EB.

Agreed with Mannerheim on this last point.

The poster's suggestions for looting, oil, allied sea tranport to Middle East, and subs in the Battle of the Atlantic are absolutely brilliant, and I give them my strongest support. Very intelligent and useful comments to the designers on those points. However, on bombers, I strongly disagree. I think that the game has the balance of importance with respect to strategic bombing exactly right. To increase the effectiveness of bombing would be quite unrealistic. In general, the Western strategic bombing campaign vs. Germany has been grossly exaggerated. Again, I think that the game has it just right on bombers now. also, I would disagree a bit with the suggestions on Lend-Lease. I think that the game does it perfectly right now. But if there were a change in the rules to allow for Lend-Lease, then I would state that the proposed limit of 10% seems maybe excessive. Plus, I would think that the limiting factor should be not just the sending nation's production but the receiving nation's as well. For example, during the war, US aid sent to the Soviet Union represented only 5% of Soviet production related to military matters (equipment, supply, food, etc.) and of course this had nothing to contribute to Soviet manpower which of course is also taken into account when determining MPP's, as I have heard anyway. On the other hand, the US sent three times as much aid to UK as to USSR, so nation-specific "giving" limits should apply as well. Still, these suggestions (except for #5) are very useful and will hopefully be taken into account. What I like about these suggestions is that they tend to make the game more realistic instead of just more politically correct. Now that is a trend that I will always embrace.

I would add that one of the big reasons to disable German submarine operations would be to delay or to inhibit US entry into the war. That is my helpful suggestion.

Yes, this is a very intelligent suggestion. I am no expert on submarine warfare, but from what I have studied, I agree that your proposal would be more realistic.

This is NOT meant to be a controversial topic--please do not turn it into one. My people were (I consider) the greatest enemies of Nazi Germany and its leader Hitler. Our triumph over him will forever be one of our people's greatest achievements. However, that being said, I must admit that Hitler's military achievements up to 1941 were absolutely stunning. How was he able to achieve so much in so little time? It was amazing at the time and still is today. Specifically, I wonder if anyone can keep up to Hitler's successful military record in the main computer or board wargames. For example, playing SC on a fair setting vs. the computer (hard difficulty, bonus to Allies), don't most of you have trouble matching Hitler's achievements? For example, can you always take Poland in September 39 or does it sometimes take a bit longer? The biggest one is France--what a military miracle to destroy it in May-June 1940. How many times can you or I get that done? For me, not often. And even if you do match the Hitler record for military progress in the early part of the war, you must surely admit that this is a feat, that it represents not the average or median result but an extreme end of the spectrum of possibilities. Put in another way, could anybody have done any better than Hitler during that time period strictly in terms of military progress. My opinion is "very probably not". If you can do it better or faster than Hitler was able to, then please share your gameplaying secrets with us.

No offense intended, but is this meant to be sarcastic? It would be very easy to beat computer AI set on easy probably--even if you play Axis. One fun thing to do is to play on very easy level as the Allies. I can then make a conscious choice to spend only a tiny fraction of Soviet production points but all of US production points and thus create a mighty US juggernaut of Wanker and Bugger tank units to crush the vile Axis powers. My US forces can liberate Berlin, Warsaw, Kiev, Moscow, even Novosibirsk--just like they did historically--wink, wink. Then I can pretend that the US industrial giant was the true winner of the war. (Now this WAS sarcastic.) Seriously, though, to Sixth Army: may you be ever victorious and may your skills always improve. Just don't trust vonPaulus!

Norse: you make good and intelligent points here, and I am sorry that they are being so mean to you. One big problem is that the war is taught so badly in American schools that you simply cannot talk sense to most Americans on this topic. It is very unfortunate. Europeans and Asians, from my personal experiences, are far more educated and intelligent people. I myself have become too embroiled in the emotional debates here, but I cannot allow fools to slander my people and to steal credit for things that they were not responsible for. I started this thread with helpful criticism, praise, and suggestions for the game, but I was immediately attacked in a most rude manner by ill-informed persons simply because I refused to repeat old American lies. I tried to respond appropriately, but I will not allow myself or my people to be attacked without fighting back.

