Les the Sarge 9-1b

Very cool Hubert. I was not sure the game would see any need for a major new pressing of stocks for some time.

Just curious (others must surely have pondered this same question), will there at some time be a release of the game incorporating all the tweaks and patches n stuff? It looks like I will be sitting here a while pondering a few purchases, just wondering if in the next few months there is any plan of releasing the game with cds that reflect all the alterations (and no this is not a request for SC2 or SC Gold or SC any other dang means of calling it). I don't have trouble having to acquire separately a patch or whatever, but it is always more practical to get a game that has them already factored in (because some of us are just not that savvy at applying patches ).

SC is nice in the same way Axis & Allies is nice. It isn't A3R clearly, but that is not a flaw. A big mistake would be to make SC2 and pretend that suddenly it had grown up and become A3R by merely cluttering up original SC with additional complexities. Sometimes that works, but often it doesn't. SC will live or die on its merits, but I think it would be wrong to try and use a hammer on it in say 2 years and assume the software was suddenly capable of mutating. As for additional complexities in an entirely new wargame. I highly doubt anyone will complain about a more realistic game. It all comes down to whether it is done well. The voting seems to be in favour of CWiF being an example of not doing it well as of yet. I am also not holding my breath waiting for actual A3R to pop out of the blue. But it would be nice if done right.

Well I am glad my comments are deemed welcomed. And anyone tryng to slag me in a game better bring their lucky charm to it heheh.

Ok Strategic command is a worthy purchase. That much said (and it was genuine) what qualifies as off topic? What qualifies as the correct forum when the thread/post is not 100% saturation level commentary on Strategic Command? I have seen the General Forum, its a waste of time to post anything in there in my opinion. I have no use for forums that insist on political rants and topics that have nothing to do with wargaming. The good topics only get lost in the morass. Well I only say that due to my experience with the General Forum on Matrix, Their General Forum at least concentrates on wargamer issues (does mentioning the existence of another sites Forum constitute some manner of offense worthy of being locked?). They have Art of War for the idoiotic rants for those that insist on idiotic rants. It makes it easy to avoid, by just insisting it go there. I have no problem or quarrel with fans of other games here at Battlefront. I wouldn't be here though if I didn't have an interest in SC. That much said I have no interest in the other forums. Will my comments always be condemned (in here) if they are not entirely devoted to SC? If that's the case I might as well just leave now I suppose. I have lots of enjoyment on plenty of forums. I would like this to be one of them. But I won't have any sad feelings if I get the bum rush.

I had a thread locked once (had to search back 18 pages to confirm that yes it had happened once and I wasn't mistaken). But I have noticed one other thread that was locked and I can't fathom why. The one on Gary Grigsby's War. Can the powers that be tell me how it went over the line (just so I know). I can tell why others get locked (it's fairly obvious), but then they get left here to further encourage. Shouldn't the admin people just delete the thread from existence? Otherwise the perp has not been deterred in any useful way. If a person has been banned then it would follow that their comments should get turfed as well, I would think. I don't expect any of the from audience will miss the threads ....will they?

Of course if 1000 people say the world is flat and even can point out this obvious truth in their favourite book we all know it's round eh. Same goes with games to some extent. I see people makes some really comical claims, but reality fortunately is not subject to a democratic vote. Still it is not always easy to know if we are not just one of those 1000 idiots eh.

I have Victory, and in my long time played em all wargaming opinion it's the single best wargame made in the 90's (although that is just the board game realm). I have seen a lot of the "suggestions" made. Most of them should be given the same response though... Shut up and go play Advanced Third Reich. Advanced Third Reich is the pinnacle of gaming in this scale. I have yet to see a single computer game even get close to it. But then you only have to listen in on the A3R mailing list to understand it comes with a price. If you don't have a university degree level command of proper english you will experience troubles playing A3R eventually. SC is a great game because it gets damned close to being A3R. Sure I don't care for the lack of stacking myself, but it just means learning a style of strategy that incorporates that, nothing more. Personally if they eventually make SC2 and dump in all this nonsense, I also hope they double the price. That level of effort won't be easy, and the designers should get paid a fair price for the trouble too. As it stands SC is easy to play, I like it. More is not required. The only things needed to be addressed in new versions, are tweaks to fix software glitches that all programs suffer from. To open the flood gates to opinions of historicity, will only make you suffer a constant spiral of adjustments as you try feebly and futily to please everyone.

Well I for one have to come clean and say I have only used the demo once. But I didn't get a lot out of it at that time. I will say though, I have rarely expected a board game to become a computer game though. I would like to play actual ASL on the computer, actual A3R would be nice too. I would think actual WiF would be a boon, or maybe Pacific War. But in the case of board games that I actually already own, a computer version has to do it better and easier to be worth it. I need more than the convenience of it being on the computer and not on the table (because frankly I have a room dedicated to wargaming). I am not overly dedicated to Pbem games. I am happy to play an intentionally designed for computer wargame that has no past connection with a boardgame to some extent.

