sogard

Morton Kay writes: "But now i am asking you to take your "discussion" to another forum." And, I will discuss any aspect of STRATEGIC COMMAND and the discussion about the game (including correcting the historical record) that I wish. You may skip over any of my posts which you may find inconvenient or unpleasant. I give you permission to ignore them if that makes you feel better. But, free speech is a funny thing. We don't have to like what the other guy is saying; but, we ought to not only tolerate it. We should protect it. Or, maybe this is only an American idea. But then, we had to cross the Atlantic to insure that when you were born in 1976, you were born into a free Denmark and not part of the German Reich where you could look forward to a lifetime of forced labor. Of course, we could have been wrong about that I suppose.

Panzer Lehr writes: "Well, how do YOU know? Are you all of a sudden the king of history?" I have read some history. I have cited sources. Apparantly you don't read. Where do you get your information. If you have a source which contradicts what I have written, then cite it. If not, I know what your silence represents. "Do you know everything? Apparently your much over-sized ego would lead you to believe so. It's rather unfortunate you don't have any large holding tank of smarts to back up that titanicly disproportional ego of yours." This sort of personal attack is so childish. If you disagree with my views and/or sources, then cite some. Are you saying that you "know everything?" The person who seems to have the large ego here is the one making the personal attack and not backing it up with any facts. History is what it is. You can not make it up if the reader takes the time and looks at the historic record and it seems you just want to make it up as you go along. Kinda hard to do when the Second World War is one of the more documented and studied periods in human history. But, you may be at a disadvantage, you may not read. If so, I suggest you take a course, contact you local elementary school.

How would you know? Are you disputing what the historical record is? Do you find these facts inconvenient or unpleasant? Nothing like blaming the victim for the crime.

All I can tell you Mr. Faramir is just go out and read the recent major histories of the Second World War. The Murray and the Millett book is a good start; but, you can find this information rather easily if you do. I would suggest that you start with the more recent histories because they have the greatest range of source material. Interestingly enough, this is even true if you are German and reading German materials. There have been many recent discussions, debates, and forums on war guilt. The idea that the SS (including the Waffen SS) were just a group of elite professional soldiers won't wash. It is Nazi apologia at its worst and ought to be pointed out any time this canard is made. This point was made even more clear when President Reagan spoke in the late 1980s at the German military cemetary at Bitbourg where there were SS graves at the cemetary. Reagan's speech was condemned at the time and the judgment of historians (at least in the United States) since then is that this was a mistake because it does not set the historical record straight. We owe it to the past to tell our history accurately whether we like the story or not. [ September 17, 2002, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

Your a complete idiot Edwin and you don't know what you are talking about. The finest German fighting general of the Second World War was Erwin Rommel. The fact that by the end of the war, the German officer corps was thoroughly Nazified and knew what it was doing along with many of the lower ranks is well documented. Source: A WAR TO BE WON: FIGHTING THE SECOND WORLD WAR by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett (Harvard University Press: 2000). Murray and Millett are the two most distinguished military historians in the United States today. Millet is Chairman of the Military History Department of the Ohio State University. The notion that you advance that all soldiers are the same is conemptable although Dr. Goebbels would approve. The record of the German Army in the Second World War is what it is. You can not white wash it and you should be ashamed if you try.

First, your argument is classic "everybody is the same" and no one is ever guilty or responsible. This is pure nonsense. Second, you admit that you know nothing about the real Michael Wittman's wartime record. You rely on the silly notion that he was never charged with a warcrime. Well, thank goodness, Michael Wittman was killed in 1944 by people who were defending the very freedoms you enjoy. The Allied Tribunals at the end of the Second World War were not about indicting dead people. As such, Adolf Hitler was not indicted and tried because he was dead at the time of the Nuremburg trials. I take it you are not aware of the dismal record of the SS, including the Waffen SS, in perpetrating war crimes in Poland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. Recent research, well documented by those who WANT to look, demonstrates that most soldiers who fought on the eastern front at least knew about the killings going on even if they did not participate in the atrocities. Michael Wittman fought for several years on the Eastern Front. How do we know this? Because historians have been reviewing the photographs many of them sent home. They are filled with images of civilian death. Finally, the "Just as it's unfair to blame all germans for the holocaust, I think it's ridiculous to wish death to all SS members, especially those who served in combat roles. A soldier is a soldier." is simply wrong. What do you think the SS was? What did they represent? Your view whitewashes history. It is a view which is even not accepted in Germany today. Fortunately, modern Germany has made an honest attempt to come to terms with its Nazi past. We do our German friends nor ourselves a favor by making the past nicer. Your German relatives in the German Army fought for a thoroughly despicable cause. It was the most dangerous threat to Western Civilization that we have seen in the modern era. It would be a terrible thing to ignore this fact. I hope you reconsider your viewpoint and not let the millions of deaths caused by the Third Reich go unremembered. Once again, I will be charitable and say that I am sure that your comments are a result more of ignornace rather than malice or intent. [ September 17, 2002, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

"Michael Wittmann died as he had lived - brave, dashing and a living example to his grenadiers." - Kurt 'Panzer' Meyer SS-Haupsturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann KIA: 8 August 1944 138 tank kills 132 other vehicles destroyed" I read the above as a tag line and I have to wonder what in the hell this is all about. Michael Wittmann was a member of the SS. What sort of sick crap is this glorifying this sad bastard? It was a good thing that Michael Wittmann was killed. He should have been killed earlier. Michael Wittmann was imbued with the Nazi garbage. It is very sad that anyone would use such a tag line quoting another Nazi bastard. I really have to wonder if the writer of this knows anything about the history of WW II, what the Nazis were and what the SS was. I will simply chalk the tag line up to stupidity and ignorance since I am in a charitable mood. I know several WW II vets who would take great offence at this tag line, particularily since several of them lost friends ridding the planet of Michael Wittman and his ilk. [ September 17, 2002, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

I find it fascinating that there are so many folks here who seem to think that one can not have a good game based upon the historic power relationships between the major powers in World War II. History must always be seen as inevitable even though this inevitability was not apparant to the major actors at the time. I think that there is a general consensus among military historians that it was possible for Germany and her Allies to win WW II. There is also a sense that Germany came much closer to knocking Soviet Russia out of the war in 1941 than is generally recognized. Read Weinberg's A WORLD AT ARMS, or the recent military history, A WAR TO BE WON by Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett, or John Keegan's A HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR or delve into Russia with WHEN TITANS CLASH by David Glantz. The Axis had some real advantages and factors working in its favor. (Hitler intended to take his opponants on in succession, one after another and to a great extent, he succeeded at this fantastically.) Is it impossible for a game to reflect these power relationships more accurately? I think that STRATEGIC COMMAND does a number of things right. Hubert is also trying to produce an enjoyable game. Personally, I want any game on WW II to reflect the actual power relationships as accurately as possible so that the game can be about examining what kind of success was required by the Axis to win. I find the "it is only a game" argument to not only diminish my enjoyment of a WW II game; but, a self fullfilling prophecy by those who don't seem to care. Then, why not simply create a fantasy game and not base it in a specific historic period? I do not see why one should start with the proposition that a game can not really present an honest view of the actual situation. Game creation will always have some tension between these two game design goals; but, the do not have to be exclusive.

tcp/ip is a rather common feature in many computer games these days. It is a protocol which permits play of the game by, in this instance, both players at the same time while online. Unless one is playing the game on a pay site, there is no additional cost. What it would permit is the ability to play STRATEGIC COMMAND as if you were playing the game hotseat except that the players would be using two computers connected via the internet. It would allow a game to be played in a much shorter time. Most tcp/ip games permit the game to be saved and resumed at a later time. I do not know what our gifted and gracious designer/programmer for STRATEGIC COMMAND is planning; but, I assume that it is in line with what I have laid out.

Bruce, I can not believe that you have made such a mistake. Canada is NOT a Minor Country. Just ask Hubert!

In a recent game, the "at start" forces for the Allies came up. I remarked to a friend that I found it interesting that the Brits started with a Corps in the United Kingdom; but, an Army and a Corps in Canada. Now, I know that the Canadian military involvement in the European theater eventually grew into a full Canadian Army in Europe; but, I do not recall that there were any substantial Canadian ground forces until 1941. Is it possible that Hubert's Canadian bias is showing? On a serious note, I presume that the reason for the Canadian Army and Corps at start was for game balance and to probably represent British forces which went to Europe from elsewhere in the world; but, Hubert, the Indian Army entering the game from Canada? :confused:

I know that Hubert has posted that he is undefeated in playing either the Axis or the Allies in STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC). I mentioned this to a friend who I was playing SC with last night and his response was that was not too surprising as the game manual is so vague and unspecific (intentionally if I understand what Hubert has said about this in other posts) that play experience is a critical factor when looking at the outcome of any given game. I know that I am surprised in almost every game by a rule or game concept which I thought worked one way; but actually works differently in the game. It seems to me that any test regarding "balance" in the game needs to involve similarily experienced players with the game. I have won most of my games, of late, playing both the Axis and Allies. There do seem to be several different strategies open to each side with the technology race being the largest wild card. But, just last night, an opponant of mine was surprised by how fast U.S. and Soviet war entry was when he attempted an invasion of Britian (in what appeared to be a vulnerable Britian in July 1940 with France still unconquered). Granted it is fun to learn more about a game through playing than having all its secrets revealed in a manual; but, SC is so vague on many matters that it is not surprising that Hubert (who knows all the elements) is confident in being able to exploit the game's advantages against less knowledgeable players. I like the fact that SC does place the gamer in the situation of the actual historical leaders. I am sure neither Churchill or Roosevelt could consult the "Big Book of War" to determine exactly what the odds were at any given point. But, given this situation, there is no substitute for experience playing the game and actually learning from this experience.

Hubert has mentioned in several folders that he is working on implementing tcp/ip for STRATEGIC COMMAND. I think that this is great and will be a great bonus to the game. At present, most of my games are being played hotseat and I prefer the immediate impact of either hotseat or tcp/ip over the slower process of pbem (although I will grant you that pbem can be satisfying as well). Anyway, Hubert, could you update us on how the tcp/ip implementation for the game is coming along? Just curious as to a heads up on when it might be available (and I promise NOT to hold you to any time frame you provide).

I lean toward the notion that players should not be able to control air fleets too much (like telling them not to intercept). The ability of military commanders to dictate this was very limited. If history tells us anything, if you put military units within striking distance of each other, they are going to engage. The solution is to keep your air units out of harms way unless you want them to engage in combat. The less micromanagement permitted to the players on this scale, the better.

I am very impressed with your support for the game Hubert and your willingness to continue to improve it. Most impressive and very appreciated. Thanks once again.

I too remain a fan of COMMAND HQ. The real time element to the game added quite a bit; but, it also had its realism isues like the time I watched North America being invaded from Hudson's Bay (you could naval move units into Hudson's Bay and if your opponant was caught napping -- an invasion taking place in the middle of North America). COMMAND HQ, while good in its day, also reminds me how far STRATEGIC COMMAND has come and how it handles many things different and better. Yet, I think there is a void that could be filled, profitably, for a real time strategic wargame. I really loved the wrap around world map found in COMMAND HQ.

Thanks for the repost and collection of all the mod stuff in one place. I had missplaced one of the files and you helped me recover it and put it in a nice safe place.

The reason why WORLD IN FLAMES (WiF) is a game I play on a regular basis and not ADVANCED THIRD REICH or TOTALER KRIEG is because only in WiF do you see World War II in a global context. The entire war unfolds before your eyes on a global scale. It is this holistic presentation that blows the competition away. Computer WiF is an attempt to bring this great game to the computer. I, personally, could care less if they ever implement an AI for it. Just look at how the AI performs in STRATEGIC COMMAND and you will understand why. WiF will present the AI with many more decisions and complications. All I expect from an AI is something that helps teach me how to play the game in an enjoyable manner. When I want real competition; I need hotseat or tcp/ip enabled so that the computer I am playing against is found in another human's brain. It has always fascinated me that many computer gamers do not care much for hotseat or tcp/ip gaming. They only judge a computer game by whether or not they can play it solo against a computer AI. I prefer not to see a computer AI distort a historical game by its cheats or short cuts. I can quibble with the way the design of STRATEGIC COMMAND does this or that; but, the single element lacking at the moment is the ability to play tcp/ip. The support so far behind STRATEGIC COMMAND is most impressive and I hope all the feed back and replays (actually continued play testing by gamers) are incorporated into the game or the next game that pops out from the mind of STRATEGIC COMMAND's creator. I hope that STRATEGIC COMMAND is the beginning of a whole series of games of similar quality.

I have been playing with Computer WORLD IN FLAMES (Computer WiF) for the last couple of years and regularily play WORLD IN FLAMES (the board game) with a gaming group. Computer WiF is a remarkably good port of the game to the computer. Instead of the interface being, clunky, I think it is a rather elegant solution to a difficult game problem. Many features in Computer WiF are very well done. In short, I disagree with the comments about Computer WiF that have been made here. I really have to wonder how much time the author of these really has spent playing because they do not track with my experience. Granted, Computer WiF is at the other end of the scale when compared to STRATEGIC COMMAND. But, in their way, both programs do what was intended very well. If you want detail, complexity and have lots of time, Computer WiF will do. If you want the big picture, but, only of the European theater, the STRATEGIC COMMAND may work. What is true about both Computer WiF and STRATEGIC COMMAND is that they are both serious wargames and that is the criteria, by which, I would judge any game with a historical subject.

This thread started with Tenacious Dan concluding after a couple of plays that he did not like the way that armor worked in the game. That it was too vulnerable. Yet, the problem, it seems to me, is not with the game; but, with the tactics being used by the player in question. The massing of one's Air Fleets to point a particular point of attack, damaging or destroying the target unit, following it up with an infantry assault to blow a hole, and then sending in the armor to exploit, is what blitzkrieg was about. This is exactly what happened on the Western Front in in May, 1940, at Sedan. I find the arguments that there is some problem with the game because armor is too vulnerable or lacks some sort of "special" capability not already found in the game, unconvincing. I have been playing the game hotseat with a friend, of late, and I think that it appears to mirror history very well considering the scale and complexity of the game. I am very impressed with Strategic Command at this point in time. Maybe after many more playings, I may come to a conclusion that something is out of whack; but, I would not form some conclusion merely on the basis of a couple of plays without first exploring different strategies and tactics. The one thing I am really looking forward to is the implementation of tcp/ip play for the game. I see the best play in Strategic Command coming from playing another human. With tcp/ip as an option, it will be much easier to be able to find another human rather than just relying on hotseat oplay (although I would recommend hotseat to anyone interested -- the game chugs along quite well and the amusement of the game banter as the war moves along is very entertaining). Strategic Command has surpassed by expectations for the game when I purchased it and I would recommend it to any friend who had an interest in either military history or a good game. The AI is good enough to teach you the game and sound tactics that can be best put into effect when playing against a human opponant.