Kelly's Heroes

As promised, in the link below, you will be able to download a zip file (5.48 mb) containing all of the known Strategic Command campaigns that I have collected over the years (almost 100 campaigns spanning WW1 through to Post-1945 conflicts). Most of these campaigns are no longer available on the internet. In addition, I have included some of the better mods, including new unit sprites (from NATO symbols to PG unit icons); new flags and medals; as well as a new torpedo sound. As always, back up your old files when you want to replace them with new ones. I hope you enjoy. Kelly's Heroes Download Strategic_Command_KH.zip here: (Click on the link below, then click on the "FREE" button at the bottom, a new window will appear, then wait about 45-60 seconds and the zip file will appear, then download it. http://rapidshare.de/files/32340933/Strategic_Command_KH.zip.html

PAL: 5 Star site has about 29 user made campaigns and a few mods. However, over the years I have collected almost 100 user made campaigns and all types of mods, most of which cannot be found on the web anymore. I'm busy over the next few days, but when I get a chance I'll zip everything up and make it all available for download for everyone who wants the stuff. So keep watching this forum for THE download event. heheh.....

I agree, SC1 is still a great game - very moddable.

PAL: Using the editor it is extremely easy to give yourself a very tough game vs the AI. I recently edited a game and played as the Germans. I just barely won a victory, using all the tricks and tactics at my disposal. There are also a ton of user-made campaigns and mods for SC1.

As for the effects in real life to bombing, just read the accounts of what the Germans suffered from Allied carpet bombing that was done before Patton's breakout at St Lo: The bombing was so intense and terrifying that 1/3 of Germans in the area were killed or wounded; 1/3 went mad; and the other 1/3 dug themselves out to prepare for the Allied attacks. Even Tiger tanks had been thrown up into the air and were found half-buried upside down in the dirt.

Perhaps there could more of a use for different units to do different things? A few thoughts on entrenchment: 1) Any infantry units that are entrenched (in cities and fortifications) should be able to deal out a lot of damage to ANY units attacking it (especially to tanks - tanks attacking INTO cities should be a no no), except to strategic bombers. 2) Every attack on an entrenched unit should ONLY reduce the entrenchment level by one until it reaches zero. After this, the unit itself starts to take damage. 3) ONLY a strategic bomber can reduce entrenchment by two levels AND reduce an entrenched unit's supply/morale.

Edwin P: Love your ideas here. The photos and timelines are a great idea.

The United States began the war with only a handful of active divisions: five infantry and one cavalry. By the end of the war, the nation had fielded nearly one hundred. Additionally, due to the US Army's method of employment combined with events of the war, the United States did not suffer the destruction of any of its division-size units during the conflict. Here is a full list of US Army Divisions that fought in WWII - note that 74 army divisions fought in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_divisions_during_World_War_II This number is much more than 4 armies. In addition the USA dominated the seas and the air (the Allies had 10,000 planes in the air on D-Day). In addition to all this the USA supplied military equipment and supplies for its Allies (UK) and through Lend-Lease (USSR was sent 600,000 trucks alone). My suggestion for the game should be that in each successive year after USA enters war, the USA should be given more MPPs. By 1944 the USA was a power house of production and military might. [ June 17, 2006, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

Hmmmm.... All of this might make an interesting "what-if" scenario for SC2...

I was just trying to keep things light. If I recall Michael did the laughing first... The USA might have been neutral in name only, but make no mistake, the US was gearing up for war. Just look at the number of military personnel that were being mobilized in the years 1940, 1941... Not to mention the ships that were being built... Considering it was the USA that mainly equipped itself and all its allies with military equipment in WWII, it is no small stretch to consider the fact that the USA plus Canada, India, Australia, NZ, plus many more peoples (Mexico, as just one example)... would eventually have taken the fight to Europe. In North America there would have been the combined British and American fleets, not including the titanic shipbuilding that was under way...

What do you think the US and Canada could possibly have done in the autumn of 1940 with the United Kingdom under German control? </font>

Michael Dorosh: LOL I am amazed at your thinking about how peaceful all the nations would have bcome once Britain fell... LOL Gee, if only Britain had fallen we would never have had a WORLD WAR... LOL

And can you not see the political minefield King was in? Canada had declared war on Germany. It had committed itself. French Canada was divide on the issue. King ahd to side-step conscription... Plus, you are aware, are you not, that it takes time to call up men, train them, and then ship them overseas...? When British and French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, Canada had the ONLY fully equipped division in the UK to meet a Nazi invasion... Canada also had the second largest foreign contingent of fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain... </font>

Michael Dorosh: The fallacy in your thinking is to assume the USA and Canada might have not prosecuted the war had Britain fallen.... Given Hitler's ideological bent on destroying the USSR, it follows that Germany would have invaded the USSR, thus upping the ante for North America to band together in joint dfence and mobilization... And with Britain's capitulation, Japan would have been eager to grab its possessions overseas... The USA had made it very clear from the very beginning, warning Japan that the USA would not stand by and let Japan take over British possessions... So no matter how you look at the situation, the USA was heading towards war, while Canada was already in the struggle...

