 will have ended. Straha

I'm a bit worried about one thing, though. There seems to be quite a bit of tweaking with respect to making things more challenging for the Axis player. But - other things being equal - I found that, at least against the computer, playing the Allies is *already* much easier than playing the Axis. So, apart from the entrenchment of the Italians, is there anything which helps the computer controlled Axis against a Human in return? For example, to loose France to the computer, I regularily have to give the Axis additional experience points. Btw will we have the AI vs AI feature? I really would like to balance scenarios with respect to how such "hands off" games turn out. Straha

There was no need to occupy Switzerland. If the war in the East would have been won, then sooner or later Switzerland would have been integrated into the Reich (and Italy) without one shot being fired. Everyone who thinks otherwise should have a long and thorough look at the map again and think about it in terms of trade, economy, supplies and self-sufficiency for a change. Straha

No way, if your planning is so laughably bad that... say... as the Germans you can't take down Yogoslavia, I see no reason for Yugoslavia not to go on the offensive.</font>

Wouldn't you like to know! Well, ok, I'll tell you: go to a game retailer you trust and ask him for "Chess II". Some people already have mentioned it in this thread. It's a board game, actually. Be shrewd and insist on the version where the grid is made up of 64 alternating black and white tiles. But beware: be sure to ask whether stacking of chess pieces in one field is allowed - if not, he's certainly going to dupe you, and you should go to the next shop! Straha

- On historical, they will always join the historical side at the historical date. - On neutral, they will stay neutral until attacked. - On random, they will join the historical side depending on the circumstances. They will maybe join earlier, or not join at all. They will *never* join the "other" side. Some historically neutral nations like Spain and Turkey may join the Axis under certain conditions Straha

Chris, in your preview you chose the approach of describing the situation how you got the game, and how it "felt" playing it. This is a good and tried way to begin a review, and it also has the effect that people will think "me too, me too!". It should not "span" the whole article, though. After some introduction, you should come around to provide info on how the game actually works so that both newbies and grognards get a better clue on whether the game might be to their liking. I'm glad to hear that there is a final review. I think that, there, you should mention things like - that there are two kinds of maps - what kind of ground/naval/air units there are (and on what level, e.g. there are no single "vehicles", but corps etc) - that the units all have different values for hard/soft/air/naval attack and defense (like in Panzer General) and that they can gain experience. - that there are Headquarters with historical generals (Rommel etc.) influencing the combat effectiveness of their troops - that supply is important (and taken into account) - that production capability depends on mpps provided by cities, ports, oil, mines and plundering - that there is strategic warfare (subs and strat bombers deducting production points). - that there is research allowing you to get e.g. jetfighters, and that the icons of the units change with higher techlevels - that there is a "historical", "neutral" and "random" option for diplomacy, and how the "random" option works. - that there is a fog of war option - that there is an "intelligence" screen giving you info about losses, production capabilities etc. - the needed system specs (which are amazingly low!) Of course, the actual level of detail in a review has to be adjusted to how much place you have at your disposal, but the main features should always be mentioned. Straha

Are you joking or English? England would have surrendered after a week of fight if the Germans had decided to go ahead with their invasion plans. And many be all europe would speak German. Just look at what happened in Jersay Guernosey... </font>

But there WAS a surprise attack on the Italian fleet! Actually, it was even somewhat of a predecessor to the attack on Pearl Harbour. In 1940, The English admiral Cunningham planned an airstrike on the Italian port of Taranto where the bulk of Italy's big ships were located. The attack was carried out in November 1940. A British fleet set out from Egypt. It included the aircraft carrier HMS Illusttrious with her 34 planes which inclueded 22 Fiary Swordfish Torpedo Bombers, also 4 battleships and a number of supporting cruisers and destroyers. On the 11 November the fleet launched two strikes. The first consisted of 12 Swordfish, the second of 9. The attack took the Italians by surprise. The swordfish achieved a big success and sank the battleship Littorio and hit the Conte di Cavour and the Caio Duilio with a single torpedo each putting them out of action for a lengthy period of time. The battle of Taranto is considered to have restored the British Navy's dominance in the Mediterranean sea. Straha

Though the review is very positive, as a review it is not good at all. On two pages, the reviewer virtually does not explain *anything*, and even rather tends to get things wrong (e.g."diplomacy"). Straha

