[Rebirth of SC]

Les, enough about the AIs and put downs of people who use them. We don't all want to play against ourselves -- unless you're a full-blown schizo it's kind of hard to pull off a trick. And we don't all want to play for more than a half hour, nor do we all want the obligation of playing till the other guy feels like quitting etc & etc.. My experiences with live play in SC weren't good. When I lost I admitted it. When I was beating the other player the connection suddenly went dead -- or the other guy suddenly had to leave and the game was never resumed. Same with most PBEM games, and in half of them I knew damn well the other guy was reloading but I never made a big deal about it. So, all things considered I'd rather have a half-assed AI that I can keep a game going against while I'm writing or looking or something up, and if that makes me a wimpy excuse for a game player than that's the way it goes. Like I give a flying @#**%! :eek:

In any case, AIs have to be a part of all future games, or they don't sell. So it would be better to find something else to either comment about or ***** about that doesn't involve put downs of half the people who buy these things.

-- Aside from which I saw all of that already with chess. When those programs and chess playing machines first came out (machines in the late-70s, and they were Mattel toys) they were a joke; any lousy chess player could play them and register as a master. Those days are long gone, now chess playing programs -- for the PC! -- actually do play at very strong master levels. That day will come for wargames too, maybe later and maybe sooner, and any game designer who ignores that is putting his program with the old AH imitations minus AI player of the early 80s that nobody sees anymore.

[Rebirth of SC]

Les, you can't tell game designers to throw out AI because it isn't good enough because if they don't work on it as part of the game it will never get any better.

And there are many of us who only want to play solitair against the computer. I'm not schizophenic enough to have a good time playing both sides.

[Rebirth of SC]

Post Part II --

JJ, you've said a lot in SC+ thread I'll need to contemplate.

Not only that, I'm not sure I concur with a revisit. I was never one that played SC on line, always PBEM, and my schedule was not conducive to many sequential hours of game play at one sitting.

I like the mental exercise, I need the mental exercise, but I do like simplicity of the UI as Les related to.

IMO, it(the UI) is absolutely the most important aspect of a wargame, it should be very intuitive, and SC1, as well as SC2, has it. You should be able to play by "feel".

Fair enough, SM. Glad you like the ideas; as is obvious, they're mainly concepts borrowed from games like HiCom and CoS.

As I said, it's mainly something to bring finality to my thoughts on all of this, not something I really expect Hubert to pick up on. :cool:

[Rebirth of SC]

So Sombra, define fun.

I thought that was a bit bizarre too, but I'm giving Sombra the benefit of the doubt.

Historically the French didn't have a chance, although no one presumed that at the time. So if you wish to make it "fun" then I presume the French will have a chance to delay to the point of stagnation for the western front which deviates from history.

Can we all accept such a possibility of historical deviation to this degree?

Further, that means an early, potentially game ending defeat for someone, most probably the Axis, is that acceptable?. ... Anyone else?

Jeez, SM, don't put it like we're waiting in line to take you on bare knuckles -- I don't fight anyone a foot taller than myself anyway. :eek:

French general Andre Beaufre, who died in 1975, had some very interesting thoughts on the French campaign. He was a full colonel at the time who served on their general staff. Later he was arrested by the Vichy government, escaped and fought for the Free French.

Beaufre saw the collapse of the French Army in 1940 as the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. His reasoning: if they'd held the Germans, or at least held them off for a year or so, all of Hitler's plans would have become unravelled. Stalin might have launched a preventive war across Poland, there would never have been a Hollocaust and the parts of Europe subjagated by the Axis would never have gone through that time in hell. Additionally, the chances are post war USSR would not have become the golliath it was historically.

In an interview for The World At War he had many interesting things to say (though not the above, which I read elsewhere). He placed valid remarks on the failure of the French Army, and of France itself and, regarding the British, he said, "It is okay to be a little selfish, but in the event, the British were very selfish."

I've always felt that way too. Their role, instead of making a run for the coast, should have been to attack south along with the remnants of the French forces in Belgium, across the tail of the German panzers, to rejoin the main body of the French Army. Had they done so, and this was both Hitler's and von Runstedt's greatest fear, the entire course of the war might well have been altered.

-- On the other hand, the French to the south might have been required to link with the breakout attack, and, with Billote dead in a car accident and the French in Belgium disoriented, there's reason to assume the main body of the French might not have succeeded in such an operation.

My guess is that the breakout would have been successful and the subsequent defense of the French homeland would have been considerably stiffer. The main thing is, of course, if they'd gotten through the summer they might well have held till the following spring at the very least.

[Rebirth of SC]

SeaMonkey,

I agree completely with what you're saying.

After thinking about it I realized that what those of us making these suggestions are really talking about isn't SC-3, it's the full realization of the basic SC1 game.

So, I put down what I felt were the most adaptable ideas for Hubert to consider and see a two in one package:

SC (basic) with SC+

SC+ seeks to correct the old gridlock, locked up amphibious attacks and other problems that haunted the original SC, without changing the basic concept. The map remains the same, and the pieces remain the same.

-- I'm very interested in reading your thoughts in that thread.

I think this would satisfy everyone, leaving the way clear for Hubert to continue working along the SC-2 lines and, if he chooses to, at some future date, there would be the two hex SC games.

** To be honest, I don't expect Hubert to use the idea, though I honestly believe the two games would make a great package. I wrote that post and started that thread mainly for the sake of finalizing my own thoughts on this subject, and give others a chance to do the same.

[Sc1+]

Okay, so this is really an exercise in listing some ideas I've had regarding SC-1 as a springboard to SC-3, with hexes.

Please don't say it destroys the idea of SC-1 by making things more complicated. Yes, it is a little more complicated, but it keeps the same map and counters and the same basic game system.

I think it has a possibility as being packaged with the original game as --

SC and SC+

-- Posted Complaints From SC-1:

1) Game tends to feel like WWI more than WWII

2) Difficulty in simulating Blitzkrieg-like breakthrough tactics

3) Amphibious landings, troops on transports hung up at sea too long

-- a) Landings possible in impossible conditions

4) Weather not enough of a factor, especially for Russian Winter.

-- Posted Cautions:

1) No stacking; leave the game at one counter per hex

2) Leave the basic game system simple and easily playable

SC+ Ideas

I – Don’t change the pieces or the map

II -- Make winter more severe with Variable Conditions for October-November; March-April. Pure Winter December-January-February Severe Winter in Russia and Scandinavia -- weather rules to be worked out and to include mud, snow, and ice with adjusted flying conditions.

* European Mediteranean coasts + 1 hex inland (Italy, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece and south coast of France ) experience mud rather than winter snow/ice. -

** Spain, south of the Pyranees through all of North Africa to all of Turkey is exempt from all Winter rules.

III –- Instead of straight turns, divide the turn into phases for the two players

Amphibious Invasion Rules:

IV -- Units leaving port en route to another friendly port pay an initial transport cost and set out; they must proceed to either a friendly port or friendly coastal hex; they cannot invade.

V - Units leaving port for Amphibious landings pay a double transport cost, travel by sea to their destination, and land on the same turn they leave port. If they are not landed they are automatically charged the amphibious cost each turn they are at sea, or are returned to the nearest port or friendly land hex.

-- 1) If the unit is more than two turns distant from the country it set out from, and the cost cannot be paid, it must go ashore at the nearest land hex.

-- -- a) If the hex/hexes are friendly the unit, or units, land without incident.

-- -- If the hex is hostile the landing is treated as an invasion, though it may not be the destination originally planned for.

-- -- c) If the only coast within reach is neutral, the owning player has the option of declaring war on that country and landing the unit as an invasion. Or it can be disbanded without a DOW having been made.

