sogard

It is rather amusing to read comments like the last two which seem to only be made to spark a controversy. The critics have made their evaluation and it goes like: The color blue is superior to red. One has no idea why they hold this opinion because it seem both of them lack the ability to communicate it. If you don't give us the criteria of why you believe this, then your opinion is of no help to anyone else. Looks like flame bait to me.

CLASH OF STEEL borrowed a great deal from a number of board games and a couple of computer games. I presume that Hubert knew what CLASH OF STEEL (CoS) looked like when he was designing STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC). In my opinion, SC is a major improvement over CoS. So, what is your point? All game designs borrow from what has gone before. I would play SC over CoS in a heartbeat.

Has anyone ever seen a game in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) where France surrenders in either June or July 1940 that resulted in an Allied victory? What I am looking for is a game where the Allies came back to win from a close to historic outcome in 1940. I have never seen it. In order for the Allies to win in all the games that I have seen, the Allies must do substantially better than their historic counterparts. This usually means that France must survive well into 1941. This question would really only apply to games between two human players (either pbem or hotseat). [ September 29, 2002, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I think I am going to start a new topic folder from this; but, I will also post it here so folks can understand where it is coming from: Has anyone ever seen a game in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) where France surrenders in either June or July 1940 that resulted in an Allied victory? What I am looking for is a game where the Allies came back to win from a close to historic outcome. I have never seen it. In order for the Allies to win in all the games that I have seen, the Allies must do substantially better than their historic counterparts. This usually means that France must survive well into 1941. This question would really only apply to games between two human players (either pbem or hotseat).

You have to remember the scale of the game though. Each hex is 50 miles across. The so called unbreakable front really is moving back and forth over those 50 miles. Finally, with the current game design, I have never seen an unbreakable front. One does not need 20 Air Fleets to bring movement to the game.

I understand what you are saying about the fact that the Germans start with two HQs does give them a qualitative advantage (although not from the start and not on the individual unit basis which would reflect superior training and experience). However, the game still lacks the ALLIED quantitative advantage. Other than pure game balancing reasons, what other explanation do you have for ridiculously low production value for the United States and to a lessor extent, Britian? Is it because STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is hard wired in a fashion that the game does not permit an increase in the size of their production as the game goes on? I suggest you take a look at Richard Overy's masterfull WHY THE ALLIES WON which contain production figures for all the powers in WW II. They do not bear any resemblance to the pretty, but inaccurate picture, painted, at the moment in SC. Finally, I hope no one missconstrues my post. I think that SC is a remarkable computer game. It has tremendous potential. I just wish that it resembled the real WW II a bit more; but, that is my personal bias in gaming. I prefer accuracy (in general terms) even at the expense of some game balance (you can always swap sides and give the other fellow a go with the side that is perceived to have the advantage) although I understand the desire of any game designer to produce a game which is fun to play for both players. [ September 28, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

BlueMax 1939 writes: "wittmann was NOT involved in any massacres..." How do you know this? Because another SS officer says so? If you really want to be honest about this, why don't you email the Simon Weisenthal center in Los Angelos, California, and ask them what they know about Michael Wittman. At least then you would be getting a view not filtered through the lens of another SS officer's eyes.

My read of history is that Germany began WW II with some significant advantages which account for Germany's early success: 1. Hitler did not quite get the war he wanted (in September, 1939, Hitler did not believe that Britian and France would actually fight over Poland), but, Hitler's foreign policy did give him the opportunity to divide his enemies and fight a war against only some of them (several small wars where he demolished his opponants in turn just as his model, Frederick the Great had done in the 1700s). This, STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) represents rather well. The Soviets and the Americans are just lurking off stage and the game does permit Germany to fight only against France and Britian, along with Poland, at start. and 2. There is no doubt that the German Armed Forces had appreciated how the next war would be fought much better than their Allied counterparts. I do not think that the German HQs alone reflect that the Germans understood combined arms (the cooperative use of air, armor and infantry), command control (Gamelin had no radio at his HQ and relied upon motorcycle dispatch riders to get orders to subordinates) and just what the tempo of operations would be (the Allied response to the panzer drive to the coast in May, 1940, was always at least 48 hours late because they continued to think of their 1918 experience). Each Allied nation that joined the war had a very steep learning curve to move from peace time to war time mind sets (this was even true of the United States Army which really did not sort all this out until 1942/1943). I think that the way SC currently works actually under values this. I think that German units ought to start the game with at least some experience. This would reflect the better training and doctrine found in the German Army. I would bump this up even with the existing HQs (although I would be careful about giving the HQs themselves any at start experience). One would also see the Germans lose this advantage if their combat losses were severe enough so that when the units were reinforced, their experience level would go down. Right now, the advantage that the Germans possess in SC is mostly quantitative and not qualitative (although I recognize that is some of what the at start German HQs are suppose to represent). But, the Germans themselves recognized, from the start, that they were not likely to win the war strictly in quantitative terms. SC now sees the Germans winning an "American style" war with their sheer numbers determining the day, if nothing else. This is what I think is the one element where SC fails the most. But, how to change this? If one ups the quality of the Germans at this point without addressing the quantitative advantage that Germany presently possesses, the current game where Germany enjoys the advantage (even with very inventive and counterintuitive Allied strategies of disbanding units and altering the Allied force structure) will only be made worse. However, it does seem to me that SC has many of the elements which would permit Germany to exhibit the qualitative advantages while still giving the Allies the quantitative edge (remember that by 1940, the British alone were producing more aircraft than the Germans). [ September 27, 2002, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Any time I build Air Fleets and use them, they don't remain at full strength for long so that ought to be factored into your analysis. [ September 27, 2002, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I received your email Brian. Thank you for your views. Time to move on anyway.

Iola actually offered to restart the game at the point just before he got the Level 1 Jet tech level; but, I declined thinking that any Allied player that had the moxy to make a bet like that and then have it come up a winner deserved to enjoy the result. Next thing I knew I watched a 5 point German Air Fleet blow up on a mission (first time I had realized that he had jets).

It is going to be rather difficult to actually figure out how tweaking the unit cost per tech level or any adjustment of the economic formulas will affect game play without actually play testing it. I am not suggesting that only limiting units in SC will fill the bill and I agree that whatever the solution is; it ought to one which causes Hubert the least amount of trouble yet gets the job done. I am curious to see what the other modifications that Hubert was suggesting will do especially the Capital changes for Russia and what he does for Alexandria. If the Brits could actually build units in Alexandria, that would be very nice (if nothing else, representing the arrival of forces from India, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa.

Brian: Do you agree with the following quote from BlueMax: "if you have a problem with me citing wittmans stats then tough...not every us soldier was good, not every ss man was evil..." and "but this is beside the point; to say that he is an evil man is ridiculous...an example was used that everyone on all levels was Nazified is wrong as well..." If you do, would you please give me an example of a good SS man. Do you believe that all SS men were "Nazified?" Could you give me an example of an unNazified SS man? You need to read all the posts on this subject in order to understand what is going on here. BlueMax is an individual who believes that an SS man is worthy of being singled out and emulated. Do you agree with this? That is what I was reacting to and profoundly disagree with. BlueMax can have any opinion he wants on the way the game works. I can have any opinion I like on his opinion. Neither my opinion nor his on the subject of game design would be offensive. The tag line about the SS is (particularily since it cites another Nazi source). Do you believe that Micahel Wittman's photograph should adorn a wall at West Point along with other great military commanders such as Blucher or Frederick the Great or even von Moltke, the Elder? I take it that you think that only direct examination of a witness should be permitted and never allow any cross examination? If you go out onto the internet, you can easily find a number of sites where the SS (in general) and the 1st SS Panzer Division (in particular) are portrayed as the good guys. You seem to think that this sort of nonsense should go unrebutted on sites such as this. Why? Finally, I do not doubt your sincerity when you wrote: "I am no fan of Wittman. My only regret about his death is that it didn't happen five years earlier, before he took the lives of the crews of the 270 vehicles he is credited with destroying." The discussion about BlueMax's tagline began on another folder when I made a very similar comment and the response by some (but, to be fair, not by BlueMax1939) was how could I be so cruel. He was such a brave and admirable soldier. I did not think that response appropriate then or now. At the end of the Second World War, Dwight Eisenhower witnessed the signing of the formal document of surrender at his Headquarters is Rheims, France. The German Army was represented by General Alfred Jodl. At the signing ceremony, Eisenhower refused to return Jodl's salute and refused to shake his hand. Does anyone think that Eisenhower was being rude? General Jodl was a professional officer and member of the German General Staff as well as being Chief of Staff to the German High Command. General Jodl was not a member of the SS. [ September 26, 2002, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

"Originally posted by Jollyguy: I know Iola is gloating about his 9-1 record as the Allies, but my guess is he hasn't played enough good Axis players enough times. Again, great game." Well, having lost to Iola when Iola was playing the Allies and I was playing the Axis, I think I know some of what is going on here. First, let me say, Iola is a VERY GOOD PLAYER. His moves are very efficient with little, if any wasted time or effort. But, part of what was going on in our game was that Iola's strategy was very counter intuitive if one were attempting to play given WW II historic experience. Iola used a very aggressive strategy where he not only cashed in the French Air Fleet to generate the necessary MPPs to get a French HQ; but, he also disbanded and cashed in most of the French fleet. This generated a great deal more income for the French than anyone would have been lead to believe possible (especially since the Game Manual specifically says that players can NOT disband naval units and get MPPs for it -- the only way one would know this is possible is to carefully read the patch history updates). The British too pursued a strategy of disbanding units to enable a restructuring of the British military so that the Brits look quite differently from what you would see in a solo game. Iola disbanded the Bomber Air Fleet along with a chunk of the British navy which resulted in the Allies fielding either equal Air Forces (all British) to the Germans or at a 5:4 ratio. Finally, Iola invested at least one research point in Jet research and got a payback on that investment almost immediately so that the Allies were playing with a tech advantage over the Germans. I fell right into this trap completely and only recognized that the Allied force structure looked radically different than anything I had seen in any previous game (or thought possible). Iola cemented his victory because he was thinking so innovatively out of the box that he exploited a number of game features that most players would never dream of. Having players who can and will do this is very important in play testing any game design because it is very common for a game to work perfectly well when players do what is expected. What is very difficult to consider though is what happens to any given game design when players do the unexpected. Possibly all the aggressive tactics by the Allies can be countered by an equally aggressive Axis player. I don't know. I hope to do another game against Iola shortly to see whether or not this is so. Anyway, I thought I would give this folder my thoughts on game play after a game where I could see something of how a very good player, who understood the game design well, was able to win with the Allies. [ September 26, 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I look forward to seeing the tweaks in action.

I removed a duplicate post which I accidently made for the reader's convenience. [ September 26, 2002, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

First, let me say Panzer Cmdr, that I respect and honor your experiece of serving the United States in the Gulf War. I appreciate your service. But, I am not objecting to a player playing Germany in a WW II game. I have no problem with a game which uses historical units where all the historical units (SS, NKVD whatever) are included. I even do not have an objection where the regular Wehrmacht units are in grey and the SS are white on black (although I would not have a problem if ALL German units were the same). There have been a number of hot debates on various wargame forums on why wargame publishers feel the need to make SS units more distinguishable. There is nothing wrong with the study of military history nor the creation and playing of a game based upon military history. It is a good thing to use a game to get a better understanding of what history looked liked. Gaming is a great hobby. I also agree that BlueMax has a right to run any tag line he wants; but, I think a tag line which quotes one SS Officer praising another is in incredibly bad taste. I believe that when one sees another demonstrating such bad taste which is offensive to many; it is appropriate to comment on this. Why? Because we are talking about setting the record straight about who and what the SS was. We are not talking about Darth Vader and Imperial storm troopers here; but, about real individuals who fought for a very evil system and cause. BlueMax makes the argument that all soldiers are the same. No one is blameless and no one can be blamed. That view is patently wrong. Our military acadamies do not teach this notion nor does the Uniform Code of Military Law recognize this. Yes, war is terrible; but, some causes and organizations have absolutely no redeeming value. The SS falls into this category. The fact that this is so is documented in literally thousands of books and articles. There is also a very small; but, hardcore view that there are no norms in war. That seek to distort the historical record. If you do a quick web search on the SS, you will find a number of these sites, in english and not located in Germany. Why do you think this is so? It is because in the Federal Republic of Germany; it is illegal to have such a site. In the United States, we have the first amendment which permits free speech no matter how erroneous and wrong it might be. We believe in the market place of ideas where the truth will win out as long as an honest and frank discussion is held. That is what I am attempting to do. I am attempting to set the record straight about who and what the SS was. Quite obviously, some here do not know this. Finally, I agree with Studs Terkel that WW II, as terrible as it was, was the LAST GOOD WAR. It was a war that was fought to save Western Civilization. Remembering that is the way that I honor those who fought for freedom and my ability to live in a just society. That is something we should never forget and ought not just be saved for 4th of July speeches that no one attends or pays any attention to. Remembering the truth is the least we can do for those who paid the highest cost in the defense of liberty. [ September 26, 2002, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

What a refreshing post! We all have the right to change our minds on all sorts of issues not only in gaming; but, in life. I respect anyone who recognizes that they might have been misstaken and even more so when he admits this in a public forum. Everyone benefits from this learning experience.

I agree Bill. The would all be an improvement.

An exchange of emails will Bill Macon got me to thinking about HOW we play STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) might very well affect how we react to various issues in the game. All my games are now either pbem or hotseat. I suspect that if I was playing SC solo; I might have less of a problem with the low Western Allied production or unlimited Air Fleets or cashing in units for MPPs and building different units. Somehow, when a real person is getting a benefit or a terribly unrealistic advantage, it just rubs me wrong more. When Hubert gets tcp/ip implemented, I suspect that this might be even more noticeable.

My first wargame was Avalon Hill's ANZIO which I bought in 1969 with some of my High School graduation money. I played that game alot that summer before I went off to college at Georgetown University and discovered DIPLOMACY. Had many late night sessions of back stabbing and other such fun (my room mate refused to talk to me for several days after my Russia failed to live up to an agreement with his Germany). [ September 25, 2002, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

bluemax 1939 explains: "if you have a problem with me citing wittmans stats then tough...not every us soldier was good, not every ss man was evil..." It is ever so kind of you to let the SS off the hook for war crimes. I will alert the good citizens of Israel, Poland, France, Greece, and Russia that they should just forget about any nasty little warcrimes that litter the record of this organization. For your information, Michael Wittman was a member of the 1st SS Panzer Division known as the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler. The SS had their largest training camp at a little place called Dachau, Germany. I don't know if you have ever heard of Dachau; but, it was a nice little summer camp run by the SS for folks the nice Nazi regime did not like. You can use various search devices, if you like, to obtain more information about the numerous war crimes associated specifically with the 1st SS Panzer Division. Probably the most well known of these nice boys' pranks was the massacre of unarmed and defenseless United States soldiers at Malmedy in Belgium. These American soldiers died so a little twit like you could burnish the image of one of their neat opponants. When Dwight Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied forces, visited Dachau to inspect the place and see what had been going on, he vomited and issued an order that the camp be filmed, as it was found. Eisenhower said he did this so that little twerps like you could not later claim that all this war crime stuff was just a little missunderstanding. By the way, Dwight Eisenhower was a real hero who possessed skill and courage if you want to begin to understand what the word means. Thomas Friedman wrote recently in a NEW YORK TIMES article about how dangerous the internet could be when complete untruths and lies were commonly made and went out untested and challenged. When I see someone honoring an SS man, especially someone who claims that they are educated (or what seems to pass for being educated in Oklahomma these days), then I have nothing but contempt for that person. You really don't have any real idea who Michael Wittman was or what he did during WW II because you are only relying on German sources (and German sources to boot who are sympathetic to the SS and the Nazis). I would wager that a paper detailing the life of Michael Wittman which only relied upon Nazi sources would not even pass muster in Oklahomma; but, I could be wrong about that. I mean, just look, you claim to be top in your class and you don't have a clue about seeking an objective source before you form an opinion on a member of the SS. Why don't you email a real military historian and ask him about the record of the 1st SS Panzer Division and Michael Wittman. I hear that David Irving is still providing testimonials about how there is no documentary evidence showing that Adolf Hitler ordered the genocide against the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the intelligensia of Poland etc. But, he does not have much left since the London court held him liable as a denier of the crimes of the Third Reich. I will try to be charitable. You are young. You maybe have never spoken to a WW II vet about their experiences or their views of who and what the SS was. I have had that experience and I honor the memory of those who have passed and those who are still living who fought so that we now can enjoy the benefits of living in freedom and liberty. I have nothing but contempt for those who chose (they were all volunteers) to fight in the SS. [ September 25, 2002, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Are you proposing arbitrary force pool limits for this game, or not? That was your original thesis, despite some of the other tangents you have chosen to go off on, so please clarify what your specific suggestions are for how to improve things. I must have missed something somewhere. I also questioned the absence of force pool limits long ago, but came to realize that the flexibility in SC allows for some interesting gameplay and is an important feature of the game. I won't repeat what I suggested previously, but you may want to reread my comments and reconsider how subtle changes to the research and economic systems could produce a more historical effect that we're both interested in seeing.</font>

Well Sogard, you are obviously a talented rules lawyer, a devoted student of military history, an experienced wargamer, and a certified WiF playtester to boot! Very impressive. You are also exceptionally rude and obnoxious. That may score you points in a courtroom and fatten your checkbook, but you sure as hell aren't winning friends and influencing people around here.