Randell Daigre

On further reflection, it may have been the "Elite Edition" graphics mods that were screwing me up. I can't remember if I re-installed them prior to my intitial attempt to start up the game with the new patch or not. They certainly kept the game from working the *second* time around (necessitating a *thrid* re-installation of both game and patch), but there's no way I'm going through all that for a *fourth* (and, consequently, a *fifth*) time just to find out. [ October 28, 2002, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

For some reason, the new patch would not work correctly until I moved SC back to its default location (C:program files/Strategic Command). I had previously changed the unzip destination to the directory where I was keeping the game, but it wouldn't work until I moved the whole game back to where the patch originally expected it to be. :confused: Anyway, it works just fine now. (And yes, after installing the 1.05 patch, I moved the whole shebang back to where I usually keep it. )

Ditto. Hubert, help!

Sogard: So what you're saying is that a realistically designed wargame gives you two major things all in one place: 1) A great deal of information which would usually take a lot of reserch to compile. 2) A graphically represented (if somewhat rough and questionable) analysis of actual or potential events. All of which can be gotten out of normal historical study, but only at the expense of a *lot* more time and effort. Let me know if I've got that right.

I think the Axis would have to screw up really badly for you to be able to take Italy out of the war completely that way, but it can make Italy pretty anemic. It makes a pretty good distraction and resource drain on the Axis during the early stages of the war, but it costs the Brits a lot of time and MPPs, too.

Never tried it as the Allies, but I have to agree that it is the just about the best use I've ever found for the Italians. The Turkish plunder and Russian resource MPPs are worth the time and effort. Plus, it plays pure hell with the defense of the Worker's Paradise. It really thins out that front line in front of the Germans, if you can pull it off.

hEad: Yeah, I thought sogard's rake was a bit heavy-handed, too, but his heart was in the right place. The actions the US government took after the war don't justify the actions taken by the SS or unit 731 during the war. Nor are they any reason not to condemn them. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a fine sentiment, but not a very practical one. A certain amount of hypocracy is unavoidable in government. The difference is that people who disagree with US biological warfare experiments don't become the next test subject. I agree with your assessment of Hitler. He knew what buttons to press on the German people and he pressed them.

The problem with genius leaders (and leaders who *think* they're geniuses) is that they think they are smart enough to do everything themselves. They don't listen to advisors. They have a tendency to pick "advisors" who will carry out their orders, rather than offer expert opinions (they don't think they *need* expert opinions). I think the best qualifications for national leaders are strong character and good judgement: Strong character to help assure that decisions made are ethical, and good judgement to help assure that they can choose the best of the options presented to them by their advisors. This is not to say that an idiot could handle the job, just someone who is "dumb" enough to understand that nobody is intelligent enough to be an expert in every field. That's why we have experts, isn't it? God save us all from "geniuses" with large armies to play with. P.S.- I could put down here a list of former world leaders (aside from Hitler) who I think fall into this category, but that could get *really* messy. P.P.S.- The Von Manstein book sounds intriguing. I'll have to give it a whirl if my History and Philosophy (and don't even get me started on those bastards in the Political Science department :mad: ) professors ever ease up on their reading lists. Oh well, maybe during the winter break. [ October 07, 2002, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

Jeff: First of all: Hitler. Personally, I lean toward the opinion that some of Hitler's actions caused nearly insurmountable problems in the German war effort. However, many people point out that those who espouse this view have a tendency to use sources which have a vested interest in throwing the lion's share of the blame on Hitler rather than the OKW. A case in point can be seen in your own post: Field Marshal Eric Von Manstein was hardly going to blame himself for what happened. The contention is that since some of the OKW generals survived the war and Hitler did not, our ability to get a balanced view on the subject is limited. The more dedicated enemies of the OKW call this a classic case of "blame the dead guy". Secondly: Clemenceau. Once again, I disagree with Clemenceau in general principle. However, if you take Clemenceau's remark in context, he did have a good point (kind of). Clemenceau was talking about the fact that the armies of Europe at the beginning of WWI all had war plans which only allowed them the option to attack their neighbors, not to defend against them. Clemenceau felt that this had doomed them all to an inevitable war. Of course, this view completely ignores the responsibility of civilian authorities to oversee strategic planning. It also ignores the fact that the civilian authorities failed to leave themselves with any other diplomatic option than a declaration of war.

docd: Don't mistake sogard's comments about Hiter for admiration. I've personally seen the man rake someone over the coals for having a tag-line that glorified the exploits of an SS tank officer. He's no Nazi-lover. I agree with your refutation of his claims of Hitler's cleverness, however. It doesn't take a "genius" to figure out that taking on your enemies one at a time is the best way to do it. I think that Hitler's success in that area had a lot more to do with France and Britain's (understanable) reluctance to get into another big war than any special skills on Hitler's part.

Sogard: I *have* gotten the point of what you've been saying. I've mentioned it in each of my posts. So I put the question to you again: What, exactly, is it that you seek to get out of a "serious" wargame, other than fun and an intellectual challenge? In other words: What actual function does realism and historical accuracy play for you other than the fact that you consider these things to make a game more fun or challenging? Do you think you are conducting some sort of "serious" historical study by playing such games? BTW I understand your view that this game needs some work before it could be considered historically accurate. For what it's worth, I agree.

