sogard

I thought I had seen a response to someone asking about Siberians that Hubert Cater had said that there was no random event possibility -- that the Siberians should show up all the time when certain criteria -- mostly geographic, if I remember correctly, occured.

I am playing a pbem game with a friend and we are in 1944, the Germans are adjacent to Moscow, Sevastopol has fallen and Voronezh has been taken by the Axis. Yet, no Siberian reinforcements have ever appeared. This is a huge hit to the Allies -- no free Soviet HQs and the Siberian Armies and Corps. I had always assumed that as long as the WAR IN SIBERIA was not selected -- given the geographic criteria (not spelled out anywhere; but generally, close to Moscow, loss of Voronozh or close to Rostov,) the Siberians always will appear. But, this is not the case in this game. Now, the Soviets still do hold Rostov; don't know if that is some sort of trigger too -- but it is late in 1944! Can someone please illuminate whether or not it is possible for the Siberians never to appear in the game even when Moscow is threatened (an Axis unit adjacent), the loss of Voronezh and the loss of the Crimea? Again, I have double checked and the WAR IN SIBERIA option is NOT checked.

Thanks for the update for your Scenarios Bill. I just downloaded them and will take a look at them. I have been playing with your last scenario updates for a while and have been enjoying them.

Welcome to the STRATEGIC COMMAND community mutil8! Just patch the game when you get it with the latest patch and enjoy. After you learn how to beat the AI, then get brave and play some pbem or tcp/ip. The game is only sold on the Battlefront.com website so that is why you have not seen it in the store. It is a great game and you will have a good time with it.

Germany is democratic and stable today. That is what Allied victory wrought in 1945. The notion that the Federal Republic of Germany is Bolshevik is simply preposterous. A vision of a right wing loonie. It is obvious that the writer does not know what a Bolshevik is. [ December 17, 2002, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Martinov's more transparent hex grid is a real winner. I have updated my game so that the map really does shine through. Nice job!

I very much like what you are doing with the cities; but, it does not look very European. Possibly a more European skyline (whatever that means) would work even better? Even so, I like the city skyline icon better than a simple factory and it is a good idea to implement.

So far, I have to say that I really do like Bill's 1939 Campaign Mod and it will earn a permanent place on my hard drive. It is a way to spice up the game and I very much like the addition of the reduced HQ and units in Egypt as it melds well with the new naval route around Africa in version 1.06. I also like the edge given the Germans in experience and the overall tweaks to tech found at start. Bill has made the U-Boats a more potent threat in the Atlantic through Tech and this again melds well into version 1.06 because it is now more difficult to switch research from one area to another. Nice job Bill.

I downloaded Bill's 1939 Campaign Mod from Otto's Strategic Command HQ site; but, the only Mod there is Bill's original which he has corrected in version 1.01. :confused: Must mean that Otto has too busy to update his site; so, just so everyone knows -- the link that Bill provided to his Mod at the beginning of this thread will only provide you with the original and not updated version of his Mod. [ December 12, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I too have just downloaded Bill's mod and will report back after a couple of plays.

Yes, AVALON HILL was the great prime mover in wargaming; but, by the 1970s, its place as an innovator and trend setter was taken over by the rise of SPI and STRATEGY & TACTICS Magazine. My nomination for the best Russian Front tabletop game ever comes from another wargame magazine, the late COMMAND Magazine. COMMAND produced the best Russian Front boardgame, in a magazine nonetheless, with the game PROUD MONSTER. It remains the best take on the Russian campaign in boardgaming. Good news is that the original designer (Ty Bomba) and the current successor to STRATEGY & TACTICS Magazine (DECISION GAMES) are talking about updating PROUD MONSTER (which is out of print and should be snapped up if you ever see it on sale in a gaming store).

Well, WORLD IN FLAMES (WiF) from the very beginning gave you ALL of WW II because THIRD REICH only provided the European Theater. Even now, WiF provides a much better global view of WW II than ADVANCED THIRD REICH. The air and naval componants of WiF are vastly superior and much more realistic than in THIRD REICH. The major difference in people who like one game over the other is their style of gaming. THIRD REICH is more akin to chess in that it rewards play where perfection is the key. WiF is a game which is much more difficult to synthesize and come up with a perfect strategy. Players are required to be much more reactive to game events than in THIRD REICH. Both games have benefited from years of play, updates and reworking. Both games are much improved from when they made initial appearance. Obviously they are both reasonably good wargames; but, my preference has been and remains with WiF. [ December 11, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Just to provide a contrary opinion; I thought ADVANCED THIRD REICH or THIRD REICH in any of its iterations was an OK strategic level WW II wargame. I have always thought that WORLD IN FLAMES is a much better game. I know that there are advocates for both games; but, ADVANCED THIRD REICH was/is a game that appeals to those who like to develop perfect strategies and get all their ducks in a row and deliver the perfect blow. WiF is much more problematic and much less susceptable to the perfect planning syndrome. WiF feels more real world to me and it always presented WW II on a global, holistic scale which was not true with THIRD REICH. [ December 10, 2002, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I don't see what the big deal is over the requirement for stacking. If the scale is appropriate (ie. units are large enough so that it is appropriate that they would/could hold the front (50 miles to the hex), there is no problem. I can see the issue coming up when discussing why Air Units and Land Units can not stack together and I would have no problem with this. But, as long as the basic unit in the game is an Army or Corps, the scale fits. I suppose the Soviet units could also represent Fronts (Army Groups) and some ability to combine a couple of Corps to form an Army and maybe the addition of an Army Group counter (with the appropriate added combat abilities) is worth considering; but, stacking merely because people are familiar with games that permit unit stacks is not a very compelling reason to implement in the STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) or STRATEGIC COMMAND 2 (SC2). I love WORLD IN FLAMES. I would play WiF over any of the iterations of THRID REICH everytime. But, just because WIF has an identical map scale and permits stacking does not necessarily mean that SC or SC2 must follow the same design decision. I like the fact that SC keeps the game simple. I have been passing out "BUY" recommendations to all my friends and on ConsimWorld now that tcp/ip has implemented. SC is the best little stocking stuffer that I know of for your gaming friends who think they have everything. What would be particularily clever is be sure to give a gamer who has just shelled out $50 for HEARTS OF IRON a little game called STRATEGIC COMMAND and then tell him that he is getting three times the game at half the price of HoI. Ho, Ho, HO.... [ December 10, 2002, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I was extremely pleased to see the release of the version 1.06 patch. I have just begun to play with it and really look forward to some tcp/ip or pbem play with it. You have done a great job of supporting STRATEGIC COMMAND Hubert! It is amusing that after taking a look at HEARTS OF IRON (HoI); I have returned to STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC). Maybe after umpteen patches, HoI will live up to its pre-release buzz and publicity; but, SC has delivered a better game right from the get go.

The above is simply wrong on a number of counts. German generalship throughout the war could be good; but, it was also frequently rather bad. The one thing German generals had in abundance was arrogance. The Red Army produced generals by the end of the war who were every bit as good as any fielded by the Wehrmacht. Patton, Eisenhower and even Montgomery were every bit as good as their Wehrmacht counterparts. You gotta read more widely other than sources that tell WW II history from the German viewpoint. There are lots of books out there that give a much more balanced view of WW II.

I agree with Immer. One or both players in this game simply are not experienced enough, yet, to see how the Axis prevents this.

I think it is going to be very interesting to read after action reports by a number of posters who had a certain view of how the game systems worked in conjunction with each other after experiencing play against a human and not the AI. Yes, I know that pbem play was happening; but, the much more intense and rapid experience found with tcp/ip (as with hotseat) is going to be rather eye opening to some especially if they find an opponant that they do not know and has some experience with the game.

So, why read this thread Bill? It obviously has nothing to do with what you are interested. The subject was precisely about someone who felt that the tone of this forum was off putting. Nothing about game play or anything else. Yet, you chose to pop in and deliver your pronouncement on what was being discussed. The discussion about how rude, ignorant and childish everyone else is happens on almost every internet forum in existance. Someone is always taking offense because their brilliance and their viewpoint does not reign supreme (please note I did borrow that phrase from the IRON CHEF tv show and have paid the appropriate royalites to the folks in Tokyo). My attitude is that the reader can decide all that for himself and the more opinions added the better. If one can not inform at least one can entertain. The one thing I do know is that the following is not very entertaining: 1) Damn, STRATEGIC COMMAND is the best. 2) Yep. 3) Gotta agree with you there. 4) Nuclear Power could improve the game though. 5) Nope. Just fine as it is. 6) Ain't life grand. 7) Especially with a good game like STRATEGIC COMMAND. 8) Life on earth is going to end tomorrow. 9) That's OK because I already got and played STRATEGIC COMMAND. [ October 18, 2002, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

It just involves a trust in the market place of ideas where, over time, the truth will win out. Of course, this idea is alien to anyone who distrusts open discussion. A good example would be an SS man. An SS man prefers to burn books; eliminate differing opinion and follow psuedo science into racial harmony. Yup, it can be tough to distinguish between Thomas Jefferson and Heinrich Himmler; but, I think the reader, over time, can figure it out. But, maybe not in Oklahomma.

I am always puzzled when I read posts like the first one in this thread. Forums are about discussion and debate and while it sometimes gets a bit heated around here; it is nothing compared to the kind of language used in many peer reviews and academic debates. My sense has always been that, over time and with a full fledged discussion, the wheat will separate itself from the chaff. Malius' view may win out over time on any given subject as long as he is willing to defend it and point out the errors of his opponants. What this kind of forum is not about is a Socratic debate where one side says something is true and the response is "oh this is so right;" or if there has been a disagreement, the conclusion that "I was wrong and bow before your knowledge and brilliance" is seldom heard. But, give some credit to the reader. You can fool some of the people all of the time; and even all of the people some of the time. With an honest discussion though, the facts will eventually be known to the discerning reader who wants to look for them.

And, that is the attitude that will produce the best game in the long run. One of the things that I have been impressed with in the military is the use of after action reports to critique an exercise. I have talked to a number of folks who have just been shredded by this process; but, if one can take it as positive reinforcement, it can make whatever you are doing better. It does require some very tough and thick skin; but, the key is to use your own analysis and take from it anything that you think is valid. My hat is off to Hubert for suffering, what I am sure, has been many unfair slings and arrows. Now, back to the salt mine Hubert! Can't wait until tcp/ip permits me to complain anew about how my opponant is tearing me apart by ahistorical and gamey means... [ October 17, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Honest and accurate criticisim is not an enemy of anyone EB. It is only through a process of honest evaluation that real improvement and qualitative change occurs. I do agree that criticisim that offers nothing other than negative opinion does not advance any subject; but, to ignore the fact that something is not working right is ultimately self destructive. But then, I am sure that you are familiar with this process as someone you witnessed such failure from inside the old Soviet block. [ October 17, 2002, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Hey there Bill. I gave STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) a thumbs up recommendation and recommended a buy. The only thing I would feel badly about with that recommendation is someone who really wanted a reasonably accurate game on WW II. Accuracy is not a strong suit for SC; but, fun sure is even though game balance remains an issue. As long as the buyer understands that, no problem.