Dan Fenton

I use JayJay's unit icon's. I like the subtle improvements which don't distract from other information that I need to see on the screen.

You might also consider checking out the Strategy Guide that is available for free online at http://www.ww2n.com/schq/.

Could it be that by design or by accident, that the ratio of Axis to Polish units in Poland is a factor in Poland's surrender? The reason why I speculate this is that Poland always has surrendered to me when I take Warsaw, usually on turn 2, against the AI. I commit almost all of my German forces to Poland until Poland surrenders. I have never tried to operate out or move the majority of my Axis units to attack other countries at the same time as Poland like some other people do. Opinions?

I play against the AI. However, my forum observations in a human vs. human game is that the Axis must have at least a slight advantage. My reasoning is due to the current bidding process. The Allied side almost always gets a significant MPP bonus after bidding ends. If the game were perfectly balanced, the MPP bids would go equally both ways and be much smaller in size.

My feelings are as follows: 1. Industrial Tech - All countries need to build units and this makes all units more affordable. However, because Italy and the UK are small and the USA and the USSR already have good IT, it is really only a must for Germany. 2. Anti-Tank - All countries have infantry units. This is a great and cheap defensive investment for all countries. 3. Jets - I really hate the emphasis on Air Fleets, but I can't put my head in the sand on this issue. This is a vital tech if one has an air force. 4. Anti-Aircraft - This is a great and cost-free partial defense to all aircraft. I believe that all countries, except the USA should put one research point here. The USA already has Level 1 AA and has more important things to do because of its late entry in the game. 5. Heavy Tanks - Tanks are great in manuever warfare and tough to kill when improved and in strength over 10. However, probably only Germany, the USSR and the USA have enough Tank units and MPP's to make this tech worthwhile. 6. Gun-Laying Radar - This is great for the UK and Italy, who have big navies. 7. Long-Ranged Aircraft - This is another cost free tech, except for carriers. This is a must have tech for the UK and its wonderful carriers. If one has a large air force, this tech is worth a one research point. 8. Rockets - I like rockets for Germany and for the USSR because they both start at Level 1 and they both can deploy rockets anywhere in continental Europe. All rocket attack factors increase with each tech increases. Rockets are the only units that can attack safely without damage. They are great for softening up entrenchments and forts. 9. Heavy Bombers - This tech has potential, but there are so many other better techs. One will only be able to afford a few expensive bomber units, assuming one has the air superiority to use them safely. Bombers are easy to counter with AA tech. However, bombers are much more useful than subs. 10. Advanced Sub - Subs are crippled in this game by being too expensive, too easy to find and are limited to such tiny surface raiding areas. Hunting subs is similar to shooting fish in a barrel. However, if one is determined to try sub warfare, this tech would be useful. 11. Sonar Research - Because anti-sub warfare is already so easy, this tech is not needed. Gunnery Radar provides more naval benefits. The one and only nice thing that I can say about this tech is that the sonar benefits are cost-free.

As I understand the changes in the 1.07 patch, the liberation of Paris also conquers Vichy France and reunifies it with France. That is, unless Vichy France has been previously attacked. If Vichy has been previously attacked, Vichy France forever remains as a separate entity, with separately controlled Free French and or Axis minor units.

I tried disabling DirectX and the monitor problem did not occur when I exited the game. However, most all of my icons moved on my desktop. This would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease. However, I now have a suspicion of what might be causing the issue. I truly love the interface 1.1 version interface mod that I downloaded. When you added the Suez transit arrows, I had to use less of that mod. When I installed the 1.07 Beta, I could not install the entire mod, because the game would not run. Over a long period of time, I added a few files of the mod at a time to determine what caused the game to not load (main_menu_buttons.bmp). During this time, I noticed that I seldom had monitor screen shifting problems. I initially attributed that to stated video improvements from the 1.07 beta patch. A few days ago, I added the last of the working mod files. I started having consistant screen shifting problems again. I suspect that either certain 24-bit mod bmp files or a certain critical mass number of 24-bit mod bmp files are causing something to shift my screen upon exiting the game. I would like to keep as many of the interface mod bmp files as possible. As the game designer do you think that these 24-bit bmp files are the problem and if so, what is would be the most effective compromise of standard 8-bit and 24-bit files?