I'm wondering if this should go into a new thread, too. Immer Etwas: Sure, politics has always played a role in warfare, but seldom nearly to the debilitating extent it did in Vietnam (evidently, and inevitably, we're going to focus on that one). The "Rolling Thunder" raids would have been much more effective if the pilots had been able to bomb the Russian ships laden with military supplies sitting in Haiphong Harbor (or maybe if the Navy had been allowed to interdict them in the first place). The fact of the matter is that the US military was placed in a completely untenable position in that war. North Vietnam sent troops and supplies freely across its border the whole time, but American forces (including warplanes, for a substantial portion of the war) were not allowed to follow them back across when they ran away, or cross the border to destroy supplies before they were dipersed out for transport. German forces in WWII had no such santuary. Your assertion was that politics always interferes with war. You would be hard-pressed, I think, to present an example of a war which was won by an army which operated under those sorts of restrictions, and whose enemy had a safe haven of that nature.

Yeah, because civilians handle the whole thing sooo much better (of course Clemenceau had to deal with *French* generals ). I still think you're missing my point, though. Showing disdane for those others because they are *only* interested in getting fun out of a game implies that you are interested in getting something else out of it. But it's a game. All it is capable of delivering is fun and an intellectual challenge. The intellectual challenge comes from your opponent, not the game (your opponent has to deal with any historical inconsistencies the same as you). As for fun, well that's all relative. For you, presumably (and for me, by the way), a wargame is more fun if it's more realistic. But that doesn't give me (or you) any reason to think I'm better or "more serious" than anyone else. It just means that I place different priorities on different aspects of the game than they do. Many people are unwilling (or unable) to spend large amounts of time learning and/or playing huge, intricate, detailed computer games (wargames or otherwise). Personally, I am willing to put in the hours on a good and realistic game, because I feel that the payoff is worth it. If someone else is not able (or willing) to then that is their loss, IMO. But that does not mean that I (or you) am anything but a guy who plays wargames, knows more than most people about military history, and prefers his games to be more realistic than not (even at the expense of simplicity and possibly *some* playability). Good comments on Hitler and his generals, by the way LOL.

Posted by iolo: Yeah, but look what happened to him. In all seriousness, it has been asserted that Hitler's "interest" in the details of the war effort hampered the Germans greatly. Perhaps if he had had a lower opinion of his own abilities, the Germans would have done better. I shudder to think such a result. The German generals, however, were the ones who made most of the battle plans, decisions, *and* mistakes. That is the way that it usually works in most countries in modern times. Some of the decisions you are called on to make in SC are within the realm of a political leader, but most of them are within the sphere of a military leader's decisions (and SC is one of the few wargames on a large enough scale to offer even that much). The people who make such decisions in real life generally have more experience and educational background appropriate to the task than Hitler (or Stalin, Churchill, or FDR, for that matter) did. P.S.- For anyone who is interested, this started over on page 5 of "Air power is much too strong....". [ October 06, 2002, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

Starting a new thread.

Posted by Immer Etwas: While I agree with your assertion that the American system is set up the way it is for very good reasons, and that the Vietnam War was ended due to political pressure arising from popular distaste for the war, that hardly refutes the fact that political interference hampered military efforts during the war. I think Otto's point was that the air campaigns in both of Korea and Vietnam could not be fairly compared to the air war in WWII because there were constraints in the Korea and Vietnam which were not present in WWII. Things which could have been done by the USAF and USN in Vietnam, and which would have had dire consequences for the North Vietnamese were not allowed. For instance, the incredably constraining air-to-air "rules of engagement" which took away the main advantage of American fighter aircraft (advanced radar and missile systems), and LBJ insisting on personally approving specific targets on bombing raids. Let's not even talk about the bridges on the Yalu River (Korea). Such direct interference in decisions which are usually (and should be) made by trained military personnel were much less present in WWII. The point is that the Army Air Corps of WWII was allowed to do the job it was formed to do, while the Air Force of Korea and Vietnam was not.

Sogard: I've read plenty of books on this subject, thank you very much. I have also been a combat arms soldier in the US military for over ten years. I have no problem with "fancy book learning", as you put it. In fact, if you bothered to read my post, you would find that I haven't raised any objection whatsoever to your aguments that the game should be more historically accurate. A more historically accurate game is, of course, more enjoyable to play (if such a game can avoid becoming hopelessly complex or unwieldy) than a less accurate game. The thing I *do* object to (which you neglected to address), and the whole point of my post, was the derision you express toward other people on this forum by calling them "armchair generals". I object to this because it implies that you think you are something that you are not (as I explained in my post). It also implies that you think that strategy games are something that they are not (which I also explained in my post). Such an attitude loses sight of the real objective of wargaming, which is having fun. Is it more fun to play an accurate wargame than an inaccurate one? Yep. Is someone who knows a lot about military history and is good at accurate wargames is something other than a good and knowledgeable wargamer (AKA an "armchair general")? Not on that basis alone, he isn't. Your rhetorical skills are good (if one can consider arrogance, condescension, and sarcasm to be rhetorical skills ), but your reading comprehension skills seem to need a little polishing. [ October 06, 2002, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

