John C
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by John C
-
-
Definitely just trolling.
-
I don't know if you are just trolling or if your worldview is really this myopic, but let's touch on a couple of points.Originally posted by waltero:I believe that the greater God will prevail in Battle.
Are you saying that when Britain defeated Argentina in the Falklands war that obviously God is a protestant rather than a catholic?
Are you suggesting that because the United States recently defeated Iraq, it means God is a Christian rather than a Muslim? And wouldn't that then infer that Christianity is really just his second choice since North Vietnam expelled the United States some 30 years earlier?
While you might very well argue that there is a master plan, to suggest that you have been given divine providence to know exactly what it is seems rather arrogant. To preach at us as if we have somehow missed the point of your over simplified divine truth just adds condescension.
-
OK, let's at least keep this senseless argument based in fact. Hitler grew up Catholic. Throughout his rise, and even in Mein Kampf, he makes several religious comments and often calls on God. There are even some instances of him using religion to justify his anti-Jewish racial beliefs. It was not until he achieved power that he began to view the political institution of the church as competition against the state for the loyalty of the people and his political language became much more secular and occasionally anti-Catholic or anti-Christian.
And for whatever it is worth, the Vatican maintained formal neutrality throughout the war though they showed swerving leanings towards the side they thought likely to win throughout.
At the end of the day though people, not countries, have religious beliefs. There were numerous people on all sides and at all levels with a variety of beliefs - some strongly held and others less so. We will never know the true extent of those beliefs and we will definitely never know what impact they had on the conflict. But one thing is certain, by mixing religion and politics into a single thread there should be no surprise that fireworks have erupted. I just can't help but wonder if there is any point to it all or if this thread shouldn't be closed so as to spare us the potential for polluting the community unnecessarily.
-
Laying INDIVIDUAL mines is way out of bounds for a strategic game. I'm still not completely convinced of the need for this at a strategic level as it adds a good deal of tedium with minimal real impact. But if it is included in a grand strategy game, it definitely needs to be at a macro level where you indicate a general mining effort in a particular area or a very limited chokepoint and then all shipping passing through that area has a small percentage chance of being hit by a mine. Clearing mines hex by hex across large bodies of water is my idea of pure boredom. For it to work, there should be no more than 8 spots tops that would ever receive mines during a game. As was stated earlier the British, for example, could either try to mine the one hex that represents the entrance to the straights of Denmark or they could instead mine 4 hexes representing the passageways north and south of iceland. In either case, subs passing through a mined area might have a 5% of hitting a mine. That's the only way I see this having any chance of working.
-
The only reason why it would be difficult to implement would be the complexity that would be required of the AI. Other than that, it's quite simple and could easily be driven by customizable scripts. Perhaps it could be included for PvP games only. Isn't that where it is needed most anyway?
-
Should we also allow infantry officers to choose their sidearms? And do they all have to use the same one of can each choose his own?
Sorry, but why would you want to include such intricate details in a grand strategy game?
-
Out of curiosity, what avenues of research does everyone believe should be available in a game such as this? Personally, I hate the idea of researching tanks or infantry separately as if an armored division went into battle with just tanks and combined arms warfare was never invested. Personally, while fancier names would obviously be used, here's the tech avenues I would include for research:
Ground Combat Offense
Ground Combat Defense
Fighter Aircraft
Heavy Bombers
Submarine warfare
ASW
Some might find those 6 categories to be overly simple. I would argue that they force players to choose between real strategic alternatives on where to invest and then facilitates those decisions being the key factor rather than micromanagement of some extensive tech tree.
-
@Lars -
Nope, your example shows where there can be some real strategy and significant investment involved (and it goes even deeper as one questions whether Germany really left tactical bombers in position to protect the coasts so that they could pound those ships). I'm still not convinced that I want to play at that level of depth, but I can certainly understand why some might find it appealing. I might even try it for a couple of games to see if I liked it. This obviously isn't high on my list of priorities, but I wouldn't oppose the idea so long as there was a toggle.
As to your point regarding forts, I do think that is different as WWII in Europe was primarily a land based conflict and therefore I believe land warfare deserves more depth than the naval conflict. And my top priority for development would therefore be on the ground conflict, especially in terms of ensuring there is fluidity to the battles. (I still love the Clash of Steel model and would love to see something more like that old combined combat/movement action point system) Again though, that's all just my own opinions.
-
The concept is interesting and it adds a little variability. I think the most difficult part of the whole thing would be making the AI make responsible choices in terms of which cards it plays, and when.
While I originally was thinking of only 1 per "side", I think he is right that Russia and the UK need separate ones. Unlike Blashy, I would combine the US/UK as a single entity and just have 40 cards total with only 4 coming into play - 1 each for Germany, Italy, UK/US, Russia. In thinking through it, I do like the Italians having their own as I think it is possible to make the historical North African campaign more likely with Med focused Italian cards that incent a bit of adventure down there.
