John C

Well, I pulled out an old hard drive and made it into a DOS drive and loaded up Clash of Steel just to see what it would take. It actually isn't too bad of a process. I'll try to get better instructions available within the next several days.

Clash of Steel is abandonware - it is no longer sold, supported or made available through normal means but is available on a limited number of sites that archive such titles (and remove them should the original author/publisher object). Clash of Steel is available through the underdogs and can be downloaded HERE. I am not sure what version that is, but the last was 1.1 and there is a patch available HERE. Finally, I haven't played this game in roughly a year, but last time I did so I found that it required more memory than I could make available in a DOS window under Windows. I ended up creating a separate DOS boot disk and actually playing in DOS. I believe that even then I needed QEMM386 to manage the memory to get it to work. Anyway, it wasn't a simple endeavor to get it running, but it was fun to play around with once I finally got it working. To any who are intrepid enough to try, good luck!

5 years ago, I found an interesting article that analyzed COS and discussed why the mechanics were so good. I found it to be an interesting article and bookmarked it. To my surprise, it is still out there. So for any who were not familiar with COS or for those who want to see a bit more depth about what made it such a good game, I thought I'd post a link here. I am not the author of this document (it is honestly far better than I could produce); I am merely passing along something I found many years ago. http://grognard.com/info1/steel.pdf

doh! nevermind. the count hadn't updated on my screen. It appears you already got that one and then some.

So, do you think you'll get that last required post in this thread? /hint /hint /nudge /nudge

Bump - the leader threads that were recently resurrected had a note about this thread. I am sure new features are not being added now, but it is still a very interesting idea.

Well, my guess would be because publishing deadlines are a good bit in advance. This title was scheduled for 1Q05 and I suppose at the time that was written, it was assumed the demo would be available at publication. But, the game was delayed and the text was not changed. It never ceases to amaze me how many people can take the simple little disappointments and difficulties in life and blow them way out of proportion. But then again, I guess that is why so many lawyers have jobs. For the record though, you don't seem to have a good grasp on what is and isn't false advertising.

Come on JJ, don't pout. What Shaka said was really right on target for most boards. Ideas, good and bad, get tossed around and then fade away quietly only to appear again when another wave of people come passing through. We should not now take that simple fact personally any more than Shaka did when someone surely said essentially the same thing to him way back when. If you enjoy tossing ideas around, then by all means do so. But let's face it, this board will not change the world. It won't even change wargaming as we know it. It is just a place for people with a shared interest to spend a little time shooting the breeze, paid for by a company that hopes to build a community and get a little publicity for an upcoming game.

Now that has some merit. Have specific scripts for each of the majors and then one that covers all of the minors and have them invoked whenever the country is conquered. That works well because it provides a lot to the ability to customize the game. In fact, if you allow the nations and units to be named and defined in configuration files, the engine might be able to model several different European conflicts.

Excellent point and I must concede you are right there. While I still believe it would be more effective to focus the limited time and resources on more universal items, it appears that either this item has a base of support or this board is populated by people who "want it all". I suspect it is the latter but either way, while this isn't something that interests me I just don't care enough to dedicate a lot of effort to fighting against it.

In simple terms, there are really two options: Option 1: This "enhancement" isn't balanced and has a huge impact on the game, in which case everyone will always choose this ahistorical option and this board will quickly be filled with comments about how stupid and unrealistic the game is. Assuming the game was balanced before this unbalanced addition, then the entire tide of the war and the game will shift towards the Axis creating additional unwanted consequences unless significant effort is spent to return overall balance to the game. Option 2: This addition is balanced, in which case it has no significant impact on the game. In either case, I can't see a valid argument in favor of this addition. Sorry again, but I stand by my comments.

Sorry to be the bad guy here, but to me this all sounds like a lot of work with special coding, testing and balancing to essentially accomplish very little. I think if we created a list of all the things we might be able to accomplish with similar effort levels, this one would have to rank pretty close to the bottom IMO. Sorry.

