Les the Sarge 9-1b

Hmmm Jim Boggs is Jersey John? I think it is unfortunate he is banned now. His kind words are the only reason I am typing this. I am not want to say I am valuable in any special way, or that my contributions have any special worth, but I am concerned, that he has been banned, and almost right after getting a disillusioned member to reconsider not coming back. I only loaded the game up to try it, on the basis of Bill Macon's concerned comments as a dedicated A3R fan. Because I AM after all a die hard board gamer, that doesn't willingly give up his time to play computer games. I have mentioned a few notions about how the site might be improved, but it is after all NOT my site. So if the ideas are not wanted, I can live with that. In a shocking move (to me at least), Battlefront is currently the only site (outside of my home turf), that has shown me (through its members), it has members that would miss my participation (in a significant fashion). I do hope that Jim Boggs (even if he is JJ or Elvis or whatever), is given a chance to clear up the matter. Otherwise his own efforts will have been poorly spent. [ January 07, 2003, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

Hmm (yes I am slumming and at this moment making it look like nothing I say can be relied upon hehe). But your one reply was nice to see Jim. Some think I am an opinionated nasty jerk that spouts off even when he hasn't got the game. I don't care for being called a nasty jerk though (or as much through implication). I'm an aries though, it's impossible to be me and not opinionated. But thanks for your comment Jim. It was enough. Right now the only games I am fussing with are a Steel Panthers Mega Campaign and SC. I am trying to severely edit out of my daily routine silly pointless postings. I hope to only contribute when it is actually wanted.

Just dropping in to say bye to those that care. I have the game, played a few games so far, I am not all that thrilling yet as an opponent hehe. I have finally come to grips with the reality, that I am wasting a lot of time on a lot of forums to no real end. So this is bye guys. Those that know me know where to find me. If some day SC2 is released, I am sure I will hear of it in my own part of the forum universe. if anyone wants a game, they will have to look me up on their own time, and over at my own space. [ January 08, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

I agree, if you don't like the Dutch Gambit how about a game of Steel Panthers?

I couldn't resist asking why Monty and not Wavell. Wavell is credited with one of the longest advances in history. He was only unable to complete the total rout of Italy in Africa because political expediency forced the British to take his troops and dump them in the lost Greek cause. Monty on the other hand was not spectacular at Alemein, he was not spectacular in Sicily, was less than inspired in Normandy, and Market Garden accomplished nothing long term either. And Patton made Monty's crossing of the Rhine a joke. What exactly did Monty do well?

Lighten up? I was only pointing out a glaringly obvious misinterpretation of forum traffic. If forum traffic was a determinant of a games worth. Then you should be over at Matrix in the first place. After that, maybe in the CM forum. Because obviously that is the place to be, based on forum traffic. Man sometimes I swear that Battlefront forum posters are the most touchy people in existence.

Number of posts? I can't think of a poorer way to judge a game. Go to a forum and see how my posts a person has made. Find the guy with hundreds even thousands of posts. Is this the guy best equipped to ask a question, not really. You have just found someone that posts a lot of posts. I would say though, you will have to actually read some of the threads through to see if the SC forum is going to be of any help to you. Additionally, don't stop here, go off Battlefront even and look for comments about both games. Of course if you have neither time or inclination, then I guess the only safe bet is buy both I suppose. But I myself no nothing of Airborne Assault, so I won't say anything for SC as it would be pointlessly biased.

I wargame the way I play chess (well ok I play lousy chess, but my wargaming is ok heheh). To me checkmate is checkmate. If you have me in defacto checkmate, then you win. I don't play chess just to see each and every piece get taken, and I won't play a wargame just to see pieces get killed. Playing wargames against players that will insist on playing the whole game out each and everytime to 47 for instance, regardless if their opponent declares them a victor is dumb (it also prevents me starting the next game sooner). There has to be a valid reason to prolonging a game, and I can see none.