Turns in Phases:

Players A and B

Phasing Player (A):

I) Reinforcement and New Unit Creation

-- a) Newly created and reinforced units may move and engage in combat during the same phasing turn they were placed on the board or reinforced.

II) Sea movement

All sea moves are carried out and all naval combat resolved.

-- 1) Units at sea that are placed adjacent to defending a defending unit on the coast attack it as though it were a land battle, but receive a 50% bonus to simulate naval bombardment.

-- -- a) If the defender is destroyed (or forced to retreat if such rules are in place) the attacking unit comes ashore and can move no farther that turn.

-- -- If the defender survives (or is not forced to retreat) the amphibious unit can either remain in place to attack again the following turn – or land if there is an adjacent vacant hex – in which case it pays for another turn’s amphibious cost. Or it can be returned to either a home port or friendly coastal hex at the owners option.

III) Air Attack

All strategic and tactical air attacks are conducted by the phasing player, along with all interception missions by the non-phasing player. Done same as in SC-1

IV) Land Movement and Attack – done same as in SC-1 – land units can OPERATE now, but cannot be transported. All battles resolved.

V) 2nd Land Movement – no attacks allowed. Units may move again and can enter or finish in enemy zones of control. UNITS CANNOT OPERATE. This phase will allow exploitation after breakthroughs -- blitzkreig as done historically by the Germans in from the start, and the allies after 1943.

-- Land units that haven’t moved, attacked, or landed amphibiously can conduct STRATEGIC MOVEMENT, going up to 200% their normal movement allowance. They can start, pass through, or end in an enemy zone of control.

VI) Air Movement – no enemy interceptions possible. Air units relocate to friendly hexes. Air units can be OPERATED to distant locations during this phase. Air units cannot conduct strategic movement.

* Player A has completed his turn.

** Player B begins his turn following the same steps used by player A

*** This would be an expanded version of SC-1 rather than SC-3, intended for those who like the original game and who want to play it on a more historically realistic level.

Eager to hear comments and the ideas of others. Except the inevitable dreck that it's too complicated, :cool: blah-blah-blah.

[Rebirth of SC]

Never did hear that one before!

Greetings Brother Retributar, Appreciated.

The last thing I expected was for so many terrific things to come up involving the original SC game; proves how good it still is.

Hopefully you'll feel that need very soon and will add more of your own always welcome views.

[Rebirth of SC]

My pleasure, Otto. I agree; zooming would definitely help.

[Rebirth of SC]

It wouldn't be necessary to expand the map.

What it would come down to is the more overall strength a side has in an area the more force it would exert over a farther number of hexes.

I don't remember much about American Civil War 1861 - 1865, and I checked the net, there's almost nothing out there on the game. But it would seem to me that if the concept is being used now, and in a modern context with air units, all of the radiating hex concentrations attacking a target hex would be factored together vs all the enemy radiating concentrations defending that hex.

The outcome should involve casualties and displacement of defending units; in other words those concentrations that lost in defense would be forced to move a step farther away from the center of action. If this is impossible, or if the defender chooses a fight to the death option the defending losses would be increased but the defeated units would remain in place.

Opposite to a stand and die defense would be an all out attack which might force displacement, but would involve higher losses.

Attacker and Defender should choose which concentrations to use in specific attacks and defenses. In that way many battles could be fought per front, creating an old fashioned soak off effect by the attacker, accepting losses in one attack in order to divert the defender and, possibly force a greater victory in another attack being launched that turn.

Air units could be placed seperately from ground units and would have their own radiating system; affected by radar etc --

in fact, all systems should be affected by technology advances such as increased mobility, infitration tactics, mobile defense, etc & etc.

-- and then there also be espionage, spy and counter spy tech, etc. ...

All of this would be a calculating nightmare for over the board players, but I think computers should be able to handle this sort of thing pretty easily.

-- That's true, Hubert, isn't it? And not much to program, correct? -- Okay, I'm running, don't throw it!

[Rebirth of SC]

Otto,

An excellent concept. I've seen it done once, as is so often in the case during the early 70s, through Simulation Publications (SPI).

It was an American Civil War game, one of the ones they sent with their magazine. Counters were just strength numbers. The smaller the strength in a hex the less effective its zone of control. While garrisons might have a value of 1, armies might be (as I recall) something like 50 or more. I think the value coincided with the approximate manpower in thousands of units during that war:

~ 1-3 = brigade

~ 4-6 = division

~ 7-15 = corps

~16 --> unlimited = army

But my memory of this one is pretty fuzzy. It also incorporated a naval war system, rivers, and rail lines. Vicksburg was a railhead connecting the Confederacy east and west across the Mississippi; there was a movement penalty in crossing it.

Very large armies radiated out an enormous distance and smaller ones less so incrementally.

There was a system for supplies and things like damaged rail lines.

I don't recall how naval and riverine units were handled, nor what, if any, distinction was made between cavalry and infantry. I think all callibre of artillery was considered part of the army units, in abstract terms the largest armies would have also had siege guns.

Abstract was the main word here. Large armies were very powerful near their radiating hex, but if fighting a distant smaller army nearer its own radiating hex things would move toward equalizing.

-- It would be interesting to see how air power and specialized mobile units would be treated in this sort of system.

I'd love to see Hubert make this idea SC-3 !!!

[Rebirth of SC]

A container idea is fine, I don't see much difference between that and stacking. It had a board game equivalent in the early 70s, SPI's Le Grande Armee, where the smaller a unit the faster it moved. But if it stopped with at least one movement point left it could join other units in a hex. The larger combined units were slower, but progressively more powerful than the sum of their parts.

-- I don't recall the values, but it went something like

4 x 1-1-4 divisions = 1 x 5-5-3 corps;

2 x 5-5-3 corps = 1 x 12-12-2 army.

The only stacking was done with commander units, each of which had several values (att - def - morale - supply I believe) and the owning player chose which of those on the stack served as it's commander.

The system was interesting but cumbersom on a board. I think it would be perfect with a computer, incorporating things like fog of war, that couldn't be handled over the board.

I'm sure there are many great systems that can be employed using a computer. As I said, the concept of combining units into larger units is fine, goes way back, and works well.

[Rebirth of SC]

When every hex represents about 50 miles x 50 miles it's absurd to say stacking isn't relevant.

One of the basic principles of war, from Napoleon on, has been to concentrate force against the enemy's weak point and break it.

The principle of Blitzkrieg was to do the same, create a gap, and pour moble units through it, having them fan out in the enemy rear areas. How do you do that with a single piece in the line and the pieces behind it unable to move through the created gap? The only way, in SC1, was to clobber the hex with air attacks till the defender was destroyed in that way and then force your way through. To which, we all complained (and I still do) that air power alone shouldn't be able to destroy a large ground unit like a corps or an army.

-- So, the only way to force the gap and then exploit it is either through stacking along the front line, or with phases, as in Clash of Steel. But lacking either of those elements SC1 often turned into the WWI style deadlock that we all agreed was wrong for a WWII wargame.

Also, the only way to simulate the US Navy and Japanese carrier groups, as were used in the Pacific War, would have to be through stacking.

And by stacking I doubt Les is talking about 20 to a tile/hex. Also, it doesn't have to be that all the stacked units can either attack or defend; I'd go for a three stack limit in an SC1 type game, with 2 max for attack and 1 for defense. And that would also take new rules for combined attack with advance and retreat after victory. But I guess I'm getting to board game here, better to leave it bored than board.

[Rebirth of SC]

Gentlemen, many thanks!

-- SeaMonkey, -- appreciate the tip; followed Otto's directions for getting an enhanced posting screen and it's exactly what I like. I'm sure you'd prefer it too over typing in the symbols. There are other very useful formatting abilities as well, right on the screen.