Good to hear the support for Combat Mission I guess actually. I have not played it to much, but it was mainly the view scale that I was not taken with. I am also glad my assessment of CWiF was not off base (I wasn't sure at first). Recently I have been playing Sudden Strike 2 (well once actually, I watched an RTS fan friend play it here a couple of times too). It is the first time I have played anything in real time and enjoyed it. I like the scale of the action so far. So more recently I have altered my usual practice of slagging ALL RTS games. Now I tend to limit slagging to the build it, and throw it at em as fast as possible games. Still don't like those ones.

Well it is always up to the owner in the end. Oh pass this on to Kuniworth, my comment was not to imply he was in fack guilty of that behaviour, guess that was not adequately stated.

I know of people that have illegal copies of wargames. I can even point you to illegal copies of board wargames. I could make an illiegal copy of my Mega Campaign cd from Matrix games for Steel Panthers with my eyes closed. The only thing that keeps me buying wargames instead of getting pirated ones, and not giving out copies is simple, to do so marks the person as an azzhole to the community. I am all for cd in drive for games, as well as any other copyright means. It keeps us honest and it makes pirating difficult. To know that cracked codes exist out there is no big news story. Only an azzhole wargamer scruws the hobby. If you use a crack to get past the cd in drive requirement, or use a game that was not honestly purchased you are an azzhole plain and simple. I don't care a ratsass for outside the hobby, but I dont scruw my buddies.

I will say I enjoy seeing the locked symbol on some threads. It stops me from scatching annoying bites nicely.

It's odd no one has commented, or is this a dead issue?

Is it just me, or is it potentially I have been spoiled by the extreme efficiency on the Matrix site? I have seen a lot of threads wander past, and one thing that has occurred to me, is that the threads display a massive level of redundancy commonly. Or more specifically, I have seen a lot of threads talking about the same topic but spread over so many threads as to make a coordinated topic seem quite a task. Good example for instance. I have seen a lot of talk about patches. The most noteworthy being 1.03. Now if the whole process existed on just one thread, there would likely be alot fewer threads streaming by, and a great deal less confussion (due to more people seeing more comments that they might have otherwise missed). None of this is helped by the fact the site software does not feature an emailed response when a thread which has been posted to has recieved a fresh new post. Flagging an active post, only within the actual Forum, is no solution. I rarely look in a thread if the title appears not relevant initially. Of course this would require that we forum devotees, resist the urge, to always post a new thread each time we felt like saying something, especially if the topic is something that is already currently underway on a thread already.

I have played the WiF demo, geeese I can't say enough nasty things about the interface though. Unless the interface is made even remotely as user friendly as SC I will stick to playing the real WiF even if it has to be solo.

This is just me pondering aloud. I have to say every site has its crowd, that crowd is drawn from its biggest draw. The biggest draw at Battlefront is obviously Combat Mission. I find it odd that Battlefront has created Strategic Command, when it is home to Combat Mission actually. Don't take it personally, but the average Combat Mission fan is eye candy challenged, or rather, can't play games that are not about eye candy me thinks. Which makes the site sponsoring Strategic Command peculiar in a way (or unexpected). I think Strategic Command is an impressive looking game, something with a lot of potential. Is it not possible, that as a result of being home to Combat Mission, the Strategic Command forum, is as a result of close proximity, subjected to the usual sort of person that is completely contrary to the usual sort of person that will play Strategic Command. Now again don't call this a slag for the game, really, I have played Combat Mission, I just don't fit the profile as a normal player of it, hence I don't like it. But Combat Mission players, in my experience, are also the type more likely to play Real Time Strategy games as well as First Person Shooters. Not that either of those genres have anything wrong with them as entertainment. But I have noticed the average Real Time Strategy or First Person Shooter player has A no patience at all, and B has a quite incorrectly inflated opinion of their stategic and critical thinking capabilities. Which might explain while occasionally someone that belongs in another game, wanders in here and immediately thinks there is something wrong with Strategic Command. When all along the only thing lacking, is the players capabilities. Or to make a long post short. I have met plenty of negative comments about Strategic Command with a bit of skeptisicm. Often sounds like yet another deluded player, that thinks to much of their limited skills.

In a way I am glad this dude might be as fake as the person faking being him is (if that is the case). I am usually only used to locals being as moronic as him actually, most foreigners I interact with, possess better english skills than my friends here in Canada. But the question is, why is the poor sorry assed schmuck even here? I mean I have a few sites out there I positively despise myself, but you don't see me wasting my life on them, trying to be as worthless as is the site in my opinion. What does he "think" he is accomplishing.

