Les the Sarge 9-1

Rambo, there are two basic flaws with your ambition. One is Hasborg. They hate games that don't move thousands of copies annually. Second is the ASL community. If Squad Leader could be computerised correctly, there is a strong chance the SLer community, which is essentially the ASLer community, would want it to look like ASL, not SL. Me, I would not mind a completely faithful computer version of SL (or ASL) done with a competent AI and a decent Online capacity. As it goes, I am awaiting to see if Matrix Games can manage to make a completely faithful computer version of World in Flames. But there are no shortage of people out there, that think a decent AI is required, and a decent supply of people that think it is unlikely you can produce a decent AI in the first place. Not to mention, there are no shortage of persons out there, that think a game using such micromanagment intensive turns, would likely be a nightmare for an online experience. As you say "EASY TO PROGRAM!", well lets just say, I will let you do it if it is so, and sign me out for a copy when you are finished hehe. I came close to picking up Combat Mission II the other day, because I wanted a game dang it, and it was the first item I found available. And at 24 bucks, seemed a nice pocket friendly notion. Well I found Highway to the Reich on sale for 39 bucks, and Combat Mission never had a chance hehe Other than CM and Steel Panthers though, there really isn't much out there for the ASLer to give a hoot over. Close Combat does a nice job, but if it isn't using turns, then it really has wandered a bit off the chartt for actual depiction of ASL. There really is no substitute for ASL. You either are playing ASL, or you ain't. SL is nice, in that it gives a more stream lined, less top heavy rules manual option. But wargamers being wargamers, if they want to play SL, it is often a short time before they are not satisfied and start lusting after ASL. That said, making a game intentionally SL in the first place might not appeal to the whole of the SL/ASL crowd. And the only thing that separates SL from ASL is rules complexity. And that won't matter much to a decent computer program that will remember most of the niggling minutae in the letter of the law enshrined in the manual. But getting back to Hasborg, hmmm they are called that for a reason eh hehe. Also known as MiniMicrosoft too. They absorb or buy up competition for a reason. They don't want competition. And if your game won't sell oddles of copies, they won't support it. Currently MMP makes ASL. And only because they asked to do all the work, and apparently without much support from Hasborg. But Hasborg still owns it. And they beat up anyone trying to fiddle with their legal rights. Just ask the owner of Critical Hit what he thinks of locking horns with Hasborg.

Maybe he should be shopping near here, I saw it on sale for 19 bucks Canadian in Orleans. I doub't a used eBay copy would be as nice as a nice new copy.

Rambo ASL and of course Squad Leader is owned by Hasborg. Keep in mind these are the same people that made an attempt to patent the hex center dot (board gamers will understand that). They are not nice people to get angry. As for the copywrite duration, assume it will be around for a long enough time, that odds are entertainment will have long since evolved past the point anyone might care for a board game turned computer game. As it goes, I am trying to re invent the original Squad Leader. As I see it, if I do actually do it, I will offer it to Hasborg. And they either buy it, I I just play the protype game when and where I feel like. But it would be nice if my concept was to see the light of day. As far as PC Squad Leader though, two many computer wargames already out there that already almost do the exact same thing to make it worth the effort. And besides, anyone wishing to play SL/ASL on a computer, likely won't mind using VASL.

Hello gang I am away from home and visiting folks in Ottawa. Just sighted the shelf copy version of SC in the EB in the Place de Orleans mall in Orleans. Just a paltry 19 bucks (Canadian eh). Don't be the guy that merely gets to "hear" it was there eh hehe.

Geeeeese if it was out, do you think there would be threads about anything else in here hehe

Patton simply speaking was cool. That says enough. What I find interesting, is that I am related to him through my dad. And the Pattons were related to British Royalty. But it hasn't made me any richer lately hehe.

I have to agree, it is unwise, this will just open a door to unwanted silly nitpicking minor detail wargaming. It isn't a rolegame or sum sort of tactical sim. It's grand strategy, and special ops is just to minute a detail for my tastes.