Otto's Instructions:

JJ, you can go to

User CP

Edit Options

Miscellaneous Options

and change the editor interface to

Enhanced Interface

Then you can insert the smilies with a mouse click.

Thank you, Otto. This makes posting a lot more fun. :cool:

[Rebirth of SC]

SM, Type them in? -- When I right click the things for properties I just get a link. Tried three or four different ways but it obviously only works for Canadians, Swedes and chemists. ;--)

[Rebirth of SC]

... Now anyone want to bet that SC3 can't recapture the game that SC1 was???? ... it can be better.

Of course! And the things is, that's the only assumption I've made right from the start. Hubert is constantly improving his work, gaining from experience and utilizing input from the users. I was really knocked over by the way he kept improving SC-1, and sharing the various disappointments with us, such as "Unfortunately I can't get the computer to send units around Africa." I'd be very surprised if SC-3 wasn't as much of a breakthrough, and as easy to play, as SC-1 in its heyday.

-- Okay, I haven't asked for anything in the past three or four posts, uh, two or three, so now I'm going to ask what happened to those little emoticons we were able to put in the text, and not just in the title? (I noticed it done in another post but don't know how to do it.)

I mean, the things were mindless, but I sort of got used to them.

-- Then there was bold and italics etc -- not that I'm not saying this format isn't better -- because it is! ;--)

[Rebirth of SC]

@SeeMonkeySpank --- ... It's not about "living in the past", it's about "why was it fun"? Do you even understand the addictive factor of SC-1? This game had a Top-10 list of players going no stop, skipping work, neglecting their families, sleeping thru golf tournaments, name it. How can you explain the phenom of it all? ...

Now it makes sense to me, Hubert didn't want to be responsible for all these people getting fired and sleeping behind the steering wheel, etc., so he broke the addictive cycle. Bless your basic decent humanity, Mr. C. :--)

-- Mr X, great post. You were absolutely poetic!

-- Kuni, terrific story about the steak. I had something similar happen with a young waitress who told me I had to try something when I wanted another dish that I really love. I took her recommendation and couldn't eat more than two bites.

[Rebirth of SC]

SeaMonkey -- Our retirement years, now there's a chilling thought -- I've just gotten used to the 1960s! ;--)

I have an idea what you're saying, and an idea of what Kuni's saying too, about your post seeming contradictory, but I think that's because you're looking long term and some of it in an abstract sense.

My take on your posts is that Hubert is directing the gains he's made in this game system and he can't make advances in both the hex type game and the tile type game simultaneously. By the time he's brought the tile type to its highest level there will be little or no point in Hubert turning back to work on hexes because there will be too great a gap. That seems reasonable, though I really don't know much about either programming, or artificial intelligence.

No problem with any of that. It will be interesting to see what comes out of it. As you said, if all these things can be done with tiles then it will certainly be worth waiting for. :--)

[Rebirth of SC]

SeaMonkey,

Okay, I'm simmered. ;--)

The main point isn't over hexes, though it is a part of it. There are many other things, such as advance and retreat after combat; stacking -- even a small number of pieces would be good -- and various other things. Hexes are more than eye-candy, the game has an entirely different feel and plays differently. Whether one is better than the other is debatable but for me I really do prefer hexes.

Last time I tried the SC-2 scenario editor I got nowhere. I asked for advice on the SC-2 forum and it came out as writing script and instructions for the program. Sorry, I have absolutely no ability when it comes to giving instructions to machines. I feel Hubert's SC-1 scenario editor is great -- if more limited than anyone would like. Expand it a bit keeping the basic very friendly feel and it would be great; more advanced options can always be put in with a button saying ADVANCED FEATURES for those who want to deal with scripting.

One reason I posted to this thread when I saw it is because, admittedly -- and I've said it several times earlier -- I'm not active in any kind of gameplay at the moment. Never really was except for those few years when SC was really fun and being improved all the time with numerous patches. The only kind of game I'm looking for is solitaire that I can keep running in the background while using the computer to work on something else. Naturally that can be done with a chess program, but wargames are, or should be, more fun.

Another reason I posted here is because, if there is going to be an SC-3, it appears to be a few years off, and that's fine with me as it will be at least two years before I can get back into this hobby with even a little committment -- though I always enjoy making scenarios and it would be good to able to work on one now, but as I said, I just can't warm up to this system. It isn't my loss, or anyone else's, it just means I'm not making them at the present time. Not a biggie.

No one posting here is stuck in the past. We have SC-1, if we were stuck in the past that would satisfy us. What I'm stuck in is the vision I had of SC expanded with the suggestions the two of us, Shaka, Liam, Edwin, Kuni, Desert Dave and so many others were looking towards. I still feel like it's out there and, though SC-2 is a fine game, it just isn't the one I was waiting for.

If Hubert chooses to never go back in that direction that's his decision and it's fine with me. People are always sending me links to this or that hex-based wargame advising me that it's a lot like what I was talking about. And they have been. I don't know if they're good or bad because I haven't played any of them, yet. As I said, for me it's another two, maybe three years.

If there is another hex-based SC by then, preferably with stacking and advance / retreat after combat, a really good AI for the computer player, etc & etc, that will be great. If not, its absence won't cause me any great pain; as I said, to me these things are a form of solitair.

[Rebirth of SC]

SeaMonkey, I don't understand the hostility in your post. As kuni said, nobody is stuck in the past, we happen to like hexes better than tiles. Also, we all said there are many improvements in SC-2 etc & etc -- I gave it a good try, never said it was a bad game and I won't. What I said, and so have many others, is we'd like to see SC-2, essentially, with hexes. Anyway, I don't get this push people off to the side approach. If that's the case, the hell with it, I don't need SC, SC-2 or SC-50 for that matter so maybe it is a fine time to say goodbye.

[Rebirth of SC]

Thank you, Brother Retributar, I'm most certainly listening and watching, though I don't post often these days because I'm bogged down in other (non-gaming) activities.

There are a huge number of old SC1 enthusiasts. Many have also gotten into SC2 and its offshoots but would still like to see a perfected SC1. I don't believe that's possible or Hubert would have done so. As far as I know the others feel the same so, failing that, the new word is SC-3, envisioned as the original SC but with the improvements so many of us advocated a few years back. Among those things would be a scenario/map editor on a par with the new ones being made by Hubert, but as easy to use as the one in the original SC classic system.

After thinking about that post two back from this one I realized I'd forgotten at least half of the great suggestions made so far back, but I'm sure Hubert has a list of them.

And so, here's hoping Mr. H. is thinking along tese lines (hexes etc) along with his other new game concepts.

[Rebirth of SC]

I've just noticed this thread or I'd have posted to it months ago.

As so many of us said during the years before SC-2 appeared, SC was great -- except it needs more of this or less of that etc and some of the key points came up again in this threads earlier posts.

Much of what I personally asked for has appeared in SC-2, principally the vastly expanded scenario editor. -- Don't like the narrow Atlantic, draw your own etc. I was very happy to see all of that, but in many ways SC-2 is a basically different game from its predecessor. Both are fine, I see a lot of people really love SC-2, which is a great thing, but I'll always prefer the original game.

Principal disappointments, as I recall, were:

Very weak and predictable AI opponent.

Map & Weather--

*Atlantic too small;

*Sahara too narrow N --> S;

*Impossible to sneak German naval units past Scapa Flow;

*The Low Countries too prone to a Thermopolae-type bottleneck, one of the reasons so many of us wanted both stacking and advance/retreat after combat actions.

*Winters not severe enough

*No Russian Winter -- gets into a detailed discussion, of course, maybe should have an on/off toggle.