dgaad criticizes me in a most rude fashion for my education, but I assure you that I have more degrees, more articles, more research, more speeches, and more discussion for many years on these exact topics. I know exactly what I am talking about--inside and out. The unfortunate thing is that the arguments which you use are just the same old tired lines from American propaganda. Repetition without thought. It is very dangerous to believe that nonsense. You must distrust the Western sources or at least understand their bias, their anti-Soviet propaganda purpose, and their intellectual weaknesses. If you really believed what you say (that Stalin was a bad leader in terms of economics, politics, and military affaris), then the war would have been over quickly as a German victory. To all of your arguments, our people can simply point out the ultimate truth: we won the war. Our people see more and more that Stalin was not an insane bumbler as the democratic reformers have tried to teach us (these same anti-Russian reformers who destroyed our country and sold its pieces to the West) but instead that he was a great leader whose ruthlessness was an absolute prerequisite to the eventual Soviet victory. As current situation in Russia proves, the American way is just a big myth--as it is today, so it is with the American version of history, a version which praises the US only and seeks to steal the rightful glory of the Russian people. So, to repeat: we won the war. That solves all of the arguments. You are in fact the one who seeks to take things out of context and who completely fails to prove the things which you state. Do you have a community college degree? Pray tell. I myself am very objective about the war. For example, I admit most readily that Churchill was a great leader--in fact, the very best leader that Britain has ever had in my opinion. He on many occasions praised Stalin himself, calling him the greatest leader in Russian history, pointing out that Stalin's name will remain rightfully glorified for centuries to come because of his great successes before and during the war. Is Churchill wrong on this point? I think not. Please improve your logic and research skills. You quote paperbacks and hearsay-upon-innuendo evidence, while I myself have seen the original documents and sources. Keep your opinions, fine, but do not try to spread them in Russia any more.

Fully agreed to delete rocket units from the game. These obviously cannot represent Katyusha-type MRLS, which are part of an improved rifle unit I suppose, but instead represent the German V weapons which attacked Britain. Well, since they had so very little real impact in the war, I agree that the rockets are not even worth having in the game. Still, the game is great overall.

Arby is correct; Heidman or Heidberg is not. This is not a question of believing baseless propaganda but of real history and the real statistics. Heidmann pretends to know something special about the war but his flimsy, tired, old repititions of American propaganda simply do not work. I have read many books published in New York which take his line, but they are all still lies. Bottom line is that the Soviets won the war almost singlehandedly. The Allies did minimal fighting against an already beaten enemy, and their participation was insignificant. Without the Allies, the Soviets would have still won the war, though perhaps three months or so later and with all French territory too. You tell me to "polish my pioneer badge" and then flippantly dismiss the efforts of our heroic people. Well, you are the one in the wrong, so dire shame on you. I should say to you to polish your badge, just tell us which Western organization you represent--CIA, FBI, Freemason, Skull and Bones want-to-be? I am still unimpressed. The original post is still correct: SC is a masterful game precisely because it accurately represents the actual balance in economic production. Specifically, it admits that the Soviet production was the highest, and in general, gameplay turns upon the Soviet effort in the East against the Germans. Arby makes a good point that still there are too many times in the game when the Allies are able to make an historically unrealistic contribution with their meager resources--for example, an effective early invasion of France. Well, still the game here teaches us what they Allies COULD have done if they had not been so afraid to suffer casualties. Perhaps for more realism, the AI or rules should be tweaked so that the Allies do not do anything which may incur too many losses--that is, they can only attack when the enemy is weak or victory is almost totally assured. Still, in the end, the game SC is a great masterpiece, and we should praise it for refusing to submit to pro-American political correctness which places baseless American pride above historical truth.

On what Russians believe today, it is in fact the case that Soviet patriotism is making a strong comeback as the population sees what disaster the democratic reformers have created. If you do not believe this, then you obviously do not travel to Russia. Stalin, for example, has the highest popularity now than at any time since his death. Ordinary Russians have exactly what one could call the "unreformed Stalinist" view of history, especially concerning the war years. You will of course not find this opinion popular among the Mafia businessman or pro-Western intellectuals of non-Russian ethnic origin. The traitorous self-hatred of the Gorbachev years has been incrementally replaced in the minds of Russia by healthy patriotism and a refusal to repeat the lies of Western propaganda any more. This is the political reality in Russia today. Stalin statues are popping up all over the country, pro-Soviet books, newspapers, and pamphlets being produced constantly, the Soviet hammer and sickle red flag is now again the official battle flag of the Russian army, and the old Soviet national anthem has returned--Putin has changed the words, but everybody still sings the old words from the 1950's anyway. Now all of this is not speculation but real fact. So, the fellow who says rather flippantly "not even the Russians believe this garbage anymore" is completely ill-informed. No offense but you are offensively wrong. Now on the Lend-Lease issue. I have studied this in the greatest detail, including reports and documents which you obviously have not researched. Bottom line is that US Lend Lease aid to the Soviets was grossly exaggerated. Here are some very general points: 1. scale--US aid to Russia represented a tiny fraction of Soviet production--Soviets produced 95% of their own equipment and supply during the war years 2. low quality of US equipment--US models of fighters and tanks were so low quality compared to German equipment that in many cases the Soviets simply refused to use the equipment and left it in warehouses--Soviet troops referred to US equipment as "coffins"--instant death in combat 3. relative quantity--the US by comparison sent THREE times as much aid to Great Britain as to the Soviets--Great Britain's contributions to the war were rather minimal, so it is silly to suggest that sending one third as much to a bigger and stronger USSR had any significant impact 4. accounting dishonesty--on a scale worse than worldcom!--the US counted its aid not by amount sent but by PRICE--and they very conveniently increased the stated price (and thus value) of their crappy equipment to make it seem that they were sending a great deal--for example, at one point a worthless Grant tank was considered as worth a few of the far better T-34 Soviet tanks 5. more accounting dishonesty--US counted the amount of aid SENT, not the amount received--much of the aid was lost, stolen, or disappeared during transport due to local corruption or German subs and air power 6. the aid was not free anyway--the Soviets paid for the aid received and after the war returned much of the US equipment unused Patriotic Russians today know that the Soviets won the war almost singlehandedly. The old US propaganda lies are not believed any more, and this trend is likely to continue.

