Jim Boggs

Well said gentlemen. It would be interesting to see some variants on pre-war Germany that would put different Foreign Policy settings into effect. For example: In exchange for concessions in Poland and colonies in Africa (did not know about the African deal), Germany signs non-aggression pact with Britain and France. becomes enamoured with Balkan politics and risks war with Soviets and ITALY. Any suggestions along that line guys?

One entire RAF unit? OUCH!

Liam I think the point you bring up about Germany not needing a navy unless they were going to war with Britain and France is absolutely correct. Hitler stated early on in his infamous blueprint mein kampf (not worthy of either capitals or quotation marks) that his ambitions lay to the East for Lebenstraum and his hatred of the Bolsheviks was intense. Therefore a possible variant could be a different German Government with policies more conciliatory to the west. I truly believe Hitler would have avoided war initially with the west if he could get his hands on Poland and a common border with the Soviets. [ January 11, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

Welcome to the discussion Group North, but we must keep this on topic as to the viability of Germany conquering Russia. Is it therefore your opinion that Hitler would have found support for his anti-Semitic policies in the Soviet Union and had he limited his ethnic cleansing to only the Jews he might still have succeeded. This would mean in game terms that the conquest of the Soviet Union could be achieved. If so, this is a scenario I had not considered, and I have learned something tonight. I come from Florida, where, if you would be so kind to post, do you reside? To JJ Unfortunately, (checks his calendar) today's Saturday. Welcome group North to the discussion. [ January 11, 2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

Dates, please give dates. Thanks-this is great stuff guys!!

I've mentioned this in other threads, but I just wanted to let you two guys know: How Great Your Game report format is. I hope this can be adopted by all who play, as I find it fascinating to read. Kinda like the scrolling ticker of CNN: June 22 1941-This just in Germany attacks Russia, etc, etc, etc. Dadgum it you two this is EXCELLENT-Keep it up [ January 11, 2003, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

Sorry JJ, my turn to post--you need to make a beer run. I think, and this ties back to what you were saying about Hitler mismanaging the war, that the Germans had a window of opportunity to conquer the Soviet Union during the early phases had they better handled the ethnic minorities (Ukraine, White Russian, and obviously the Baltic States) as they overran their territories early in the 1941 campaign. They were welcomed as liberators in a number of locations as the people sought to throw off the bonds of Stalinism. It was the behind the front actions of their Gestapo and SS units which enabled Stalin to save his position and turn the war into a great Patriotic struggle. At this point the hatred of the Soviet people for the Germans was beyond redemption and I think there would not be any Soviet surrender regardless of how much territory was overrun. So yes, I think the conquest of the Soviet Union was possible, but not with Hitler and his gang of racial purists running the war. Thank you for your time [ January 11, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

Please comment on the following ditty I found in the book "Hitler's War Machine" by Dr. William Carr: "Thus the Czech crisis of 1938 gave the impetus to his decision to permit the Navy's famous Plan 'Z'........ No one could doubt that, with a future fleet of 13 battleships, 4 aircraft carriers, 33 cruisers, and 250 U-Boats, all of modern design, Germany would be in a position by 1944 to challenge Britain, and possibly the United States, for mastery of the seas." If my math is correct (1944-1938=6 years) then had the German's initiated Plan Z in say 1934, then the above force could have been available by 1940. That would be an interesting variant!

Sorry-Double Post! [ January 23, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

What's this I see? Intellectual discussion of opposing points of view? Am I back in my dorm room (1971)? The sweet sounds of passionate debate. How refreshing. If I may offer a possible bridge to the two postions. In my opinion the Soviet Union holds the key. Is it conceivable that Germany could have conquered the Soviet Union prior to the entry of the USA into the war? With the entry of the USA into the war and the Soviet Union still a viable power, I am convinced that not only Germany and Italy, but also Japan were doomed and it was at that point only a matter of time. The Axis Powers could not compete with the Allies from that point on in regards the real key to winning WW II-Production Capacity. Therefore the debate should perhaps(?) focus on whether it was viable for Germany to conquer the Soviet Union. Thank you for allowing me to post this thought. Gentlemen Please continue. [ January 11, 2003, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

THIS SPACE FOR RENT/LEASE OPTION [ January 12, 2003, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

Dad Gumb it BtW and Rambo, I was gonna go watch football! But this promises to be much more interesting. PLEASE continue to report your turn by turn comments and reactions. To zappsweden and terif who initiated this style of in-game reporting: THANK YOU!!!

My dear friend JJ: You sir are the standard for class and decorum toward other posters and the fact that you took the time to post so excellent a response to Liam's post is further proof. I perhaps overreacted to the post following yours. I have noticed a change in the forum lately and I really like it, so maybe I'm just overly sensitive to any perceived drift back to the recent days. [ January 11, 2003, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

I have done a search on this and can find no thread and I think it would be a very interesting topic, because I found out about SC totally by accident. I was spending a lot of time at PCGR.COM reading reviews on games by gamers, and can say that it has both saved me a ton of money and brought some real jewels to my attention. In November I happened to notice a game called Combat Mission which with, I think, over 40 reviews had an overall rating of 4.98 out of 5.00. I think this is still the highest rating on the board with more than ten posts. The link provided was to Big Time Software, and I was unable to link to it. Fortunately the reviewers mentioned Battlefront.com and I was able to go here. I saw SC and the $25 price, and after trying the demo, it was a no brainer. For whatever reason Hubert's SC is not listed at PCGR.COM and I would ask one of our computer savy guys to go there and see if they can figure out how to post it there. I would certainly post a review if it were available. P.S.-I also got the CMBO & CMBB bundle pack and for those of you here who have not tried these games, they are the standard for World War II tactical level combat. I highly recommend them.

Tom: I think you have hit the nail on the head with your post. Hubert's marketing slogan "Change the outcome of the second world war" would indicate to me that he intended for this game to not be 100% historically accurate. Given the VERY generous transport rules which allows both Sea Lion and an invasion of America, it is readily apparent that this game is wide open to experiment within a certain framework of actual WW II history. I have pondered on this and it seems to me that one has a choice when designing a game, to either try for 100% historical accuracy and allow people to try different approaches based on historical possibilities which would limit somewhat the options available, or, as in SC, use WW II as a basic background to allow some really far-out options while retaining most of the historical elements, but not all. I think from a replayability standpoint SC's approach has extended that feature by a much greater amount than a truly histrical approach would, All the historical options are availble in SC, PLUS you can experiment with outlandish and innovative ideas that can be truly enjoyable-as the posted AAR's show

To follow up on JJ's point about the French High Command I would like to post the following from William L. Shirer's excellent book "Berlin Diary": "June 27th, 1940 The commanding officers of the German army are, for the most part, mere youngsters compared to the French Generals we have seen. The latter strike you as civilized, intellectual, fraile, ailing old men who stopped thinking new thoughts twenty years ago and have taken no physical exercise in the last ten. The German Generals are a complete contrast. More than one not yet forty, most of them in the forties, a few at the very top in their fifties. And they have the characteristics of youth-dash, daring, imagination, initiative, and physical prowess. General von Reichenau, commander of a whole army in Poland was first to cross the Vistula River. He swam it. All the big German tank attacks were LED in person by commanding generals. They did not sit in the safety of a dug-out ten miles behind the lines and direct by radio. They sat in their tanks in the thick of the fray and directed by radio and signalling from where they could see how the battle was going. And, as was to be expected from youth. these young generals did not hesitate at times to adopt innovations, to do the unorthodox thing, to take chances." In addition, if I recall correctly, General Gamelin's headquarters did not have or use radios, instead relying on dispatch riders. In this vein, I agree with Liam that the French were doomed from the start. Shirer even mentions that the French Communists (a large faction in pre-war France) had orders NOT to fight the Germans. Hubert has created a much more realistic France 1940 model,(in my opinion) than the old classic AH Third Reich, as its tightly packed hexes did not really allow the breakthroughs and exploitations that are attainable in SC. Any way that's just my opinion for what its's worth and if it's wrong I will not be crushed.

My old friend Kuniworth: I am glad to see you back amongst us. I too would like to to hear from Rambo who has been a little too quiet lately. Terif and zappswedens epic battle and turn-by-turn posts have been exceptionally well done. With Rambo's creative imagination, his turn-by-turn comments would indeed be "required reading". Again, welcome back

Sorry for bailing on you last night! I also tried the 1941 scenario and lo and behold I had the same problem with a zero value Black Sea Fleet. I think you can fix this through the scenario editor by giving the Soviets enough extra PPM's to allow the Black Sea Fleet to be fully manned at the start. But I am in agreement that it looks like a bug. By the way thank you very much for your kind offer re: SC tournament. I hope that we can have permanent rankings established and I do not know if Battlefront has the time or capacity to help in this regard. Any thought syou might have would of course be greatly appreciated. Thanks

82ndReady: Wow! Okay what happens if you try to reinforce? You know I read reports about the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and they may just be lost and will show up in a couple of weeks. By the way my dad was Mr. Boggs, any way call me Jim, it makes me feel younger.