Posted by Sogard: That's the third or fourth time I've seen you use that phrase, Sogard. WTF do you think *you* are? You are a *lawyer*, Sogard. A lawyer who likes to play strategic games. Do you seriously believe that, just because you've read a few history books about warfare and played a couple of games, you are qualified to lead armies on a real battlefield? Let me tell you something about "simulations". People who are actually in the *real* military know what simulations are worth: they make pretty good practice before you go out and do *real* training (and they're pretty fun because of the air-conditioning and lack of bugs). If they were actually able to simulate wars realistically, armies wouldn't spend so much time, money, and lives on training excersises in the field. Real generals spend years acquiring the knowledge of their craft. They practice their art in field maneuvers and in real wars, not just in video games. They go to schools which are not even open to civilians. Real generals don't get a whole lot of sleep during wars. When a real general gives an order, people die. If a real general screws up, his nation and entire way of life (or those of his allies) may be blotted from the face of the earth. These factors have a tendency to affect a real general's decision-making process. Can these things be simulated? Not realistically. As I found out the last time I went off on a tear, there *are* some people on this forum with some real qualifications in this area (for example, there is at least one retired US Army Lieutant Colonel): you are not one of them. I can almost guarantee you that those people do not consider themselves to be fully qualified to be a theater commander in a real war. Even if they do, then they probably feel that their qualifications come from their military training, not from having played A3R or any other game, no matter how "realistic" it was. All of these same factors apply if your stated aim is to do a "serious historical study" of warfare through gaming. Second-guessing qualified (or even not-so-qualified) political and military leaders 50, 30, or even 10 years after the fact, based on the results of a computer game, is the height of arrogance. If you weren't there, then you cannot say for certain what was and was not possible for them to do, no matter how accurate your economic model (or research engine or combat formula) is. The fact Sogard, is that *everyone* is an "armchair general" when they are playing a war *game*: you included. For you to use the term derisively when referring to others only demonstrates how little you have actually learned about war from all the reading you've done.

I think this is in the manual, but here goes: The maximum value for a captured city or port is "8". The maximum value for *any* city or port which cannot trace an unbroken, overland path of "friendly" hexes to a friendly capital is "5". The exception to this is occupied cities/ports in Russia. The max values for these are "5" (not cut off from capital) and "3" (cut off from capital).

Someone also once suggested changing the initial Italian setup to counter this problem. Break up one of the Armies into 2 Corps and have them start in Palermo and Bari.

I have noticed this for a long time, but I thought it was intentional. You can only do it with air units (air fleet, strategic bomber) as far as I know. Britain has the same constraints and abilities on mainland Europe (and North Africa).

demoss: I think what Canuck_para means by "Tactical Bombers" is *fighter-bombers* (I.E. fighters loaded up with air-to-ground ordinance: P-51's, P-47's) and/or "close air support" bombers (Stukas, Typhoons). These are the kind of aircraft, which (IMO) should be represented in the game by the "Air Fleet" counter (along with interceptors, of course). Someone once suggested that the tactical bombers should have a seperate unit type, but many of these planes were dual-role, so I don't think that it would be that good of an idea (especially at this scale). The aircraft represented by the Strategic Bomber counter should be more along the lines of "level bombers". The planes used by Germany to bomb southern England would then be represented by the Strategic Bomber counter. Of course, this might necessitate giving one of these to Germany at the beginning of the game. When did they build all those HE-111's and JU-88's? I'm assuming it was before the war (I could look it up, but I'm too lazy).

I like this idea, but I think the percentages should be *very* low. Nations tend to guard military technology very closely. Soldiers in war are very conscientious about destroying sensitive items to avoid their capture. Of course, battle damage does a lot of this work for them. This discussion brings up another idea, however. I don't know how it could be implemented, but: How about an option to "invest" MPPs into espionage? You could have the results either directed or random. Break the current Enigma code, and the German's U-boats are visible for one or two turns. Steal the schematics for an advanced sonar system, and get a free advance or even just a free (and non-transferrable) research chit in that catagory. Come to think of it, I think the research chit is a better idea than an automatic tech advance for the original idea on this thread, as well. Just having a piece of hardware in your possesion dosen't automatically mean that you can use it. You still have to figure out what the damn thing is, how it works, what it's made of, and/or how to build more of them.

I don't think you should be able to hide the location (or strength) of a corps- or army-size unit. I do, however, like the idea of having air units interfere with each other's detection ranges in some way. I also think it would be interesting to be able to buy "false units" for the enemie's air units to see. Something to replicate the kind of deception the Allies put on in southern England before Overlord would be fun to play around with.

Don't use the Canucks, you can't disband them. If you use a Brit corps, you can't get it out of there, but if you don't want to garrison Ireland for the rest of the game, you can at least disband it and get a couple of MPPs out of it.