Strategic Command is in my top five computer games of all time--along with Clash of Steel, Europa Universalis 1 and 2, Colonization, and Operational Art of War. I would have paid $100 for it, no doubt. For anyone with even a passing interest in history, this game is an absolute must-buy. I give it my highest recommendations, and I have convinced at least five other people to buy it who never even heard of this company.

It should be pointed out that SC has the perfect presentation of economics in terms of the relative productive power of the major countries. Exactly right! The Soviets really did have more production than the Allies--they really did have that many more MPP's. How many people have whined that the game does not properly reflect the "industrial giant" and "arsenal of democracy" which we call the US. Well, plainly stated, the US did NOT do very much in the war. Hollywood movies and Lend-Lease propaganda aside, the US effort was rather minimal throughout the war. Basically, the US did not produce much or fight much in the war. That is real history. They entered late, took forever to land in a real theater of war (North Africa and Sicily / Italy do not qualify), and only entered France when the Germans were already mostly defeated. At the time of D-Day (which we always hear about), the Soviets were launching a huge offensive in Byelorussia (Bagration) which completely dwarfed the US effort. But we NEVER hear about Bagration. In France, the US basically fought old men, little boys, and Eastern European political refugees (Osttruppen) who cared only to surrender as fast as possible. The German soldiers always wanted to surrender to the US rather than to the Soviets because they knew that the US would treat them nicely and not punish them while the Soviets would give them some deserved payback. Bottom line--US really did NOT do very much in the war, and the game reflects this perfectly. Thank God for that. Original US sources are very candid about these facts. The original US plan was to create about 250 divisions. (In terms of scale, the Soviets fielded over 500 divisions in the war, though the sizes are not identical.) However, despite the best efforts of the US government and industry, and despite all curses and exhortations by FDR and his staff, the US in the end only coughed up about 80 divisions, and many of them admittedly not even fit for combat. As our dear Harry Truman so skillfully demonstrated while in Congress, there was gross, rotten, and scandalous corruption throughout the entire US military production system. Outright thievery at all levels of the process, without exaggeration. We do not want to admit these things now because it is politically incorrect, but it is still true. J.Edgar Hoover set the new political line in US history when he stated "we don't care about what really happened", meaning (I think) that the US should be given credit for victory even if the evidence does not support this. There are some games which are equally realistic in terms of the economic balance (like Clash of Steel). Then there are some games like High Command, Third Reich, or Axis and Allies which get it totally wrong by grossly exaggerating US military production. We must be thankful that the creators of SC got it so right. World War Two was for the overwhelming part fought and won (and lost) on the Eastern Front. A realistic game must reflect this fact, and the first step in this process is the economic balance. Strategic Command gets an A+ grade on this test.

Good points. Except that you state that the Finns "lasted for ages in the war". Not so. In fact, they in 1941 moved a few units into Soviet territory until they met Soviet units at which point they stopped cold and could not move at all. The Germans begged and begged, but the Finns could not or would not budge, not even to help against hero city Leningrad. When Stalin felt that he could spare a few units, the Soviets easily smashed the Finns and rolled forward effortlessly, causing the Finns to beg for peace. The Finns were so embarrassed and so crushed that they completely gave in to Soviet territorial and political demands. The territorial demands were rather harsh (recognition of Soviet gains in Winter War plus) but political demands were rather merciful (permanent neutralization of Finland). But as for the Finns "lasting for ages"--sorry, just not so.

