BobWarlock

Hitler's War was beautiful as a game and as an intellectual excercise; i.e. how abstract can you make a game and have it still simulate historic events. So few hexes, no units below the army group level, instantaneous movement overland. Fascinating & fun. Before Avalon Hill prettied it up (a little), Hitler's War was a cheap minigame printed on cardstock and sold in a ziplock bag; I almost wish they'd kept it that way and sold it for $8. Might have gotten new people into the hobby. When I read elsewhere of people advocating that SC be expanded to cover the whole world at one scale I harkened back to my own attempt to do the same thing using Hitler's War and Aide de Camp (boardgame helper software). Suffice to say it wasn't pretty. [ September 18, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: BobWarlock ]

Very nicely thought out rules. I'm a believer in self-restraint from back playing Imperialism I. One question: For fighters, by "ground" attack do you mean "surface" attack? Specifically, can fighters attack ships? Just curious, since your rationale wouldn't covers anti-ship strikes as much but most planes that could carry torpedoes could carry bombs.

First: please, people on both sides, leave off the name calling; at least as regards each other. Second: I'm actually glad that this subject came up the way it did, because I know a lot of the world thinks of wargamers as closet fascists and I'm relieved that someone called a fellow member on what I'll call excessive reverence for the warrior spirit of the SS. Although I think the reaction was excessive given the original instigation, it was in the right direction. Third: If someone really wants to discuss the experience system (which certainly merits it), I'd suggest starting a new thread on the topic as this one is irretrievably contaminated. Finally, my contribution to the SS discussion: It is true that if any of us were in Germany in 1939 we'd have been in a bad position to make fine moral judgments, and even more so by 1944 since Hitler had used the effective tactic of making as many people as possible complicit in his crimes (so that the more people new about what was going on the more reason they had to fight to prevent revenge from being taken on them and their families). However, being an officer in the SS meant more than fighting to prevent your homeland from being destroyed. The SS was a threat to the liberty of Germans and the lives of everyone else. Members of the German army, both anti-Hitler conspiratators like Rommel and less political ones considered the SS to be a very dangerous mix of army and politics that was hazardous to both. If the assasination of Hitler had gone off, the SS was to be immediately disarmed and disbanded. Why? Weren't the assassins (mostly Prussians whose lineage went back to Frederick the Great) interested in defending their country? To my knowledge (and here I could be wrong) no one was forced to join the SS, they volunteered. Now many might not have known what they were getting into, but if I had been alive in 1944 and had the power, I would have killed every last one of them. In 1945, I would have had to take a broader view of things. But on the question "Is it good that he died?", I'd have to say yes. Had he lived, he would have done his best to kill other people whose efforts made the world a better place. And going by his record, he would have killed a lot of them.

Actually SC play does have some resemblence to Axis & Allies (and not to most other WW2GS games) because of the infinite numbers of generic units you can build, and because the ships actually move around the main map and attack things. But I agree COS is a lot closer.

I think the historical path can be fun sometimes just because WWII just doesn't seem like WWII unless the Axis controls the overwhelming majority of Europe. As to why I'd go about it this way, it seems like the simplest way to force a human player to make the invasions without making major changes in the code (since there's obviously already a "neutral country enters the war" routine). The "Danish invasion of Berlin" problem you mention is valid, though. Maybe the Germans (& Allies?) should get a "Denmark is preparing for war" message the previous turn. Maybe in Random there should just be a small chance of each peripheral country joining in, but enough so that the Axis player can figure that conquering Greece now can save him a surprise later. If Sweden, Turkey or Spain might join the Axis, surely some of these countries might have joined the Allies, if left alone.

This is on an old thread but: Re: Greece, Norway, etc. How about a new set of check boxes (Historical, Random, Neutral) in the opening screen for "Periphery" or something like that. If Historical is checked, then Greece, Norway, Denmark, and perhaps Yugoslavia enter the war against the Axis at the time they were historically invaded (at the end of the Allied turn, of course), forcing the Axis to respond. Random would be likewise with a, surprise, random factor added and whatever other modifiers are appropriate. (Maybe Norway is less likely while Denmark is neutral; ditto Yugoslavia while Greece is neutral). And Neutral would be the way things are now, except maybe with Yugoslavia staying neutral. This would be work for Hubert, of course, but I'm trying to think in terms of systems that are already used elsewhere.

Could this be accomplished by having enemy troops adjacent to a hex have a negative effect on the supply level of that hex? That way troops adjacent to the enemy would have reinforcements limited by the low supply level; it would also cause units in continual enemy contact to lose readiness (simulating creeping combat fatigue). It might also stop you from being able to operate troops directly into the front line, though I forget whether supply level is relevant to that.