May I make a suggestion? If the total number of ground based air units become restricted, won't this start a carrier building race instead? If build limits are established for ground based air, perhaps in the same rule limits should also be put on permitted numbers of carriers.

The surface raiding ranges for subs are: St. John's (Canada) 7 hexes, Liverpool (UK) 5 hexes, Gibraltar (South of Spain, East side only) 4 hexes, Malta (Island South of Italy) 4 hexes and Alexandria (Egypt) 4 hexes. No other sea hexes do any damage. Supply levels do affect damage. But sub supply levels are very important in the Atlantic while in the Mediterranean sub raiding supply is almost irrelevant. Multiple Atlantic subs in an area do damage for each sub. Only one sub can do damage per area in the Mediterranean (Med). However multiple subs in one Med area will each get experience points. Tech Level 0 Bombers spot subs 5 hexes away. Tech Level 0 Air Fleets spot subs at 4 hexes and Tech Level 0 carriers will spot at 3 hexes. Any Long-Range Aircraft Tech advances increase the spotting ranges. All other units, naval or ground, must be adjacent to spot subs.

I am and have been running my monitor at 72 Hertz which is the monitor's maximum refresh rate.

The Siberian Transfer did not occur when German units went through a large gap between Soviet Leningrad and Soviet Smolensk. I was holding the Smolensk-Kharhov-River-Mine-Sevastopol line in 1942. German units were within three hexes of Moscow for two turns. Vichy France did not fall after Paris, then Marseilles, then Algiers were captured. When Marseilles was captured, there was no end turn note that the Vichy government had moved to Algiers.

JersyJohn, I am confused. As I understand it, a certain percent of the remaining French forces at the fall of France would be Free French. But if all of the army, navy and air force was destroyed in an valient attempt for France to survive longer, that would leave an ending military force of zero. Zero times any percent is zero. This could create another but less gamey option of trying to keep all the French forces intact while losing. Either way, I do like your idea better that the current one in the game. May I expand upon another idea? Free French willing men arrive in the UK willing to fight. But they have no equipment and many hate the UK for abandoning France in its hour of need. I suggest instead giving the UK the option of building one Free French (FF) corps, at a steep discount. After the purchase, the corps would function just like a UK corps with all UK HQ and Tech bonuses. After all, this corps would have UK equipment and training. Upon the entry of the US, the US has an option of building one FF army, at a steep discount. Frenchmen who hated the UK now had a real alternative option to fight the Axis. The US also had more money and equipment than the UK. The US FF army would function just like a US army with all HQ and Tech bonuses. It would have US equipment and training. If the UK is conquered, UK FF units become US FF units. If France is liberated, its MMP's are used to create unlimited new full price UK or US FF units or to repair existing UK or US FF units, rather than to build a new all French national military. To further build upon this idea. Certain diplomative actions by the Axis would generate more discount UK or US FF units to be purchased. On the other hand, certain Allied actions would remove FF units from purchase. All said actions would influence mainland Vichy, North African Vichy and Syrian Vichy and their fleets to convert to either full FF areas with their units, or to becoming a full German minor ally with their units. This could be engineered to truly discourage UK invasions of Ireland, etc. and German invasions of Spain, etc.

French corps in UK owned Sicily surrender after the fall of France also, instead of converting to Free French.

Thanks Terif! I have used your comments in a suggested addition to the Research section of the SC Strategy Guide. I do have one more question, if you don't mind. I have been mistaken on so many things in SC that I hate to take anything for granted now. You did not mention the purchasing of an HQ for your UK Air Fleets. Do you possibly fly without the use of one?

I do like the idea for a maximum number of units and for research. However, I would like to see a minimum number of units go to the UK regardless of current conditions. Under you current proposal, if the French lose everything in a desperate attempt to stay alive, there would be no Free French units at all. Also, historically the size of the Free French army grew prior to the liberation of Paris. How could one work that into the game, unless perhaps the entry of the US triggers more Free French units?

