Jeff Sutro

At the risk of sounding like something of a "broken record" (or a "scratched CD" to put it into more modern terms) by repeating myself so often, I would certainly be in favor of a "Global War" expansion pack. To do it up right would require more than what could reasonably be done in a patch. It would need to include expanded naval rules, expanded invasion rules, and other appropriate rules changes, as well as new units, new unit upgrades, and many more diplomatic options. There are many possibilities for new operational scenerios that could be included. Among them are Guadalcanal, Midway, the Coral Sea, New Guinea, China, the Philipines, Burma, Southeast Asia, Leyte Gulf, and hypothetical invasions of Japan, Hawaii, Australia, India, or even the United States. I know that I'd be glad to pay for such an expansion package, and I suspect that others might also.

I am delighted that there will soon be another expansion / scenerio pack. The subject matter looks very interesting. Also, it still leaves room for a "Global Warfare" expansion somewhere on down the line, which would give you a truly comprehensive World War 2 strategic level gaming system. I do hope that "Patton Drives East" will build further on "Weapons and Warfare" by including all the improvenents and new units that add so much to gameplay, and also increase realism somewhat.

Scottsmm: To my way of thinking a really good "Global War" expansion would pretty much be the ultimate game in this niche. The niche I mean is the highly playable, low detail (ie. a game more than a simulation) strategic level World War Two game. At this time there are "Strategic Command", "Strategic Command 2", "Commander: Europe at War", "World at War" (and possibly some others) in the niche, and they are all excellent games. I can't see the need for more. In the highly detailed strategic level game niche (hard core simulations) there are "War in the Pacific", "War in Russia", and perhaps sometime "World in Flames" (if they ever complete it). However the middle ground is pretty much empty ( perhaps Advanced Tactics, but I haven't played it so I don't know), and that is where a Strategic Command 3 would seem to make sense. Such a game would be hex based, include stacking, be corp level (with perhaps some specialized divisions), have somewhat detailed command and control rules and supply rules, and be moderately realistic without going into excessive detail, so it would still be very playable. I don't know if Hubert is at all interested in designing such a game, but I would certainly be interested in playing it.

I'd vote for an expansion (if I had a vote), something along the lines of Strategic Command 2: Global War. That would allow Hubert to add whatever new rules, units, and AI scripts that are needed to take the game global. Marines, expanded invasion rules, expanded naval rules, trans-oceanic supply rules, and jungle warfare rules are some things that come to mind. There are also a lot of potential smaller scenerios (eg. Midway, Burma, Guadacanal, China, Iwo Jima, Invasion of Japan, Invasion of Australia, Coral Sea, etc.) that could be included. Such an expansion would really make Strategic Command a very complete game system. I know that I'd be more than willing to pay for it.

powergmph: Chess is a good game, but Go is even better. Therefore, we should use a square grid, but with the units on the intersections rather than the squares! :cool: [ January 25, 2008, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Sutro ]

Timskorn: Just for that, I'm changing my vote to decagons. Three cheers for base ten! :cool:

Some beers, such as Guinness, are meant to be served just below room temperature. In general though I prefer most beers served cold and in a frosted glass (or out of a cold bottle). Usually I prefer hexes because they do not distort the distances on the map. Most "square" grids are actually distorted octogons, because the corners are usually treated as sides (which is what Strategic Command 2 does). Also I think hexes look better. In general though I can live with either, especially in a game like Strategic Command 2 that emphasizes "gameplay" over "simulation".

SeaMonkey: That sounds like a great idea! A second expansion, some type of "Strategic Command 2: Global War", is something I'd gladly pay for. To do a good job of "going global" is likely to require new rules for naval combat, expanded rules for invasions, expanded diplomacy, new A.I. coding and scripts, an extensively expanded map, new units and unit upgrades, new / expanded research, and probably a lot of other things that my limited brain can't think of right now. This would also allow for a lot of interesting new "operational" scenerios, e.g. China, Iwo Jima, Guadacanal, New Guinea, Burma, Philipines, Midway, Coral Sea, Leyte Gulf, Pearl Harbor, and hypothetical battles like invasions of the Japanese home islands, Australia, or Hawaii. Perhaps, as was sugested on the "Strategic Command 3" thread by powergmph and Hyazinth von Strachwich (I'd provide a link to it if I could figure out how), there could be more than three upgrade options available for some units and the player could pick and choose which to use. This would allow a player to customize his units to some extent, while keeping things within reasonable limits. It seems to me that for Hubert to put in the time and effort do do the job properly it would have to be something for which he'd need to get paid, and I know that it's something that I'd consider to be well worth the money.

Thank you all for your prompt replies. I am very glad to know that the game is well balanced. Of course now I have no one but myself to blame when I lose. Perhaps I can blame it on bad dice rolls!

Because I'm a new player (I got the "bundle pack" for Christmas) I've have been reading over the more recent After Action Reports, which I find is a good way to become acquainted with a new game. I've read over seven or eight of them (including three that used the Weapons & Warfare expansion), and all of them were Axis victories, usually rather one sided Axis victories. This brings to mind two questions. 1) Is this because the full campaign is unbalanced in favor of the Axis, or is that string of decisive Axis victories just a coincidence? 2) If the full campaign is unbalanced, are some of the shorter campaigns (such as the one that begins in 1940) better balanced? For me one of the great things about World War II grand strategy games is that each side gets to be both on the offensive and on the defensive. I also enjoy trying to judge when the shift in momentum (Churchill called it "The Hinge of Fate") will take place and how to prepare effectively for it. So far Strategic Command II has been great fun, and I'm hoping to make it even better by finding out which scenerios best suit my tastes. Thank you for any information you can give me.

Timskorn and Rambo: Thank you both for the excellent AAR. As a new player (I got the Bundle Pack for Christmas) I found it interesting and helpful. I got the impression though that long range rockets are overpowered both from the point of view both of gameplay and of history. This brings up two questions. 1) Is this perception correct, or was it just the way that particular game played out? 2) Has this been altered in the Weapons & Warfare expansion, in conjunction with the addition of artillery and / or other changes? I'd be grateful for any information you can give me.

Shaka of Carthage Again my apologies. I seem to have had a good deal of trouble getting my last post correct. It could be the early onset of senility, but it's probably just my perenial inattention to detail. Bill Macon I am delighted to hear that you are writing a strategy guide for Strategic Command. A very worthy project in my opinion. Thank you for your efforts. KDG Thank you for clarifying my question. Your reply was quite helpful. I'm glad to know that I haven't grown so dull that I was failing to properly read the formula. Your point that the formula will accurately reflect the average of the combat results is well taken in my opinion. I do very much like having randomness in individual combats, however. I think the element of chance is one the most important elements of any wargame, both to make the game less predictable (up to a point) and therefore more fun, and to more accurately reflect the "realities" of war.

(* On one hand I like the existing manual cause it doesn't go into alot of details. On the other hand, I miss the fact that alot of the details are not explained. In a way, I guess I would like to see a "Designers Notes" manual included, that told what the formulas are, expanded on Axis and Allied strategies (maybe some examples from the playtesters), etc.) The formulas are listed. I have them in an excel spreadsheet.

Jersey John: Thank you for the helpful information. Even old Fogeys like me like to have the latest patches. Jeff