And can you not see the political minefield King was in? Canada had declared war on Germany. It had committed itself. King was the leader of the country... French Canada was divided on the issue. And King had to side-step conscription, thus relying on volunteers... Plus, you are aware, are you not, that it takes time to call up men, train them, and then ship them overseas...? When British and French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, Canada had the ONLY fully equipped division in the UK to meet a Nazi invasion... Canada also had the second largest foreign contingent of fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain...

What you fail to consider is this: Would the USA have sat idlely by and let Britain crumble in the dust? Even in 1939 and beyond, the USA was taking steps to prepare for war (including mobilizing its armed forces; taking over ocean patrols; etc, etc)...

Rah rah. Mackenzie King didn't even want to contribute a second division to the defence of the UK, and in fact did not do so until the fall of France. Second Division didn't arrive in the UK until August 1940, and the Third Division never even mobilized until May - after France was invaded! King's limited liability outlook is no secret. There is ample evidence to believe that if the British Air Commonwealth Training Plan had been "discovered" sooner, perhaps even the 2nd and 3rd divisions would never have been contemplated. I wouldn't suggest Canada's participation in a war after the fall of the UK so matter-of-factly. Certainly French Canada would have remained a wildcard - perhaps even more vehemently anti-war than ever before. No doubt popular sentiment would have been high, but how much blood King would have been willing to shed to re-enter a UK under German control is open to some amount of debate. Likely any efforts to be made in that direction would have been largely American. Given a neutral America, it is not unlikely to believe that Canada would have concluded a peace with Germany - especially if the non-aggression pact with the USSR were in effect at the time. </font>

Churchill had made it very clear that if it looked like the UK was about to fall, the Royal Family and the Royal Navy were to head to Canada to continue fighting the war... Before the USA entered the war Canada was the Arsenal of Democracy. Almost all the vehicles used by the 8th Army in its drive across North Africa were made in Canada... Canada did 48% of all convoy duty... 1 in every 10 citizens was in the Armed Forces (a rate higher than any other country). Canada built hundreds of thousands of vehicles, planes and ships... It ended the war with the 4th largest airforce and the 3rd largest navy in the world... Canada would never have surrendered...

This is a very interesting discussion. Just a few points: 1) I don't think Russia would have surrendered in the traditional sense of the word. Just looking at the losses Russia sustained in WW2, and Stalin's iron determination to fight on, one can see that the Axis would have had to drive Soviet forces into the ground in order to achieve any type of victory. Given the above, if Russia did capitulate, then the Axis would have been forced to keep a lot of troops in the east just to contend with millions of partisans. One can be sure that Soviet forces would have withdrawn to Siberia to continue the fight. They were, after all, fighting for their homeland. 2) Given the total war nature of the fight in the east, it would be clear that most of the Soviet infrastructure and factories, rail lines, etc would have been smashed and destroyed. These would have required a few years to re-build and re-tool. This doesn't even take into account the brutal Russian winters in trying to re-build. 3) The Soviet citizenry would have been un-cooperative, and this goes back to point one above. 4) If Russia had "fallen" in late 1943 or early 1944, the Allies would have been heavily placed in England and North Africa. This would allow the Allies the ability of bombing the Axis, plus giving them the option of landing anywhere in Europe. This last option would have forced the Axis to station troops throughout Europe, and not just at Normandy. Axis forces would have been spread very thin. 5) Even if Russia had fallen the Axis forces would have been shattered after many years of brutal fighting in the east. They would have required rest, re-fitting, re-organization, and then transporting back to the west. 6) Had Russia fallen, then I think there is the very real possibility that the USA would have gone on a total war footing. And given the fact that the USA alone supplied the bulk of weaponry for the war against Germany and Japan, plus Lend-Lease, I think the USA could have churned out even more military weapons and men. The above are just a few thoughts. I think there will be some very interesting alternative scenarios that will be worth playing in SC2. [ November 20, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

I agree about people whinning for games to be released. I have had my fill of buggy games to know that companies should release games only when they are ready. If people complain, just tell them to be patient. It'll be done, when it's done. . .

I totally agree. The type of games that Matrix and Battlefront are making is the reason I bought a PC in the first place. I shudder to think what the future of computer gaming for wargamers would be like without these two companies. If people are getting jaded about PC games, then one doesn't need to look any further for the reason for it, than to see what happened to Pax Romana on its release. What could have been a very interesting Roman-era strategy game has turned into both a gaming and PR disaster. I pity the poor customers who bought that game and don't know where to find patches for it (even then the game still doesn't work properly).

