Les the Sarge 9-1b

Ok this will strike some as odd I guess. But SC is just software correct? And as such it is more or less just using a software design to simulate warfare am I still correct? Is there any chance, is it even possible, that the fundemental design of SC can be used to game out anything post WW2? How about Korea, or Perhaps Modern Europe circa 1980. Or is it possible that WW2 was the last truely grand strategy setting worth gaming out. All I am really doing her is fishing for a grand strategy game that can deliver a reasonable grand strategy game, without losing what makes the current SC appealing ie it isn't rocket science. I do not what a hopelessly detailed game with the SC label dumped on the box though. If I wanted that, I would ask the jerks that made that crummy HoI game to do a modern version.

Only wargaming I have gotten in recently has been Lost Victories Mega Campaign Steel Panthers lately. Empty rooms though just mean bad planning. I would be inclined to find an opponent, then sit down to play after. Check over at Matrix, we got lots of VASL opportunities in there.

Before getting touchy, you should also re read mine. I said "it seems" which to me implies I am not sure. I never stated categorically you wanted to do anything. The word "option" is often bandied about fairly generously by some. That's why I wanted more clarification. Before biting someone's head off, you should ask yourself, why did the respondent respond, and why did they respond the way they did. You were not as clear as you thought you were.

Hmmm ok, but it still seems like he wants to remove the thrill of combat, the uncertainty.

I am assuming I am reading this wrong. Does not the computer, when calculating the randomness of a battle, get enforced to "roll dice" just like I would if in a board game? I mean if 3 chances in 6 means victory for the attacker, 1 in 6 chances means a messy equal exchange in losses, 1 in 6 chances means the opponent foolishly launches a counter attack at horrible odds and 1 in 6 chances means a counter attack at face value, then those are the odds. I would expect the computer to randomly generate results to reflect those random variables fairly each and every single time. Otherwise why use a computer at all. I might as well be playing a board game and rolling the dice myself I would think. But somehow I am thinking you had something else in mind, so what I want to know, is more exactly what it is you are wanting?

Most of the "dead spots" on the map only ended up that way due to the fickle hand of fate and politics of the moment. For a time for instance, the Graf Spee made the South Atlantic rather happening. I am not sure though, the Germans ever had a chance of gaining a grasp on Iceland, but then daring bold plans achieve the darndest of things. The Bismarck also made the North Atlantic a fairly "happening place". The Scarnhorst and the Gniesenau (I think that is close enough spelling) sure made the far north a dangerous place too. And this was just the actions of a few "single" ships, not fleets eh. The Japanese came very close to making the Indian Ocean a dangerous ocean. Chance was all that affected this. If they had shunned involving the US, and turned their eye towards the Indian Ocean who knows what would have happened. Ground operations far from the point of origin are always more fantasy that likelihood, but naval operations were never far from possible. The US remember, had to reeeeeeeally jump through hoops to invade Guadalcanal. It was not a picnic. And they came close to getting kicked off more than once. And all they had was some really over stretched marines. Torch went ashore against French forces that were not as dedicated as German Forces would have been. Kasserine was a good demonstration of what Torch "might" have looked like. By the time of Sicily, the Allies had already had the chance to develop naval landings on several operations, and Sicily was no picnic. Salerno was no picnic either. By the time of Normandy, the allies had several major operations worth of education. So to force Sealion to compare with Normandy is perhaps unfair. I would say Sealion would have to be seen as what it was, a clumsy first effort for something as yet not thought of much. If the game is going to model naval supported invasions, then the game will have to establish which magnitude of invasion from history is being chosen as the example to emulate.

Welcome to the limits of the game, where if country A can do a thing, then the design feature becomes available to any side wishing to employ it. There was a lot of things one side could do that the others certainly could not. The Germans mastered Blitzkreig, The Russians were able to radically locate the source of the industry, The US was able to conduct large scale strategic bombing, the Germans used lots of submarine warfare, the western allies used a lot of ASW developments. But once you design a feature into the game, it is essentially just a feature in the game. So the fact that the Germans never really had historically the capacity for large scale amphibious operations, becomes a problem, but then in this game it is merely just an option exploitable by all.

Not sure JJ you were mentioning my SC3 comment (but I only made it a couple of posts back). I would rather see Pacific done right and no global I suppose, than to see a global game done, that didn't do it right. Then again, I like A3R and have not played Rising Sun. And there are a number of those that think the Rising Sun game was the weaker half somehow. Been a while, but I am not so sure if I would like Global War 2000 yet, been a while since I saw any commentary on it though. Maybe SC2 would be best served by just putting together the fixes we all seem to want for SC, and just leaving it as a European game (would that be the end of the world). Sometimes a god game requires it be made custom. The Pacific needing crowd might be better served pursuing a totally different design. Uncommon Valour has a lot of promise for instance.

Part of the head ache in the real war was limited access to finite quantities of naval craft that were specific to invasions. Now if we can be stuck with subs that sure as hell did not operate in large cluster f**ks, maybe the game needs inclusion of a unit type to become these naval assault units? Sure they would end up like subs ie all dumped in a single counter, but at least it would be a beginning. I remember reading about invasions in the Pacific where invasions hung in the balance due to these valuable assets being suddenly exposed to enemy surface action. Somehow the game has to find some way to include these. That the counters "convert" to a naval looking unit while at sea, just doesn't seem to simulate this right. There is a cost involved, but it is only reflected as an expense, not a physical entity. That method needs more work in my opinion.

Yes I am most certainly on board with those sentiments. Driving a tank from Algeria space to South Africa space casually is a bit far fetched looking. That the game was "balanced" (Axis and Allies) is perhaps the only reason I let it slide in a game like that. But there are some parts of the world, where a technological military machine is just not going to get treated very nicely. Best case I can think of was the "trek" made over the mountains of New Guinea. Mother nature does not take prisoners, and woe be to any army that ignores her casually. There has to be acknowledgement of those regions of the globe that were physically "there", but they also need to be sufficiently well depicted. Or as was implied by that HoI comment, the game will just end up a joke. And seriously, I would rather be playing Civilization if serious is being left out of the game.

To me SC is Axis and Allies with more attention to detail. I have trashed the planet with Japan a few times, but hey, I was also having an abnormally good day too hehe. But in the final analysis, going Global has to be an all or nothing deal. There just won't be any point to it, if it isn't totally global. To fail to go the whole map, would be to attempt a massive task, and not finish it. The Axis and Allies board for whatever its weaknesses in some areas, still portrays the whole darned map (well they left of Antarctica but I will not quibble about that). If the global version of SC doesn't go all the way, then I will likely be greatly let down feeling. Once the game goes global, there will be time enough to get to nit picking niggling levels of detail (which might be the opening needed for SC3). Yes I said SC3 heheh. hey the best games out there didn't stop at one major refinement eh.

It is possible my zone notion might have strayed (I am not sure). I had thought zones would be a simple way to game all of the Atlantic or the Pacific without the need for a "massive main map". In this manner, the main map might be a number of main map "zones". Entering a zone, would merely allow you to move the exact same naval units in the exact same manner as right now. It was not so much my desire to re invent naval combat, as it is to adequately address the size of the map. Inside of a "zone" naval units would continue to move as they do now, finding units as they do and interacting as they do now. I am not saying I like all aspect of the naval game right now, I am just not going to bend brain cells trying to pretend I know how to fix them hehe. Considering the world is 3/4 water, and the whole globe can be reached via the worlds oceans and seas, to portray a truely global game, you must make those waters traversable. Otherwise who gives a darn if the British control the Falklands. And who cares if the Suez is compromised. And what point is there to the Panama Canal. To address the myriad minor powers and the many region governments that impacted the war though, I would want them no more than abstracted factors. I might like to try and land Japanese in Australia, or see the Germans invade somewhere across the Atlantic, but the game will not be sitting on my hard drive if Mexico is included as a player. In A3R I had to contend with the Turkish Army as a tangible force in the game, but they were never more than minor country forces controlled by a primary power in the game. I am reluctant to touch weather in the game. On a global scale, I think it might be a pandora's box I would rather leave shut. Heck they can't even report real weather in the real world correctly.

Holzemfrumfloppen You can find CC2 as a free download currently at Underdogs. http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?name=Close+Combat+2%3A+A+Bridge+Too+Far The trouble with Underdogs though, is what you see might be what you get, but it might not work all the same. I downloaded CC1 there (I don't need CC2 from them obviously), and got it fully installed all ready to go, only to be told "please insert cd". So naturally I was not amused. In the case of CC2 though, I have the original cd and the original manual thanks to a fellow wargamer (it was clearly his copy and he no longer needed it). He mailed it to me his expense. See guys people DO in fact send people wargames in the mail hehe. Actually to date, I have gotten Steel Panthers 2 Modern Battles retail copy, Mega Campaign Desert Fox and Mega Campaign Watchtower 9for Steel Panthers WaW if you are not familiar with it), Russo German War, Sudden Strike 2 and Strategic Command all free from friends eh. Karma its a wonderful thing. But I routinely send stuff to others I know online all the time. Please be clear about this though, I am not talking about "copying games", I am referring to actual purchased games (these guys just haven't minded sending them to me).

Ok first off. I won't play a global game if it isn't truely "global" ie shaped like a globe. How you arrange the map projection is a matter for a cartographer to advise on. But I am not saying that the entire surface of the planet needs to be gamed out in excrutiating detail either. Zones, I like zones. Not sure how to map it out, but I would say regions might work. Enter a region and the game takes you to a conventional map with conventional hexes where you conduct the game in a conventional manner. In that way, you don't have to re invent the wheel to much (do you?). I would suggest leaving conventional naval hexes bordering land to some agreed upon depth 2-3 heaxes (any opinions on that, I am just winging it here, no basis points at this time). I think opposing naval forces should be able to exist in a single region, and not automatically see each other any more than they do now. I don't have any current brain storms about handling naval invasions with respects to fortified unfortified coastal or island hexes. But it appears something needs to be done beyond advising to take an HQ with ya.

Even if HoI "did" run without any hassle fuss bugs etc. Its a Grand Strategy RTS, which in my opinion was never a bright idea in the first place. If someone offered me the game for free, odds are I wouldn't have the heart to pass it on to some poor schmuck, I would likely just throw it out. I acquired Close Combat 2 recently. Now that is about the extent of the scale that non turn based should go. On the matter of the Marshalls example, yes that would be a nice way to do it.

Some details are just not possible in a game at this scale. In A3R there was no provision for commando raids at all. But you can bet the Commandos and Rangers at Normandy were as needed as the Airborne that was dropped. A3R had airborne, but it was a single unit counter. There was no methodolgy in place for commando operations. The landing of an HQ with invasion forces might be a good way to reflect the Mulberry necessity. But my big interest is going to be how to do Marine operations in a Pacific setting where you have a single island barely worthy of a full land hex. I think any development here, will greatly enhance retroactively I hope, any design considerations for European operations.

Well in a perfect world I can zoom in from normal SC view so that I can identify who is running that Corps, or further zoom in and find out if it was wise to put that dude in charge of that division, move down and then see if it was practical to site the anti tanks defenses that way, a bit more and find out who is charge of battery A and then lastly see if Pvt Hicks is reading a Dear John letter. But keeping track of all that detail sure would be interesting. In the end, while I might like to game out some battles in greater detail, it is often best to play an operational wargame for that thrill, rather than try to get one game to do it all. The units might be a bit brutal in the standardization, but it never hurt the play value of A3R that The Germans for instance had either 3-3 infantry or 4-6 Armour units almost exclusively. The 12th SS Panzer division in my The Longest Day game has 21 unit counters I think if I recall correctly. But it worked in that game at that scale.

If I had to choose SC Global no major revisions, just a few cosmetic changes, I suppose I would be on board for that too. I hate the no stacking thing, but its a minor irk after a certain point. I would want the whole globe done atlas correct if possible ie the world is round, if I want to use long range bombers and flatten NY I should have a chance to. If I want to launch missiles over the pole, it should be an option. I once thought the Falklands was cool due to it being so far from anything. Then the Argentinians corrected me on that one. Learned a bit of history during that event, and realised it is not just a dumb place to raise sheep. I can see it being a big undertaking to represent the world's military globally, but the board game Axis and Allies managed it, surely to heavens it should not be to difficult for the supposedly superior computer environment. I most definitely DO NOT want it to become some stupid game like Hearts of Iron though. 5 nations in Axis and Allies is just fine. I don't need more than 5 in a global SC. SC was probably not Hubert's first game (I really don't know to be honest, was it?). I hope it is not his last. I think SC2 could just as well be done nicely as SC round 2. Maybe SC Korea 1950 could be a nice idea for SC2 Maybe SC Middle East. These are just ideas here eh. I am going on the assumption the game's basic engine could be adapted for this. I like SC mainly because it is grand strategy first. I am unwilling to say there are currently any grand strategy computer wargames out there worth buying other than SC.

I don't think he was being "pompus" myself. and some of his facts might be correct while others maybe coloured slightly wrong. I have seen the locations for the factory counters in Russian Front though. What moves and when it is moved, is determined by your German opponent. My average game, sees me moving 2 factories only. I usually lose 2 factories as well. The ones that are safe, are the ones in the far eastern side of the board (which is no shock). But that only confirms what I have said, and what Paulus said. They didn't move them all, they lost some, and most of the production ends up coming from further east. I have never played a game where I moved all of the factories, and doubt I could ever justify doing so as well. The games military formations desperately need rail transport as well. I have had factories that had confined production due to the current look af the immediate battlefield as well. A cut off factory is not worth production in the same way an unisolated one isn't. So SC2 still yet needs a way to simulate factory movement, but it still needs to be a desperate decision to make.

Russian Front (one of my fav board games for this aspect of WW2), does indeed reproduce the need to relocate valuable factories. They are actual counters, and require specific effort to move them with the games rail movement allottment per turn. It is not at all easy to give up the rail movement per turn allottment, and is not done casually. But if the Germans take the hex, and destroy them, they contribute to the victory award total. Therefore shouldering the loss is not an option, it could cost the Russians the game. This though, is like a lot of distinct historical actions, which is hard to recreate in a game, that can swerve so far from the events of history. The Russians did indeed move those factories. Could anyone else have done it? Could Germany up and move the Ruhr industries?. I think the ability to move industries, should be made possible for SC2, but it should be a massive effort, and it should be possible for any ower to do it as well. Otherwise, you have just decided to impose on the games ability to not be forced into just recreating the real events of the war ie the Germans should be required to endure a nasty Russian Winter the turn they attack, simply because they did in the real thing.

Matrix games, not the center of the universe of course, but the General Forum is actually more wargame than is the case for most site's "General Forum" usually. We have Art of War if you want to take the gloves off in your post. The oldest Forum section is likely the Steel Panthers WaW forum though. Matrix is to Steel Panthers as Battlefront is to Combat Mission. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/ It's worth a look guys.

Detail in and of itself doesn't make a wargame. Detail might be possible, and certainly isn't a negative, but to put detail in, with the assumption that the detail will sell the game, and not what the game is supposed to be, is actually a bad idea in and of itself. I tend to buy a book for what's between the covers, not for what's ON the cover. I did not buy into playing SC for how it looked, but for how it played. I have also never bought a game, simply because it "looked good". I have some good looking games, but I have just as many plain looking ones.

Tankograd, sure sounds like a nickname and not a place name eh. Remember we are talking about Russia, I am not even sure the word tank is used in the Russian language.

Hmm I might be stealing this thread to use as a club on another forum if I get a few more posts like the one before this one heheh. Some of you people are in the opinions of others elsewhere "non existent".

I am not sure if this is close to what he had requested, but if you had to give all your units commands to attack and or move, and then hit execute after your opponent or the AI had done the same, it would sure make the game a different beast. But I am happy with SC as it is now, in that I move my units, then the opponent does. Departing from the current design into what I had suggested, and I would be inclined to insist the name Strategic Command be dropped in favour of the designer picking a fully different name. After all, it would really not be SC anymore now would it. Adding a number after a name has to have its limits.