*Amphibious Landings wrong, no allowance for a nations ability to land troops, weather doesn't seem to be a factor as they can be done even on northern shores during winter months! Large land units able to sail around indefinitely looking for landing opportunities, leading to many absurd situations such as Italy conquering the United States! (see next issue).

*Huge amphibious landings conducted on the same turn as the DOW.

*MUD seasons not a major factor -- a major factor in Italy and Russia.

Unit Aspects --

No stacking;

No retreat;

No advance after combat;

Battles too much like WWI instead of WWII;

The Naval War doesn't ring true;

Shore bombardments too strong, again considering the size of the units and the size of each hex (2-3x the range of largest naval guns);

Subs pretty ineffective, not really worth the cost;

Carriers shouldn't sink as a result of a defeated air strike! -- there should be separate ship and aircraft loss/damage status;

Aircraft carriers too powerful, especially against land targets. I agree that in the European Campaign aircraft carriers rarely figured in actions against major land units, though in carriers vs surface units I think they were fine; Strategic bombers more effective against naval units than tac air fleets, we all agreed it should have been the opposite;

Air Units too decisive against ground units (considering each piece is a corps and army!);

Strategic Bombers cost more to repair than the cost to the enemy in MPPs from their strikes;

Rockets not very effective units -- I don't thing they should be, really, considering early 1940s technology, though they should have a great morale destroying effect when effectively unleashed upon enemy cities.

And many more points, sorry, I just don't recall all of them at the moment.

Anyway, it was my understanding that Hubert couldn't correct or change most of this within the game system he used for SC.

-- But even now my vote would be for a hex based game combining the best of SC, HiCom and Clash of Steel with a really good AI player. ** Throw in a really good editor and I'd be satisfied forever.

[Calling all the heroes]

Thank you, SM, you've worked your old magic and have me typing twice as fast! -- Putting a part in the screenplay for a 6'7" Texas Chemist.

[Calling all the heroes]

You certainly are. The deed is done. Looking forward to seeing you there.

-- Love that description of the old syringes. And, yes, they did leave arms numb, especially with kids. Getting more than one at the same time was outright punishment of the cruel and unusual nature.

Of course Americans had to receive massive inoccuations before going to Europe. If not, otherwise good Americans would be coming back, as you said, doing crazy commie things like listening to chamber music! :eek:

[Calling all the heroes]

PS -- DD, that Norman Rockwell picture always reminds me of those long ago days when doctors used their needles till they finally wore out. I think they sharpened them once in a while before sterilizing. Anyway, I'm sure anyone from that time remembers how being stuck with one of those things was more a stab than a sting. Ah, nostalgia.

[Calling all the heroes]

DesertDave and Minty,

Greetings, and thanks Dave for all the things you wrote, appreciated, as always. I'm glad you haven't your touch with the prose and the great way you see life. :cool:

I still come back to this forum pretty often, read a lot of interesting things and post once in a while but, as most of the discussion these days is on game mechanics or game play. I can't add anything as I rarely play these days, and I am not familiar the new game variants. Hoping to get back into it, but at the moment that isn't possible for me.

Brother Rambo posts quite a bit at SCBunterland these days, as does my fellow admin, the immortal Kuniworth.

The old SC1 days were fantastic but impossible to describe to those who weren't there at the time. There's no way to do justice to people like disorder, General Bilotte, Archibald, Jim Boggs and of course DesertDave and the others who are now active in this forum. There was a great mix of humor, insanity and great history discussions in that place along with so many great illustrated AARs. Unfortunately its time came, and passed, but being a part of it was something special.

At work now on a series of interweaving novels set in the 1930s thru present day, all of them centered in WWII's European Theater. This has led to a bottomless pit of research that I'm hoping to emerge from someday so I can finish the actual writing portion. -- My friend SeaMonkey helped quite a bit by reading the early work, when it was all going to be done in a single novel. -- I'll always be grateful for his encouragement, and the confidence he gave me to really get into it.

Thanks again Dave and Minty.