As an opponent I would have to after seeing three threads now from him, have to give mincks a rating of 2.0 on the IQ scale.

I was tryyyyyyyyyying to be nice earlier, after all he is not a native English speaking person. But this thread is the most hehe. Either he is only 12 and needs to wait till his brain catches up to his fingers, or somehow he has been lying to us about all his other games, and he is really an obtuse moron, and probably doesn't have a clue what we are saying let alone what he is saying. mincks, congradulations, you are the stuuuuuuupidest person I have encountered online in 10 years.

Codes I got yer codes right here. Hmm ignore that seedy individual peddling cracks and codes. Keep it so the cd has to be in the machine. Sure some will complain (even when reasonable), but a code is just a code. And you can get codes off the net. A healthy company produces more games in time, a dead company doesn't. And a company stays a lot healthier selling products. But we already knew all that.

If SC enjoys just a fraction of the evolutionary improvement that Third Reich enjoyed (1st edition, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th AKA Advanced, Rising Sun extension with new concepts retroactively usable in what is now called Classicm and into what is being referred to as Global War 2000), then SC will be headed towards being one of the best Strategic level games period. Original Third Reich was incredible (even if it did chop off the Gulf for charts that could have been positioned better, and the counter mix didn't provide sufficient force pool counters for all the minors at one time). That error is on par with SC not allowing Stacking (which I think could possibly be remedied in the future if enough people feel it has merit). I highly doubt there "won't" be an "Advanced" SC (or SC2 as seems to be the preferred method of labelling software), as the game has clearly shown a great deal of promise. I personally think SC has earned a favourable comparison with Steel Panthers for how good it was in it's opening release, and how it might well grow to be a very well liked game. Now if I can just get my wallet to trust me long enough, I might join the ranks of the haves, and stop being one of the have nots.

At the risk of making a negative comment (which I most certainly do not wish to do), mincks where are you from? With your incessant use of all Caps manner of posting text, and your outrageously atrocious grammar/spelling, your are either a non native english speaking person (and thus it is not your fault), or you are one of today's annoying breed of teens that can't speak proper english due to having learned to speak using a computer (although any net savvy person knows you don't type in all upper case letters). In the case of the foreign origin, none of your posts are worthy of me saying anything negative, but it's unfortunate you don't like that game. In the case of you being a teen (and we all had to be one at some point), it is apparent your lack of fullfillment might be due to your being conditioned to all those silly wanna be wargames out there, that require no real thinking (and no I am NOT going to accept RTS or FPS games as possessing any critical thinking required, so guys don't waste time trying to convince this old board gamer otherwise I have no intention of changing), and in the end your frustration might be indicative of you not being up to the calibre of wargamer you might have considered possible. Which in teen speak terms, you are not as smart as you might have thought perhaps. As it goes, the majority view has been the AI is quite stupid. Which leads me to wonder how you are having trouble?

I have been in mainly silent mode as not possessing the game yet, what can I offer hehe. But the original comment was well I suppose funny. Man I live for a game that will beat me up and take my lunch money. Hard, danged great, beat you and made you look like an AI great!! get used to it. Rejoice that the game is to hard. Sit back and revel in your inferiority. Beats the heck out of yet another boring win against a game your kid sister could master doncha think eh.

I suppose it's all semantics. "Cheating" as a term automatically conjures up strong emotions, while "balancing" or "handicapping" doesn't. I wasn't implying the game did something "foul", I am merely stripping away the rhetoric, and stating that the game is being allowed to do, what you yourself are not, that being, to modify the game in its favour. If I was to modify the game in some way, to allow me the player to get those + mods, I am sure someone would call it "cheating" eventually. Me personally, I crush newbies. I don't partonise my opponents. When you beat me in a game, it's done honestly and with the same conditions I have. There is nothing more satisfying when I beat you in chess (because I suck at chess). I would be offended if you said "ok I will take off two pawns your choice before we begin", it would mean I wasn't good enough, the victory wouldn't mean squat to me after that. I remember playing Magic the Gathering for like 6 months before I was worth a damn (and my friends had no problem kicking my worthless butt either). I eventually became known as a scurge though because I bought 4 of each Dual Lands mana card (a very wise choice for the time), and played with decks that allowed me outrageous combinations casually. It was all perfectly legal, just brutally effective. I was never tournament grade, but I was the guy in the store you had to beat if you wanted bragging potential all the same. When I play a wargame it's the same way. I never hand out handicaps. Earn your victory from me or get crushed. A Handicap is a polite way of saying, "I am sorry for being so much better than you, perhaps if I play with this disadvantage, you might have a chance against me". I would myself find that intolerably insulting, if done to me at least. That's why I say, make the AI as competent as is possible, after that, if its easy to beat, either the programer doesn't know much about AI design, or you truely are smart.