santabear

I have a couple of questions: 1. What is the difference between this system and the current system in which you buy units to conduct the offensive? Even more, the possession of cities to get the units operated in becomes critical. 2. Is the notion that you have to buy the units PLUS pay for the offensive? Thanks, SB

JJ, Don't know about Klink (Werner Klemperer), but Otto Klemperer was renowned for either his "intensity" or his VERY SLOW tempos. Now an interesting (and controversial figure) was Wilhelm Fuertwaengler--who was either viewed as a Nazi sell-out (like Richard Strauss) or a heroic figure who worked to preserve humanity and art during a repressive regime. "Hitler's Conductor" (Still trying to get this posting thing down..) [ January 19, 2006, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Liam, Thanks for your comments. But the massive D-day bombings weren't STRATEGIC bombings, they were tactical/operational missions that were flown by heavy bombers. My "strategic" bombing comments were about trying to destroy cities by aerial bombing with HE bombs. Unfortunately, WWII technology wasn't up to the job until almost the end of the war. I think surface ships have always had a rough time with aircraft of almost any type. The exception perhaps being the useless high-altitude attacks by B17's against Japanese ships in the Pacific. SB

Hmmmm... A few thoughts: 1. The Germans never had a strategic bomber as the US or Britain had. Their "bombers" were basically flying artillery used to accomplish tactical and operational-level missions. 2. No one in WWII had a bomb sight accurate enough to destroy factories or whatnot, nor the means to achieve "strategic" results until they figured out how to start firestorms or got atomic weapons. The strategy employed was to drop a lot of bombs inaccurately onto cities, destroying a lot of houses, killing civilians and generally getting the enemy (British or German) more pissed-off and willing to fight to the death. "Precision Daylight Bombing" as practiced by the US 8th AF was nearly a suicide service whose results weren't worth the losses. (See #4 below) 3. The British AF could NOT retreat and stop an invasion. The German strategy (which nearly worked until Goering decided to go with the "strategic" decision described in my point #2) was to FORCE the British to fight. The Brits could let their AF be destroyed on the ground, move it out of danger (and out of effective fighting range--i.e. to give up air superiority over the likely invasion location), or fight. 4. The US and British bombing of Germany didn't work until long-range FIGHTERS came along. 5. The original point of this post: "What are the British doing with a bomber AF in 1939?" is valid, I think. Historically they should have one. They did think about bombing Italy immediately after the declaration of war on France, but they had to use planes based in Southern France, and the French people were so afraid of reprisals that it never happened. 6. In 1939/40 Churchill consistently believed that adequately defended warships would not suffer significant losses from aircraft. (He also believed that Asdic had made submarines obsolete, but I digress). By 1942 the Germans and Japanese had made a believer out of him. If the Germans had got air superiority over Southern England, the Royal Navy could not have stopped an invasion. That was the conclusion of the RN Staff at the time, and I think everything that happened in WWII bolsters the conclusion that they were correct. And don't forget that U-Boats would have been out to protect the invasion force at the same time. SB [ January 18, 2006, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

So does Col. Hogan get a rating? SB P.S. My opinion is that the whole purpose of this game is to let us be Hitler, Goering, Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt (Marshall?) and fight the war the RIGHT way (i.e. the way we would do it). So we don't need these characters in the game. Just give me some good folks to run my armies and let me take care of the big picture.

Woo. Rhymes for "fussy?" Dusty, Gusty, Lusty, Musty, Rusty. SB P.S. "Pussy" isn't a good rhyme..

Lord Gort was the commander who got steamrolled by the Germans in Belgium, BUT who managed to: 1. Keep his army together 2. Decide to retreat to Dunkirk (while the British and French governments dithered around for a few days) 3. Hold a defensive line (well, OK, so the Germans stopped...), and 4. Evacuate 300,000 troops. So maybe he should get a defensive bonus. He handled a very difficult situation very well, in this bear's opinion. SB

What about Courtney Hodges who led the First Army after Bradley? He would be a good, capable "6 or 7" general who should be in the game.

JJ: But keep in mind that the alternative sucks...I hope you see many more happy and healthy ones! And Happy New Year to all the SC folks! Santabear

Yes. In general the "Expert" setting is good to use, but the +2 experience bonus for AI makes the game go too slowly for me.

What we SHOULD do is have some kind of reunion of the "old folks" when SC2 comes out...

One from left field: The AI in SC1 isn't all THAT bad. He functions like a typical unimaginative British general...amass superior forces then advance methodically. He excels at methodical advances and retreats...if you leave a unit exposed (at "expert" level), it's DEAD. In my opinion, the problem is not how the AI can surprise his enemy, it's how he can avoid being suckered by quick, human-like (i.e. unpredictable) decisions. Once you know how he thinks, it's too easy to sucker-punch AI. You can lure him into advancing in one direction and then counter attack. *poof* AI dies. It IS fun to pretend to be Rommel vs. Auchinleck for a while, but it would be nice to have AI think like Patton on occasion...

I don't know if early 2003 counts, but the names of the "old timers" are familiar to me. And I do remember when the "Dutch gambit" was the hot new strategy... I've been checking in here from time to time (mostly looking for SC2...), but it's been great to see things evolving. I have a hard time making time for an occasional game of SC, much less posting here, but hello to everyone. SB

Hi. I've been trying to create a scenario in which France remains neutral and Britian (and eventually the US) fight Germany alone. I created a campaign (with the editor) that colored all of France red (hexes belonging to USSR), garrisoned the French border with strong armies, and tried to play the game with the USSR neutral (set in the opening screens). When I play the game as Axis (Allied AI), everthing seems to work normally, BUT: When I play as Allied (Axis AI), the game crashes almost immediately. Obviously, this is a weird scenario, but it probably shouldn't crash the game... ...and any hints you could give about how to make France neutral would be appreciated, too! Mike (a.k.a. Santabear)

Well, also keep in mind that battles--and wars--are often decided by luck rather than by superior armies. Making all of the right moves at the right times just increases your odds of winning--there are no guarantees in this business.

Hi Martin, Thanks again for your notes. I was thinking more along the lines of a post in the forum or a few lines of text in the "news" section. I do understand your point about creating graphics and substantial "updates" taking time away from doing the game. And yes, I'm looking forward to having the game in Santabear's paws. Grrrrr. Mike (Santabear)

This seems obvious but may be worth saying anyway: It's not the delay in finishing the game, it's the lack of communication about what's happening that seems to be the most frustrating. Although Hubert is a one-man show in terms of writing the game, Battlefront could do a better job of keeping its fans informed (like Moon's post above). Yes, it IS about time to update the "news" and cetera that's posted on the official Battlefront website about this game. The lack of attention to those details can translate into a perception about a lack of committment to the final product. The last "recent news" posted here http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/sc2_news.html is from November, 2004. That is a very generous definition of "recent," I think. Thank you, Moon, for a post about the progress of the game.

This thread is very interested considering some of the discussions about the "limitations" of SC. It seems that in the hands of great players, it's *still* a great game. Hopefully the next generation will eliminate the need for bids and special rules. Thanks, guys, for posting this--it's fun to read.

*blush* There is a lot of pre-existing (recorded) material to choose from, with a tremendous amount of the music being PD (public domain, and therefore royalty-free). If recorded performances were used, there is the potential of rights fees to the performers--but I bet non-"P" recordings could be found. I would just be glad to hear what Hubert or other game designers have in mind--if in fact the project has progressed to the point that this is an issue.

JJ/Edwin/Retrib: Since the premise of SC is to have the player fulfill the role of FDR, Churchill, Stalin or Hitler, I don't think we'd want to hear orders from one of them. I had thought more of JJ and Edwin's ideas of integrating audio vignettes into the game (radio broadcasts, etc.) The notion of incorporating some video is even more exciting!

Which is why this is such a great game--it's not about discovering hidden secrets, it's about making difficult strategic judgements (and hoping they work out). Thanks, Hubert!

That is Arnold Jacobs and he is a legend among brass players. He lost a lung, believe it or not, and had to learn to breathe very effeciently. Here is what he says: To get back on topic: Whatever music is chosen--and there are many good choices--I hope that it is recorded at DVD quality. The music in SC1 just seems like a last-minute addition, and is such low quality that it impairs the experience.

Well, they were 1/2 right. They did possess superior fighting ability--they were better trained and had a much better officer corps. Man-for-man they probably would have beaten Allied soldiers. Their biggest problem was they they were often man-on-five-or-ten-men. And then there was the fact that everytime they moved (after Overlord) Allied air forces cut them to ribbons--so they couldn't maneuver. And then there were Hitler's military mistakes. He had to work at it a bit, but he finally managed to ruin a truly great army.

It seems that AI could ALWAYS know where every opposing unit was, as that information must be stored somewhere. It that information were made available to AI, FOW would never be on for him. That might compensate for some of the weaknesses that have been noted. AI will never be as creative as a human (or will only be as creative as the human who programs it), but it's very methodical and patient. Unimaginative, methodical generalship is not unknown in real wars.

Well, most "classical" music that would be appropriate for a war game will be 19th or early 20th century orchestral music--and that means German or strongly German-influenced music. But the soundtracks to war movies are composed in the STYLE of 19th century German orchestral music. JJ: Alexander Nevsky would have some great stuff for SC.