Desert Dave

Just learning about the new implementations would be a tremendous boon! How about -- from the capitulation of France until eve of USA's entry? This would provide JUST ENOUGH to further wet the appetite and still secure most secrets, yes?

Now that I have played 18-20 games, I have a pretty good feel for the value of various units, though I admit that a few of these will likely better serve certain purposes in the full-length game. Here I am mostly concerned with cost-benefit ratio. HQ - A+ Without these nothing much good happens, as evidenced by France (and even Italy, with their very low-rated leaders :eek: ). Air Fleet - A This is the Queen of the chess board. Versatile, mobile, and excellent cost ratio. Tank Detachment - A- Slasher that has great impact, in movement and punch. Army - B+ Solid, dependable, like Bill Mauldin's Willie & Joe :cool: . Corps - B Great for interior defense, and lurking about to snatch those depleted cities. Subs - C+ Can do heavy havoc to Brit armada, if deployed properly. Carrier - C+ Similar to Air Fleet, but vulnerable and expensive. Cruiser & Battleship - C All ships would receive one HIGHER grade if they would be altered to survive longer and/or were less expensive. Potentially, GREAT naval battles might ensue. Rockets - D The jury is still out on these, but I never buy them -- maybe later in full game. Bombers - F If somoeone has figured a good, justifiable use for these, let me know. I never buy any. Sure we have explored much of this, but it never hurts to provide more input. Units I would like to see: Para, Destroyer flotillas.

... just awoke to a terrific thrashing noise, and what do I see? :eek: This collective sigh of relief -- has blown over A HUGE old oak tree, Which had survived -- berserker woodpeckers, And early freezes, And hurricane breezes, Since the year -- 1563!

I like this idea, or a variation of it, the best so far. I would agree that there is too rapid an advance at times. In a recent game, I got the Industrial level to 3 by January '41. This is way too fast, and likely will skew the game a little too much in my favor? (... assuming the opponent has not done as well). Also, a humble request to Hubert -- I would prefer NOT to see the Jet icon (nor the aerodynamic SWOOSH) until level 3 or so. Somehow it bothered my historical sensibility to have this in 1941. :eek:

Good stuff. If it is a matter of MEMORY, then I would have to agree, and say that -- I too would like to have the replay. Your recent-most post has done more to convince me than any other. Likely because I could easily see how I too would begin to wonder what happened to a unit that I was not paying attention to. It is one thing when you are on the Eastern front and focused; it is entirely another for those units scattered to hell and gone.

You are making an assumption. Please quote me where I have stated this.

Thanx SuperTed for the detailed assistance and the helpful counsel -- since the beginning. I guess I was trying to encourage some philosophical discussion. This topic is now being examined in another thread, and that is all to the good.

Well MT, my arguments have been severally termed silly, and now (... not quite the apotheosis ) ludicrous. At any rate, VERY unpopular (tho, this may be for other reasons, I appreciate). Those are not necessarily synthetic or dialectic arguments, rather an attack on the Advocate. However, I remain undeterred. And for this (non-abrasive, non-Omniscient) reason: I am able to determine -- for the most part, if my units were diminished by ground forces (the opponent's forces will be right there in front of me, also partly diminished). Moreover, I do not know PRECISELY if Air power was involved, BUT I will ASSUME it so if the damage to my forward positions has been MORE than the evident attacking units might reasonably inflict on me. I can easily use my imagination to fill in the blanks, AND accept what I do not YET know (in this short time-frame of a week or so) until further developments will make it EVIDENT. I am guessing that most gamers very much want this feature (have I been merely the Devil's Advocate?... or, is it possible? it's disciple?) which would explain the vehemence of the counter-argument. Is it a case where they fear -- perhaps even subconsciously, the Deux Ex Machina, or worse, the PBEM opponet who will somehow :eek: cheat them?