Well, of course it is important to read different versions of things. I myself have read Khrushchev's works more than once and I dare to say more times than most historians "expert" in the field, even original unpublished works and documents. What I am saying, however, is that you should be extra wary about Khrushchev's works because they have an unprecedented amount of BS. I just had a conversation with someone (non-historian) who after reading a much-praised book on World War Two had the lasting impression that Khrushchev was the leader of the USSR in the war, that he alone was responsible for the evacuation of industries to the Urals, for the victory at Stalingrad, for the capture of Berlin, and so forth--all mega-BS of course. I tried to argue with him, saying that I have read hundreds or thousands of books on the topic, but of course I could not convince him. There are many like that. Anyway, go ahead and read Khrushchev--just don't believe any of it. Also, I am sorry but I cannot take credit for the wonderful computer games which you have mentioned though I do have all of them on my shelf. The genius of "Stalin's Dilemma" game is that it shows in real figures the sense behind Stalin's economic policies of the 1930's. The fashionable "crazy dictator" line of debate is just silly--all of the Soviet economic moves were rational prerequisites for the Soviet victory in the war. The game shows this very well. The game author is a true genius, I must say. He deserves a medal. Also, finally, I realize that every army in the war had a combination of front-line replacement and rear-area rebuilding in their military administrations. What I am trying to point out is that the Soviets throughout the war focused on rear-area rebuilding relatively more compared to most armys. So, of course you can find some instances in which the Soviets sent replacements directly to the front. And when they did rebuild, they did not necessarily sent the units far to the rear--in fact, "rotating" them a short distance to the rear to rest and refit would qualify in my mind as "rebuilding in the rear". My bothered me most originally is that the player receives a magical discount on his purchases at the front. That is silly. If you want to make it cost the same to raise a unit by one combat point in front-line replacement as rear-area rebuilding, then that is fine with me. Just please do not give a DISCOUNT to the front-line replacements. All the best, EB.

Oh, by the way, I would give Khrushchev's autobiography no value whatsoever--it is a nest of lies and badly edited ones at that. There are many good works in Russia published within the last few years which are thousands of times better. Also, we must beware of the German generals' works which are mostly self-protecting, blame-everyone-but-me works. Plus, they are written for a specifically NATO / US audience, so this bias must be taken into account as well. In other words, they write what their new employers want to hear. Similarly, we see when the captured Germans are interrogated by the Soviets, they often tell them what they wanted to hear as well. Anyway, Khrushchev's work is the biggest load of lies in history. I would rather trust a book by Martha Stewart.

I shall refine my suggestion to the following then: for more accurate gameplay, units should not be able to receive replacements while they are adjacent to enemy units. Also, I should point out that in my mind, when during the game Strategic Command a unit is destroyed and removed from the map, it is not really 100% casualties. It is just removed as a unit with military value. Specifically, there are many troops which are then used as the skeletal frame upon which the player can build new units. So, when the player builds a new unit, it should be understood that what is really happening is that new troops and equipment are being added to old troops. The original unit disappears from the map and then reappears as a new rebuilt unit. All of this process I have called "reinforcement" or "rebuilding" and it is all quite efficient. Another poster mentions the Soviets "rotating units out of the line"--well, I would strongly agree that this is a very efficient, wise method of military administration, but I also thought that this is exactly what I was referring to. If there is a contradiction, maybe it is my fault from the words used. In any case, we must beware of the trap of trying to send new troops directly to the front line as replacements. That was my original concern with the post. As I played, I found that I was rewarded economically for raising units with strength of 1 or 2 back to their full amount while those same units were in direct contact with the enemy units. Well, I must say that from about 20 years of research that that is flat wrong--the exact opposite of the way it really was. Anyway, these have been good comments.

