Slapaho

"Considering the increasing levels of tension on the forum these days" What tension I enjoyed the post for what its worth pzgndr, I also served in a Nuclear weapons unit and I always find it interesting the backgrounds of other people who are otherwise anonymous. I have only been playing strategy games for about 28 years though

I think you just type EXIT and hit return, this is normal way of exiting DOS.

Call of Duty 2 is out and is great - stopped me playing Battlefield 2 totally, but then I like FPS games too Get Sims 2, nothing better than getting two babes make woohoo... eerm, forget i said that

The proof of the pudding... just waiting (patiently ) to get first hand experience of sc2.... then maybe the real debate will begin as doubtlessly some will love it, others will hate it, but until we play it, it is difficult to assess. Personally i have preferred hexes to squares in most other war games i have played, with only Dawn Patrol(?) (ww1 aircraft game) on squares that i liked.

right click on the intall.exe and in properties select the memory tab and set to AUTO EMS & XMS, in fact they should all be AUTO. double click install.exe (it should install all files to \FUTURE) run dosbox and type the following; mount c c:\future [ENTER] c: [ENTER] future [ENTER] if it doesn't work or any questions then email/post here. btw, the game is not as good as I remembered it

if u had hitler as a leader you could add +1 to all german HQ, after the german generals plot to kill him succeeds. afterall, the german generals only plotted to kill him AFTER they decided he was going to lose them the war, not for actually taking them to war and the war would likely of continued on with or without him.

If montgomery had been american he would have likely been sacked after market garden. to say that he relied on artillery and air power (overwhelming firepower) i think is true, but it is also true of all the allied ETO generals. politically they could not be allowed (and rightly so) in sacrificing men and were therefore much more conservative in all their tactics - including Patton. Patton was the best general in the west european area that could exploit a victory with minimal risk, but even he got bogged down in late 1944. To me, the only reason the German and Russian generals are rated higher is due to the amount of sacrifice they were prepared to ask (and get) from the troops beneath them. To me the western generals were better than the german and russian generals because they not only conducted a war that they ultimately won, but they did it at minimal cost in THEIR soldiers lives. Essentially Russia beat Germany on manufacturing output and manpower alone, there were no grand strategies that can be claimed outstanding generalship - they simply had the expendable resources that eventually germany ran out of. As churchill said "Battles are won by slaughter and manoeuvre. The greater the general, the more he contributes in manoeuvre, the less he demands in slaughter." Patton 9 Eisenhower 8 Bradley 7 Hodges 7 Montgomery 7 Alexander 6 Mannstein 8 Rommel 7 Zhukov 8 I would give Zhukov an 8 (instead of a 7) because it is arguable that he was responsible for saving Russia at the most critical point in the war, yet he was wasteful in men and resources to achieve victories that were beyond doubt (incurring higher than necessary losses).

Happy holidays to everyone.

Personally I think the removal of 'Bombers' from the unit list would be better for the game. You can invest MPP's in a strategic bombing campaign, and use tech advancements to modify the base figures (have the USA start at tech level 3 for example). The impact of strategic bombing will be less obvious to the person bombing (the enemy MPP's will be affected and therefore the person being bombed will know the exact effect). The effects of strategic bombing should be dual, firstly there is an immediate impact loss of MPP's of the enemy and also a cummulative effect which reduces the enemies base MPP production. To repair the cumulative effect will cost MPP's, so for every 1 base MPP lost would cost 2 to repair. To try and intercept the bombers I would also make this like a tech with an investment into it modified by the level of aircraft tech the country has. So if you are getting pounded by startegic air attacks you can start to take counter measures. Anyway, basically imho I think remove bombers from the game in terms of game pieces

Great posts Kuniworth, thanks. I know this post isnt adding anything but I just wanted people to know that this lurker appreciated the Travel Report.

Britain did not enter the war against Germany for any ideological reasons, nor did the USA. Ideology was used to perpetuate the slaughter on all sides, especially the Germans who Hitler and the Nazis had to prevent from becoming 'war weary' and face the ultimate threat of Soviets winning the war. Britain declared war on Germany to aid Poland. At the end of the war Russia did more damage to Poland than Hitler had and they dealt with the Poles worse than they did with 'most' of Germany. So what help was Britain? Britain declared war on Germany using Poland as the pretence, with the main reason simply being that Britain saw Germany as becoming an intolerable threat to British colonial domination and they hoped to fight the war on French soil again to drain their other european rival - France itself. These high and mighty notions of 'good' and 'evil' are totally ridiculous, as well as implying god and religion played any part in any sort of 'victory' (if around 50 million dead or injured and that many again displaced can be called any sort of victory). Ask the jews if religion saved them, or do they worship the wrong god in your eyes?. Men are at their best and worst in war.

I like clock idea also (in hotseat we currently use a stop watch and shouting stop!! ) ending turn automatically. for voice comms, free : Teamspeak server/client (upto 5 users free on one server i think) MSN voice chat (limited to 2 people only) Skype - telecon software - dont know how many people it can have on at same time - but definitely more than 2 ======================================== Being lazy I thought how about about an automated AAR output at the end of each turn, genarated by the game and saved into a plain text file. It could include combat results ( 'my' IV pnzr attacked 'your' French 1st Army, reducing it from 7 to 4 ), cities taken and even things like (enemy) rivers crossed. You can then add your own personal touch, like, omg that turn sucked! Anyway - the clock - yes plz

did you win though? the amount of MPP he gets every turn should outweigh yours?

I would make the Strategic Bombing more abstract by removing their symbols from the game entirely and have am 'investment' in strategic bombing. The more MPP a player invests the greater the 'damage' (loss of MPP) an enemy suffers. The effects are maximized by technology and investment amount. As strategic bombing effects are cumulative, an investment early in the war would not 'pay back' until late in the war. This may be simplified and probably more linear in terms of cause and effect - but it would make for the possibility of more accurate representation of Strategic bombing.

Would it not be better to 'remove' the 'destroyed' unit but add some MPP back to the pool to symbolise the survivors absorption back into the resource pool. Corps and Armies were very rarely trully destroyed but as effective fighting formations they were for all intent destroyed. One of Hitlers (and Stalins) failings was to build up fighting formations from scratch rather than, as their own military doctrine required, to withdraw combat experienced troops to re-equip and re-inforce and therefore keep their best formations at the peak of technology and maintain their experience. Hitler gave fresh troops the best equipment and they were basically wasted because the new formations had no experience to maximise the effects. Destroy a unit and the country it belonged to gets a random number of MPP back between 1% and 5% of its max strength (for land units only). Equipment was very rarely saved - men however had the tendency to make it back to friendly lines. Even at Stalingrad a number of soldiers managed to escape (my grandads brother for one).

I thought this was simulated by DoW 1st move anihalation of Russian border armies? 3/4 of the Russian army is killed/surrounded in this 1st turn, which is pretty much the surprise.

happy christmas everyone - I got SC last christmas, was hoping for SC2 this great game, nice people, happy holidays all.

I read it - tried it and still died. I just suck, plain and simple, but then again I still enjoy playing. One day I will meet someone as bad as me and it will be close It is a very good guide though Terif.

An important part of raising an army is training. I have not seen much about this aspect on the forums so I was wondering if consideration had been given to allowing an increase in experience based upon training. When purchasing a Corps/Army, its entry into the game is delayed by a few months to simulate it in training. This would mainly benefit the UK and USA troops who can gain experience whilst awaiting to invade. This could be linked to a tech (to allow a higher experience to be reached through training), something like military doctrine / tactics. I forgot to add, the choice would be the players whether they wanted to train the army or just get it in the normal time frame.

I feel the combat resolution as it is in SC does not lend itself to well to the strategic value of the weapons and tactics employed. The combat resolution is to simplistic to reflect the advantages / disadvantages of defence and offence, weaponry and above all tactics. In SC1, it is impossible to bring overwhelming fire power to bear from one army as it has (as does its enemy) a maximum strength that makes it impossible for thae attacking army to 'kill' the enemy unit without massive air strikes and/or surrounding the enemy with attacking armies. Personally I would prefer to have the option of doubling the size of a standard armies strength, at a relative cost in MPP, to reflect the ability of countries to equip what could be called 'battle groups'. I would also link the relative strength of the unit to its offence/defence and therefore a unit with strength 10 will do double the damage to a unit it is attacking which has only strength 5. On a different point, but linked - simaltaneous movement. Each turn the players would issue their orders and then watch them be resolved. This, although far more complexed in resolving combat, would imo add an extra dimension.

normal looking people are the ones you gotta watch

Russia was exceptionally good at, if not hiding its units (due to the amount in such small places sometimes was impossible), misleading Germany into their intentions. I think this would be a very good idea Edwin. I remember also a discussion on 'radio traffic' along similar lines.

Some interesting figures from the (British) war archives; December 1944: 9 out of 10 German divisions (on the Eastern front) were non-mechanized The German army had an estimated 1.1 Million horses in 'active' service. Germany produced just over 3300 trucks (they needed about 7000 to meet requirements) If SC2 has a more effective representation of strategic bombing (which had the ultimate effect on not only production but also technological advancement) then a better model for purchasing more expensive, technically advanced equipment may be possible. For example, Hamburg is strategically bombed and for every 1 strength the city is reduced by adds 10% to the cost of producing/replacing units.

Personally - I think the HQ function would be better served by anonymous 'HQ' tiles that fulfill the current SC1 function of supply. A fixed cost to purchase (eg 400MPP) and the same/similar functionality as SC1. I would then use the current lists (excellently put together on these forums) of commanders to be part of an army or corps formation and thus fulfill a more accurate portrayal of their war time activities and abilities. This may require more genrals being added, especially to the minor axis/allied countries. An example would be when purchasing a German army, an option to purchase a 'named' commander (eg Rommel) to lead this army would be given, for an extra cost. Depending on the historical performance of this commander, experience points would be awarded to the new formation and whilst the commander was leading this army, the minimum experience would be equal to that of the commanders influence. So if you purchase an army, purchase Rommel to lead it and Rommel brought with him 1.5 bars of experience, whilst Rommel led this army the minimum its experience could go would be 1.5 bars. This would allow minor nations to have commanders, as well as having a much larger range due to experience being broken down into more parts. It would also be more historically correct. Essentially Hitler commanded the German army, through the likes of Jodl and you, when playing the game as germany are taking the place of Hitler, with your field HQ's being like Army Group command simply translating to the armies they control the strategic level decisions from above to the army commanders who fight the battles, thus giving your army/corps a more realistic flavour. I have been away a while and have missed a lot of the discussion on these topics of late, so apologies if I have repeated something already posted - as always this post is a 'what I would like to see in SC2'

When I 'kill' an army or corps, I like to think that I have destroyed not the army in itself(100% casualties) but rather its effective fighting capabilities, which means it basically surrenders. One thing that I would think may be modified is that if you attack a hex (ahem, square ) and you successfully defeat the enemy unit, should your army not move into the ground the enemy held?