I agree with Bill. The AI wil never attack Norway. Therefore 1940 scenario is the best way to go for a long game as Allies. If the AI starts with Norway then the AI has the MMP's to play a better game. Also, the loss of a powerful UK carrier is an equalizer. I have observed that under the 1.07 Beta patch, the AI is now very good about going after Denmark and Greece. Norway seems to be the only problem minor country for the AI.

I have only played against the AI. I can tell that there is a problem with air fleets, but against the AI, it is not to the same degree. I would suggest that the number one flaw with Air Fleets are their current range. Historically, they did not have the range that they do in the game. Remember, the short range of the German escorts were a decisive factor in the Battle of Britain. Escorts have even longer range that loaded ground attack aircraft. I suggest reducing the beginning range of Air Fleets by two or even by three hexes. I would even consider dropping the Air Fleet range by an additional hex when a certain level of Jet technology was obtained. Early jets had far less range than prop planes. This could discourage some of the rampant higher Jet Tech research. Second, and this is still a problem today for modern ground attack aircraft, is the identification of ground targets. I suggest that Air Fleet ground attacks against ground targets, not adjacent to friendly ground units be at half strength. Third, HQ's need an AA defense boost. They can't stack with a ground unit for defense. (The stacking issue is fine by me because I like the simplicity of no stacking.) HQ's should have an AA Defense of 1 or 2, just like Bill suggested. If these suggestions were adopted, Air Fleets would seldom be in Range of HQ's to attack, they would be attacking at half strength and with less effect because of the improved AA defense.

To Rambo and Terif: I am helping Bill Macon on the final version of the SC Strategy Guide. If you would be so kind, I would appreciate knowing when you chose to purchase Research Points, how many you ultimately bought and what you invested them in. I assume that you did not cash any back in. Thanks!

I read that the US Navy had a policy of naming Battleships after US States to get more Battleships. The reasoning was that every State would want a Battleship named after them. Therefore, the Navy's budget would have great political support to be increased. The same reasoning was used in naming US Cruisers after US cities.

I apologize for exceeding the limit. I was concentrating so much on my response that I forgot all about the limit parameters and about the bands. 1. Fleetwood Mac. 2. Heart. 3. Rolling Stones.

It is true! French ground units in transports at sea convert to Free French at apparently the same rate as French naval ships at sea. On a hunch based on Kenfedoroff's comments,I ran a modified version of my saved game Group Four Free French Naval conversion test. In this version, I transported two French corps out to sea near Malta, just before the fall of France. After ten test runs, one corps converted to Free French three times and the other corps converted two times. That is an average conversion rate of 25%, which is about what I am getting with most ships at sea which are not near HQ's. On one test run, all four French naval ships converted and all two transporting French corps converted. I, of course did have some zero conversion test runs. Oddly, this time the West Gibraltar Fleet converted at a 40% rate, calling into question my West of Gibraltar cursed conversion area theory. Also, the within UK HQ command range Firth fleet had only a 30% conversion rate, which is not as good as predicted by my previous HQ bonus theory. The only possible significant possible variable in my latest test was that I had completely uninstalled Strategic Command, reinstalled it and then installed only the lastest 1.07 Beta patch. My prior configuration had been with many patches installed up to and including the last two Beta 1.07's. Thank you very much Kenfedoroff, for your observation!