-
Personally, while I appreciate all the thought and effort, I'm not a fan of the idea. By making mines available and by making them both cheap and effective, both sides really need to use them. This just creates a burden on each player of having to do the very mundane task of assigning mine laying and clearing orders for units. Sure a few units will be damaged and a few convoys will be delayed a bit, but that is a lot of work for what essentially is a very small strategic impact. Since the naval war really is a raider conflict anyway, I'd personally much rather just leave this aspect of the war abstracted.
-
In my mind, there needs to be some variability to keep things fresh and therefore a random element is a good thing. That said though, this is a strategy game where the majority of your fate should be determined by your decisions and not by randomness. If I wanted to play a game where winning and losing was determined entirely by dice rolls, I'd buy yahtzee. And so, if I invest in aircraft and occasionally get an advance in rocketry - ok, interesting. But by the end of the war I expect to have progressed mostly in aircraft tech. And if I invest substantially more than my opponent, I expect that my tech level should be significantly greater than his. Any system that doesn't essentially ensure that basic result isn't in keeping with the game I want to play.
Instant upgrades of all units is simply an abstraction. Personally, I don't mind it. If it helps, just assume the tech advance event doesn't represent discovery but rather implementation of the new tech. That said, I could see requiring some form of refit that required additional investment to upgrade each unit. The problem is that it might begin to feel like micromanagement. What I definitely wouldn't want is where it takes a random amount of time for each unit to upgrade and I have no control over the priorities - that would introduce frustration without really increasing the depth of the strategic situation.
And to WaW, you are right that tech levels are far too important in that game. In actuality, the entire tech system in the game is hopelessly broken. It encourages the creation of super units and completely throws out the desirability of combined arms warfare - just invest in one thing and then build lots of that one thing. And each tech level has far too much impact as units quickly become unkillable. In so many ways, that game is a shining example of how not to implement tech.
-
Nice post shaka - and right on target. Having played some of the other "full world war" games out there, I personally am really looking forward to a game that focuses on Europe.
-
Out of curiosity, did anyone ever take over the site? It doesn't appear so looking at it. And why, 3 months after the fact, is this post still sticky with no update?
-
It should boot directly to DOS 6.22 with EMS. send me an email and we'll work through it: (email address removed).
[ June 13, 2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: John C ]
-
According to the Unites States Army Center of Miltary History, most of the American units that particpated in the battle were at or near full strength. They might not all have been experienced troops, but they certainly weren't skeleton units. While many rear duty soliders did fight, it was generally due more to disruptions than to depleted units.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:-- I think the United States had about 90 functional divisions when it reached the Rhine and most of them were very understrenth in trained combat infantry. American divisions were heavy on support troops.
Over the years I talked to a lot of guys who were cooks or mechanics or other behind-the-lines soldiers who were handed a rifle and sent to the frontline when the Germans broke through.
From pages 650 - 651 of the US Army CMH Archive THE ARDENNES: BATTLE OF THE BULGEBy 2 January 1945, the eve of the Allied attack to destroy the Ardennes salient, the Germans had thrown 8 armored divisions, 20 infantry divisions, and 2 mechanized brigades into the Battle of the Bulge. During these eighteen days the Americans had employed 8 armored, 16 infantry, and 2 airborne division in the line. [2] This tabulation of the opposing divisions, however, does not give a true measure of the relative combat strength deployed in what may be called the German phase of the winter battle in the Ardennes.
The American rifle division in 1944 was organized at a strength of 14,032 men, and most of the divisions engaged in this operation entered the fray at full complement. The personnel strength of the German infantry divisions varied, at the time of their commitment, between 8,000 and 17,000, the lower figure representing those divisions which had been refitted at 80 percent of the 1944 Volks Grenadier division table of organization and equipment and the upper figure, which can be applied to only three or four divisions, representing those, like the 26th Volks Grenadier Division, which retained the older, regular infantry division composition. The strength of the German infantry divisions across the board probably averaged little more than 10,000 men. The normal German rifle regiment numbered 1,868 as contrasted with the American infantry regiment of 3,207 officers and men.
The majority of the German panzer divisions had the same manpower configuration as the two U.S. square armored divisions (the 2d and 3d), that is, a little more than 14,000. The six remaining U.S. armored divisions had the new triangular organization with a roster reduced to 10,666 officers and men. The armored weight of the opposing divisions, however, strongly favored the Americans, for the German panzer division brought an average of 90 to 100 medium tanks into the field whereas the American triangular division was equipped with 186 and the two square divisions had 232 medium tanks in their organization tables. Hitler personally attempted to compensate for this disparity by ordering the attachment of separate Army tank battalions of 40 to 50 Panther or Tigers to the regular panzer divisions.
