BriantheWise

We are lost! We are lost!

My Gambit has failed miserably. He took Antwerp. I had planned to do a double gambit, but Rambo is ahead of schedule. I anticipate that he will take France by June, and my friends readiness will be lazy. Denmark still hasn't fallen yet though.

I do the Dutch Gambit, but poorly. The French take the capital, instead of Britain. Surprise hits against the subs, but a fair exchange. Strangely, I reinforce Denmark. Italy declares war way to soon. Rambo is way ahead of even his own schedule. I have a gap in my French line and he is exploiting that.

Rambo takes Poland in 1 turn. I seriously did not think that was possible. At best I can do it in two. This is not going well. Already.

Rambo takes Poland in 1 turn. I seriously did not think that was possible. At best I can do it in two. This is not going well. Already.

Rambo is Axis. I am Allied. Standard options.

This is a great thread! I accidentally found this game because of a banner on wargamers.com. Clicked that, found the demo. If I have one real, serious, nasty gripe about this game (Hubert: are you listening to this!!!), it's that it's poorly marketed. Hubert (I know if I say his name enough, he'll read this, because he has one of those Hubert scanners), put alot of work and effort creating and designing this game, but I think the sales have been lackluster, because of the lack of marketing focus. I can honestly say I've played about a thousand computer games, and without exception, all of them had marketing telling me how great the game was going to be. Sometimes they were right. Often I was dissappointed. Very often. I almost missed this game. I think alot of people have missed this game, don't know about it. And that's a shame. Battlefront has a revenue maker here, and in my harsh opinion, is missing the boat. It's not just sad for them, but it's also sad for all the people out there who want to play this game, but don't know about it.

I like this idea (as I've said ad nauseum)... Another (possible) way you (or the moderator) could provide awards, would be to award symbols (somewhat like HOI. Crappy game, cool symbols). and rank. Following the premise, you could have sixteen ranks associated with the names of the players who are rated along with symbols associated with them. For example, the best of the best, would be a Marshall, and one of those symbol thingies of an Eagle or something attached to his name. The next best is a Major general, lietenant general, brigadier, colonel, major, etc. all the way down to Sargeant. Anyone who's not rated is a private. Over time, people would be promoted or demoted (CvM beat me and I've been demoted!, type thing). After all, it's all about bragging rights. Speaking of which, with about one exception, I actually think that the best players here, brag the least. Based on the posts that I have seen, Irish Guards is a demon of a player (never seen a post from him saying so, but), Archibald is a force to be reckoned with, Macon is a devil of a player and so on. Those quiet people are the players that give you the sweaty palms. And then there is of course me, King of all Gerbils within my sight, Emporer of Hamsters. I never lose as Axis, as long as the Allies don't move. (sorry about that fluff). Jersey John, I hear you about the cheating and know you are not insinuating.

I'm mad. Pisses me off. He can do those things I have not figured out to do.And I am/was, the best. Concusion: Great game.

I think Liam has a different opinion now. (Can you say crushed?)

bad english, good post

I'll bite. I see where this is going... It's a great concept, and I hope the thread doesn't get polluted... 16 Players. Where do I stand among them, based on the games I've played. Allies: 4. I am very good as Allies. Axis: 12. I get flustered. Average: 8. I don't think money, if it's nominal is an issue. And actually I think it's great. But I think that what would be better is for the players to put a few bucks into a pool, and the moderator buys a couple of certificates. Winner! Champion. Best Loser. And maybe a six pack. I really, really don't think there are more than a couple of folks here that cheat. It's not what we are here for. Maybe none. I prefer to think that there are none. So, I'll send in the bucks to the keeper who takes on the (onerous) task of dealing with this. This ladder, this wonderful thing. Immer, I think this is a great post/idea.

Suggestion: Add a chat page. I believe it is either free or costs about $21 per year. It's easy to get, fun to offer. Then people can talk more live than now (and as a special bonus, Jersy John won't post so many pictures. Kidding, John). It's live, it's there. It's like the opponent finder. It's a great place to chat about things, issues, and not have them take up space here in the forum. Just an idea, and a good one. I think.

Smile, Jersey John. Look the pics were great, but there were just so many of them. Your words are better. I'll check out your book (I am sure it's at the libary, and I don't much care for the author, someting seconds over tokyo, etc.) if you check out mine. It's truly insightful. Keeney. It's got to be Keeney. He wrote a book about WW1 and WW2, and the best chapters began as such: Roosevelt's Strategic Dilemna. Churchill's Strategic Dilemna, Hitler's Strategic Dilemna. etc. It put it all into perspective. Now I'm mad that I can remember that guys name!. Keesey?