I would not support the fight-on-from-Canada solution. Once the UK is overrun, the Brits are done. Of course, one can always nominally "fight on" with a government in exile, but there is a point where this becomes just symbolic. That I want to include Egypt in the surrender conditions is solely for gameplay reasons: there´s too much in favor of Sealion already anyway (at least against the computer), so I think the Axis player who chooses Sealion should at least not get Egypt and the path to the oilfields as a bonus for free ... Straha

The move-and-attack system of SC is like the one in the original Panzer General. I rather would have liked to have it according to how it was improved for Pacific General: move all your units into position (if you want)and THEN attack. (This would be just one step short of making combined attacks possible btw). The present system is a bit on the unflexible side. I have to say, though, that SC is so good that I regularily forget this issue after one turn or so ... Straha [ July 10, 2002, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Liddel-Hart was vain ... well, like so many. He really pushed it with the Guderian issue, and when it comes to strategy, he makes the distinct impression of a "know-it-all". But OTOH that doesn´t mean that everything he wrote is made up. I can only advise to read him like any other author: in perspective. Straha

Yeah, surprise attacks aren´t gamey. Pearl Harbour was mean, hideous, stupid, or whatever, but it was not gamey, and so wasn´t Barbarossa ... Straha [ July 10, 2002, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Straha ]

I propose that, for gameplay reasons, even if the British homeland is Axis occupied, the UK should not surrender as long as Egypt is not also gone. Straha

I haven't played the demo for a long time now and can't remember: if we conquer the British homeland, but leave Egypt alone, does the UK then fall and give you Egypt for free? If so, it shouldn't be like this because it makes Sealion simply too tempting. Straha [ July 09, 2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

On second thought, you're right... Need the Ruskies... Aloid</font>

Choosing the neutral option with respect to the USSR makes for a rather lame game. When they are set on neutral, you already know that they will never attack unless you attack them first. The name "random" is misleading for it sounds like, well: "random". But in fact, it is roughly based on the historical setting with some variance. I will never play anything else because I do not like the hindsight/precognition factor of the other settings. Straha [ July 08, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

The Race should be in the game cus I'm a lizard. Straha

Ellis' account seems especially true with respect to the Pacific War because even grave mistakes in strategy and tactics on the side of the Allies would not have had any decisive effects there. But with respect to the ETO, I'd say we would have to add something like "all other things being equal". Some more bungling on the side of the Soviets, and some less on the side of the Germans could have toppled the balance in 41 and even still in 42. The longer we wait, the less this plays a role, so the logistics factor gets ever more dominant later on. In 43, everything is pretty much decided already (even if Kursk would have gone the other way, the Axis would not have won). Btw I think that most good wargames do take this into account already. The Axis always has a very tight timetable. Allies get stronger and stronger over time, and the moment the Axis offensive looses enough momentum to stall the only thing one can do as player is try to prolong the inevitable. Straha Edit: the war was won/lost in Russia. That is I assume that if the USSR would have surrendered somewhere in 41/42, then the US/UK would not have tried to stage an invasion and there would have been a de facto truce. [ July 05, 2002, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

It's a nice collection of essays by various authors. They try to flesh out their what-ifs by taking logistics and other "givens" into acount which is laudable because this separates the essays from total daydreams. Still, it is all hypothetical, and therfore will remain contentious, of course. Btw my favorite book about the 3rd Reich is still Shirer's "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" despite its age. It's simply so well written. Beware, it doesn't focus on military issues, though. Hmm, about the warfare itself: Lidell Hart treats the whole globe. Like every author, he has his weaknesses, but still ... I recently read Blood, Tears and Folly by Len Deighton ... very interesting (except if you're from the UK, in which case it has a tendency to make your blood boil). But as I said, there is so much to read out there ... Straha [ July 05, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

Whereas the gold demo is probably meant and needed to entice new customers to buy a game which will not get heavily advertised in gaming magazines etc, I would advise to take some features completely out to make any hacking worthless. E.g. research would be a good candidate as it does not mean too much in the one year timeframe, but comes to bear in the long run. Straha

Guys, there is SO MUCH stuff to read out there ... but I agree that with respect to the decent "what if" flair of SC, the Hitler Options somehow fits quite nicely. Straha [ July 05, 2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]