Hmmm abstractions are fast and easy. In A3R surface and air assets could also be moved to these "boxes", but as A3R used only 4 turns to the year, "moving" to the boxes was not mandated to actually require any sort of deliberate counter movement, it was merely done defacto. But I like the menu additions as mentioned by Genghis. I would allow a sub unit to more readily decide its fate in any hex it chose to be in. Perhaps this would allow the abstraction crowd and the counter on board crowd to both get what they wanted. I will accept that this could be an easy addition to a future SC, but I will not expect it to be implemented into the current SC. [ January 03, 2003, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

Hmmm I suppose if people wanted their handles publicly displayed, they would do so in their profiles eh. For that matter, if people wanted anyone to know anything about them at all, they would actually have a profile. That said, if anyone wants to know me better, they can feel free to send me a PM. I use AOL MSN Yahoo and ICQ all through the interface known as Trillian. But I am only interested in chatting with people that want to chat with me enough to ask for those details specifically. It cuts down significantly on the cases of messages that are only being sent to be obnoxious. As such, I don't expect a lot of the membership is going to dump a lot of handles here in this thread. I could be wrong though.

My opinion, anytime my games see me outdo history I win. Still got France in a month past the date they lost, I call that a French Win. Allies get ashore and can stay ashore in 43, that is an Allied Win to me. Germans knock out an Allied player like defeat Russia, thats a German Win in my books. I am only fussy about historically accurate for this reason. I am not trying to beat the player, I am trying to beat history. I am just using the player to make the chances varied. So in 47 if nothing was accomplished better than it was in history, then I say I lost. A recent long campaign of Steel Panthers had my game go a cool 43 battles. No losses once and I think it was 37 decisive victories. I trashed places like Stalingrad eh. But the game ended, and Germany ended the war as defeated. My battles did't save the fatherland eh. Oh well, 37 decisive victories later and I called the game a massive victory for me personally.

it didn't show it so I will say it here, the post was from "abradley" over at Matrix.

This is the entire post contents below, encountered it just a few minutes ago, and assumed some of the Hi Command crowd might like it. Re: Looking for a Strategy (not real time) Game quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Yohan Hi, I'm trying to find a good Strategic level game (all who count Axis and Allies as strategy please stop reading) for a buddy of mine to play by PBEM. I'm looking at either WWII or Napoleonic computer games that fit this bill. Thanks... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about 'High Command', at http://www.ryanbailey.com/hicom/hicom.html there is a download of the game and manuals, plus complete instructions for Win 95,98, and 98se install and pbm play. http://www.pressroom.com/~meb/20tha3.htm#HIGH%20COMMAND HIGH COMMAND (I) Colorado Computer Games; Gregg Carter and Joey Nonnast; 1991; *** Adv/Land-Nav-Air/Op-Str 1-3 THIRD REICH -- the way it should have been done. While the AI came in for much criticism, the game itself was easy to learn and play. Economics, strategic planning and operational warfare yielded one of the more complex simulations in terms of playing well. HIGH COMMAND (I) Three Sixty; Gregg Carter and Joey Nonnast; 1993; ***+ Adv/Land-Nav-Air/Op-Str 1-3 The updated SVGA version with improved graphics, yet the AI still seemed to be learning disabled. Altogether, a sequel with substantive improvements, and yet it could have been so much more ... Probably the best way to review "High Command:1939-45" (i.e. HC) is to begin by listing the games that it somewhat compares with/against, using the following three categories: 1. Scope and realism of historical period. 2. Complexity of strategy and functionality. 3. Playability, breadth of details covered, and ability to play game against computer or live human. The games: PC versions of Axis and Allies and Third Reich, Clash of Steel, Call to Power 2, Civilization III, Diplomacy, Risk/Risk II, Empire Earth. SCOPE: Only High Command, A&A, TR, and CoS cover EXACTLY the topic of strategic war in Europe during 1939-45+, but only HC covers as much detail (even the graphics are the best of the bunch). COMPLEXITY: While a fun diversion, A&A is simply a kid's game. TR was better as a board game, and as such, was only a little better than A&A. TR and COS cut LOTS of corners! Winner: HC, as it pays close attention to detailed borders, rules, and choices allowable by the players. PLAYABILITY: A&A is easy to play, and a fun diversion for a couple of hours (great for a break), but it's not very realistic. Only HC comes as close as I've seen to a real strategic simulation experience. It does have flaws, however, such as limiting only 2 players (the Axis player controls all Axis countries, for example), the inability of neutrals to produce, deploy, or have any impact until actually at war, and the unrelated action phases that take a little away from the overall impact (a common flaw with most, if not all, turn-based wargames, in all fairness). But, OVERALL, you won't find anything released yet that seriously challenges it with an AI, and that's since 1993!. (NOTE: Europe in Flames (or World in Flames) looks promising, but details are sketchy). Once you realize what is left of the bunch (HC), you can approach it with a better set of expectations, and understand that yes, it is DOS-based, and yes, there are flaws in the game, but there are ways around those flaws that remedy the game back to an enriching experience. Here's a concrete example. The game was not designed to be played by email, or over the web, but it is possible. It only requires honesty from both players, and an understanding that the Allied player (on his computer) will move first, and the Axis player (on his computer) will watch the action happen. Both players' phases happen separately, and with the exception of the momentary second it takes to save the game at the start of the oppenent's phase, and then exit (to then email the files), there will be no real obstacle to making it work. There are only 3 files associated with each scenario that will be changed, and they can be emailed in a small zip file (typically under 30k, so we are talking NOTHING in terms of email). Those files are labeled for the scenario, and end with .aln, .axn, and .sav. (see details at www.ryanbailey.com/hicom/hicom.html). __________________ Quote: 'A Better War,' Lewis Sorley, 1999, pp387-8 ..but one who spoke out with decency and regret was William Shawcross. "It seemed to me then, and still seems to me today," he wrote long years after the end. "that those of us who were opposed to the American effort in Indochina should be humbled by the scale of suffering inflected by the Communist victors---especially in Cambodia but in Vietnam and Laos as well."* *William Shawcross, "Review of David P. Chandler's Brother Number One," New York Review of Books (12 August 1993). P.38.