Thanks, Jersey John Great insights, and good fleshing out. So the variable could be that Yugoslavia joins the Axis, but all units must stay within borders....? Similarly, when Bulgarians join the axis, they can only defend the balkan zone? Works for me, but I think that's a patch (movement restrictions of neutrals). We don't want patches, though. Just added stuff. Well, we want patches, but aren't going to get them, but maybe added stuff. Smile

I read all your notes, and have to say that at this point in the thread, this is the most sophisticated thread I've seen in a while, that hasn't gone down the tube. Thank you. I hope you don't mind I join. I think the idea of A3R's concept of variables, suggested by Mr. Bensing, hits it all. Add variables. But make it a choice/option. I agree with Arby. I would never put five chits in tech. Not now. 2 is ideal and a spread for the rest (Anyone ever play Hitlers War, decent game, easy, same principle - diminishing returns). I don't think the game needs to be "fixed". I am loving it just as it is. But I do wish that there was a way to mod the platform toward new variables. For example, I think this game, could be mod ed ed, to an excellent WW1 game. That would be excellent. Lose, for the most part, the planes and armor, change the borders and key alliances/countries, and you have a whole new game. Same platform, different game. And WW1 is so rarely touched upon, because it's so hard to replicate. This platform could do it. Personally, I would pay the $10 or $15 for that expansion pack (by the way, this game is way under priced. I paid $50 for HOI, and it's scrap. I paid $30 for this with shipping and handling, and it's simply beyond). I think (and sometimes I really do think), that all of the suggestions, changes, requests, could be handled with Bensings variables idea. Even, paratroopers, though I don't like it, not feasible, couldn't do that, don't want to go there. I think there should be one last patch. I think it should be Advanced Strategic Command, and I think we should pay for it. nuf sed. My thoughts. Thank you ps: Jollyboy: What do you know about SC2, that we don't...I'd like to help.

Err, Sorry, Please subsitute Russ Benning for Brad Tennant, where quoted (i found the forum, and probably should have posted this there). Err, Sorry.

uh Sorry, I made a patch suggestion outside of this forum. But i think it was in a different direction.

Hi Jersey John, Thanks. I'm kind of glad I didn't get a pic with it (I know you love them, but gosh, we do get tired of them). But you're right. First you read the history, then you find you are interested in it, then you want to play the game to investigate the "what if's". And then the game takes you away from that because you're too absorbed. And then when you sleep and think about it, you think about the history and the "what if's" again. That makes for a good game. I assume you have read World War 2 by John Keassy (sp). Awesome book. Great insight, and an easy read.

Hubert, First off, the game is great as it is. Second, I anticipate there will be no new patches, mostly because you said there wouldn't be. But, let me suggest this anyway. It echoes what Brad Tennant said in one of his posts, but I couldn't find it. Third, I suspect it might not be too difficult to code as an option to the game, which is what it would be. An option. That being: Play with Strategic Variables. Premise: When people had finally analyzed A3R to death, and had determined the optimum strategy to utilize, the designers added variables. I don't honestly remember the term they used, but it was like Uboats are more effective, or Turkey joins the war, etc. There were initially ten potential options for each side and they got to choose one, which was unknown to the other player until used. Some were benign, some opened up whole new strategies. Question: Based on the game engine now, is it possible for players like Bill Macon and CvM to mod this into the game, or does it require programming changes on your part? So now you know where I am going with this... And this is somewhat how I would envision it happening: 1) Prior to the game beginning, players have the option to choose if this option will even be used. In key matches, probably not, since the game balance could possibly become skewed (and a whole new can of worms, suggestions etc. might be opened). But if it was... 2) There are say, ten variables/advantages that either side could get. These are listed, so that both players know what Could happen. 3) A ten sided computer die roles for each side and they get that variable/advantage. 4) To make easier for the programmer (you), they come into play automatically, generally to the advantage of the player, possibly not, depending on the intended strategy. Now, Rambling, and I am hoping to receive posts on this (popular demand might make 1.07 happen?) variables for the Axis: By the way, the variations are supposed to be minor, just a shake up.... 1) Germans continue with plan Z: Germans receive extra battleship. 2) No coup in Yugoslavia and becomes German ally after war is declared on Greece. 3) Turkey leans toward Axis. If Germany takes Sevastapol, Turkey becomes joins Axis (might be hard to code though). 4) Germany focus' on long range bombers. Begins with Tech 1 Bombers. 5) Germany signs neutrality pact with Sweden for iron. Receives 10 MMP's per turn, as long as Sweden is neutral. 6) Uboat research intensified. Uboats start with tech 2. And so on...(I've got a billion of these. But no jets for Axis, not because it couldn't happen, but because it's a game breaker). For the Allies: 1) Lowlands fear Axis, join Allies. (Probably too much of a change) 2) USA devotes more energy against Axis. Plus 20 MMP's per turn. 3) Soviets purge of Generals not so severe. Begins with one 4 point HQ. 4) French resistance is stronger than expected. France does not surrender until both Bordeaux (sp) and Paris are taken. 5) France consolidates it's armor. Lose one corp, receive an armor. 6) ASW efforts more effective. Receive plus one tech in Sonar. And so on (I've got a zillioin of these!) Now this is just my opinion, but adding these variables to an already solid platform makes for, well, not Strategic Command 2, but rather, maybe, Advanced Strategic Command. Finally, Hubert, after all the support you have provided to this game so far, I would make this a type of expansion pack, and sell it, instead of as a patch. And then there is the expansion pack called World War 1.... Just my thoughts... Echoing something Brad Tennant said. Thanks.