I want to make this clear up front. Strategic Command is one of the best computer games that I have ever played since I first got a computer 12-years ago. It is a masterful design that captures most of the essentials while being reasonably simple and very fun to play. To make a great game even greater, I would suggest: 1. An even better AI. The current AI is good is many ways and far better than in a lot of games that I have played. I do understand that this is also a very difficult thing to do. However there are some current holes in the AI, that could be improved, Axis able to conquer Norway, a possible Sea Lion before Russia, an Allied Mediterreanian strategy and others. 2. Create the possibility of a real naval war in the Atlantic. This is one of the few flaws in an otherwise great game. The Atlantic, as an area, is way too small compared to reality. German subs are way too easy to find and are generally destroyed in the first turn. Subs need a slower but hidden method of travel, like at speed two or less they are travelling submerged and are invisible to all. At speeds three and above they are considered on the surface and can be spotted. Subs also need to be randomly placed at start or player placed at start to prevent them from being automatically found and destroyed. All Axis offensive ships should be able to surface raid. Frankly they should be able to do MMP damage from any most location in the Atlantic also also. I would also like to see a coloring option to make it graphically clear on the screen where surface raiding areas are located. There could be about three different grades of surface raiding areas to represent the heaviness or lightness of convoy traffic. I would also suggest that Battleships not be able to attack subs. They ran from subs in real life. Battlecruisers should still be able to attack as they could also represent destroyer groups. The US and Canadian east coast should be removed from the game and replaced with some sort of force pool and port repair facilities box. There was no serious way that Germany could have conquered the US and this would shorten the long game when played as Axis. 3. Improve the UK position in the Mediterranean. I presume that the UK position has been deliberately weakened there to compensate for its current unrealistic advantages in the Atlantic. The UK needs an 8 or better strength port to supply and repair its ships and ground troops. The UK was better supplied than the Italians in the Med thoughout the war. There should be a full around the Horn transportation option for all UK units for both directions. Possibly, Iraq should be made a British minor ally at some random point in time. The UK needs to be permitted to surface raid against Italy with air or naval units in Malta. 4. Air Fleets need to be weakened and Armor units need to be strengthened. I would suggest that the strike and spotting range of Air Fleets be reduced by two or three hexes. I would also suggest that Air Fleets not be able to fly offensive missions during periods of bad weather. That would be in all of Winter and during some random turns in the fall. Armor units need a soft attack increase with their Tech Level improvements. No one would claim that a Panzer III had the same soft attack as a Panther or a Tiger. 5. Minor Country improvements: Canadians and Free French should be considered full UK units with full UK tech and HQ benefits. Free French units should have an option to convert back to full French control and French Tech Levels once France has been liberated. The Finns need their supply situation fixed. They should have their own HQ. 6. Add an additional number of low quality named HQs as a possible builds for all countries. Surely a major country should be still be able to build an HQ, if all of the originals have been lost. Possibly HQ's should be given a better defense rating also.

You guys may get a real laugh out of this. I tried JerseyJohn's suggestion about completely uninstalling Strategic Command and installing the lastest 1.07 patch. On my very next Allied turn, my one research point in Long-Range Aircraft generated my first ever UK advance in that Tech. Again, thanks Jersey John. Either that or I got some of Shaka of Carthage's statistical luck. And thanks Terif. I was trying to figure out how your "one" research point could so consistantly generate advances in a field that you deem to be so critical. I never in my wildest imagination dreamed that you would be investing 4-5 research points instead. That was very informative.

The reason why I started this post was that I was not getting any Tech advances in certain areas for campaign game after game. I make the majority of my Research Point purchases in 1940. Most of my games last until 1944 or 1945. At a statistical chance of one advance per game year, it did not seem possible to go several entire games without getting a Tech advance in a particular area. I wondered if other people were having this problem. The Tech that triggered this topic was Long-Ranged Aircraft (LRA). I tried several patches ago to research it as the United Kingdom (UK). It didn't work, unlike other Techs so I quit trying after one 1939 game. Then I read Terif's post of the virtues of LRA for the UK. I tried for two more games without any success to get LRA for the UK. My current half finished game is the same story. I have also tried as Germany and only got one LRA advance for the entire game. LRA seemed like a cursed Tech. There is one odd fact. When I ran my Free French conversion test, for fun I had the UK many turns earlier invest one research point in LRA. To my tremedous surprise, I got an LRA advance 4 times out of 50 times when I was reloading and replaying my saved games. Maybe quiting and restarting fixes something. Maybe the first Tech invested is "blessed". I have gone for two complete 1939 campaign games as Germany without a Heavy Armor Tech increase. This is even more surprising as Germany gets a +2% research bonus from Russia. The Italian could get Heavy Tanks, but the Germans couldn't.

I have had a problem with the display screen shifting permanently about 1/4 inch from the bottom to the top when I leave the game. Only rebooting fixes it. It used to be a 100% of the time issue, but it has greatly improved under the 1.07 beta patch. I am running Windows XP, with a 17-inch Viewsonic flatscreen monitor which has a native screen resolution of 1280 x 1024 pixels and which is what I normally run. I run 16-bit colors on my GeForce 4 Ti4200 video card with 6.13.10.4109 drivers. I am running at least DirectX 8.1.