Gregory Barnard

Let me give my two cents worth: $.01 Allow headquarter units the ability to coordinate multiple unit attacks for units under its influence. Also, allow the player to assign/reassign units to a headquarter unit. $.02 Let the player set units' combat "posture." For example, attack (advance), engage (hold), hold (no retreat), withdraw (retreat before combat). The default would be "engage," for instance, as it is now in the game. Note that a unit in "attack" mode might be more susceptible to counterattack, etc. Thanks for a great game, Hubert!

Waxing nostalgic. Sol Invictus, my condolences. After my divorce I took on Las Vegas. No need to tell how that confrontation turned out! My first game was in 1969 AD playing Gettysburg with my best neighbor friend, Steve Ehlers, to whom I've lost touch with. We lined up all our troops along the classical lines without ever committing to battle. We called it a draw. It wasn't until days later that Dad said I lost because I was the South and had to win. My first lesson in Civil War history. Oh, my...

A like situation happened to me when, as Allies, I attacked Greece. I had four corps surrounding the capital that eliminated the defender, but had no corps available for occupation. The Axis turn brought the Italians into the game and they transported an army into the capital after clearing a path with their navy. While I was greatly disappointed, within the scale of the game I agree this is plausable, especially since I could have better protected the approach with my navy if I'd anticipated the Italian entry into the game. War is hell.

Count me in!

Good idea.

IMO AA research points should apply to ground units as it implies an investment into virtual "air cover" as well as AA guns. This would enrich that category's value, as well as further perplex the supreme commander when allocating production...

I sent you a PBEM. I rolled well against Poland. It's a tough challenge.

Thanks! I wish I could put into words the joy your game has brought me.

Not sure if this is relevent, but when I had the wrong device driver for my sound card I saw very high CPU utilization from SC.

Super! Will a future patch include the new artwork?

After reinstalling the video device driver several times, I got rid of the "16-bit" error message. However, SC would load but not display. It would soon utilize 100% of my CPU. I was perplexed. After several more "troubleshooting" attempts, I noticed that my computer's sound was not working -- during my earlier system reload my sound drivers didn't reload properly. Loading the sound drivers solved the problem with SC. The games is running fine now.

I am unable to run Strategic Command. No matter my display setting, it complains that I need "at least 16-bit...". I ran Strategic command full version 1.02 successfully before reinstalling XP due to a hardware failure. I've reinstalled the same drivers I had before. The difference is that I've downloaded ALL patches to XP. Desparate.

I work a full day. Usually game Tuesday nights; occassionally on a Saturday. With Strategic Command's release, every night is game night!

I'm enjoying the game just as it is.

tcp/ip connectivity should go a long way in ensuring head-to-head-like competition (with UNDO option disabled for serious play). Looking forward to it...