-
Funny, because the United States Government only knows about 600,000 of its soldiers being involved.Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:@Soddball --- 1,000,000 involved in the Bulge, call the History Channel, that is my source.
I think what you are likely remembering is that 1,000,000 soldiers were involved in total. Sample Link
-
They do. I said they do, stupid american!!!!!!!! </font>Originally posted by Dariuz Kowolski:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
So subs don't rust?
-
OK, I finally got around to creating a super duper easy way for people to try COS - a bootable CD image. Just download the following file, unzip it somewhere on your harddrive, and then run makecd.cmd and it will burn a bootable CDROM that has DOS and the game on it (you can delete everything off your hardrive once you burn a disk). Just reboot with the CD in the drive and it will load it all up for you and start the game. Be sure to print the manual or at least the copy protection codes before you reboot (they are both on the newly burned CD).
LINK TO SCRIPT FOR BURNING A CD
For those who have Nero and would prefer to just burn an image using that program, here is the nrg file
[ June 12, 2005, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: John C ]
-
As shown in the comparison maps above, the scale is very similar to COS. And in that title, it was very possible to encircle and outflank units. The keys are (1) the scale of the units and how many appear on the map, and (2) whether attacks can dislodge units while movement is still permitted. Personally, I really like the COS system whereby attacks are performed and resolved during the movement phase and can cause units to retreat, allowing the creation of holes in the line that reserve units can then breach. That combined with the hex control system that assigns ownership to the nearest unit rather than the last to traverse (replicating advance units attached to the army) creates a pretty dynamic environment. Anyway, the scale isn't bad - the rules just need to allow the fluidity and IMO there is a reference game that did a pretty nice job of exactly that.Originally posted by Blashy:Is it just me or am I the only one who still thinks the scare is too small?
It seems only in Russia will we be able to probably outflank and even then it will be rare.
That was my biggest gripe against SC, the maps are so small you can make lines of troops to cover a whole area.
-
Having played COS a bit for the past couple of days, I came back and saw the screen shots above and couldn't help but notice the similarity. Having messed around with a few titles recently, I can't help but notice how similar the scale is between these games and I really do think this is the right scale for this type of game. It allows a lot more of the fluidity that was WWII as compared to GGWaW or even HOI/HOI2. The unit placements in the two games are very similar, though some minor differences in unit strength and positioning along the border are visible as one might expect. More striking is the difference in georgraphy and what was deemed to be a river of strategic impact. Anyway, here the two are for comparison.
-
I've actually spent a reasonable amount of time messing around with CoS today. You are right, it is somewhat surreal seeing it again. But I have to say that I have had a lot more fun with this game today than I ever had with GGWaW. Modern graphics are gorgeous but there is no substitute for top notch game design. Playing CoS again is reminding me of just how exciting a good Grand Strategy WWII game can be. I hope HC and some of the testers take a few hours and mess around with CoS. Most likely have some recollection of the title, but I think it would be great for them to refresh their memory so that they can set the bar even higher for SC2.
-
Wow. You're right. I wasn't familiar with DosBox, but it seems like a pretty slick package. And clearly, that is easier than my approach. I was afraid that it only ran on Linux after your initial comment. But it appears it runs right under Windows as well so it should be an easy tool for everyone. Thanks for the pointer.
-
For those wanting to load up DOS and give it a try, here are the tools I used:
For getting a boot disk, go HERE. I used DOS 6.22.
While the DOS 6 memory management stuff will likely work fine, I prefer QEMM and it can be downloaded HERE. Put all the "disks" in one directory and install it and then run optimize and it will figure out where to put everything and give you the maximum amount of DOS memory possible.
Modern fast computers tend to blow up this game. However, it can be fixed. For the instructions on getting past RUNTIME errors, go HERE.
Other than the game itself and the manual (both of which already have links posted in this thread) that's all the tools I used to get the game up and running on an old spare hard drive.
-
Sure Thing! The entire manual can be downloaded at the underdogs HERE. If you just want the answers, here is a list that someone compiled (not all confirmed accurate but likely worth a try):Originally posted by BigDog944:BTW: Can anyone point me to a way to get around the copy protection questions? Since the publisher allows the game to be downloaded for free from UnderDogs, I can't imagine that they object to people still playing it...
Page 3, Word 5 - gray
p4, w4 - used
p5, w10 - rules
p6, w6 - more
p9, w3 - wish
p10, w3 -conquered
p13, w4 - modified
p16, w4 - enemy
p53, w3 - pointer
p17, w5 - reserve
p22, w5 - favor
p27, w5 - located
p34, w3 - carrier
p35, w5 - available
p41, w3 - purchaseable
p42, w3 - option
p49, w3 - needs
question from new gamer
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted