Les the Sarge 9-1b

That notion of yours would work for me JJ. The progressive casualties concept seems valid enough to my mind.

Do ya reeeeeeally want Steel Panthers man? I mean as much as a 5 dollar (Canadian terms eh) postal money order level of interest? This dude (me if that's not plain enough hehe) would be pleased to send it to you if you cover my postage costs (ask anyone on a disability pension if 5 bucks is worth anything to him ). I could include everything ever worth considering for Steel Panthers in the process. By that I mean all the official patches, all the known versions ie SPMBT and SPWW2, as well as popular options like the H2H mod for SPWaW. And I would dump every known useful game demo I have to make sure cd space wasn't wasted. Be advised though, you won't be getting anything that isn't legit. But I can cram quite a lot of legit goodies onto a couple of cds. Your call now. [ March 09, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

Some will call this harsh, but in most games of the past (board games), being over stacked and suddenly uneligible to be overstacked, meant you had the regretful opportunity to say "ok this one dies, that one lives, lose those two keep this one". In the past, being illegally overstacked meant penalties pure and simple. Don't think this is realistic? Hmmm when was the last time you read n the news how X number of people were killed trying to flee a hopeless situation such as a bar/nightclub fire. No wiping out X units like I mentioned is not at all unrealistic.

I liked your notions JJ. Can't expand on them much, perhaps that is a good thing, means you covered the bases I suppose.

I wandered back 8 pages then realised, the "Pacific Question" was well addressed, but then it was usually discussed on threads that involved the Pacific by default. It was discussed at length but hid in threads such as those discussing a possibility of SC going to a global setting. The trouble with SC in the Pacific, is seemingly tied to how to invade land masses that are so intrinsically minor in area. That, and the naval aspects of SC are not quite ready for a game that is almost all naval. As such, SC shares the same trouble most games that begin in Europe suffer, Europe was a land war, and the Pacific was a naval war. Games that begin in one, usually devote specific attention to gaming the setting, to the exclusion of simulating the activities that would dominate the other. This is why, a Combat Mission Pacific is no easy task. Yes it exists out there in the forms of independent mods, but they are independent mods, not official releases. I expect you will see a home made Pacific SC before you see one made by Hubert.

I would greatly prefer that starting positions of units be entirely discretionary. When a player that has played and played and played the game can know with certainty exactly where each unit will be, you end up with Gambititis. I think back on A3R and all the setups me and my opponent tried. Some incredibly inspired, and some that were just stupid, but hey ya never know. Ridid setups have no place in a "game" this far removed from absolute attention to historicity. [ March 08, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

Well to further this matter. I have read how the Allies planned to move into the low countries in a pre emptive deployment. I think this was a with or without their permission strategy. Although it made sound sense, given the Allies knew that the Germans would have to come through that neck of the woods to some extent. The trouble is when as the Allies, the decision is for "opportunistic" choices that were far beyond the political scene of the time. Therefore, taking out Portugal can't be seen in the same light (assuming we are attempting to preserve historicity). There was very real friction between the then Allies though, and the questionable enthusiasm of the then Vichy government. The Vichy government was made as a result of the decision being somewhat forced on the French though. History would never have heard of Vichy France, if the Germans had not attacked France in the first place. Hitler might well have fortified the heck out of the Rhine, and then assumed the western Allies would just never have sufficient interest to interfere with an early assault on Russia in 1940. History might have been about Hitler's conquest of Russia in 1940 instead. This illustrates the hassle of history vs game. The moment the game becomes about a "system", and not a "simulation", you throw open the doors to confusing conditions that destroy the feel of the game being about WW2 historically.

I say "game" and I attach zero negativity to that statement. If it was to simulate WW2 with the correct attitude, the Allies would suffer exceedingly high penalties for attacking Nuetrals. This is just one of those tough bananas areas. It is also possible to say, tough bananas to the Axis player that wants to have across the board freedom to use his early war edge, and then cram unrealistic sums of power units down the Allies throats. The German war machine stood up incredibly well against the Allied bombing campaign. But the fact remains, the Germans pursued the war with an attitude "it will be over soon, we don't need that". They didn't enter WW2 in 39 on a full war production footing, and they spent most of the war thinking there was no point. With both of these things accounted for, the Allies have to play the guys with the white hat, and the Axis have to accept being constrained by realistic limited forcepool options. I think done well they would balance each other out. One side the allies, can't get access to unlimited funds, and the other side, the Axis, knows there is a limit to what a seemingly superior economic situation can provide. The Germans were not at all constrained by how nasty they behaved. And the Allies produced better and faster and more long reaching war production in the end. But sometimes you have to just let a game be a game. [ March 08, 2003, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