My good friend I was just wondering, if you left clicked on the unit would any information be displayed at the bottom of the screen?

dadgum it JJ You are of course absolutely correct. If there is no way to eliminate cheating than the monetary prize is too big a temptation. So here's another thought. Use the money to invest in printing a turn-by-turn screen shot replay of the final match with the two players commenting on thir thoughts and actions. This could be a worthy reward for the winner and I would be willing to buy a copy if Battlefront decided to market it as a Strategy Guide. I can see it now Bill (sorry for the target)Macon vs Rambo in the finals with a turn-by-turn replay with screen shots. To quote a famous intellectual from the 80"s "That would RULE!" After following zappsweden and terif's excellent thread, my pulse quickened and Immer's idea of a seeded playoff seemed like an excellent plan. At this point I will leave it up to the powers in charge. [ January 11, 2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

To my good friend 82NDREADY: I agree with you that we need to start a new thread in order not to confuse people about what we are talking about. I think we could use some help and advice from the administrators on this one, as some of the items being discussed will surely have to be approved by Battlefront. There are details to work out and God knows I DO NOT want to see a "Win $500" thread go up until we know Battlefront is okay with this. Moon, I apologise to you and Battlefront for posting that on the public forum. I have sent you an e-mail, but it was a foolish burst of exuberence on my part, as this should have been handled in private.

To: Mr. Bill Macon Here's a surprise, you were absolutely correct about AREA. I dug up an old manual that desribes a rating system called Ultra which mentions the AREA rating sytem as you describe it. They provide a chart with a vertical column called Rating Difference that is in increments of 100 and ranges from 600+ to -600. Horizontally is a Victory Level chart containing 5 categories of victory (Stalemate, Pyrrhic, Marginal, Tactical, and Decisive). By matching the difference rating to the level of victory you receive or lose points from your overall rating. For example, if Rambo beat me with a decisive victory (Rating Difference +600) he would gain and I would lose 0.98 points. If I had beaten him decisively, again with him having a +600 rating, I would gain and he would lose 31.02 points. Obviously these are the two extreme examples but I know you get the idea. If everyone started evenly the victory levels would be: Stalemate 0.00 Pyrrhic 1.60 Marginal 4.80 Tactical 11.20 Decisive 16.00 In addition the scenarios are weighted with a multiplier with a range of 1-4. For example given the above scenario at the hardest scenario rating the points earned would be multiplied by 4. I suppose this could work, but I believe it would take a couple of preliminary rounds to establish seedings if everyone starts at the same level and let their level of victory determine their initial ranking. If this thing works out perhaps Battlefront would be agreeable to maintaining everyone's current ranking. Oh well I leave the math to you, I've read your discourse with Hubert on probability and such and you are way above my plane. Anyway, thanks for not using the term "dumb donkey" in your reply, as it was certainly applicable. This board is worth fighting for.

IMMER: Sometimes it pays to work at a Brewery with a discretionary promo budget. I will personally guarantee the availablity of a $500 first prize to the winner of the First Immer Etwas SC Tournament of Champions. The one and only condition is that there has to be a way to guarantee both fairness and play balance. (Maybe that's two conditions?) Anyway, Battlefront has my e-mail address (ha ha) and if this thing goes, they may contact me to arrange the transfer of funds. Immer-you may have to have a few preliminary rounds just to get down to 16 players. I LOVE THIS GAME Bill-You are probably correct, senility is a terrible thing, but I do remember that the AH General would have an opponents wanted section to Play by (Regular) Mail, and they had some sort of Alphabetic code so you wouldn't end up playing Rambo in your first game. Anyway I can rummage through my old war games closet tonight, I think that I can turn up something on the AREA system, unless it was a Play by E-mail which I have no experience with. [ January 10, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

BILL: If I recall the AREA rating by Avalon Hill was used in their Play by Mail feature (remember using the stock market for your die results). Each player rated himself A,B,C,D based on his own perception of his abilities. I don't think there was any scientific method used to establish the rating, other than if you rated yourself an A and got squashed in your first game, you could re-rate yourself.