Jollyguy

I don't agree. The Yugoslav partisans were very effective during the war, the Russian partisans even more so. The Germans had to deploy substantial numbers of rearguard garrison troops to deal with this. If you do this the, problem will be dealt with, as a cost, simulating the cost to the Nazis in real life.

I have a friend who wanted to piggyback my order, to save the $7 shipping, and inquired of Battlefront sales support if I could add a second game to my order. I was informed my order had shipped today. I live in Seattle, Washington, so with luck I'll get the full game next week. Those in Europe and the East Coast may start getting games sooner.

I believe the Finns deserve to be commanded under a German HQ, but no one else. The other minors were effectively cannon fodder. It was the Romanians or Hungarians that the Russians rolled over on one flank, to begin the encirclement of Stalingrad.

Exactly. Any Axis player foolish enough to drain all Med forces for a distant landing elsewhere will find Allied units landing in his exposed Italian cities. What I did was move all French naval units into the Med, as they do little good elsewhere, and planted the Southern France naval unit right in the middle of where the Italian Navy pops ups. I transported the Middle East French unit to Sicily, and was surprised that the computer was smart enough to operate a German Corps there, blunting that landing. I moved the Brit Navy into position, and elements of the Atlantic Brit Navy into the Med also. When the Italians declared war they were greeted with one French naval unit in their midst, and then pounded the next turn by the other three French naval units arriving on scene, plus the Brit navy. I let the French attack first and sustain most of the losses, as they disappear once France surrenders. Heavy losses were incurred on both sides regardless. But if the Italians had transports massed, they would have taken a beating also. Plus, that would have told me the Italians had left their cities exposed, leaving me the option to move/transport British ground units to the cities I would know to be undefended. Good Luck

I have already developed a counter for this Axis strategy. Try the Turkey gambit on me when PBEM starts, and you'll find out what it is.

This Turkey gambit would seem easily slowed down against a human. Simply move the British fleet up a few hexes. The Italians may or may not defeat the Brit fleet, but they would definately be slowed down. Meanwhile, if you've taken the Baltics, the Russians will prepare for war. I consider most "easy" strategies like this good practice against the computer, but that's it. I think a key w/fog-of-war will be continual scouting/recon, to try to get some sense of where the opponent is, what he's up to, and where he's massing.

I have no problem with surprise contact. It probably simulates the risks of headlong, rapid advance by the main body intent on covering maximum distance. Doing so raises the risks of ambush, bumping into well planned forward defenses, or rear-guard actions. To avoid it, stop short of the objective, and your spotting range is activited, or keep air units near front line units. This simulates units digging in, and sending out patrols and recon elements. This comes with a cost in time or battle effectiveness, of course, but is realistic. Panzer General had surprise contact when you attempted to move into an enemy square, but that game was on a much smaller scale.

Another poster pointed out that taking Sweden was still too easy, and an attractive target. I think some of you are missing the broad scope of this game. Had the Nazis wanted, they could have taken Sweden, Spain, Portugal, rolled the Brits east of the Suez canal, you name it. Hell, if they had pursued a one thrust southern strategy in Russia, they could have probably pushed clean through the Caucauses, sliced right through Iraq and Persia and India, and joined hands with the Japanese in Burma. They were close to unstopable the first two or three years of the war. The point is, we get to play those what-ifs. But not in a vacuum. If Hitler takes Sweden, then the Russians interest will be piqued. If the Germans take Spain and Portugal and Gibralter, that's a lot of real estate to protect, while the the Russian Bear waits and builds up. If I'm looking at the Spanish Peninsula correctly, it would be fairly easy for the Allies to land and snip it off near the French border, deprive Hitler of all those MPPs, then slowly reclaim the territory from out of supply units. That's the point, folks. The Nazis can do everything except Operation Sea Lion the first two or three years at little cost. The Allies need to figure out effective stalling and attrition tactics, until the weight of their production can be brought to bear. If Herbert determines the balance of the game is off, he'll fix it. But don't complain because initially the Germans get to slice through any opponent like a hot knife through butter, because that's exactly what happened. There is no doubt in my mind that if Hitler had not turned east, he could have easily conquered all of Europe and Scandanavia and Northern Africa, then dug in. It would have been a lot harder to dig him out. Good Luck

I for one would opt for a modest amount more detail, and a handful more units, but within tight constraints. I agree that the beauty of SC is its playability. I wouldn't want to see ten mile hexes, but 35 miles might be okay. So I guess I would vote for something on the order of 25% to 30% more complexity, not 100%.