I have not seen much of it in the game, but in A3R subs were just some economic nuisance counter off to the side of the board, and if you didn't acknowledge it at all, yes you soon paid for it. Uncountered for 2-3 years, and you suddenly realised you had really screwed up. Same with Strategic Bombing, it was not actually conducted on the board. I would much rather the subs and strategic bombing was conducted in a more abstract manner. Driving subs around the board in entirely vulnerable mega groups just seems like a waste of a sub resource. It has to be the worst all yer eggs in one basket example in the game. It really doesn't matter to me if the cuiser counter is a decent depiction of a unit that would possess an ASW effect, the subs should not even be on the board.

Is "maintenance" that was mentioned, not the same as "upkeep" which was mentioned several posts later here on this thread? For me, one element of A3R that was cool was money management. If at the end of the year you had struggled and managed to save a lot of "cash" you recieved a hefty bonus to your next years budget. This meant that the US and Russian economies were a very "real and present danger" to a german player that wanted to "play it safe". But at the same time, the Allies had to spend wisely, or suffer the consequences. Is this modelled in SC and I have just not found it yet, or would it be a notion to add to SC2? Oh and guys. please, regardless of why, please don't spiral the forum into more bickering, the forum has actually been fun the last two days.

Maybe I have missed the other locations this sentiment has appeared, but I am glad to finally see someone else state it "nearly" identically to the way I have been stating it... "3. Stacking. I can understand no stacking for Armies, but you should be able to stack multiple planes/ships, maybe even multiple Corps, as well as ground units and planes in the same hex." I don't require multiple ground air or naval units for the reasons stated elsewhere, but the game gives us zero justification for why one of each of the three can't co exist in a hex. I see it entirely as a game design mechanic in need of redesign for SC2. I don't percieve it in any way as resembling modelling the realities of spatial location limitations. Example, the naval unit in a port, why is it impeding the presence of a ground and or air unit, those boats are out in the water eh. [ January 02, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