Ok I personally can't find fault with most of the suggestions, but in light of the original poster's comments, specifically... I wonder if there are any other games of this nature out there for the humble pc that fellow sc devotees would willingly recommend........at least until SC2 comes out. I'm thinking of the same ilk as those listed above.....with strategy, playability, and not at-all time-consuming as part of the recipe. I'm sure this is the game type that would appeal to myself......those old wargamers who no longer have the time or brain-power to deal with every last detail. Look forward to any suggestions I have to mention he was looking for light easy simple playable, but still definitely wargame looking. To that end, I suggest the obove suggestions (while cool games) missed the mark. If you wish to go with your recommendations fine, but I think he wants to check out getting some of the Panzer General series as I see. Panzer General II, People's General, Pacific General, Allied General. They give you a great deal of variety, they are nice games, will play on XP by the way, and in some cases, you can locate these games as free. Now if you want a good purchase, one that gives a large swath of games, and will look like a whole shelf load of classic board gaming, then Operational Art of War, Century of Warfare is my idea of cool.

I am not in favour of outright upping the US funds, becase while they might have reluctantly went with a Europe first policy at a grand strategy level, it is perhaps the wrong route to assume they can only be simulated by an expanded cash base. Bombers for instance. In 42 the US war machine was only just being built. And it had to be shipped to England before it was able to ammount to much. And then it had to be subjected to continuous build up before it was truely impressive. Rather than hand the US a larger cash base, why not hand them some proto units instead. A strength 2 or 3 bomber would more accurately simulate a not fully developed bomber force. And yes it will still cost you to ship it across the Atlantic, but it would not make you buy a complete bomber unit this way. This could be applied to an armour unit as well. In 42 the US were just entering the war as full participants. But they had ther priorities as well. So having access to their entire war machine economy, would only be required if the game was the entire globe as well.

Perhaps only to muddy the waters here, but if not mistaken, Russia was not signed into the Geneva Setup, and as such, there were no bariers it barbaric behaviour. So it was not that the Germans or Russians were inherently barbaric, there was just nothing saying they couldn't be so, or rather, there was nothing in the way of repercussions in place. I don't think the Japanese were signed on either, although that is another significantly differing culture as well involved. But I am not so sure, that units were quiiiiiiite special enough to merit special status. Otherwise give the British the ability to replace the Canadian counters with new ones if lost. Because we didn't just send one army out eh Additionally, the Waffen SS took half of the war before they A. had a clue how to fight as well as the regulars, and B did not start off with Corps sized formations possible. I would not give them a corps much earlier than any campaign earlier than 43.

A further explanation is not unwarranted as well. To us SC players, the word "Gambit" has become popular to describe a popular annoying idea that often ruins the game for someone that didn't see it coming Thus, if you are a novice Axis player, and a smart skilled SC player does the LC Gambit on you, odds are that's your butt on that platter hehe.

I dunno Blashy, I have waaaaaaaaay to many years worth of independent research (mine) backing up the reality, that most military history is almost ALL luck No matter what price you apply to research, the truth of the matter will always remain, the Axis start with all the cash options, will always have the cash advantage forst, and in the end, it will always be the Axis that get there first, and as a result will always have a designed in defacto bias in their favour. If you make research to expensive, you will merely design it out of the game. As it currently stands, I rarely use it at all. Thus most of my games are usually purely military actions with base normal formations. Not always the best course, but still a possible one. But lady luck is real. And I have no interest in playing a game, where she is told to get lost

Blashy I would never advocate "buying research" and would like immediately dump any game if it was implemented. The Germans would simply buy Jets and the Allies lose yet again. There would not even be a point to designing the other options in SC for instance. Edwin, on the matter of US - UK cooperative research, I think making a transferred tech equal cost is not entirely accurate. Most of research expenditure is just getting to the "oh ya, that's how it works" point. Actually implementing a discovery as applied tech is not nearly so expensive as all the time and effort to get to that "Eureka!!" moment. But I would not want it to be next to free either. As the average advance will not always be a spend 250 and get a result next turn response, it is also my thoughts, that research costs might be reduced, and the chance of success lowered. I would rather spend maybe 100 per turn, but need more actual luck in success. Thus requiring me to maybe spend three turns at 100 each before the light goes on. But I would also like to see research chits lost after each success, or at least have some of them expended. As a way of reflecting that the next level will not be as easy as the previous. Buying 3 chits, and never having to replace them, makes research waaaaaaaay to powerful, and too easy.

I might have commented on Russia, but didn't want to steal an otherwise obvious remark hehe. But yeah, I think Russia might be uninclined to share as well. Clearly, the notion of shared tech might really only realistically apply between the US and Britain, as the other nations were not reknown for "playing nice" with their supposed friends. Frankly, this tech sharing option, even if only logically made possible for the Allies ie US and Britain, might at least make them a bit more capable againstt the oft mentioned to powerful Axis opponent.

