J Wagner

The Kursk "fortifications" weren't along the lines of the Maginot or Siegfreid lines. They were an elaborate defensive line which consisted of a web of anti tanks guns, machine gun nests, tank traps and minefields. Perhaps an option where you can buy increased entrenchment levels for units to reflect these types of defensive fortifications can be implemented. I wouldn't want to see Maginot line type fortifications popping up willy-nilly. [ October 09, 2002, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: J Wagner ]

Since I bought the bundle pack, I'm playing both, CMBO on my notebook and CMBB on my desktop. I am enjoying the variety of the two games.

I bought Diplomacy out of the bargain bin....makes for a great coaster!

Since this thread is getting quite a bit of play, I feel compelled to include my earlier suggestion (14?) from old posts. Perhaps it's not for a patch but for SCII. Weekly or bi-weekly turns with various regional weather conditions. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000789 Sorry for really beating the hell out of that poor old dead horse!...

As a Strategic Command player/poster, I finally went and purchased the Bundle Pack. Reading through these threads makes me realize how much I have missed so far but also what lays ahead. I am looking forward to diving into these two games and will be relying heavily on the many useful threads I am finding here...

I cut my teeth on Avalon Hill's KRIEGSPIEL then moved on to their entire line. Between AH and SPI, I was in wargamers heaven back in the 70's. I still recall going to SPI's offices in NYC to get a copy of War in the East because I couldn't find it anywhere in Jersey...ahh those were the days............

I've noticed a common trend among various boards that I visit which has, to a degree, occured here. Phase One...pre production of game....the board community is very active as they anticipate the release of the game...many threads devoted to the demo and what they would like to see in the game...I find this phase to be the most friendly and supportive among the forum community. Phase Two...game is released....board is very active with various opinions and suggestions for the game...different camps start to develop as complaints start to surface...the anticipation of the release is now gone...some posters start to become a bit testy as they defend or criticize the game or specific feature...a gradual increase of off topic threads appear. Phase Three...post release...many topics become redundant as every conceivable nuance of the game have been hashed and rehashed...more anger tends to show up at this time and off topic threads increase that adds fuel to the fire... thoughts of the next version of the game become manifest adding to the debates...posters start moving away due to these factors and decide to simply play the game and have a good time! Phase Four...SCII is announced....see Phase One...and the cycle begins anew...

Sorry Sarge but you need to grow up a bit and let such slings and arrows roll off your skin without the need to add threads such as this. His remark was inappropriate and you responded in the thread which should be sufficient. Adding threads like this are not constructive. Hopefully this thread and the offensive thread will be quickly locked.

There is a difference between rebuilding a depleted unit and purchasing a new unit. A unit that attacks on turn one cannot attack on turn two if you decide to reinforce it. A unit purchased on turn one can attack on turn two. It's this leap frog approach that I think Kuniworth is referring to. The units that attacked in turn one will be reinforced in turn two, while the units you purchased in turn one will continue the attack in turn two. Attacking and reinforcing then are alternating between the units in order to keep the pressure on the enemy. The point about the limited ability to place units close to the front however does come into play however.

Press N on your keyboard.

Sir Real, I couldn't agree more. There is nothing more frustrating than launching a number of air and land attacks on a single unit and knock it down to 1 strength point, then watch in dismay as it shoots back up to 10 points on the very next turn. A unit seems just as stubborn at 3 strength points as it is at 10. It should be so disrupted after receiving so many multiple attacks that it would be eliminated.

You will find all three of your desires mentioned, in quite some detail, throughout these boards. Always hopeful that an SCII will have some of the many suggestions that are offered here. Cough...weekly turns...cough...variable regional weather conditions..cough...cough...

Churchill had designs on Norway as well. Had Hitler delayed his move, it could have been English troops landing first in Norway. An agressive AI, whether Axis or Allied is not a bad thing!

I believe operational movement should only allow you the ability to move a certain amount of additional hexes than normal, though not excactly a forced march but with similar qualities. Perhaps cut the cost of operational movement by half and only allow the unit to move 2.5 or 3 times their normal movement rate. This would add an extra turn or two to reach your destination. Though with the present turn lengths being what they are, this may tend to be a bit unrealistic since it can occur that it could take 2 to 3 months to go from Berlin to the Normandy coast.

You can say that about all unit rebuilding Tony. It's like taking two steps forward, one step back in experience when you rebuild any unit. I may be accused of trying to turn the game into Panzer General, but I did like the ability to purchase either "green" or "veteran" troops during rebuilding. At an extra cost you can maintain your experience by purchasing vets. Perhaps this can be implemented if a future version of SC.

Bill, I agree with you whole heartedly but I have to ask you if you still feel that the current turn length system is sufficient in regards to the Mediterrainian campaign. I feel the present system does not allow you the time to meet historical timeframes, especially in this theater.

I don't understand the need to "rob peter to pay paul". There should be no difficulty in changing the scale by a small measure so that the extra north south hexes could be added without sacrificing any other territory. If SCII simply followed the scale of the 3R map, it would be a fine addition.

Just a vote of support for additional hexes on the North Africa front....if you take a look at the Third Reich game board, you'll see what a difference a few extra hexes can make in your North African campaign...

Weekly turns with regional weather effects are what's needed....nuff said.....but I will concede bi weekly turns so long as both sides are able to move within the same turn....

Stormseeker, if you played Avalon Hill's Third Reich, ( the board game version not the lame pc version) then that will give you an idea what SC is all about. The scale is similar and such facets as production and obtaining resources come into play as well. The AI puts up a good fight and is getting better with every patch that comes out. As a fan of PG II, you will enjoy SC for what it represents in grand strategy games. On a side note, I still enjoy PG I moreso than II mainly due to the increased unit density in I.

I don't think people focus on mistakes, especially not in a malicious manner. We all know what a great game it is but, saying that, we all tend to look at what's next in the SC line. There is no harm in bringing up suggestions which may prove to be for the betterment of future versions of the game.

I have to agree that the reinforcement rules are a bit too liberal in this game...I know that there are phantom troops available when a unit is surrounded such as civilian population ect. but it still seems to me that attacks are stalled rather unrealistically, especially when you take in to account the turn length.

Are you able to get these dos based games running on XP? I've heard there are emulators which allow you to do so but I'm not sure about it.

When I refer to weekly moves and variable regional weather conditions, I am always refering to a future version of SC. I like this SC the way it is but I wouldn't mind seeing these changes in a SCII or SCIII.

I've stated this in other threads so forgive me for being repetitive but why are there a certain group of players who are so concerned about how long the game plays? I don't think saying that SC takes only 5, 6, or 7 hours to complete is that much of a selling point for most players. Afterall, how many times do you hear people complain that such and such a game is too short and wargamers and rpg'ers are used to games that take a while to play. The purpose of the save feature allows you the luxury of playing as much or as little you wish during each session so the idea of knocking off a complete game in one sitting means nothing to me. So, in conclusion, I wholly endorse the notion of weekly turns and incorporating variable regional weather conditions which would effect movement and combat. I don't think these two features would increase complexity a whit, and as far as making a single game play longer, so much the better.