Yogi

Don't mind the bleeps Keegan. 1) Don't waste your breath, you will see if you are fairly new to this forum that most all threads degenerate into insults, poor taste and then take on a topic line that probably has little to do with the initial post. 2) Responding because you take offense or want to defend someone else will increase the attacks. 3) And if you decide to join in as you have to rectify the problem, it just adds to and promotes the "lower standards". The old saying "If you can't beat them, join them!" usually ends up applying. 4) Those maintaing the board always have a difficult decison to make between censorship and standards. You probably are aware of other boards however that would banish a number of the contributers to these discussions.

Well back to the Kaptain Karl farewell - so that people can be critical of him or me again. I use to participate in these forums quite a bit and watched for the release of SC2 as well. My interest in Battlefront all started with SC, but also quite a bit in the general and now defunct political discussion forums. My last posting I think was back in about November of 2004. Now looking at the SC2 in January 2006, nothing has changed. I'm all for not putting out a game until it is ready. In fact a recent purchase of Civ IV is a great example of a game that never should have been released because of too many bugs and crashes. Still, I think the ball was dropped on the suggested release of SC2. I remember expecting it early in 2004 and then by Christmas in 2004 and now it is past Christmas in 2005 and into 2006 and we are still waiting. One more defense of the original post to this thread. He has a point, most every thread ends up unrecognizable after a few posts by all the banter. I guess we can argue what inane is, but it would be nice to keep things on topic and save your bantor, insults, questionable humor and unrelated opinion for a special general discussion thread reserved for that purpose. Actually if I were Battlefront, it would be a concern that potential customers get turned off by long waits, unkept promises and/or non-respect for their opinions. [ January 03, 2006, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

Thanks for the info Hubert While I'd love for the game to be out tomorrow, I'd rather it be ready than released with bugs and problems. I just updated my system to a pentium 4 at 3.2 ghz, so I wasn't concerned about running it, but was interested if new graphics etc were going to require a substantially more powerful PC than the old game. I have to admit that it seems that most of the "good" wargames seem to stress the game substance and don't require the fast processor and large amount of ram and hard disc space that the more popular mass market games full of glitz, sound and graphics. Unfortunately they are also often short of substance and reality.

I posted this under another strand, but after going through several of the other posting strands I thought it might be time to start a new one. ----------------------- Well it's been about a year and a half since I participated in the Strategic Command Forum, now I'm awaiting SC2. Sorry for my ignorance to what has probably been posted on some past strand. 1) Any strong update on release time for SC2? 2) What are the system specs expected to be? Where have I been? - Mostly playing HPS games as I have found them to be a reasonable return to my old AH board game roots. Just got the new HPS Campaign Gettysburg. Looks like a winner in what I have seen so far.

Well it's been about a year and a half since I participated in the Strategic Command Forum, now I'm awaiting SC2. Sorry for my ignorance to what has probably been posted on some past strand. 1) Any strong update on release time for SC2? 2) What are the system specs expected to be? Where have I been? - Mostly playing HPS games as I have found them to be a reasonable return to my old AH board game roots. Just got the new HPS Campaign Gettysburg. Looks like a winner in what I have seen so far.

To a "real wargamer" the look of the game is not important. I would even say that a game that looks like an old boardgame is more likely to be a better strategic exercise than the trendy games with emphasis placed on graphics and/or sound. As I mentioned in a different string, I would love nothing more than to see some of the old boardgames faithfully recreated for computer. When someone actually builds a "better mousetrap" let me know, because I have yet to see one. I enjoy games such as Civilization, Total War etc, but comparing them to a wargame is the old apples and oranges saying. Your question actually hits the heart of the matter. Does it bother me that SC looks like an old boardgame - No. What bothers me is that perhaps the answer for the majority of the game buyers of today would be - Yes.

I'd like to see a more historical version, whether it be a patch or mod or SC2. I love SC and the ability it gives us to experiment with what-ifs. But I also feel as I read the play-by-play of the various contests of this forum that SC among our recognized experts has become a game only loosely based on a historical event rather than a test of the real situation. Whether we are talking about England invading the lowlands and/or Norway, U.S. strength, anyone taking Spain, Iraq, Turkey, Sweeden etc, Jet planes, size of Navy or air force, supply or logistics -- the simple reality is that this does not depict the real conditions and/or why these things did not occur in actual history. Whether you think the Axis has a clear advantage or the Allies do, it is quite possibly because you don't have to worry about the real world as it was. Once again, this is not a complaint about what is truly a great game. As an old board wargamer, I would just like the ability to also make it a more realistic depiction. If you want to know if you can do better than Hitler, Patton, Rommel, Guderian etc, then you need to be faced with the same strengths, weaknesses, manpower limitations, equipment and battlefields that they had to contend with.

I hate to answer my own post, but for what it is worth I just finished a game about as close to historical out come as I may ever see again. Briefly, ver 1.06 basic AI setting with computer for Axis. Fog of war in effect. Started normal enough. British began investing in research and air units as best they could. Axis seemed to hold back in west after fall of France and went after Russia. After US came the US also tried as much research as possible. US and British forces sent to North Africa and knocked the Italians out. Italian Fleets had been destroyed earlier. Invaded Sicily and started up the Boot like the real thing. D-Day came in Nov 43. Near as I can tell Axis had invested strongly in air units, which may have become too costly to keep up and didn't leave enough ground forces to keep a strong enough push in Russia. The Russians were fairly strong when D-Day came along. By Summer 44 France was Liberated and the Russians had advanced much of the way back to the border. By late Fall of 1945 Russian orces were in Germany and Berlin was taken by US forces. Headquaters used for allied were Montgomery and Bradley taking the Africa and Italain campaigns. Patton and Alexander took the West Front. I won't go into fuller details for fear of boring you all. I guess the biggest difference from historical were that the Axis did not put up a fight in North Africa except with the original Italian placed units and D-Day came in 1943.