Not so much to contribute to Edwins "commercial" notion, but we should be able to "sell" and or "trade" tech between allies. If the US developes Jets level 1, why should the game assume the US would not offer it to Britain? I think the game should allow the allies of a nation the ability to purchase the needed ability to acquire friendly known tech levels. If the US knows Jets level 1, it should be a simple matter for an ally to simply invest in a purchase to upgrade to that tech level. It wouldn't be free of course, but you would not have to "wonder if it will happen" any more.

That is likely as a result of other units, reducing movement options as a result of where the other units moved to. Options might dry up if the unit is now in a position that constricts choices further.

It's Les Edwin

I have read a great wealth of reasoned and well stated arguments about why this or that research unhinges the game. The trouble is this though. in the REAL world, scientists don't always get the choice to just decide "hey lets make an incredible breakthrough in X technology". I would rather like to see a little more random result in research. Or put another way, let research be just that, just research. In other words, stop allowing players to specifically and intentionally isolate one aspect of research and ignore all others. Methodology to make this work would be perhaps like this. Let it cost the same increment to conduct research, and let the research be given at best a slight emphasis towards a goal seen as more favourable. In this way, you could spend the usual 250 MPP for a research chit, and decide, that say 25% is devoted to the popular favourite being Jets. In this way, you have the same chances of a break through, but only a secondary 25% chance of that success being the hoped for ideal. In this way, a person could devote interest in research, and not be able to just ignore actual real world research realities and just decide, I am building Jets because that's all I want. And no, I am not succumbing to any arguments that would insist, you can just devote energy to Jets and force them to happen. Science does not occur faster just from throwing money at it. The real world is ample evidence this is true.

Additionally, how your HQs works is dependent on action points. It takes a bit of work, but HQs default to those closest or mostest in Action points (if I am not mistaken).

I call it the grab the money and run tactic. The reason I think the LC Gambit can be destructive, is all the people that so love the Axis, depend on those easy initial conquests for elaborate early game expectations. So you attack the LC, and you don't really do anything with it. But as an ally to the Axis, it is now not a conquest money grab. If you are able to read your Axis opponent, and always be there to attack HIS targets, you stand a reasonable chance of completely mangling his prepared economic expectations. Attack the LC as German, and of course you are waiting for those spoils. But what if all you get is a dumb survivor Corps for your efforts? A single corps might not be what the Axis were counting on. It might have been the cash needed for important repairs or new construction. The allies can't do this much, but it is indeed possible to botch a good deal of atypical Axis planning if he ends up wondering where the money went in the middle of operations.

Rome Gambit is not much nicer than the LC Gambit. Basically it is an "option" that the Allied player can take, that has zero historical slant, but as it is just a game, you are left with the ability to do things that are "not historical". Now both the LC and the Rome Gambits are very punishing to the Axis if they are done right. But to counter this negativity, just tell anyone that thinks they are unfair to attempt them, that they as German player should be expected to say tone down their out of control minor country feeding fest as well as toning down their out of control application of Jets. Because that can greatly skew the game in favour of the Axis and make playing Allied a major bummer just as easy. Although I will concede, the Rome Gambit has a real chance of making the game crash and burn. Lose the Italians, and the game is over.

Desert is to small, Atlantic not big enough, subs are worthless, oh and wait till you try and invade Ireland hehe Yep all things a lot of us are hoping is modified in the games next incarnation.

Hey I saw this guy driving a porche, and he had these two hot looking blondes with him eh. And I would not have thought anything of it, but I heard one say, "Oooh Hubert baby, give them that SC2 so we can spend more time in Hawaii next winter". Hmm, I am suspicious now eh, I think Hubert is doing rather well on SC sales

Conditions vary sooooo much dude. What one might call easy, might not be for another. Timing emphasis on what to buy and when whom to attack and how. Tooooo many ponderables to count. I have watched the isles get taken right out from under me, even with an aggressive defense. I have also seen people make mincemeat out of the Germans in 1940 France.

Hmm was not aware Hubert was an Ontarionian like me. Where abouts do you hang your Hat Hubert? I hang mine about 90 minute drive north east of Toronto (cottage country in the Kawarthas). Dumb place they call City of the Kawartha Lakes (which to those not from these parts, is also basically the same as saying Victoria County).