On a broader note, should any conquered territory (except southern france itself) become part of Vichy? I would think not as no power would wish to go to the effort of capturing a colony and then just give it up. Again, on a broader note - any active minor should always consider the alternative of becoming aggressive towards a neighbor or sitting back on defense. Being aligned with the axis should provide a sizable bump towards aggression while alignment with the allies should significantly temper the likelihood of aggression. I don't know that you have to make a huge exception for Turkey here and it is nearly impossible to envision every conceivable combination of potential combatants. But all active minors would benefit from the same general logic and therefore it is worth considering as a general AI enhancement. Again, this isn't a Turkish issue but an overall AI issue that deserves consideration. See a. above. If Turkey is Axis, one might wonder why it would be necessary to risk Italian ships to combat a Russian fleet that is totally cut off. And German troops should be able to advance through Turkey with the need for an Italian landing. Going after the Russian Oil makes sense, but KISS. That's just my two cents on it all anyway.

Actually, it is very common for the AI to have a few different broad strategy options in oreder to keep games different and provide some variability. Should the US go after Germany first as it did historically or should it pursue Japan more aggressively? Does Germany go through with Sealion or invade Russia? Making the AI unpredictable is important and that is typically accomplished to some degree by providing a few high level options for each nation to pursue. I could definitely see an option for allowing players to influence/select those options for minor allied countries instead of having them assigned randomly in order to allow true grand strategy within the alliance. Nice thought.

After playing GGWaW for a bit, I must confess I am more ready than ever for this game. On the other hand after having bought HOI1, I am thankful for Hubert not releasing this too early and asking us to buy a woefully incomplete product. BTW, the "recent news" section of the web page still includes an inaccurate date in the april 2004 entry. It would probably be advisable to remove the any date from there to prevent potential confusion.

But I think that everyone trying GGWaW is very much on point. While many here likely won't like it, from a business perspective they are probably better off intentially delaying SC2 until at least late summer. Games today have a pretty short shelflife and they really don't want to release this title right behind another Grand Strategy WWII title. Even though these games are very different, a smart businessman wants people thirsting for a new title when his game hits the shelf - not evaluating another title trying to decide whather or not they really like it.

The official page still says Q2 so I'd think early May isn't a bad guess. They set that date not too long ago so it should incorporate a pretty complete knowledge of where the project is. And I am betting they set it to allow a little wiggle room. SO perhaps they are thinking it could be ready in the March-ish time frame and development being what it is, it will slip until roughly May.

Thanks for the update. While we are all looking forward to this game, part of that anticipation comes from knowing that when we do get it, it will be at the same outstanding quality level we have come to expect from you guys.

If the FAQ is intended to indicate the original Q4 target is not likely (which is my assumption), then it might be prudent to adjust the product home page as well just to maintain consistency and avoid setting erroneous expectations.

I agree. But this thread is about the dearth of information, not rushing the game. If he needs more time, I hope he will go ahead say so. If he thinks it will be out by the end of the month, I'd love to know that. If that is likely overly agressive but it will be available by the end of the year, that too would be good to know. I'm not trying to rush the game or suggest that quality isn't important. I just agree with the original poster that news has been pretty hard to come by recently and that we are late enough in the game that I would expect to be hearing something. And saying "soon" nearly a month ago and then saying nothing else since then was.... well, a definite tease.

Trying to put enigma failures into the game is very realistic and not much fun. Personally, I would rather the game be balanced without having this quite significant and completely random event. If it must be done, Edwin's method that allows anyone to do it and bases the chance of success upon a player's commitment to technology spending is by far the preferable approach in my mind.

Actually, thinking of WWII era American tanks as "the best" is one of the funniest things I have heard in a very long time. I suspect this comment was an attempt at humor. That is the only possible explanation save for ignorance on a wholesale scale.

I would say that Hubert has proven he can make a good game. He understands the strengths and weaknesses of his creation and he has rationale reasons for wanting to make a change in the next iteration. I have historically preferred hexes but I intend to buy this game. I trust his judgement and I support attempts to learn new lessons. They won't all work out but I've bought many wargames in my life and I expect to buy many more, so if we learn one or two things in each iteration over the long term it is a good thing for games and for all of us gamers. I believe in supporting the people who bring us good games so that they can continue to make a living doing it and continue to bring us additional new and better games. But also, I suspect this game will be fun. And whether I enjoy it for a couple of weeks and decide it didn't hit the mark or whether I enjoy it for years to come, either way it will provide many hours of entertainment and be a bargain in terms of cost per hour of enjoyment. In that way computer games, and especially complex games that require a while to master, remain one of the best entertainment bargains available.