I would like to see strategy games on the console. The game pad might be better suited to turn-based games. I played PG1 on the playstation when it first came out, and played that thing to death. It also had the best user interface and on-screen setup I have seen to date. For me, with the exception of games that Battlefront and Matrix are making, there is almost nothing other companies are making that gets me excited about computer games. Mostly it's the same old, same old - mindless RTS. . . So I rely on playing many of the games I now have, because they offer to me what most new games don't: great TURN-BASED gameplay, moddability, and interesting challenges. Checking many of the other forums makes me see that others feel the same way. Many gamers are returning to their favourite games because many of the newer games simply cannot offer the same bang for the buck in gameplay. This might appear that the PC market is dying; on the contrary, there are more PC gamers today than ever before, but many are still playing their previous favourite games [ May 01, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

Les: PG3D and HoM&MIV did not cause those companies to close, but they were indicative of the direction those companies were moving in. It was as if many of the old artists/producers had left those companies, and they headed in a new direction, usually against the wishes of their hard-core fan base. It is interesting that after those two games swere releaseed that both companies failed. Many forums castigated those two games, and we all know the power of word of mouth. PG2: There is actually a lot that could be done for this game: make larger maps; better editors; Pacific Theatre; more detailed 2D unit graphics (I like the PG2 German units - they look good); improve on some game rules; eliminate the bugs; etc, etc. I would rather pay money for a game that improves on a previous game I like and will play, rather than take the game in a radically new direction. MTW, for example is an improvemnt of Shogun Total War. Rome Total War will be a further improvement of MTW. These games have essentially the same gameplay and continue to offer the gamer what they have come to like about these games. SC2 is essentially a refinement and improvement of SC1, and that is why we are all excited about it. Hubert is listening to the gamers. Matrix is making games the way gamers want them to be made. When a company finds a game that is popular and sells, they should stick to refining that game, and making improvements upon it. Cheers!

Here is my view on the situation: 1) People want to play games; there's no doubt about it. 2) The problem in the PC market is that system requirements are climbing out of this world to play many PC games (costing people more money each year to upgrade), while many of those high-end games are either too buggy and/or deliver almost nothing extra in gameplay (all glitz, but little glamour). 3) Some companies will take the tried and true games such as PG2 and HoM&MIII and try to re-invent the wheel with PG3D and H0M&MIV, with disasterous results. Again, more development money is poured into creating more visuals but without the gameplay. 4) The fact that the PC industry is relying more and more on early, buggy releases of games, and using the internet as its way of patching and fixing the games later (sometimes years later). The results of this trend are: a) the hard core gamer with patience will download the patches; the casual gamer who doesn't frequent the internet much and doesn't download patches gets turned off PC games (they're all buggy), and therefore switches to console games (not because they are better; they just work bug-free); c) gamers in general become jaded, hit "burn-out", and will refuse to buy ANY games on their initial release, and will wait to buy them when they read reviews and/or when the price drops. 5) Many companies continually try to "re-invent the wheel". For example, all PG2 fans wanted was an improvement on the basic game. Instead the developers delivered a 3D mess of a game, which eventually lead to SSI's closure. Today PG2 is STILL being played by legions of fans, with some quite remarkable mods/campaigns/ etc being made. Six years after its release PG2 is more popular today than it ever was. Another example: Heroes of Might and Magic III was a HUGE success. What did the developers do? They CHANGED what the gamers liked about the game: gone were the beautiful city landscapes; gone was the chess-like battlefield; etc, etc. . . The result? 3DO went out of business. . . Look at the games that did it right and are still popular: CIVII, CIVIII, SMAC, PG2, SPWaW, SH1, Close Combat series, MTW, AoK, etc. . . Gamers will pay more for developers to simply improve their beloved games; not re-do the games. For all the improvements in games that have come and gone, I still derive the best fun from CIVII, PG2, HoM&MIII, etc, etc. Far too much development money is spent on the glitz. As a result, far too little time and money is available for gameplay and AI. As a result, these game have a short shelf life span. In the end, many gamers get turned off the continual PC upgrade path while getting little from new games, and so may return to playing older games or may turn to using consoles (buy a console and it's good for 5 years at least) and there are NO patches to download. I am also seeing the same trend in movies: lots of explosions and visuals, but less and less in terms of a story and character development. Is the PC market dying? It may be shrinking, but it will never die. As I previously mentioned, with fewer new games delivering what gamers want, they are returning to playing the older games. So while fewer new games are being sold, PC games in general are still being played by tons of gamers. Just ask most wargamers what games they still enjoy playing,and they will usually mention older games. At least Hubert is following the tried and true trend: listening to gamers, making the game moddable, and improving on SC1. Cheers! [ May 01, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Kelly's Heroes ]

I guess this would be a question I need to answer Ok, not sure how we got into astronomical spec numbers here, but the base system that I have been using for minimum requirement testing is a 500 Mhz CPU, with 16 MB Video Card and 128 MB of RAM, so anything around there should be fine. Note: this is on Windows 9x/ME systems as 2000/XP systems require a little more than that by default... well XP does for sure! Hope this helps, Hubert </font>