I have located "chat" locations in numerous sites with forums like here at Battlefront actually. And they are usually uniformly empty. For chatting I much prefer to employ a real chat program like Yahoo, AOL IM, MSN, ICQ, or because I have Trillian, all at the same time. To chat with me, a person really only needs to send a PM or post in the clear they wish to. At that point I am interested. But that is the size of it. Non dedicated chat options like the one here have little utility. People are always in time zones that conflict with availability.

Ok I have no expertise here, frankly this is me asking the pros. Assuming you are playing your best game (and I will just have to learn what that is hehe), what and where and how much do you spend on during the key 1939 portion of the campaign game. I am of course interested in the Axis view as well as the Allied view. As a successful game is often decided on long range plans, I am interested in the best purchase notions. We can assume that the Axis takes out Poland in the usual efficient manner. And probably will hit the low countries.

Damn what a shame. Considering Curt Shilling likes ASL. Had this vision of Hubert playing SC on a lap top in a dugout heheh. Oh well

To ask a dumb sounding question... But what is Huberts connection with baseball? I ask, because well heck I am aware for instance that MMP source for all things ASL is after all owned in whole or in part (not sure which) by Curt Shilling.

Just found this today via Wargamer. It looks smells and act like a great global grand strategy game. I have only downloaded and installed the demo at this time. That and pushing buttons to see what they do. I think it merits all the global warfare crowd taking a look. http://www.gmxmedia.net/gp/ Let me hear your thoughts.

I have I confess, not played my SC to death yet (gasp heretic burn him alive). Ok my comment here is this. I have noticed a lot of gamey this and gambit that. But hmm gamey and gambit are they not what you get when you don't enforce a lot of historical on the game. In the first turn you attack Russia in alot of games you get a Russian winter effect as well as a Russian unprepared effect inserted into the game. This is because the Russians were surprised, and the first winter was a real bitch to the Germans. But in SC we have a lot of effects possible because historicity is not being crammed down our throats at every turn. Thus we have the air fleets hassle. Telling me they are unrealistic, and mentioning history conflicts with complaints that history is too confining. You can't have it both ways guys. I am for force pool limits, but I can also see the argument, that the game is also about "what if". To cry about a gamey tactic, means you should have been in favour of more historicity being enforced. [ March 03, 2003, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

Cheating, it really is merely an admission to oneself, they are just to damned stupid to win any other way. It's a complete breakdown of respect for oneself when one cheats. If I played a wargame against someone, and they cheated, I would not be angry really. I would merely stop playing the person, and pity them. "Damned shame they are not bright enough to beat me honestly" would be my first reaction. No I am not a genuis wargamer, but no one will ever lose to me because I cheated. I have way to much respect for myself. Besides, when I win, I love to bask in my self congradulatory praise and glow. I love telling myself how smart I am. Cheating ruins all this. So I won, I had to cheast to win. I am not as smart as that other guy (whom I don't likely even know). Cheaters are a sorry lot at best. Now if it's poker and my money is on the table, you are on your own heheh

It's Matrix Games hehe, sure you don't need a hand finding them If you do, you need to take a few minutes and experience the web hehe.

Matrix as we speak (or at least as I type), appears to have been invaded by quite the barrage of mass postings. Might be an old threat , or just today's flavour. Either way, looks like someone is targeting Wargaming forums.

Hmmm I like KDG's idea. Hexes represent real estate. That real estate had economic worth. I can't see why there is a problem with gaining an immediate economic benefit from taking it. In A3R the cash was only decisive at years end, but you still gained use of it near immediately. Gaining instant cash in SC is not a gain wrecker in my opinion. Being able to purchase any sum of any unit type you wish with no wait, now that might be. Last time I checked, major naval units/ships didn't spring out of thin air unplanned. Armoured formations were not like bread and milk to be bought at the grocers either. I don't care how you get the funds, there has to be an improvement on how they get spent me thinks.

I will say that in A3R conquered countries leads to a constant but predictable yet still considerable economic gain. And it has never hurt the game. So I disagree that the cash value is a snag. I will definitely agree that the stand and fight to the death is annoying. In A3R total loss, or exchanges that were messy, or forced retreats were all options. A total loss sucked obviously, but it was not the only way to break a line. The fact nothing ever gets a mandatory retreat in the game is something that needs work. In real life, people will not fight to the death as a matter of routine. Even elite units are subject to breaking and running. On the other points I have no opinion, so I will leave it there.

Last post tonight. The demo seems to be a nice rendition of the board game. User friendly interface as well. Only snag, its a game you buy as a download. This might not entertain some people. I for one don't have a credit card, so even if I was willing to use one, and even if I didn't mind a download purchase, I would be at a loss. Price seems ok, but for those that need flash bang in their game, forget it. Although any of the SC mob, will likely not be complaining (after all SC has plain imagery, and we all like it just fine). I am seriously contemplating finding a way to get the game though.

Just emailed Columbia Games, god someone needs to show them how to make a good web site heheh. They DO indeed have a computer version of East Front (but finding that out is no small miracle. Want to try the demo, they have one here. http://www.columbiagames.com/Products/Wargames/index.html I have not tried it yet, but hmmm it should be interesting seeing how they do a computer version of a blocks based game. Phooey, yet another site, where a link to a specific page gets you no where. Click on East Front, then click on Computer East Front to, locate the demo. [ February 24, 2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

For those just tuning in, this is the company and the games in question. http://www.columbiagames.com/Products/Wargames/index.html Plenty of add ons yes, but hmm I won't call it what it isn't heheh to purchase every add on you get to thinking hmm where's the vaseline heheh. The company could have marketed the game a little less spread out and maybe a bit less expensive, I might be wrong though, but some how some of the add ons seem hopelessly expensive fr little reason. Most of the add ons are essentially two bloody map panels and that's it. Frankly a wise gamer can make home made maps with a simple graphic utility and a decent printer if you scan the basic maps (because the terrain is very stylised at best). Must have components are really just the initial game and that's it. Next you can buy additional basic sets for additional players. Hey if you actually have 3 guys that would play even once a month, hit them up for 5 bucks each in a love offering to help make the purchase hehe. For increased indulgence, you can purchase the elite sets (each side gets one). This will double the cost of each additional player set though. And if one player gets one, they will all want one. These sets are eventually worth it. But my call, buy the basic game, ensure you really like it first (I think though it's a safe bet you will call it one of your best wargame purchases ever). Maybe get one additional colour set if you are feeling aggressive. It allows a three person game (I am happy fer ya if you can actually get more than 3 wargamers in a room at one time). The elite sets are cool, but they are just that, cool. Although one elite set for one of the core sides might allow one side to be the super power side. The bundles are a good cash value by the way, but lets face it, anything past 100 bucks has to earn its way into anyones wallet hehe.

I want to make clear. Victory has like 8 pages of rules. But are we all agreed, SC is a simple game to run, but hardly a moron friendly game. Simple does not mean useless.

Jergen, if competition is between East front and Victory. Then your choice should be based on... East Front for historical simulation value and a some day chance of adding to it the others of the Front series. or Victory, based on the assumption, you don't have any historical basis to cramp the game. That and with future add on sets you can go beyond 2 player games. East Front is a good game, but frankly it is only playable one way ie its the Russian Front afer all. Victory is more a "system" ie you can play small games, medium games and large games. That and Victory can be played vs a novice and not bog them down, as well as vs a grognard (and they will show you in 3 turns if you suck). So my own vote has to be with Victory. Additionally. You will have to learn the rules of East Front (much the same way a wargamer has to read the rules to any wargame). Yes gamers there once was a time when you either read the rules or tough bananas, you were not able to play the game. Reading the rules to Victory takes about as long as reading the Sunday comics (assuming you read as fast as me hehe).

Steve, you have made a natural enough error so it is no biggie, but those "Front" games mentioned were board games. As such, your comments while possibly relevant to the games you mentioned, were not relevant to the actual board games from Columbia games heheh. Columbia Games has games utilising blocks titled East/West/Mediteranean Front that I own currently. As well as other titles part of these series of linkable board games designed to all fit together into a whole. They are very nice games. I am unsure if they have ever been done in any form of computer mode though. But East front as a title does indeed exist as a computer game (I own East Front II as well as Western Front through a compilations set).