Further on this matter. I remember all to well playing Fortress Europa (the old AH board game of that name). My friend would amass troops to defend the inevitable Allied beachhead. Nice carefully arranged clusters of perfect sums of panzer and infantry counters. Always looking for a specific sum of combat factor points. But then the Allied Player merely picks a hex, gets a 1 to 1 attack, adds 3 air unit counters, converts from 1 to 1 through 2 to 1 through 3 to 1 and ends up at 4 to 1 odds. Rolls the dice, and almost always declares, sorry you are eliminated. Poof no more units. There was just no point to thinking about the defense of a specific hex. The only defense, was to just spread the units out and eat up as many hexes as possible. Chaff in front and good units in behind. 3 hexes deep and there was no point in having Air units, they were not given any real targets, the crud was all that was ever offered. That isn't wargaming though. Certainly didn't depict the war. But it was a concession to a game mechanic that could be manipulated. That's why I still plan to grumble about not being able to stack land air and naval units in a single hex, and why I think stand or die is silly. Oh by the way, noticed I can actually defend coastal land hexes with ships, that's gotta be dumb some how. But the counter still gets in the way eh. Ships with wheels? Maybe a research option I missed?

The problem with inflexible unit behaviour, is it only plays into "playing the hex shape" arguments. I have heard people gripe about other board games in the past, based on the fact that you either just can't defend a hex, or thanks to the hex being an all or nothing prospect, you can't ever take the hex. The dynamics of "hex" defenses just ends up being about the shape of the hex, and not simulating an actual attack. Of course something that works for one side, will work for the other as well.

Well JJ's notions are perhaps a bit wackier than my needs hehe. Editted this post because hey I can. JJ you have to stop seeing everything you read as an attack. Wacky does not imply stupidity (at least not to me). I merely stated (here in this post), that your needs exceeded my own personal interests. ie ALL I want, is to be able to re position the forces. Map editing, force editting, all that editing stuff is way past my interest level. Which explains why I have never altered or dabbled in any wargame I have ever played. Just doesn't interest me personally. [ January 02, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

It's a reasonable request. Surely SC2 can add this to the game. In a lot of games, sometimes retreat is mandated as part of the punishment upon resolution of a single throw of the dice. That a unit will just sit there and let units hammer it repeatedly is a loss to realism.

I would have to agree with the "need for random openings". In a game of A3R there are known and to experienced players absolute must do considerations, but the player always has the choice to set up the counters. Being stuck with an opening that never varies, will get dull in a wargame soon enough if the player has any interest at all in studying the game.

Ouch wildcat some more paragraphs pleeeeeeease heheh. The AI is ok, it is not brain dead. It is possible to slight the game in it's favour so that your decisions have to be more briliant to get anywhere though. So you can play the game and get beaten a few times if you wish. The game is said to favour Axis, so playing the Allies will give you a rougher game if need be. It does seem that playing people is the best route to go if the game gets to easy to beat, but I suspect you will be a few games before you can sneer at the dim witted AI. My first game, and I was not having a lot of success keeping the Germans out of France on easy mode. But then I was just doing a play it and see what happens game. As such, if you want to win and win a lot, get the manual file up and read it, or expect to get beaten (or against a person, made to look rather dumb).

I have never once ever seen any wargame computer or non computer ever end up looking just like the way it did in history. But that's the reason we play these games. To see all the other outcomes. To see the way it actually played out, well you have to read a book. [ January 01, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

There is really only one virus message that most should read. Update your anti virus, and actually use an anti virus program. After sooooo many years of computing, and I have to date only encountered two instances where I got stuck with a virus I was unaware of. And in both cases it was with a file I had downloaded. I never open emails that I can't recognise, and I never forward anything ever (nothing zip nada, although it seems people actually mass forward stuff all the time). [ January 01, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]

It ain't just computers eh, every year they assume they can re invent the wheel and the rest of the damned car attached to the damned wheel. And every year it is a new roll of the dice. 2000 such and such car is a soon to be classic, but the 2001 model is garbage, and why the heck did they even make the 2002 version. Would be nice if they made cars like software, you know, 2000 variant for 2001 with all the glitches removed. [ January 01, 2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ]