sogard

E.B.'s posts are not new, unusual or outside the main thinking of WW II historians. Given the conventional wisdom at the time, the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1939 had benefits for both the Germans and Soviets. It is true that Stalin, nor anyone else, anticipated a quick German victory in the west. The conventional military wisdom of the day saw something akin to 1918 taking place with neither side winning a quick victory. Churchill certainly believed this until he flew to Paris to meet with the French after becoming Prime Minister on May 10, 1940. Then he asked Gemelin where are the reserves and was astounded to hear that there were none.

I posted the following after a fellow gamer on the ConsimWorld Discussion Board asked for opinion on whether or not he should purchase SC: STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is a fun game. One can have alot of amusement with it as you learn it because the AI is respectable enough to make crushing it interesting. However, the game is one that is definately made by and for computer geeks (and I use the term "computer geek" in a nice way). It's resemblance to WW II is only recognizeable at the beginning of any scenario (because they are historical starts with appropriate unit placement) and becomes more and more out of whack as the game progresses until it ends in 1946. The game is VERY pro-Axis. I suspect this is so because it was designed with the knowledge that most players would play the Axis so they could play it out through the course of the war and the vast majority of games are played solo against the AI. The ALLIES can be somewhat competitive in hotseat and pbem play (only kind supported until tcp/ip is implemented); but, only by doing some very counter intuitive things. This means if you approach the game from a historical perspective and your opponant is a good computer geek who loves disbanding the French fleet to create income to build other units, or deploying 12 - 15 Luftwaffe Air Fleets in the campaign against Russia, you are going to get frustrated rather quickly. There is no limitation on the number of units any country can build in the game other than a very simplistic economic model which produces Military Production Points (MPPs) based upon ownership of cities and resource hexes. The Axis economy is rather ahistorical; but, this is something that won't bother a gamer who wants to play a rather clever game badly enough. Thus, I do recommend the game for someone who wants a vaguely historical game on WW II which is fun to learn and can be amusing with hotseat and pbem play. When tcp/ip play is implemented, I think SC will get another boost in sales as it will definately appeal to the beer and pretzels crowd. The only real issue that I find annoying is that the game could have been so much more. It is obviously a game designed by a very good programmer which owes much to the inspiration of CLASH OF STEEL. I hope that SC will continue to be improved through patches and design tweaks so that the finished product will appeal more to the historical gamer rather than just the panzer commander wannabee crowd (if you want to see what I mean, pop onto the well supported BattleFront Strategic Command discussion board and read the names of the posters). The knowledge of the basic history may be lacking; but, they sure do enjoy the drive in their panzer through Europe. So, I would give STRATEGIC COMMAND an A for clever and innovative computer programming; a B- for a game that is distincly pro-Axis; and a C- for historical accuracy. Overall, the game gets a B- and a thumbs up from me because in the final analysis, it is alot of fun to play and worth the initial $25 investment. But, I do dream about the game that could have been and still could be if more attention is paid to game design and getting the history right. I just have the feeling that the playtesting done on the game prior to release was limited to a very small group dominated by computer gamers who did not care much for historical detail and limitations. The good news is that much of this could be fixed by the game designer through a patch if he wants to. The game designer should get kudos though for implementing tcp/ip when that happens. And, after a thank you by the gamer who had requested opinion on SC I followed up with: Your welcome Ken and even though I rather like the game; I gave as honest and fair a review of the game as possible. If you like pbem games, STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) works flawlessly. I get one to three turns done every day in the three current pbem games that I have going and have never had any kind of a serious hitch develop other than forgetting to attach the proper file to the email. 8^) The BattleFront site also supports the game in a most admirable fashion along with an opponant finders folder which makes finding an opponant for pbem very easy [ October 16, 2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

There is nothing worse than whiners whining about others who whine. [ October 15, 2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

However arby, the USA ought to be producing MORE than a constant 180 MPPs throughout the game and that is the point. The game can be made more Allied friendly, once you understand how it works, by invading Portugual early, invading Ireland when convenient, invading Norway when the Germans focus their intentions in the east, then occupying Sweden -- gets the Brits up into a more respectable range which gets even better when Iraq gets invaded by the Axis or the Allied take it out. But, does much of this make sense within a World War II framework? It may be fun; but, where is the WW II connection? I think it is fair to comment when the game rewards play that is very counter intuitive (and we have not taken up the idea of disbanding wholesale units to remake the Armed Forces of a given nation as the gamer likes). It is the sort of thing that makes computer geeks feel good; but, drives a gamer who has a historical viewpoint batty. [ October 15, 2002, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

A much more key issue in setting the whole Axis ball rolling is when did France surrender? This is the point when the Axis can buy into tech big time and when the differential in economic buying power is most pronounced. If the Allies can not hold France until Fall, 1940, they are generally doomed against competant Axis play. I do not doubt you are describing what you are seeing; but, play some more pbem against more varied and experienced players and you will see what I mean. The Allies can attempt to compensate by doing Portugual before France falls and Scandinavia after Germany turns east. This helps; but, the fall of France in the summer (the earlier the worse it is) is generally fatal to the Allies. The Allied player has to disband the French navy for MPPs and use any trick he can come up to keep the French kicking without compromising Britian's ability to survive. An Axis player who is efficient in his moves and who quickly exploits his opportunities is going to be very difficult to stop even without an advantage in tech. And, the key to the rapid fall of France and lots of other things is the Axis ability to create as many Air Fleets as they want in a period of the game when the Allies are severely limited by what they can produce due to their anemic economy while Russia is nuetral and gets nothing added to her Armed Forces.

First, it is obvious that you don't care that the real world Germany could never have built and fueled 10 Air Fleets much less the 15 you don't think are significant. So, you are playing some sort of Buck Rogers WW II game. More importantly, I take it you are playing brain dead pbem players. Any pbem or hotseat game (against another human) that I have ever seen which resulted in 10 or more Air Fleets for the German was a cake walk for the Germans. The Germans still have enough Infantry Armies, Corps and the odd Panzer Army to smack the Russian around and kill far more than three Corps a turn. Once the Germans get their supply situation settled, the will simply walk steadily to the east edge of the map and kill the Russians. The ONLY hope the Allies have is create a strategy where the German can not afford to build those 10+ Air Fleets. This is virtually impossible, unless you have an inexperienced Axis player who does not know what he is doing, if France falls anytime during the summer/fall of 1941. Maybe you enjoy only playing the Axis and only winning; but, I assure you that your source of pbem or any other type of human opponants is going to dry up once they realize that the game works this way. An inexperienced Axis player can get into trouble in a number of different ways because he does not realize that the game works in a particular fashion. But, once both players understand the basic design of STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC), as it is presently set up, against reasonably matched players, the game is going to see a very high number of Axis wins (there will be occasional Allied wins when the Allies stuff the Germans early and/or get lucky with tech research and the Germans get little if anything for their trouble). I now have more than 30 hotseat and pbem games under my belt and that is what I am seeing over and over and over again. These games have been played with nine different human players and all of the players are gamers who have experience playing board and computer games. I am not a particularily good or intuitive player; but, if you play the game enough -- this is what you will see. Most of the contrary opinion to this conclusion, drawn from experience, comes from players who don't play humans. They play their games against the AI using various settings. Personally, I think the AI is great because it does make learning the game alot of fun; but, the proof of SC's long term playability is its ability to be able to provide a good game in hotseat, pbem and tcp/ip play. I fear that unless something is done to fix the game, SC may ultimately fail this test. The only way my friends and I continue to play SC hotseat and pbem is with the regular swapping of sides. The challenge is not to play the Axis. The challenge is to try to get lucky enough with the Allies to make a game of it. [ October 12, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

At Hubert's request I have moved the discussion to a folder (the same name as here -- ARMCHAIR GENERALS) in the general discussion area.

In keeping with my last post, which one book would you recommend to be read in order to get the maximum enjoyment out of STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC)? Which movie or documentary would you recommend to maximize enjoyment of SC?

The Soviets built extensive fortifications in WW II. They had an enormous effect on the way the campaign was fought (Kursk, for example, is a perfect example). The Soviets should be permitted to fortify a limited number of hexes even though the other countries probably should not be able to do so although the Atlantic Wall certainly stands as one of the larger engineering projects ever undertaken in Europe.

A serious question Randell and I will attempt to provide a brief, yet, serious reply. My interest in gaming stems mostly from my interest in history, politics, econmics and government. I read history because I believe that what is past; is prologue. In order to understand what kind of society we live in today, I think one has to have a basic understanding of the past. If you read a fair amount of history, professional historians are very good at describing events; but, most professional historians tend to leave their narrative to a description of what happened. Many have a great deal of difficulty in even being able to describe WHY a certain event occured (considering the discussion speculative). A few like to attempt to describe causation; but, this form of analysis is sometimes very controversial. History books have limited aids when you are reading them. Some very good histories have little if anything in way of maps, or tables of organization or other supporting materials which tell the reader the basic concepts in the book (what a Corps or Division of this period looked like). Now, the interesting thing about a game is that a game desinger has to synthasize much of the same information contained in a good history and quantify it. First, any decent game is going to give you a good map of the theater of operations. I have to constantly consult an atlas or two with almost every history I read because the there are no maps in the book or the map(s) provided lack detail which helps make the narrative make sense. The game designer has to determine what features on a map are important. Even STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) does this when it presents the geography of Europe with the detail that is imporant to a game of this scale. Next, the game designer has to quantify what the actors (the units and significant leaders) look like. Try to get that out of almost any history. What was the relative fighting power of a panzer division versus and American armor division? A good game has to tell you this. A good game design, by the way its rules work, also has to identify the crucial factors which influenced a particular war, campaign or battle. If logistics was they key (in the designer's mind), the game design will reveal this. Thus, a good game design will reveal a treasure load of information about WHY an event occured that is remarkably difficult to come by with just a read of a history of the subject. Finally, a good game design is going to give the gamer one important sense which is almost never found in any history book and that is: what was the probability that any given outcome would turn out the way it did. Just ask most historians, what was the likelyhood that the South could have gained its independance in the American Civil War and you will see what I mean. At best, you get a very controversial response; many times with well respected authorities disagreeing on the answer. A gamer gets a pretty good sense of this by the way that a game is designed. If all the BLUE units have a strength of ten and all the GRAY units have a strength of five (and all other things being equal), the gamer is going to have a much better sense of the WHY of events that what most narratives will tell the reader. In the end, I am not foolish enough to believe because I play a game with cardboard pieces or watch units move on my computer screen, that I have experienced war. However, I do think that a good game can help me to understand what is important in the manner in which war has worked in the past. It does not present the carnage, the destruction or even Patton's view that war was the greatest endeavor open to man. But, it does provide useful insight that is difficult to obtain just about any other way because the synthesis that a game designer has to go through tells the gamer a great deal about the whys of history (or for a future conflict). It is the reason why military institutions and intelligence agencies game on a regular basis in order to inform their members about the subject. It can also be intellectually stimulating and fun!

I agree with French Prime Minister Clemenceau who said (and I paraphrase), "war is too important to be left to the generals." And, I include armchair generals in that sentiment. My use of the term "armchair generals" is generally directed to those who don't want to be bothered by the little details that largely shaped the way that war was fought in any given era. We would all want to have unlimited resources, manpower and supplies; but, that is not how the real world works. I think that it is the issue which prevents STRATEGIC COMMAND from painting a much more realistic overview of the war in Europe 1939-1945. It is the reason that Hitler sought and got a war in which he fought his enemies one at a time (at least until June 22, 1941). Germany only stood a chance to prevail if she could dispose of her enemies in turn and the genius of Hitler is revealed when one recognizes just how close he came to pulling this trick off. Finally, it has always struck me as appropriate that in his final testiment, Adolf Hitler blamed his generals for losing the war and his generals spent the rest of their lives (and their generally self-serving memoirs) blaming Hitler for losing the war. Maybe Hitler and the German generals deserved each other in some strange perverse way. The German generals certainly could not have screwed up the planning for Barbarossa any more even if they had set out to intentionally sabatage the invasion of Soviet Russia. [ October 06, 2002, 02:38 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Sounds awfully good to me! :cool:

Gee, I don't know there Randall. I always thought it was a fair critcisim of any game or simulation when what the gamer saw on his gaming table or on his computer screen failed to look much like what one sees in a good military history of the period. That is what is happening in STRATEGIC COMMAND after about the first year in game terms. This is especially true when the players are quite familiar in HOW they can exploit the holes in the game design. Terribly sorry to point this out. The game design does not require that this happen; just that it does with the current mix of design decisions. If you would like to explain how having 20 German Air Fleets in the game by 1942 or the unlimited ability of Germany and Italy to transport land units to invade Britian or even how it is accurate for the game to provide Italy with a war economy which is 90% of Britian, or even more hilariously, 80% of the USA, you will catch my attention. Until then, I will give your views the appropriate weight they deserve. You might even pick up a book or two and learn some basic facts. I just love it when some folks don't like it when someone else uses some of that fancy book learning. If a professional military officer wanted to weigh in on this discussion, it would carry some weight. I would truly love to hear how the study of logistics or industrial potential has been eliminated from from the War College. (Although I would fear for our country if this were indeed true.) If a professional military historian provided an opinion, I would take some notice. But, you gotta open a book there Randall -- ever so sorry about that. Finally, and once again, I am not saying that SC, as it presently works, is not a fun little game in its own right. It is. It will be enhanced with the implementation of tcp/ip. But, it still won't be a very balanced or generally accurate model of WW II in the European Theater. SC has the potential to be alot more than what it presently is and that is the good news (along with tcp/ip). [ October 06, 2002, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Tell that to North Vietnamese or the Chinese Army in Korea. The notion that any country can produce airplanes to the exclusion of everything else and get a war winning strategy in WW II is completely unconvincing (even to an Air Force general). Now if we are talking John Carter of Mars; maybe. But, I thought we were discussing a serious strategic level WW II game. The reason WHY combined arms was the war winning doctrine in WW II was because there were limits on the total number of planes, tanks, trucks, etc. that any nation could produce and place into the field. This reality is something that some arm chair generals like to ignore and why their musings lack much substance. [ October 05, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Brian Rock responded to my post saying the game deserved an A in programming and an F in history: "This is far too harsh. Bear in mind that there are now hundreds of players pushing the system to breaking point and unearthing issues that I'll wager never cropped up in testing." I am very sympathetic to the notion that the amount of play testing being done with STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is many times greater now, after the release of SC, than anything Hubert was able to accomplish with a small and loyal playtest team. I also think that SC was playtested primarily from the point of view that the game would be played solo against the AI. Brian continued: "Designing a game to simulate reality is damn hard. Even a game like World in Flames is up to about Edition #37 of the "Final Ultimate Never-to-be-Amended Again" version of its rules (all eighteen volumes of them), and it's still got loopholes and bugs." Yup, but as an opponant of mine in a pbem game note, it is funny that a simple game like AXIS AND ALLIES gets WW II right much more realistically than SC as it is presently configured and designed. That is why I gave SC an "A" in programming. But, it is also silly not to acknowedge flaws in the present game. How is it ever going to get better? "Furthermore it's far from clear that a more detailed treatment will necessarily give a more accurate outcome. Additionally complexity can often introduce seemingly minor elements that through the whole system out of whack." Who is talking about more complexity? The problem is that the game provides neat computer programming and a not very good game. This is without even beginning to discuss whether the game faintly resembles history. The game is unbalanced. You have to really WANT to play it after you figure it out in order to continue to play SC. That is not good for the game or for its reputation. I very much WANT SC to work. Otherwise, I would simply give up on the game and go off and do something else which was more satisfying. Brian wrote: "I think the game scale and overall approach are fine but in need of tweaking. I also recognise that SC was never intended to be a high-fidelty reworking of WWII, and to expect it be one is unreasonable IMO." But, it should provide at least a solid game along with as much historical reality as say AXIS AND ALLIES. But, it doesn't right now. That is unforunate. I think Hubert understands this and I think he is big enough to take fair criticisim and use it to improve SC. He is doing a hell of alot of work on tcp/ip (for which I tip my hat to him). But, all the effort on tcp/ip implementation is going to be wasted if at the end of the day, the verdict is that SC is not a very good game because it is unbalanced and looks nothing like WW II. (SC is being marketed as a WW II grand strategy game and that is what it ought to be. There is a market for this.) HolzemFrumFloppen wrote: "then there are those members of this board that would get an F in elementary etiquette course." What a silly response. I consider Hubert to be a gifted game designer. Giving him a pass is more disrespectful of what he has accomplished than anything I can think of. I fully understand how difficult it is to create any good game design much less do it on a computer. To come up with anything is a remarkable achievement. That is why Hubert's design deserves to be tied to a better game. The good news is that it could be done. It will never be done if Hubert never hears about how unbalanced and unrealistic the actual game is. And, that is what you are saying. The best thing one can do to provide honest critcisim is to be accurate. "Geez, It's a game, not a pre-nuptial agreement. Don't take it so seriously." I can not think of anything that is more disrespectful of all the work Hubert has poured into SC Holzem. (And, I am sure that you do not mean it as such.) I do not think that Hubert intended to design a nifty program which is not a terribly good game on WW II. I am sure that Hubert intended to design the best program and game. He is tantalizing close; but, it is dishonest not to note where the problems are. Alot of very good games have gone through this teething process. This was true for simple games like AXIS AND ALLIES to much more complex, WORLD IN FLAMES and THIRD REICH. None of these games got better because gamers said that the original design was great even though they knew there were problems. The games got better because folks who love gaming took them seriously to spend the time to playtest and provide honest feedback so that the game could be fixed. Otherwise, SC will simply die a quiet and sad little death and it will be noted in future game reviews as a noble effort which just missed the mark. SC does not have to miss the mark and it can be the great game that I think Hubert intended to produce. [ October 05, 2002, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is simply chock full of examples where the game design fails because it places no realistic limits on what a player can do. It is not just the 20 Air Fleets one can build; but, the fact that you can literally transport enormous numbers of troops and invade with them. Once again, Germany and Italy are the equals of everyone else. :confused: The game design says that the designer is only a computer geek. Any interest in reality is simply window dressing. While the game might get an A in a programming course, it would get an F in an elementary history course. As the game presently stands, I could not recommend it for tcp/ip play to any gamer that seeks a competitive game.

STRATEGIC COMMAND provides a very interesting example of thinking outside of the box when discusses how "gamey tactics" can be used to make the anemic Allies, currently in the game, more robust. All these "gamey tactics" essentially direct the game along the lines that the Allies are able to stop and Axis attack early in the game. These tactics seek to offset the fact that the looting concept provides the Axis with the surplus cash to create a much more potent military than the Allies. Once the dynmaic of the Axis success is established in the game. It is all but impossible to stop. Yet, this contrasts exactly opposite with what happened historically. Historically, the Axis met with great success at start; yet, the Allies came back and won. Why is that? So, in short, I do not see the panacea of the Allies using a few gamey tactics redressing the incredible proAxis slant in SC except on the first game or two until a player sees how this happens. SC can and should be a better game than that. [ October 04, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I agree with the conclusion that Bill Macon reached that the scale is not a problem with STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC). I do believe that the choice of scale and unit size, particularily the emphasis on the Army level, makes the scale particularily appropriate. I continue to believe the reason why the game departs so radically from the historical model is because the game permits players to do things that their historical counterparts could not do. The historical leaders could not choose to ignore the realities of what fuel constraints meant. The historical leaders could not mass produce Air Fleets regardless of their actual industrial base. The historical leaders could not rely on a basic economic model which is out of whack (Germany and Italy's production versus those of the Allies). The good news is that SC is, I believe, fixable. SC can provide a much more balanced game (than the current Axis dream scenario), which is exciting for both sides to play and is a much better model of what WW II looked like in the European Theater. This is going to be an important factor when tcp/ip is implmented and players go out on the net seeking others to play the game. Who, in their right mind, would want to play the Allies? All these changes and an improved game can come from the existing scale. Bill is right to point to both ADVANCED THIRD REICH and WORLD IN FLAMES (my personal preference of the two) as examples where game scale identical to SC works very well and creates an exciting game for both sides with a much more realistic view of WW II. [ October 04, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

My basic objection to playing an AI versus pbem or tcp/ip play is that the AI must cheat to be even be remotely competitive. I use the term cheat to mean that the rules that apply to one player are different when they apply to the other. I think this distorts the game and makes it difficult to draw any real conclusions from a particular game other than the enjoyment in the particular game at hand. What I do find particularily curious are those who only play solo and demand that a particular game design provide them with the maximum freedom of play to pursue alternate strategies when they know full well that the AI is virtually brain dead when it comes to alternate approaches. But then, some folks like to win. So, if it satisifies this need, then there is some beneficial aspect that comes out of this.

My view with regard to most computer games is that I want an AI capable of making the experience of learning the game enjoyable. With that as my criteria, I think that STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is an unqualified success. I enjoyed learning how to play the game. Once you have learned the nuances of the game, then I want the game to teach me something and that has always come from playing another human via hotseat, pbem or tcp/ip. I am having a fairly good time playing SC pbem now even though I think the game has a significant pro-Axis bias.

I wish I really knew how good SC1 could be. I am most curious as to what Hubert will do next. I hope that with tcp/ip implemented, SC1 will also be made to provide a more balanced, if not more accurate, strategic WW II game.

Yes, it sounds good in theory; but, most times your opponant will not give you the luxery of being able to afford the time to rebuild a unit in increments.

I appreciate what you are saying; but, my experience is that solo games against the AI are not really good indicator for a game where both sides are played by a human. Quite simply, the AI is predictable and locked into a predetermined pattern. I don't think you can get much useful from playing the AI. Play some more pbem and you will quickly see what I am talking about. A human will exploit the holes in the game's design which the AI will never do.

Unclear from your post DevilDog, did the Allies win the game you describe? I have a pbem game where the Germans have invaded Britian and just took London. The Russians have just entered the war. Game is still in progress and I don't know if they will win and, to be fair, my Axis opponant is till figuing out all the nuances of the game. I still do not see how, with experienced and equally matched opponats, the Allies would ever be able to duplicate a comeback that we saw in history (with a French surrender in early July, 1940).