Joe98

Dont even know what the contest is.

This is a Grand Strategy game. There should be no AA units in the game whatsoever! Instead, ground units should have a number of variables – one variable would be AA capability. The AA capability would be researched in the lab so that the AA capability can increase. -

As for squares. If you are going to use squares then movement and combat should be limited to UP, DOWN and ACROSS. If you really want to move diagonally then you should switch to hexes. I am astonished that the game view is isometric AND units move diagonally! -

This is a grand strategy game. Sitting up high as a commander at the grand strategy level there is no difference between a division of US infantry and a division of US Marines. If you say “quality” this can be achieved. Each unit has a number of variables and one of those is quality. Quality can be “researched” in the factory at a cost so some units have higher quality than others. And the ability to name units would then satisfy every player. One of them might be named “Marines” for example. At the grand strategy level there are no anti tank units and no artillery. Rather each unit has a number of variables. One would be anti tank and one would be artillery. Each of these can be researched in the factory so that some units are better than others. Another variable would be movement. This too could be researched in the factory. Some infantry units then have greater movement capability than others thereby representing motorized units. This idea of having Marine units and anti tank units is not appropriate at this scale.

The game is a grand strategy game. The Battle of the Bulge takes one square and one turn. The Market garden operation takes one square and one turn. If you are interested in a different scale I would recommend Battles in Italy by SSG. The game has engineers etc just as you request. And the game has many user made scenarios including a Fall Weiss. -

Can somebody point me to the correct thread to make posts in the contest!!!!!! -

- Engine: new game Synopsis: Friction in a multi player game Each country ought to have separate victory levels. In this way, in a multiplayer game, there could be friction between: the French and the British and the Germans and Italians and the Russians and the British the Russians and the US ….because they have all have different victory conditions. This would increase the enjoyment of a multiplayer game CONS: Could make for bad blood between players! -

Engine: new game Synopsis: Victory Conditions There would be some shorter scenarios and a Grand Campaign For the Grand Campaign, the only victory condition is that Berlin falls. September 1944 = decisive allied victory December 1944 = major allied victory February 1945 = minor allied victory May 1945 = draw September 1945 = minor German victory December 1945 = major German victory Any later date = decisive German victory Each of the smaller scenarios could have victory conditions in a similar style to suit the scenario Each minor country would have one capital. Once it is captured, the friendly controlling power has one turn to recapture before it officially falls. Each major country should have 3 capitals. ( Italy might have only 2 and Russia might have 4). For a major country to fall, all it’s capitals must be captured. Once the last capital falls, the country has one turn to recapture any capital and if it fails the country is then defeated. This stops the gamey play where all the troops converge on one capital. CONS: Stops the historical path where all allied troops tried to converge on Berlin -

Engine: New game Synopsis: PBEM play There would be a Grand campaign and some shorter scenarios My favourite way to play a game is PBEM. WW2 lasted 6 years. If a turn lasted one month this makes a 72 turn game. This is a lot of PBEM turns but doable by most wargamars The Grand Campaign should not exceed 72 turns. There should be an option to have pre-war diplomacy, an option to begin research pre-war and an option to carry the war into 1946. If these options mean the grand campaign exceeds 72 turns that’s OK by me as long as these things remain as options. Note that the fastest Atlantic convoys only took a week to cross the Atlantic and the slowest ones took the best part of 2 weeks. If a turn is one month, the Atlantic war has to be abstracted – see my new ideas in a post to follow. In a PBEM game, the number of players would vary from 2 to 6 so that the 6 major powers can be played by different players in a PBEM game. If a player drops out, his troops can be controlled by a friendly player. Any player ought to be able to move the units of any friendly country. If a player did so when he is not supposed to, he would get a bad name and that is punishment enough! CONS: Some would say that a one month turn is too long - - [ March 04, 2008, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Joe98 ]

People will recall that Avalon Hill's Rise and Decline of the Third Reich had a very simple economic model. Perhaps you can explain to me the economic model of Strategic Command 2. -

I second that

I thought it is a tactical game.

We go past time "A", "B" and "C" to time "D". We pause and watch the replay. How can I go back and give an order at time "C"?

I am from Australia and I was in Bavaria last July We stayed at a friend’s place about an hour outside Munich. The people have an excellent fridge in their kitchen but they store beer in their basement. But it was July and the beer was not cold. I was polite and pretended to enjoy the beer If the beer were cold it would have been very nice beer!

I am asking whether I can play the demo, with the view set the same as in the screen shots mentoned above. In a separate question, can you play the full campaign in that view? -