When I played Panzer General PBEM with anonomous opponents, you kind of got a feel for the ones who replayed turns time and again, until they got an optimum result. Kind of sad if you ask me. In my opinion, PBEM turns should be played once, and only once. Bad dice spins and surprise contact attempt to simulate the fog of war, and that things don't always go as planned. I also don't think one should be allowed to probe, then say "Undo Move." That's bogus if you ask me. I plan on doing my turns once, like chess. Once I've "removed" my hand, the turn cannot be taken. back. The fog of war will be a key element in the Atlantic, as the German subs will need that injection of realism to have any chance against the Allied navy. And an experienced player will already know where many units are anyway, at least at the outset. I.e., as a German I'm not sending my armor deep into France the first turn, because I know there's Allied units there, even though I can't see them. So, I would like to propose Scouts honor on this board; you play your PBEM turn once, and only once, with not "Undo Moves" and take your lumps. In the long run good luck cancels bad, and what's left is how good you are. If I suspect a PBEM opponent is cheating, I will probably just stop the game. Good Luck

I have been trying to let Italy take a city here and there, to boost their MPP. Have also purchased a HQ for them, for when I invaded Spain.

Agree w/SSNEED. I remember reading accounts of tonnage sunk by Graf Spee, and it was impressive. The Captain of the Graf Spee was not supposed to engage British surface ships, which he did against advice of subordinate officers. He was ONLY supposed to raid merchant vessals. As a result of poor tactical decisions, he lost the battle of River Platte, and eventually his ship.

That guy Hags who hacked the first demo, then bragged about it here, deserves some form of bad Karma to come down hard on his head. If it hadn't been for him we could be doing PBEM with the gold Demo, warming up for the real thing. Oh well, the world is full of sad types. I guess Hags is your classic example of one bad apple spoiling the bunch. Good Luck

In my opinion the only realistic way to play SC will be without the war in Siberia option. Russia's a tough nut to crack in the game, because it was in real life, and the arrival of the Far East units is necessary to reflect actual conditions. As to the use of HQs in Russia or anywhere for that matter, I agree. In the game I just played, after taking France, and while preoccupied in Spain, I didn't support with a HQ my air force units that I was reinforcing in France, and the Brits took big chunks out of those poor flyboys a couple turns straight. That means in a real human vs. human game the German player will have to post an HQ in France at a cost of 400 something MPPs, otherwise suffer fair attrition from Allied raids. What's more, if the Brits are allowed a free hand in France to hit units and MPPs while the German is off romping elsewhere, the Brit airboys experience levels will go up, making them more potent, and also available to overstrength to 11, 12, etc. I've played games where experienced units can pay to be overstrength. They're much harder to stop. Another thing I've been experimenting with as the German is attacking all Allied ground units as many times with as many different units whenever possible, even if I think their country will surrender the next turn. Reason is I want to see if it's worth the trade off in (minor) losses to the German to acquire better experience ratings. It also might be good to have certain units selected to be the main combat elements, to build up their experience ratings.

I just played a game where I concentrated solely on the Atlantic front. I took out Spain, Portugal, and Gibralter. During that process, I was able to move German and Italian surface ships into the Atlantic, along with several subs dispatched after France surrendered. My question is, why weren't Allied MPPs deducted by the prescence of my surface ships? The Graf Spee, Bismark, and Prinz Eugen, etc., were all designed to hit merchant ships, which they did with fair success. A side note. Not bad MPP plundering from Spain and Portugal, and a decent stream of MPPs also. Once Spain surrenders, the Germans were handed Algiers as a bonus.

After reading pro's and con's (and being one initially not in favor of airborne), IMO it should be allowed as a mouseclick option prior to setting up the game, just like fog of war, etc. The fact that we've had some pretty good back-and-forth discussion indicates there's a sizeable group of people much interested in the option. I liked the two hex drop zone within a friendly zone of control idea, as no country in WW II had the ability to land a corps of airborne 500 or 1000 miles back, lets say to sieze Caucaus oil fields at the outset of Barbarossa. Both sides could only mount commando raids of at best brigade or battalion size THAT far behind enemy lines, and it would probably have been a suicide mission.

Return on Investment for Subs I'm not sure that the only analysis for a sub is it costs you 358, interdicts 10, which means it takes 36 turns to breakeven. Assume the Germans have 270 MPP, the British 135, for a 2 to 1 ratio. If the British can be knocked down to 100, the ratio jumps to 2.7 to 1. That's quite an increase that over time can weigh down an opponent, and limit his ability to wage war. Plus, subs will force the allies to hunt for them and incur losses while doing so, and allocate losses to surface ships to do this. If you've only got 100 MMP to play with, you can't sustain too many losses for too long. I see a number of players hot on the Atlantic was strategy. I wish we could do PBEM now with the gold beta, because I believe I've already developed some effective Allied countermeasures against Nazi subs. It ain't going to be a cake walk against human players! Good Luck

Silvercloud: I played Civ II on deity. The compressed game length was a tough one. Yes, that AI was very tough. I just couldn't get into Civ III though. But I did notice that the AI was better. Too cumbersome overall though. I don't have 12 hours to play a single game. See Ya

IMO Mr. Cater should be careful about trying to satisfy all whims for everybody. If I remember correctly, the Allies only fielded one airborne army the entire war, and that was toward the end. The Russians maybe the same, the Germans probably never more than a corps, and then only at the beginning of the war. And at 50 miles to a hex paratroops may not fit in. As confused as the D-Day airdrops were, I don't think many of our soldiers landed 50 miles off. Twenty miles, yes. But fifty miles? Not many is my guess. The beauty of this game is that it's manageable, yet wide open with variables and what if's. I wouldn't mind a bigger board and a few more unit types. The entire world would be nice if there's an SC II, but modifications should be made within historical production parameters, and within the experience and training and leadership levels of the combatants at the time. On balance, so far this game feels good, and very, very, well thought out. The reason the Germans sliced through France was because of better training, strategy, and leadership. The French should always get an ass whooping in 1940, because they hid behind the Maginot line, dispersed their tanks, and didn't understand the theory of Blitzkrieg. The French were ready to fight WW I, the Germans WW II. The major German what ifs we get to tackle are: 1) Hitler stopping at Dunkirk 2) Luftwaffe shifting from bombing English airfields to cities 3) Germany giving jet fighter research secondary status in favor of standard ME 109s and FW 190s 4) Wasting time in Yugoslavia and Greece 5) Not committing more troops to Africa; just a few more divisions may have rolled the Brits east of the Suez 6) Splitting the invasion of Russia from a planned double thrust to an overly ambitious three prong attack 7) Hitler not allowing retreats in the East. There may be more. In this game we get to allocate our resources and direct our forces to shoot for different outcomes -- but within historical production constraints, with appropriate experience and leadership factors. You can't do it all. If one overweights the war in the Atlantic by producing subs, then they'll probably suffer on the Eastern Front, etc. Good human opponents aren't going to sit idly by like the AI will. Good Luck

I think the review was okay. IMO, the real fun in Strategic Command, as with most computer games, is going to be human vs. human. I haven't met an AI yet that I can't figure out and beat in time.

Watchdog, I must disagree. I enjoy good tactical wargames, such as Panzer General, et al. I also enjoy playing Command & Conquer online, and have gotten fairly good at that. But I believe my favorite games are on the larger strategic scale where long horizon production must be determined by the player, such as this one. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a lot of good strategy games like SC to choose from. Civilization II was quite good in that regard, but I found Civ III much to unwieldy and cumbersome. IMO Strategic Command has the balance just right. It's for the times you don't want the frenetic pace of Command & Conquer II, or the plodding, extremely lengthy duration of Civilization II. I know I'll be playing SC quite bit once it arrives, and am looking forward to PBEM with as yet undetermined oppenents, many who probably lurk on these threads. I already have a buddy lined up at work for hotseat games. IMO, $25 was underpriced, a bargain. Sooo, if you don't like the game, don't buy it. Simple enough. The demo saved you money. You've had your say, so be gone, as those of us who do like the game can exchange ideas, and prepare for the eventual full length version. Good Luck

My two cents is there should be a nominal MPP for boat disbanding. You would have extremely well trained and professional crews, who could be diverted somewhere else in the war effort along with the support infrastructure to keep them afloat, but not without a re-investment in training and resources to do this. Afterall, the Russians did have naval infantry. And the scrap metal could be stockpiled and used somewhere over time, which I believe was done to a limited degree. I would vote for something like a 20% MMP return for a full strength unit, reflecting the value of trained crews and support personnel, scrap value of the ship, but reduced by the committment of resources needed to reposition the resources. A ship knocked down to 1 by combat would return only 2%, however.