SuperTed's comment about having gained a HUGE advantage has intrigued me. To divine the intentions (... assisted by trustworthy, Non-Omniscient battle-site reports) of our blood-drooling and utterly ruthless Foe, and thus -- countering their bolstered units, will mean that we might either: A) invest in the appropriate antidote, or ignore them and continue with our own diabolical plan. So. Will research decisions drive strategic choices? By that I mean -- let's pretend that you have invested in Advanced Subs and Heavy Bombers. You finally get the fortress planes, and then -- do you completely jettison your prior strategy of wolf-pack attacks, and NOW concentrate on bombing garrisons and infrastructure? And then! spend another 250 MPP to try and extend this advantage even further? Might we not end up like the gambler who has lost all the rent money? (BTW Ron, I have played many games and not gotten any advances -- despite 1000+ MPP investment. OTH, in one serendipitous game I got all 3! that I had invested in, AND! on the same turn! What are the odds? The woeful thing about that, alack, it will likely NEVER happen again and so the good fortune was wasted! on a solitaire game.) Anyway, in the beginning, if you are Germany and on the offensive, you might well invest in Heavy Tanks. If Russian, then Anti-Tank enhancement? And vice-versa 'round about '43. We do not know precisely what the research successes will provide, but I have investigated the difference between Kriegsmarine and Royal Navy, and there is this: 1) Britain has Sonar, and so their BBs have ONE point higher (on the unit-capability scoreboard) than Germany for naval defense. 2) Germany has Advanced Subs, so they have ONE point higher for naval attack by the U-boats. Yet, some of this must be intuitively gleaned. I.E. Britain has AA-Radar, but I don't believe (?) I can find out what that translates to, unless it is explained in the Final Rules. (BTW Hubert, can we expect these to be posted before long, as you had earlier mentioned that you might? Or, too many last minute alterations?) Finally, I will assert that the research advances will most definitely insure SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT games. Heretofore I had underestimated just how much it would influence choices and results. After all, playing a one-year Demo does not provide very much in the way of -- The Big Picture. Any comments or speculation in this regard?

Two months ago, at least as far as I knew, there was no NEW WWII grand-strategy game on the horizon. Now there is Strategic Command. We tend to forget that Hubert has (... very nearly!) summoned something playable -- out of nothing. Over two years at this! It can't merely be opportunism, since there are other genres which offer more of a potential reward. So. He must really LIKE this particular kind of game. Therefore I tend to trust that he will make it the very best that he is able. I can't imagine the countless hours & hours that have gone into the hard-wiring. It was not only difficult, but a challenge, AND it had to be (... and continues to be) a great deal of, well, plain old fun. True that there are many thousands of documents on this subject, and there have been some successful iterations (... Advanced 3rd Reich the best so far; I have played COS and enjoyed it, but SC is far superior), but to pick and choose what to include -- of all the possible approaches, had to be part of the allure in the first place. Which one of us would not have liked to try it? We all have our favorite aspects (I am simply thrilled that Hubert has included a more detailed naval game, no matter if imperfectly implemented... so far anyway -- I also trust that this will remain an ongoing, and eventually improved upon -- labor of love... ) and are quite forthcoming with our suggestions and comments. To any creator, this can be both frustrating and welcome. Making those final small adjustments can mean a great deal in terms of successful game-play, AND success in the marketplace. I have to continually remind myself that I am about to get a game that will satisfy MOST of my requirements, and that two months ago -- well, there didn't seem to be anything to hope for. So, thanks again Hubert for the dedication and persevence and most important, the final follow-through. Sometimes there are hopes and dreams, but not enough of the inner committment needed to actually get the thing done.

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Well Jeff, the commander at the cutting edge of battle must rely on reports from subordinates and civilians (... and deliberately skewed propaganda). These will rarely be very accurate. In a month or so, sure, much more reliable. But there is no commander (except grognards hovering over the table-top-map)who sees and knows everything -- all at once. Therefore, I re-state my advocacy (the Devil involved or not): it is God-like to know all immediately. It is human to try and piece together disparate facts arriving at disjointed moments. I can fairly easily tell what happened from the previous turn -- not completely, and not entirely accurately, which is in alignment with real tactical life. What do you not recognize from the missing play-by-play? Does this not more resemble the indecision and then -- the risky daring of real commanders on the ground? Sure the scale is large, but if, as a gamer, we can appreciate those kinds of difficult decisions, then it only ADDS to the enjoyment and that tension which Hubert mentioned. :eek:

The amount of MPPs gained may or may not be perfectly historical, but -- to the victor goes the spoils! This seems to simulate the idea that you are now REWARDED for a tactical accomplishment, and now you have extra monies to continue your onslaught. This can be viewed as MOMENTUM and the headiness that comes from high morale and winning one for the home team. Onward! All the other rewards are more concrete -- this is the chance to wear the laurels (... at least until USA begins to flex the muscles). :eek:

Originally posted by Hubert Cater: I've thought this over and I tend to agree. True enough that I haven't had a lot of experience playing PBEM, and I may change my mind then, but this adds to the FoW and makes the player pay strict attention to deployments, his own as well as all enemies. In most cases we will know what has happened from the units present after the battle. We will have a good idea (if our Air Fleets have been active) of the opponent's air power. The problem will be when the naval unit suddenly disappears. :eek: In that case we will suspect naval activity (and Air Fleets if we are close enough to land-mass) BUT we will have to GUESS AT the opponent's strategy and intentions -- did they buy (or repair) more naval units? Are they now concerned with clearing the freighter lanes, and why? Is an invasion on the way? What nefarious plans are afoot? To watch a replay -- as if an omniscient God, seems a little unfair, in this sense -- gathering intelligence takes time -- the post mortems and second guessings take time. Here we must immediately react to LIMITED information, which is truer to heat of battle and FoW. [ May 31, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

One strategy for getting out into the Atlantic early -- soon after (or, if victory is immenent, before)the fall of France, send an air fleet up to the hex directly below Bergen. On that same turn put the sub into port at Bergen, and if interested in extra fire-power (I use the CA to finish off half-damaged BBs that the more severely damaged sub cannot do itselft), put the CA in the hex above Bergen. Every time the AI sends the carrier down about 5 or 6 hexes, and the 2 accompanying surface ships even further down the coast. Next turn you can slip the sub (and CA if part of your strategy) out over the top of England. This may seem unfair, but then again this is the game we must play if we enjoy winning now and again. :eek: In chess, we don't worry that the Bishop cannot go side to side since it is designed specifically for diagonal movement, yes?

MT, I met an Illuminati once, it was while I was in a honkey-tonk down Bosier City way, and anyway, he was the wisest, most insightful human I have ever known... told me about Life and Love and Truth and Beauty and all that slow-smoking jazz... I have been looking, looking for another hep-cat like that ever since...

MT, I still don't know what BUMP refers to. Now, true that I am yet wet behind the ears and am liable to be insouciantly labelled -- newbie (this was FNG when we wore blue behind the crossed-rifles insignia and a rope around our shoulders), but tell me, yes? Everything needn't be some deep dark secret, that only the cogniscenti might deliberate over, no? I am firmly committed to #8 above (more naval warware due to less damage with each encounter), so here I stand, naked like all the rest.

In addition, and even better, you have a painless entry into Syria for the attack on Iraq. The later penalty for Allies declaring war on Algeria (assuming they don't bypass Vichy and directly invade Libya or Sicily) is what? By that time, the only minors to be negatively influence are Spain, Turkey and Sweden (if they haven't already been conquered). Perhaps some additional consequences for an early German attack?

You know, up until this post I hadn't thought of taking Ireland (... historical bias -- I guess I couldn't see the forest for the trees). But now, I do it every time -- the plunder provides MPPs for that tank-detachment that is sorely needed in Egypt. There is a penalty, perhaps delaying US entry by a turn or so (I don't remember if Russia was significantly influenced), but is it enough to prevent this ahistorical eventuality? I am all for What-If possibilities, but does this give Britain too much of an early edge?

... elegant like iris-ends bending in a sudden! sunrise breeze, dew bejeweled as meadow flowers -- hour into hour, communing with the buzz-about bees... I would agree.

Also, thanx Hubert for ratcheting down the SURPRISE effect... I would like to continue my campaign to decrease surface-to-surface effects as well, for the following reasons: 1) This would allow more of a cat & mouse game. As it is now (especially with capital ships) there is one or two EXPLOSIVE encounters, then it's nearly all over. If we could repair more of these VERY expensive ships, then the naval game would be stretched out over the entire '40-'43 era. With all else that will be going on in other theaters, I just don't see very many gamers buying a lot of additional navy units (... unless determine for Sea Lion or another invasion elsewhere). Now, this is likely fairly historical when it comes to surface ship battles, but for subs it would certainly be more FUN if LESS DAMAGE was done (not only in suprise) each encounter. 2) In the Med, it is very hard for the British to maintain the 3-ship fleet that begins at Alexandria (at least, to a detemined Italian foe who will place an air fleet in Libyia to counter the carrier). The AI seems extremely reluctant to reinforce, even when 1 or 2 ships are destroyed. Of course, the human admiral can bring the BB over from Gibralter, and other capital ships from Britain (disregarding the relatively small MPP losses from subs). Perhaps the AI could be tweaked to re-inforce at some certain loss level? I have had 4 games in a row as the Axis where I successfully invaded Iraq. This should be harder to do? Could be there are a lot of opinions about the naval war because -- potentially -- it offers a lot of excitement. :eek:

Congratulations Hubert, this game is more than I had expected. After 10 or so demo games I am particularly impressed with your AI -- it is the best I have seen in quite a while -- this makes for a VERY replayable game. There are 3 areas that I would like to see improved at some point. 1) Naval War: These are very expensive units, and it seems as though they don't last very long. Especially the SURPRISE element. I have had several games where the Germans managed to build wolfpacks of 4-5 subs, and the Brits always seemed to lose most of their fleet by accidentally banging into one or another sub. This was final-doom, since the extremely weakened unit would be finished off the next turn. Perhaps less damage each contact would enable the crippled ship to return for repairs, thereby keeping the expense down a little. And, in general, it seems as though the ship to ship exchange results in too high damage. 2) North Afrika: The most disappointing by far. I appreciate that the scale is large, but I haven't yet seen any armor give and take, or ebb & flow of historic battles. I am guessing that one more hex row would do the trick. Couldn't we please extend the map one more row into the Med, from Tobruk to Palestine? This would not impinge on naval activities in the eastern Med very much, and would allow Rommel and Monty to get after it. As it is, Britain doesn't have much compelling reason to try and reinforce. Without invading on the far side, I have NEVER gotten remotely close to taking Alexandria. 3) Strategic Bombing: How about this? When attacking cities with units in them, Strat Bombers hit the production, and Air Fleets attack units? This could be on a random basis, where MOST of the damage from bombers would effect production MOST of the time (example... say, on one turn you would have 2 lost production points, and 0 or 1 casualty to units). If they attack units outside of cities, then of course that is different. Otherwise, I have found this game to be excellent, and am looking forward to buying, AND recommending it. In your recent interview you spoke of future expanded SC, and that has me even more excited.

Ah, I see. :eek: Hmmmm, let me reconsider the -- perhaps premature conclusion as to normalcy, and I'll get back to you. (... was that monkey REALLY your boss at work, and so... hmmmmm)

We are thinking about a sudden strike, and not hanging around to receive too many counter blows. And IF we let one transport land, then we are only INTERVENING on behalf of a grateful Norway when we land in Bergen. Also, we MIGHT have included that commando/marine unit to disrupt German air fleets (presuming they would risk more than one in northern Denmark) and cause Germany to decide IF they want to contest for Bergen... thereby delaying? the thrust into Low Countries.

While we are waiting for SuperTed to roar clanking and smoking into Low Countries... It sounds as if everyone is presuming that Britain has a poor operating platform at the start of the game. I would strongly disagree. Consider -- IF Britain does indeed blockade Norway -- and so far, many strategists seem to conclude that they would be endangered by this, but they may very well successfully counter that German Air Fleet with their Carrier planes, AND deny landing of one or two transports (who knows? one that is damaged or sunk might be a HQ unit, costing upwards of 450 MPP), AND so cripple the small Kriegsmarine, that any future Sea Lion is effectively thwarted at the outset. Then, Britain could have many choices -- borrow the Army from Canada for dispatch to Egypt, and cause the Italians to think twice about venturing out of Libya. Remember, by now we also have Wavell in (or ready to debark) Egypt. Finally, having repaired the incidental damage in the battle of Norway (and possibly? securing Bergen for themselves) they are free to patrol the convoy lane from Canada to Liverpool. Britain is a potential MAJOR PLAYER :cool: and need not merely await the arrival of resource rich USA.

So very true. Best to hold on to anything that is old (... other than galoshes or simmering resentments) and most especially wargames! I have quite a few of those stacked in the closet, and if it is permitted, I will let this forum know if I intend to sell any of them (please advise).