It is quite possible! I just did it at the basic setting (version 1.06). However I didn't go after Norway until after Russia surrendered. After the Russian surrender I was able to build up a very strong Navy (with plenty of carriers) and air to make Sea Lion not just viable but almost a sure thing. As the British and Americans fought to stay alive in England, I went after Norway with no problem. I was also able to easily go after Vichy France, Spain and Portugal with mostly Italian forces. Greece and Sweeden were also taken just for some side fun during the main events. I then invaded Canada and the US with full axis control of the sea and air (thanks to the carriers). Canada was easily taken. I did run out of time to fully conquer the US. I would estimate that I was 1 to 3 turns away from the US surrender when the 1947 game end came. From reading the posts, there are clearly several other ways to win. My decision just happened to be to make sure Russia was beat first. In my game, D-Day came at a time Russia was already very weak. So I was able to devote a lot of axis strength to crush it. The last Allied troops in France were destroyed at about the same time Russia was surrendering. I'm still fairly new to the game, but I am finding that for me, the Allied side is the harder to play well. Either side you play, in the end, it seems that the game will be won, lost or a draw based on the results of the Russian front and the Russian strength when D-Day comes.

This is a message of curiosity not complaint about the game. I generally like to play from the beginning and have noted that regardless of the side I take, the game has never depicted "Historical Results" even if you attempt to follow Historical strategy. Recently for the first time I pulled up the D-Day scenario start and it was truly glaring how different that June 1944 looked from any June 1944 I have seen in playing SC from the beginning. My question is, have any of you seen a game that displayed roughly historical battle results either against the AI or an opponent.

It's not you, you are right on. I have the same frustration whether I'm in North Africa, Italy or Russia. Totally surround, use all my available land, sea and air power knocking them down to 1 or 2, just to see it pop back up to 8 or 10. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat! I have commented on this before, it should be an easy fix with supply or zone of control type changes. I understand that long seiges can occur in real life (Leningrad) but not this often. At least put some sort of percentage formula in.

The first wargame I played (with my older brother)was the original AH Gettysburg. I won and was hooked. I ended up with almost every AH Game made up till the early 80's. Usually only played each game solitare as it was hard to find opponnents in those days and play by mail was difficult. I have now switched to computer games hoping each time to find a great AI and a real wargame. To be honest, I wish that many an old boardgame could just be faithfully transferred to computer. There was something about them that few computer games seem able to match. To busy worrying about graphics, sound, 3D and how many can be sold I guess. Unfortuately we old style wargamers are just to few to attract a multitude of good computer wargames. It apparently is simple economics. Why take the time, money and effort to create great games that don't return enogh profit. Money can be made turning out fantasy junk. As the playstation and similar TV games rise, less and less attention is going to computer games. It is an unfortunate reality. One only has to see what type of games take up the majority of shelf space in software stores. Many of us have to find our games on the internet now, because the stores won't even carry them. Well enough griping and remembering. I'm just getting old and fondly remembering when a wargame was really a wargame and strategy and history was more important than graphics and fantasy and gimmick.

Thanks to those who responded I just downloaded 1.06, no time yet to see any difference. Dave - I do know Rhinelander from many visits over the years - great place. My son previously worked for the TV station (channel 12) as well :cool: Jersey - to respond to the immortal quote you use (wherever you go there you are) also remember the next time the Germans are approaching Moscow - Head to the roundhouse, because they can't corner you there!

I recently purchased SC, have played a few times and at least browsed through the discussion forum before deciding to make my first post. Hopefully it will be of some interest to both new and veteran SC players. 1) I should preface my comments with I'm very happy with my purchase and love the game. I like graphics and sound as much as the next guy, but give me a good strategy game over them any time. I started wargaming with the classic Avalon Hill boardgames in the 1960's. 2) Yes, often people will post discussion items that have been covered before, but isn't that what a new person who is interested does? 3) Why let bragging bother you? If you play the person you can't lose. If they win, you did pretty good for being up against such great odds and if you win the bragger has crow to eat and/or has to acknowledge you as one of the greatest of all time. Likewise for those poor people who just have to insult others, they can't brag when they win over a nothing and if they lose, victory is all the sweeter for the winner. 4) RESEARCH - I'd like to see this as more of an option. Why not allow it to be like entry into the war with a historical setting choice. I like "what ifs" but I also like historical abilities. Always seeing the jet plans fly in large numbers in 1943 or before is not the way I recall it being. Perhaps the industrial advance for some is a similar problem. 5) The ability in some cases to be able to fully refit an army totally surrounded with no supply (weapons or soldiers) logicaly in place is another accuracy question. Perhaps zones of control can help here. (remember the old boargames including AH 3rd Reich) 6) It might be nice to be able to represent the historical generals without paying for them. The game makes it seem that some historical figures must have died in 1939 or something or decided to demand high pay or no play. (Maybe Hitler would have executed them early in that case) 7) Wouldn't it be nice to decide if you want to intercept enemy planes or fleets instead of having it automatic? Don't real generals get to make the decision of if & when they feel it is worth the loss? 8) Keep up the good work battlefront! I hope you can stay in the market and produce many fine games for the future. 9) I hope I didn't waste your time with my comments. I look forward to learning the game and strategy from those of you with much more experience and ability than I.