Ancient One

I think it would need a larger map to work properly.

The Axis has plenty of time between the fall of France and the invasion of Russia to build up their army.

It's called Hearts of Iron. I am sort of looking forward to it, but it's real-time nature and apparent over-abundance of detail may be cause for concern. [ October 08, 2002, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

I played the Windows 3.1 version of The Big 3 a long time ago. It's a fun, simple game. Too bad I lost it and can't find it anywhere on the internet (it's like it never existed), Home of the Underdogs only has the DOS version.

I totally agree. It's a well known fact that while Axis expansion in the early years is quite reasonable, the main problem is having the Allies wrest the advantage from the Axis in the later years. Much has been said about the research system with regard to this problem, but I believe I'm the first one to mention that experience might have a hand in this as well. I didn't think it was that unreasonable, but look at the outrage it has caused.

Sogard, if he replies at all, is going to say that since Michael Wittmann was a member of an evil organization, he is guilty by association regardless of what he as a person actually did.

I didn't really want to get involved in a big debate on experience anyway. I agree that there are far more pressing problems, like research and pillaging. Experience is just a minor side issue. I don't really want either research or experience taken out (they do need to be changed somewhat however), I was just curious as to what extent the current imbalance is caused by these issues. I would have liked to have the option to turn them off just to see if the game would be more balanced that way (which nobody has really commented on). Upon further reflection, I think it would skew the game in favor of the Allies, though not as much as the game is skewed in favor of the Axis now.

That's ridiculous, there have been many sophisticated wargames that do not include experience, and do not suffer from the lack of it. In fact, SC is the only strategic level wargame I can think of that does include it, to disastrous effect. It prevents reversals, as the side with more experience suffers fewer losses, hence gains experience faster, hence suffering even fewer losses, etc. It's called "snowballing" And who ended up winning? Maybe you should have used an example of where the more experienced side won if you want to prove how CRUCIAL experience is. Experience can be gained quickly, and lost even faster through casualties. There were no invincible super units in the real war.

Realistic in theory, but not in practice. Perhaps it should stay, but in an slightly altered form (more effort to reach the higher experience levels), same with research. I was just wondering how the game would play without them, didn't mean to step on any toes.

Mind your manners sir, I was just thinking of new options. Can you really deny that currently, whoever gets a large disadvantage in experience is set upon a downward spiral? Also, research progress has too large an effect on the game for something that is left entirely to luck. Finally, pillaging makes an already too rich Axis even richer (I know the Allies can benefit from pillage too, but not to the same extent). [ October 07, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

Yes, but doesn't it hurt the balance of the game? I think it does.

Maybe the game would be more balanced if research, experience, and pillaging were taken out. Am I wrong? Anyway, it would be nice to have some options along these lines. [ October 07, 2002, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: Ancient One ]

Bring a HQ.

I can't speak for dpstafford, but I for one did not mean my post to be a flame. I just don't think SC (in it's current incarnation) is quite as good as CoS. I greatly admire Hubert Cater and his motivation to create a WW2 game, because that's exactly what I've always wanted to do (and am still planning to do). That being said, I'm not sure I'm going to buy a new WW2 game that doesn't provide me with a convincing WW2 experience comparable to a game made 8 years ago. It seems that some people are upset that I didn't provide reasons for why I thought CoS is better (though it's worth noting that they didn't provide reasons why they thought SC was better ). Anyway, here they are: - both sides relatively balanced - industrial capabilities much closer to history - limited units - unique units - delayed builds - diminishing returns research system - overseas convoys - naval system which can provide historically plausible results - political pressure system - ability to replace dissolved units at lower cost (can only eliminate ground units by cutting off supply) - assaults with several units at once - replacable minor power units - most actions have historically plausible results; with almost any action you take, you can say "that could have happened" Now, I think it would be great if someone can tell me some reasons why they think SC is better, other than: - playable in Win 98+ - playable by PBEM or TCP/IP

I'm going to be controversial here, and say that I'm not sure whether or not I'm ever going to buy Strategic Command, because Clash of Steel is in my opinion a superior game.

Why not just use the CoS system, or something along those lines. Anyway, I think most of us can agree that research in SC needs at least some kind of "diminishing returns" factor.

I have to agree that air power is too powerful in SC, I like how it worked in CoS better.

Historically the Soviets brought in the Siberians once they were sure that the Japanese were not going to attack from the East. The Siberians would be be sent against the Germans regardless of how close they were to Moscow.

I think the default options would be best.

That's not an advantage at all, the Germans can easily get 5 levels in industrial tech long before the US enters the war.

I think alot of techs need some rebalancing. Some kind of diminishing returns system is needed as well. Right now there's not really any strategy involved in research, it's just get the best tech (industrial technology) to 5, then the second best to 5, etc. The only factor that remains is luck.

Attack with armies instead of corps, and yes an HQ does help.

You need to have in Poland at least 2 units in 1940 and 4 units in 1941 to prevent Soviet war readiness from rising.

That sounds good. In my opinion the game in the demo was heavily biased in favor of the Axis (starting from that point with 2 equal players and assuming the game kept going, I think the Axis would win a vast majority of the time). SNIP</font>

Looks interesting, but why is there a German corps in western France?