Thanks for trying it, Rediroc! I had heard that this was actually a workable (if tricky) strategy in the boardgame "World in Flames"; however SC is different in two big ways: 1) Russia's a much bigger deal than the U.S., so getting Russia in early so that US comes late is not a good deal. 2) No countermix limit (thus France isn't limited by a small number of blue counters). Here's an alternative I'm curious about: Invade France, but don't take Paris. You get Marseilles income to offset the loss of Paris income, and I think you get a significant delay in USSR declaration of war. Just a few turns could net you thousands of extra MPPs, and then when Russia declares you can kill the hostage in Paris and get your booty. Weighed against this is the need to keep Paris completely surrounded and any trouble France stirs up in the Med, but I think getting a few extra pre-Barabossa turns makes it worth it. On the other hand, if this does work, it's the sort of weasily ahistorical strategy no gentleman would utilize.

I have some ideas for changing the handling of post-40 France, some of which have been mentioned by others elsewhere: 5) When France is liberated, the Free French forces should return to French (rather than British) control & support. This just makes sense plus it would improve the game by giving the Allied player something to do with those new French MPPs (usually the game's almost over so it takes too long to gather enough to build a worthwhile unit). This should be the easiest change to implement (easy for me to say). 6) I strongly support an earlier suggestion that France should have a chance of partisans after Vichy falls. This would make whether to demolish Vichy a tricky question for the Axis (as it should be) without making it instantly disastrous, and would give the french resistance a role while keeping it less important than the Yugoslav & Russian partisans. 7) Back on the subject of liberation, I think that if France is liberated all remaining Vichy territory should also be liberated. The Vichy leadership certainly didn't like the allies or the Free French, but once Paris was liberated I think there would have been an instant and overwhelming popular demand for the reunification of the republic. One question would be whether Vichy armies would switch to French; I could go either way on this but suppose that they should just dissolve (to simulate some troops joining the allies, some joining the germans, and most just hiding and pretending they never served Vichy). [ September 13, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: BobWarlock ]

Two somewhat contrasting comments and one question: 1) One unrealism that just about all WW2 European strategy games seem to have is an unhistorically strong Italy. As I recall a lot of my Third Reich and Clash of Steel games also ended with Italy unconquered. The reason for this is that if you glance at Italy's terrain, weaponry, available troops, etc. it seems like it should be a tough nut to crack, and that's the way it is in most games. It's actually easier to take Italy in SC than in some other games, because SC makes naval bombardment relatively easy and effective. Italy's big problem historically was morale; they were exhausted after being at war more often than not since 1935 and their hearts weren't into WWII, which didn't have a lot to do with them. This attitude is hard to portray without creating arbitrary historical triggers (like the boardgame Hitler's War), or some sort of national morale system (like Europa Universalis or the bg Guns of August). 2) On the other hand, I hear that Italy falls too easily to a preemptive strike by the Allies in 1939-40. This shows the other side of the problem: if you take away stuff to prevent Italy from being too strong in 1943, she becomes too weak in 1939. In 1939 the Italian army probably would have fought against an unprovoked invasion with some spirit; in 1943 despite having more men under arms they were waiting for an opportunity to surrender. Q) Is a strong Italy really a problem? Unhistorical, but I think the game is more strategically interesting with Germany having a junior partner rather than a sick aunt. And if players are allowed to play individual countries [What a great idea!] a relatively strong Italy makes multiplayer more interesting.

Actually, I think the stacking limit (of one!) makes SC verrrrry different from HC. As I recall you could stuff a huge army into one hex in HC. It sometimes felt more like Napoleonic Warfare than modern to me. Another difference is the lack of HC's elaborate international trade route system, which I found fascinating. Not only did the Axis have to try to break Allied SLOCs, but the Allies needed to block the Axis ones (sort of like in Clash of Steel, but with a lot more detail). All in all I put HC in a category with Civ:CTP: the manual was a lot more interesting than the game.

My favorite part of Command HQ was the oil factor (that you needed it to run your cities, could store some but not enough, etc.). I've never seen anything like it in any other game (I guess Civ3 comes closest). My fondest memories are of playing the Reds in the WWIII scenario. Seize the Venezuelan oilfield with Cuban paratroops, send the tanks into the middle east, yield ground in Europe, and watch as the decadent imperialist cities die of thirst for the black liquor. [ September 10, 2002, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: BobWarlock ]