Ok, I'll bite... 1) It's the first game since Clash of Steel that covers the European part of the conflict in WW2. I love those kinds of game. Big games. Not little battles, but the whole war, any war, or a large part of it (which is one reason why I also loved War in Russia, many of Grigsby's games back with SSI, the CIV's, etc.) 2) It's about the perfect length of time for me, say ten hours against AI, fifteen or so against a player. 3) Like Heuristic says, it's mechanics, interface, etc. is very very easy. I still haven't read the rules. 4) TCP/IQ: It's awesome and this is the first game I have ever played on line. One of the reasons that boardgames faded out on me was because of the difficulty of finding players. Not just players, but ones in the same cities, with matching schedules, and that you'd even want to have over at your house. No problem with that here. There's always someone to play. I have not had a bad gaming experience yet. 5) The patches and the community that made the suggestions and the designer who listened. I'm not familiar with this, but I see it is more common now. This had a solid platform when it was released, but a few rough edges, though at the time, I didn't notice. The community had a forum to suggest their improvements (still do), and the Hubert gleaned the best of them, tested them and incorporated those that made sense. There may be good ideas out there waiting to be incorporated, but I don't think Hubert has incorporated a bad one (I love the whole Suez change). That's a sign of quality. 6) Sequence of play/Interface: I love the Panzer General feel of this game. Move/fight. Operate. Buy things. Or mix them up any way you want. Open ended on the one side, a closed circle on the other. And every thing is only two clicks away. You don't have to into massive sub menus. 7) Simplicity: The computer figures out all the routine things for you, so the player is left with just the right amount of strategic decision making. You don't have to worry about setting up convoys and doing logistics, etc. You have to be concerned about them, and act accordingly, but you don't have to mess around with them. 8) Completeness: The more I read about the suggestions and criticisms on the forum, and the more I play the game, the more I think that very, very few of them should be incorporated. The game is a finished package. U.S MMP's are ok, play balance is ok, no need for paratroopers, etc. (Rockets are still dumb though). With one exception which I will start as its own thread, echoing something Brad Tennant said. Conclusion: This about the best game, for my tastes, that I have ever played. It reminds me of playing CIV I in the evening, just one more turn!, and then seeing the sun come up Saturday morning. Same with Civ II, Clash of Steel, Panzer General, etc. Actually calling in sick at work to play. It's just that good. (I also think it's underpriced. Best $25 I ever spent). And then there's the forum, where, once you've played a person in the game and you read their posts, the posts take on more meaning. If you know what I mean. So, that' that. I bit. Les, it's a great game.

Heuristic (here after referred to as H), claims to forget this. The turns. He is allied. I am Axis. It's round 3, and i am nervouse, since I believe, actually that the Allies have the advantage.... We meant to do this, but the game. the game carried us away. I attacked badly in poland, leaving 1 points. It turend out ok, and in second turn both Poland and Denmark fell. He did the gambit, so now it's trench warfare. The change of readiness does not assist me. It moves narrow. The subs take out a battleship (but it should have been two).] He goes nuts. Takes Low Countries and part of Italy. Geez, I am so upset, more later. He landed in Italy, after declarying war! I am, more later. I do not know that I can win this now. Both Italy and Germany are trying to figure something out. I have no navy My strategy is sideways. \\ And they say this game gets linear.....Smile at that.

Kuniworth, It would seem like, but no one is really calling anyone names. Still, it's kind of depressing. Everyone loves the game but Les. Les had all these comments until he got the game, with all of our persuasion, and now he's going to leave. I kind of find it sad that a person, not just Les, but any person would spend so much time in a forum that discsses, at its core, this game, which he doesn't like. I concur with Macon wholeheartedly. If you're not an enthusthiast...well. never mind. Be well, Les. Be well.

I'm here, Heuristic. I'm early. It's now 6.51 PST. Join me at 4.65.20.189

Interesting... Graves is a very fast learner. (smile Graves!) Heuristic, you ran sims! (This is not good). I shoot from the hip. Luck may get me there. I did not know that Italy was vulnerable like that. I don't think it is, but thank you for the insight (I'm going to get slaughtered).