I refuse your argument. In fact, as stated clearly by another author on Soviet military administrative policy: "it was the Red Army's policy not to make any attempt to replace rank-and-file personnel losses, in most units at least, while the unit was on the front line. The strength of most Russian units, especially infantry divisions, therefore declined rapidly in action, and eventually the division, severely weakened and depleted, had to be withdrawn for complete rebuilding." I would add that this is exactly true and that it made perfect sense. By creation of a new unit, we mean to take existing cadres (withdraw a burnt out unit to the rear) and add fresh troops and equipment to bring the unit up to full strength. And of course this should be done in a safe rear area. There is no wasteful transport back and forth as one person says. If you are going to organize a unit, it must be done in a safe place. If you try to take all of those troops and equipment and try to get them directly to the front line in a sporadic, ad-hoc, piecemeal fashion, then it is going to cost a lot more. That is the simple and true military-economic reality here. Anyone who does not see that is a real fool. And you are completely wrong to say that the Germans had the policy of completely building new units as their main policy. No, in fact, their persistent policy was to try (as you suggest) to feed new troops and equipment into the front line piecemeal. That is why you have a lot of burnt-out German divisions--not because of rear-area rebuilding but because of constant front-line band-aid treatments, the piecemeal replacement of damaged units. You see, when an army has a policy of rebuilding units, then at any given time, most units will be withdrawn when they get depleted and those at the front will be relatively packed. On the contrary, when you insist on replacing losses directly to the front itself, then at any given time, you will have a lot of burnt-out units still hovering at the front line. They don't get withdrawn to the safe rear because they are waiting (and waiting and waiting) for their losses to be made good at the front itself. So when we see a situation like the Germans were in during the war with lots of weak units at the front, this obviously reflects a "replacement" policy taking precedence over a "reinforcement" or "rebuilding" policy. Other authors suggest the opposite, and they are of course wrong. Anyone who disagrees with my original post is basically arguing that it is cheaper to try to sort out new troops and equipment at the front line itself, near the chaos of combat, than to do so in a calm, secure rear area. Well, that is complete nonsense. The most efficient method is to use a fully-packed unit in combat until it is heavily depleted. Then the unit will still have troops but their combat value will be almost nothing. Then withdraw those experienced troops to a safe rear are. Then add fresh troops, officers, and equipment to bring the unit up to full strength. Then send the unit back to the front line. Any deviation from this simple routine will be automatically less efficient. If you propose to add the fresh troops and equipment at the front line itself, then of course it will be less efficient. If you don't think so, then try doing your job in the middle of a busy street instead of in a quiet office. I am not saying that new troops cannot learn from experienced ones--not at all would I say that--but I must insist that the most efficient method of introducing these new troops into the system is to completely rebuild new units in rear areas, using the experienced cadres as the skeletal frame. History shows that I am exactly right on this. I doubt even that the argumentative commentators speak or read Russian or German, or even that they have consulted primary documents in this field. Lastly, I would say that it is important to analyze these things objectively instead of resorting to anti-Russian or anti-German propaganda, however fashionable this might be in the West.

First of all, this being my first message here, I would like to give the highest praise to the game Strategic Command and its creators. Truly excellent work. Also, I would like to give greetings to the forum posters who seem very intelligent. Okay, here is one problem with the game. It seems to me that in the game it is cheaper to bring a weakened unit up to full strength than to simply build a new unit. You always seem to get more combat points per unit of spending if you send replacements to understrength front-line units than if you just build fresh units in the rear areas. The difference seems to be twice as much--that is, you can bring two units up to full strength from almost zero for the same amount of spending to build a single new unit. The problem is that this is exactly the opposite of the way things were in the real war. Actually, it was far cheaper, easier, and more practical to form completely new units in the rear than to try to send replacements piecemeal to the front. Replacements are a relatively expensive, cumbersome method--you have to send some here, some there, all in the midst of the chaotic front lines. If anything, it should cost twice as much to bring a weakened unit up in strength than to form a new unit. Now sometimes it would still be worth a little extra cost to get the combat points directly to the front immediately, but it should still cost extra. However, with the current rules, the player is actually rewarded economically by using inefficient methods. These lessons can best be observed by the combat on the Eastern Front which of course is the main sphere of the entire war. The Soviet method was to use units in the front lines until they were depleted to nothing and then completely re-form new units in the safety and order of secured rear areas. This was an efficient, effective method which maximized Soviet resources and allowed them to raise ever more divisions against the Germans. On the other hand, the Germans engaged in the chaotic, piecemeal, ad-hoc method of trying to send a few troops here and there from time to time. The result was that the Germans at any given time had a bunch of weak, threadbare divisions, hardly any of them at full strength. And at the same time, any given Soviet unit would be fully packed and ready to punch. The difference is of course somewhat from the amounts of military production, but it also reflects the different approaches with respect to military administration. Anyway, back to the main point: historically, reinforcement (creation of new units) has been a more efficient method of utilizing military resources than replacement (strengthening weakened front-line units); however, the game makes replacement relatively cheaper than reinforcement. This should be reversed. Now, I have no problem with withdrawing a damaged unit from the front and then "rebuilding" it in the safety of rear areas--then there should be a cheaper cost. But as long as a unit is in the front line, in contact with enemy units, it will of course be more expensive to spend resources there. It is all a simple matter of logic--order is more efficient than chaos. Easier to organize units in safe areas than trying to get it done in the middle of combat. Again, the game is a holy work, and I feel ashamed to point out even this tiny defect. Most respectfully and sincerely, EB.